Ben Nelson bows to the insurance industry
Posted on May 1st, 2009 by Jason Rosenbaum in Congress Watch
 |
Ben Nelson came out today against a public health insurance option: (via CQ, no link)
Sen. Ben Nelson said Thursday that he will oppose the creation of a government-run health insurance plan as part of a health care overhaul, contrary to the position held by many of his fellow Democrats.
Nelson, D-Neb., said he may try to assemble a coalition of like-minded centrists opposed to the creation of a public plan, as a counterweight to Democrats pushing for it. He said he does not believe a majority of the Senate supports the idea.
…
But Nelson sides with opponents, who say a government-run plan would undermine the nation’s existing system of employer-sponsored health insurance.
Republicans, insurers and business groups say private insurers could not compete with a government-run plan, which presumably wouldn’t have to spend money on activities such as marketing or developing networks of participating physicians and hospitals. Eventually, opponents say, most consumers would join the public plan, either because its prices are lower or because their employers stop offering insurance.
“At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game,” Nelson said. He called the inclusion of a public plan in legislation a “deal-breaker” for him.
The company Nelson finds himself in is laid out clearly: business, the insurance industry, and Republicans. Of course, this isn't surprising, considering his campaign donation history. Open Secrets says Nelson received $608,709 from the insurance industry in 2007-2008, making the insurance industry his biggest donor group, more than lawyers and even lobbyists.
And so, Nelson has decided to bow to the wishes of his campaign contributors, instead of standing up for what 73% of the American public want: A choice of a public health insurance option.
In his opposition, Nelson can't even muster the courage to be honest about his motives. Instead, he parrots the latest right-wing talking point, that a public health insurance option will somehow undermine the employer-based health care system.
This point, of course, is ludicrous. How exactly would this undermining happen? Every person in America will be offered a choice. If they choose the public health insurance option, how exactly is anything being forced upon them? And if businesses choose the public health insurance option, again, how is that not a choice?
It's unfortunate that Nelson is expressing opposition to something so reasonable and so popular. The bright spot here is that Nelson's planned coalition of like-minded Senators is likely to be about as successful as Evan Bayh's short-lived coalition to undermine Obama's budget. That bill passed, and so will this, whether Nelson wants it to or not.
I agree with you that a public plan doesn't undermine private plans. It is possible to make a principled argument against a public plan, but this isn't it. I think this is just another bootleggers and Baptists example.
JUST LIKE JUDAS…..30 PIECES OF SILVER IS ALL IT TOOK TO SELL OUT THE ENTIRE MEDICARE POPULATION!!! SEN. NELSON DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PERSONAL CONSEQUENCES OF HIS SELFISH ACT SINCE HE IS COVERED UNDER HIS CURRENT BENEFIT PACKAGE AND WILL NEVER REAP THE DETRIMENTS OF THIS HEALTH CARE BILL.
SHAME ON YOU, AND ALL THOSE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU, SEN NELSON!!!
Yesterday, April 30, 2009 Sen. Nelson sided with Republicans and the Banking Industry and helped to defeat Sen. Durbin's Bill allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage loans.
Today, Nelson joined Republicans and the Insurance Industry in opposing affordable, accessible health care for all Americans.
Senator Nelson is a prime example of a DINO - a Democrat in name only.
The Democratic Party would be better off with moderate Republican opposition to our progressive agenda than the likes of Ben Nelson.
I for one will contribute to any moderate Republican, Independent or real Democrat who opposes Ben Nelson in the Nebraska primaries.
This is disgusting! Voters will be outraged. So along with his announcement to obstruct the will of the majority of American voters on health reform, is Congressman Ben Nelson also going to be canceling his taxpayer-funded insurance coverage? This would be the logical thing for him to do. He has comprehensive affordable health insurance that's funded from public sources (and is a public plan if he's over 65 and using Medicare) and that covers himself and if he uses supplemental coverage it likely covers his family, too.
I mean, really, giving up his publicly-funded insurance would be the logical and honorable thing for him to do now that we know Congressman Ben Nelson believes that a public insurance option is such a horrid thing.
Has Senator Nelson consulted with the corporations that are now burdened with having to provide employer-sponsored healthcare that is draining their bottom lines and making them less competitive? My corporation has stopped providing retiree healthcare, and I would guess most CEOs would jump at the chance to dump healthcare benefits entirely, which a public plan would enable them to do.
call Sen. Ben Nelson and tell him Americans want a public health insurance option: (402) 391-3411 or (202) 224-6551. If he wants to represent the health insurance industry they can buy some land and set up a state, until then he represents the people, 45 million of whom don't have any health insurance.
because they choose to have cell phones, car leases on cars they should not be driving and homes they can not afford. Check the records of people being forclosed on and I BET my life savings that MOST have no insurance,. My friend has a great proposal….before being allowed to purchase ANY luxury item..Including a home.. You need to provide prood of insurance. Get your head out of your ass and begin to work for YOU and your family and not the bums that social programs have pampered since the mid 60's. ALSO in the mean time ask for TORT reform. Have you heard of that before. I doubt it.
Health care should not be a for-profit business. Affordable health care insurance should be a right of all Americans, not a "privilege" for the well-connected.
… So he opposes the plan becasue the public gets too good a deal? What a jackass.
To Senator Ben Nelson from a concerned lifelong Nebraska resident (I sent a copy of this via email as well):
I was wondering how a public health insurance option would squeeze out private health insurance? You mention that the public plan would most likely offer lower prices than what private companies are currently offering because it would not have to expend money on advertising or developing networks of participating doctors or hospitals.
If private insurance is incapable of out-performing the government in this field, I think they probably should be left out of the equation. Currently private health insurance companies keep their costs down by reducing choices their members have on where to go for treatment, keeping hard-to-insure people from obtaining coverage, and by dropping members if they develop serious or life-threatening and costly conditions. All three of these reasons are clear indications that there is a market failure in this area. Its not worth it for private insurance to provide good coverage at low cost to all Americans…especially those who need it the most.
This is precisely why government needs to step in to rectify a market failure of this scope. Currently private insurance has only the incentive to provide just enough coverage to just enough people to keep a customer base. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have plans they are unhappy with but they take what they can get because they have no alternative.
Where private insurance can lower their own costs is by a larger percentage of Americans having coverage—either with private or public plans, so the overall cost of paying for uninsured emergency room visits is lowered across the board, and also by simply being more efficient than the government.
This is their industry. They are complaining because their profits will be reduced from people getting quality coverage at a lower cost somewhere else. Its true that some private companies will stop offering coverage. But those that excel at what they do, if they broaden the scope of their coverage, improve the quality of their plans, and compete with the government for efficiency, they can see a profit from this change.
The only companies that will lose from this are companies that are only making profits from providing subpar services that are inadequate for our needs.
Also, if we move to a public-based system more than employer-based, there are numerous advantages. Employers no longer have to shoulder the burden of providing these plans, and they are free to use more capital for actual business purposes. People who lose their job will be at less of a risk of seroius health issues without any coverage whatsoever, and self-employed persons or people who simply work at small firms or places without access to large group plans will actually have a legitimate choice for health care.
Currently, stand-alone individual or family plans are insanely expensive, provide almost no coverage for basic needs, and based on this cost-benefit ratio too many Americans forego health insurance because its not worth it beyond catastrophic coverage. They can't justify it on a week-to-week basis if they're not ill, the costs are simply too high for what they get in return.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your position in this matter. You earned a reputation for being willing to work with a Republican administration for the past 8 years, and you were rightfully applauded for that bipartisanship. Now is the time to look at the thousands of Nebraskans who have either no health insurance or are paying too much for too little coverage. The Nebraska work ethic is good for many things, but working hard only takes you so far if you can't afford health insurance for yourself or your family. This is a crushing burden on the working poor, students, even young and old alike who currently don't have access to a decent and affordable employer-based system.
I strongly urge you to at least consider whatever proposal your colleagues and fellow Democrats come up with. Saying any public option is a deal-breaker truly sends the message that you are in fact in the pocket of big insurance, as this article suggests.
I implore you to keep an open mind on this issue and consider those Nebraskans who work hard and scrape to get by with little to no coverage, paying high costs for what they can find, who deserve a better alternative.
Really nice letter, great job!
I don't know if we should dismiss this threat so readily. Nelson and 11 other conservative Dems. were able to kill the Mortgage Foreclosure bill to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage rates - cramdown.
What Do You Think ?
This is true, but Obama was never really behind cramdown. He is behind health care, and health care with a public health insurance option, so the dynamic is a bit different. That's why I think it's more like the budget, another Presidential priority.
I do not think Sen. Nelsen plans to run for Senate next time, and has nothing to lose politically. also our state is primarly republicans. In our county in nebr. we held our first Demacratic caucus ever. People were surprised how many was voteing Demacrate this last year. we can't open a local paper in Harlen Co., Neb and not get a smear from our publisher of the paper of Obama. Most people I talk to didn't even know Obama or just listened to fox news and took what they said as word of honor on him. Fox news, Rush, Hannity has a lot to do with the way people are feeling toward Obama in Nebr. This is a farming/Insurance state, and the Insurance comp."s own our politicians here. They have few other Big Bussiness's to give campagne donations here. It's the only way Nelsen got elected in a republican state is standing behind insurance company's. If he wants to make money after The Senate, he needs to continue to back them. His motives are plan personal survival. I am a republican, who voted Demacrate for Obama. I thought Nelsen would stand behind Obama Health Care plan is the only reason he got mine, and many other votes from Demacrates and some republicans here. I will not be sad to see him leave now he has showen his true colors.
WOW are you a clueless bunch! Since none of you appear to know the first thing about insurance and public plans a couple facts for you.
Medicare and Medicaid reimburse providers less then it cost providers to render the care. Providers to keep their doors open thus overcharge private plans. Public plan underpayments increase the cost of private insurance 10-20%.
Public plans are exempt from State Premium tax. Private plans are taxed anywhere from .5 to over 3% by States.
How can a private plan ever compete with a public plan that shift cost to the private plan and is exempt from State Taxes? How can you not know these basic facts?
Jon Frazer, Your name is the only fact you got correct, assuming you did type your name correct. Public plans spend hundreds of millions on advertising so that is not the reason they would be cheaper.
"dropping members if they develop serious or life-threatening and costly conditions."
Please explain how this is accomplished. The only way an insurance company can drop an individual with health conditions is by pulling out of the state and ceasing all policies. The only way they could drop someone on a group policy would be to somehow cancel the group. Your quote is an outright lie.
"if they broaden the scope of their coverage, improve the quality of their plans, and compete with the government for efficiency,"
This is just ignorance. Who do you think administers public plans? They are administered by the same large companies that you claim are inefficient. Most of your Medicare claims are paid by various BCBS, are you claiming being on the third floor processing private claims makes you less efficient then being on the fourth floor processing public claims? You also seem unaware that government mandates determine what is covered by insured plans, meaning the public plan is already the same as the private insured plans.
"Employers no longer have to shoulder the burden of providing these plans, and they are free to use more capital for actual business purposes."
If a company saves $100 by not paying for insurance but the government increases their taxes by $110 so they can pay for it what extra money does the employer have? You appear to be compeltly naive of the fact that public plans have fraud rates around 10%. If you moved everyone from private plans to public plans the cost would instantly increase 7-8%.
"Currently, stand-alone individual or family plans are insanely expensive"
OMG your so not right, you couldn't be farer from the truth. Individual plans are actually 20-30% cheaper then group plans. A top of the line single plan will run you a whooping $150 a month. Not bare bones coverage, full blown co-pays and low deductible.
I can't find one fact you got right. How can so many people be so clueless?
If we're going to bring the facts, then you'll have to admit that cost shifting is BS. See here [pdf]: http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Mar09_March%20report%20testimony_WM%20FINAL.pdf
The cost shifting argument is actually a cover for non-efficient providers. Those that are more efficient don't charge private plans more (because Medicare rates are enough to cover their costs, because they are more efficient) and guess what, the ones that are more efficient price-wise deliver higher quality care, too.
Nate, you are severely misguided in your comments and you must not know anyone who is truly suffering because of the unethical practices of private insurance companies. It would be better if you keep your mouth shut.
My dad owns his own business and has had to buy private insurance for about 25 years. In 2000, my mom got cancer and has been cancer-free and healthy for 9 years. Ever since the cancer, my dad has paid between $1000 - $1400 a month because his insurance would have nothing to do with covering ANYTHING cancer related and tagged my mom as 'high-risk'. He recently had to find a new plan because his old one would not renew because of my mom's 'risk'. She is healthy!!!! The only plan that will not take them is charging $2400 a month and he doesn't know what he is going to do.
Don't act like private insurance companies are fair and ethical.
Where are you shopping for your insurance? Let me guess. You are under 45 and in excellent health, without any recent surgeries and not taking any prescription drugs. Right? If so, lucky you!
But if something happens my friend, (God Forbid), and you require surgery, secondary to a disease process,or even emergency surgery, be prepared for all of your medical information to be placed in the MIB. Medical information bureau. This is where your next insurance agency that you may apply to will get its information. We're not talking here about an employer's plan, we're talking about an individual plan. If you are taking any medication for any chronic conditions, i.e., asthma, depression, migraines, etc., your pharmacy information will be accessed by the insurance underwriter from the Pharmacy Information Bureau and will probably be denied. They give various and sundry reasons, but the bottom line is, their actuaries tell them that you're a bad bet. Not to mention the fact that well, they can!
So if you're sitting in a great position now, wonderful. If you are employer insured, great. But fortunes have a habit of being reversed sometimes in life and you may find yourself in a very difficult insurable position. If that happens, my sympathies but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so judgmental.
Nate, do tell us where to find an insurance comopany that charges a mere $150 per month for an individual plan with "full blown co-pays and low deductibles." Oh, and I assume that includes prescriptions which most/many policies do not pay and families/individuals cannot afford to fill. That insurance plan has eluded the thousands and thousands who struggle to pay rising budget-busting insurance premiums for policies that provide the bare minimum and have significant deductibles.
Talking from an external position (the Netherlands) it seems that there is some regulation needed in the US to keep your elected people honest. I think such a regulation would benefit the entire country, except for the most profitable companies who were wealthy enough to bribe politicians, so did not really need the favour anyway.
This is disgusting! Voters will be outraged. So along with his
announcement to obstruct the will of the majority of American voters on health reform, is Congressman Ben Nelson also going to be canceling his taxpayer-funded insurance coverage? This would be the logical thing for him to do. He has comprehensive affordable health insurance that's funded from public sources (and is a public plan if he's over 65 and using Medicare) and that covers himself and if he uses supplemental coverage it likely covers his family, too.
I mean, really, giving up his publicly-funded insurance would be the logical and honorable thing for him to do now that we know Congressman Ben Nelson believes that a public insurance option is such a horrid thing. Maybe we should call, fax, or email him to let him know if you agree that Ben Nelson should cancel his public insurance, unless he has a change of mind and of heart and decides to support a public insurance choice for all Americans.
Senator Ben Nelson (D- NE) Tel. 202-224-6551 Fax 202-228-0012 Email http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Ben Nelson is not only a traitor, he's a narcissitic idiot. Why was he even elected? Nebraskans were desperate. He's never done anything impressive or worth anything. He's worthless! Now's he's sold out. He looks like an old 60's rocker (bad, bad hair or hair piece) and talks like a woman with testicular issues. He's disgusting to listen to, and if you have to look at that face, hair, and nose all at the same time, OMG. I'm not surprised as with many of my Nebraska friends, Ben Smellson (like a rat) has always been that way, like a rat. I smellson a rat with an ugly. hairsprayed wig. What comes around goes around. He's too much of a coward to ever show his face in the Big Red state again. I'm sure the commander and chief, and company, will provide well for him after this. He will soon discover the mistake he's made but it will be far too late to make ammeds. Stay in D.C. and suck up. Ben Nelson is an idiot!
The immediate risk is the demise of the private health insurance market as no company will ever be able to compete with a federal plan. That means relevant money that is now flowing into the economy will instead be flowing into a growing federal government. In the short term and the end, we all will suffer more cost than benefit will be received.
Smashing a market will cost 100,000s more layoffs - or worse. It will also invite mass bankruptcies and the need for more government assistance - and hence yet even bigger federal government.
Many of you naively attributed to Bush a dictator. Think again - we haven't seen anything yet. Some of you believe capitalism is bad and should go away. Well, if we keep on this path it is headed out the door. What you don't realize, and cannot unless you compare yourself laterally to similar folks in Europe, is that you benefit from capitalism. We might even find ourselves unable to pay for air conditioning in the summer time - which may be even more likely if laws similar to some in Europe are made here (you won't find A/C in most residents' homes.)
The more socialistic and large a government becomes, the less you will be paid and have options in your "pursuit of happiness." So many are so focused on what the federal government will do for them such as a public health plan, more gov't control of private companies, or more money for college or this or that. Too few are realizing it adversely affects markets, it costs money in the form of taxation, and much of it is beyond what the federal government is chartered to do by the constitution.
We will pay and when we look back we will miss the days of uncertainty and freedom when capitalism ruled. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
I failed to comment that offering a public health care plan is *not* reform.
First, the whole issue has complexity worth exploring that has not explored before plans were devised. Furthermore, everyone will buy the federal plan - even if they can easily afford what they have.
What will the coverage be like and will the fine print stipulating provisos and when and why something is covered end up rivaling the IRS tax code in complexity? This is not a good thing and can incite the creation of a new market, which at face value may seem good, but that view goes sour when it ends up adding secondary costs to American families and not value.
Also, few realize how health care costs have risen because of other federal plans. The Medicare program for instance resulted in forcing large losses on health care providers. Those losses are transferred as higher fees/rates and other costs to the rest of us. This rising costs increases insurance costs. One large institution famous for their world class health care quality looses nearly $1 billion per year on Medicare patients.
On the flip side, perhaps it could be successful and not damaging to existing markets and economies if it is only offered to low income meeting stringent criteria, and great care and prudence is involved in its regulation, its administration, and its supporting operations. Unfortunately, the track history of the federal government in this regard is not encouraging.
Some may rationalize it should be offered to all Americans because not enough low income recipients exist to make the group large enough to make it affordable to them. In response to that, I would say, then a public insurance plan may not be the best approach to cover those who need it.
DEAR SIR,
I AM AN AMERICAN LIVING IN NORWAY.I HAD A STROKE CAUSED BY THE HOSPITAL DURING OPEN HEART SURGERY. FULLY ADMITED TO BY THE HOSPITAL. ON THE ONE SIDE THE GOV`T RESPONED BY GIVING ME CARE AND THERAPY TO GET ME ON MY FEET.
BUT WHEN IT CAME TO REMUNERATION I RECEIVED APPROX 60,000 DOLLARS. THIS WAS WHAT THE GOV`T SAID THE MISTAKE WAS WORTH. ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SETTLEMENTS FOR MEDICAL MAL PRACTICE IN THE PRESIDENTS REVISION OF MEDICARE I AM DEEPLY WORRIED A CAP SYSTEM WILL BE SLIPPED INTO A REVISION. OF MED CARE.
IT HAS BEEN 27 MONTHS SINCE MY STROKE THAT CHANGED MY LIFE FROM A VERY ACTIVE PERSON TO A FRUSTRATED PERSON. IN ADDITION MY CAREGIVER, MY WIFE, HAS HAD TO ALTER HER LIVE AS MUCH AS MINE.THE POINT BEING IF OUR SYSTEM IS SOCIALIZED WE WILL SEE A LOSE OFF CONTROL WITH SOME BUREACRAT LOOKING IN A BOOK AND ASSIGIGNING SETTELMENTS.
PLEASE JOIN THE FIGHT TO MANTAIN A CITIZENS RIGHT TO FAIR AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHEN IT COMES TO OUR HEALTH CARE.
SINCERELY
LLOYD PIRL HVASSER,
NORWAY
Senator Nelson's opposition to the inevitable public option is a ploy in his conservative state to look republican in a democrats suit. He is misjudging what americans want and he will be judged poorly in the years to come when America has health care access that rivals any in the world.
What a sad legacy to leave Nebraska's residents Senator Nelson. This guy has insurance money tatooed all over him and it shows in the light of day. selfish selfish man.
Mark David
Albuquerque
SEN. NELSON HAS SOLD OUT THE ENTIRE MEDICARE POPULATION FOR 30 PIECES OF SILVER. WHAT A JUDAS!!! HE COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THE SENIOR CITIZENS BECAUSE HE'LL NEVER BE AFFECTED BY HIS ENDORSEMENT SINCE HE HAS VERY DIFFERENT COVERAGE UNDER HIS BENEFIT PACKAGE. THANKS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S. WHO PAY HIS SALARY AND INSURANCE COVERAGE.
IF THE GOVERNMENT IS SO INTENT ON RUNNING THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS THEN THEY NEED TO COME UP WITH OTHER FUNDS TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR THE UNINSURED…..DON'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE MEDICARE PLANS AND SOCIAL SECURITY WHICH IS FUNDED BY DEDUCTIONS WHICH WERE MADE FROM MY PAYCHECKS AND EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS.
HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE WE ELECTED, AND RE-ELECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN? TAKING AWAY $500,000.00 FROM THE MEDICARE PROGRAM TO FINANCE ANOTHER, NEW PROGRAM WILL DECREASE MEDICARE COVERAGE NOT LEAVE THE BENEFITS AS THEY ARE.
IT IS ALL PLAIN AND SIMPLE:
Sentator Nelson..
Do us all a favor and join the side that you really belong to.. And that is the Republican side.. all you are is a Republican in a Democrat's suit.. I can't believe I voted for you, talk about a wasted VOTE!! holy crap!!
You should be doing whats right for the people, but I guess your loyalty belongs to the insurance company that funded your campaign..Your a coward, and a thief.. you stoled my vote and I want it back.
STOP SUPPORTING INSURANCE COMPANIES, WE( THE AMERICAN PEOPLE) WANT A PUBLIC OPTION. ARE YOU FOR THE PEOPLE OR INSURACE COMPANIES
Ben The USA does not need Or want aGoverment run inurance plan.So stand up for the people who voted for you, And vote NO on the gov. run insurance plan.
Well, polls show the USA does want it, and I'd argue they need it, but ok…
hello Ben
alfer all tnese years of getting the insurancde regs changed via me for the consumer rights and opaque regulations and requirements and to get you out of the revolving door Naebraska good ole boy club, you're still there. May you at least be welcomed back to reirement in your home state as you for the 25 years I've been in the real world with you haven't known. I'd like to see you stand up finallay to we who live it daily and professionally.
Thank You for standing with courage and High Character to vote "NO" on the Harry Reid version of Health Care Reform.You are a man with Great Wisdom, Integrity, and Credibility. Your voice speaks for the Majority of this Great Nation; so again I say, THANK YOU and God Bless You.
Ben THANK YOU for looking after my taxes, my kids taxes, and my Grand Kids taxes. Don't just let this abortion part of the bill sway you. IF we pass it the Fed Govt will go Bankrupt…Not the reverse that the Big O says. Stay the course my friend. You work for AMERICANS….not any one group. Help save us. Thank you Gary Bridgewater Conyers GA. Anyone want to challenge me I'm in the phone book.
THIS IS PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE CORRUPTION WE HAVE IN OUR GOVERNMENT!!! ISSUES ARE NOT CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO VALUE…IT'S WHATEVER AMENITIES THE SEN. OR CONGRESSMAN IS ABLE TO OBTAIN BY SELLING HIS/HER VOTE.
WHAT A BUNCH OF BENEDICT ARNOLDS WE HAVE ELECTED!!!
Because of this senate vote on the health care bill, I and 87 of my friends will no longer vote for Ben Nelson. When Senator Ben Nelson is replaced in the next election, us Nebraskans will not ask why.