Letter to the Editor

Misguided pride

Monday, February 8, 2010

Dear Editor,

With regard to the article, "Proud of Nelson," by Rick Poore on Monday, Feb. 1, where the author outlines a litany of facts which are patently false to justify his misguided pride in Sen. Ben Nelson. All of this to the complete absence of the real facts that Nelson in his own self-serving manner made a deal behind closed doors with Reid and Pelosi, trading his vote for a pay-off that would financially benefit Nebraska and his own re-election, But instead, made a mockery of us, the citizens of this state and a reason to be ashamed before our fellow states of the union. To quote the author, "People are entitled to believe the earth is flat as far as I'm concerned."

I would only add to this that people are also entitled to believe Sen. Nelson is a politician to be proud of, and just as the world eventually discovered that the world is round, so, too, will Nebraskans (and McCookites) come to question the integrity of Sen. Ben Nelson.

J.G. McHale,

McCook

Comments
View 46 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I noticed J.G. McHale presented no facts in his rebuttal to Mr. Poore's letter. Perhaps they should have an open public debate. How long will it take you to learn the fact Mr. McHale?

    Jim Elsener

    -- Posted by jelsener on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 12:40 PM
  • What did Rick lie about specifically?

    -- Posted by letfreedomring on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 12:41 PM
  • Oh, where to begin? Well, first of all, I'm shocked to hear that someone made a deal in Washington DC. Gosh, I guess there is a first time for everything.

    Secondly, before you call me a liar in print, you should consider reading the bill. And please don't look at me like I just asked you to do the backstroke across the Atlantic. Just read it. Here is a link. Get back to me with details of how I am "patently false"

    http://www.opencongress.org/senate_health_care_bill

    You see, I can prove everything I said and will not be written off so casually by someone with so little intellectual integrity that he simply regurgitates what he hears on Rush into the public forum and expects it to be taken for fact. I invite you to spend some time and develop an opinion of your own making. Read the bill. You may find that you yourself will benefit from it as much as anyone.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 12:54 PM
  • You are absolutely right Rick....it can be very disheartening to hear people just regurgitating what they here from the media...stay informed and keep informing!

    -- Posted by getalife1 on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 1:52 PM
  • Mr. McHale, as an 81 year old Republican, I suspect you are not worry about either finding a job or paying for health care. I will listen to you only after you forfeit your social security and abandon your Medicare.

    -- Posted by vcovalt on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM
  • I know Rick Poore. Hit the links with him,had many (mostly domestic)beers with him, and had many arguments with him. He may not be able to hold his drink but he is certainly no liar!

    -- Posted by orbie23 on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 2:35 PM
  • Nebraskans need health care, and our current system is not working. That much should be clear to all of us. I know that when I receive a letter from my insurance company, my stomach lurches as I open it to see what care they're going to deny me next.

    We need solutions in Washington, not nay-sayers.

    There are tons of suggestions incorporated in the bill from BOTH parties. It's a compromise, and Ben Nelson helped to make that happen. Shame on the legislators who can't remember that if reform fails, 44,000 people will die needlessly next year.

    -- Posted by NebraskaSteph on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 4:31 PM
  • Steph,

    You seriously just said that 44,000 people will die if reform doesn't pass?! This is why nobody takes you and other similiar extremist claims seriously.

    Ben Nelson passed a poorly formed, incomplete bill and no legislator whether they negotiate special provisions for their districts or not should ever vote to approve a bill they know is not complete regardless of whether they "assume" they'll have a chance to get it right at a later time. It's just bad legislative policy but from the consensus of some on here, if others do it then it must be okay. That childish reasoning may work at a school playground but has no place in the adult world.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 5:01 PM
  • Mr. McHale,

    Why do you believe that we should be ashamed of our Senator who fought to pass healthcare reform while remaining true to his principles? That seems patently Nebraskan.

    Thank you Senator Nelson for supporting healthcare and thank you Mr. Poore for speaking your mind.

    -- Posted by forhealthcare on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 7:18 PM
  • McCook1

    You may not agree that 44,000 people die every year from lack of access to medical care because they cannot afford it. That is simply a number arrived at by a study done by Harvard Medical School and signed of on by the American Medical Association. But you know how statistics are. There is probably room for error. So after the lengthy study you have done, what number is it? Are they half wrong? If so, is 22,000 people dying for lack of access to care help you sleep at night. Surely you have to agree that people that have coverage and can access care probably do better that sick people that have no or limited care. You do agree to that don't you? Kind of makes sense don't you think?

    As for your argument that we can't pass a bill because it is not "complete" or "poorly formed" -- sorry friend, you need to be a little more specific or is that all you heard on the Sean Hannety show. Specifics would be nice. How is it not complete? What is "poorly formed" about it. And please, keep in mind how the legislation that created Medicare and Social Security has gone through hundreds of amendments in order to make them more effective. The idea we can't get started down the path to universal coverage of all Americans is ridiculous. It is the status quo we cannot abide.

    Since Congress started debating health care reform last year, 884,000 families have been forced to file bankruptcy because of medical bills. Medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcies and foreclosures in this country and health care costs account for one-sixth of our nation's economy and it is growing every year.

    But what do we get from people like you? Nothing. No ideas, no sense of urgency, no solutions, just condescending jabs and obstruction because that is all you got and you can't seem to get your head around some simple facts.

    You got better? Show me your stuff, otherwise try and come up with some ideas of your own and not the same old baloney we get from Fox news everyday. I want solutions. Not warmed over rhetoric.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 7:40 PM
  • J.G.,

    You attack my friend Rick because you claim his facts are 'patently false.' You, however, present no facts nor present any evidence of why Rick was dishonest. Your diatribe does nothing to inform or persuade but seems more indicative of the Republican Party in 2010, no message, no ideas, no solutions. You make some reference to the absurdity of the world being flat yet your own party is full of 'dinosaur deniers'

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

    If you want the Republican Party to be anything but the minority party ever again you're going to have to stand for something besides the personal destruction of Democrats like Barack Obama, Ben Nelson, and Rick Poore.

    By the way how is that government ran medicare and social security treating you?

    -- Posted by Phil Montag on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 9:14 PM
  • The cost of health care is out of control in this country. It should not cost $67 for my nasal spray or $13,000 per year for my mother's prescriptions without health insurance. A trip to the ER would mean bancrupty or a total wipe of your savings for most people without insurance.

    Is this how Americans should live? I don't think so.

    Rick Poore is a smart guy. He's a small business owner and understands the outrageous costs of health insurance.

    Mr. McHale, you need to turn off Faux News and their Republican spin -- yes, Republican spin. Remember that Faux News is owned and operated by Republicans who want to see our President fail.

    Know the truth. Read the bill. Get the facts. Be informed.

    -- Posted by little-miss on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 9:48 PM
  • It never ceases to amaze me the absolute fear from the left of Fox news and Rush. A few years a go Rush was "just an entertainer" and shouldn't be taken seriously. Now he is the leader of the Republican party. Yet you have ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR,CNN, The NY Times, LA Times, Reuters, etc..etc.. as Democrat spinners but no complaints about that is there?

    This Bill was made behind closed doors and Obama promised transparency. A large majority of Nebraskans rejected this bill and Ben did not do what his constituents wanted. People are tired of this kind of BS from Washintgton and Ben is in trouble because of it. When I tried for weeks to call my Senator to expres my opinion I could not get through all I got was a message the mailbox is full goodbye. Many believe, mysewlf included that they set up the phones so it would do this and notr be botherd by those pesky phone calls from the people who elected them.

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 7:33 AM
  • Fear is a bit of an overstatement. If we were afraid would we be writing things like this in this part of the country? Should I be afraid? (and, by the way, the bill was debated on the floor of the senate in front of everybody)

    What I am amazed at is a lack of specifics from people who say they are opposed. That's because you don't know what you are against. Don't rely on the spin from either side. Read the bill. It is just laziness to depend on Fox or anybody else to tell you what to think.

    http://www.opencongress.org/senate_health_care_bill

    It isn't a government takeover because there is no public option. Only private plans will be included in the insurance exchange ALLOWING people to create INTERSTATE risk pools.

    It isn't going to raise anybodies taxes unless you make over $250,000 per year. If that includes you, congrats. You will still be paying less taxes than you would have under Ronald Reagan.

    It won't pay for abortions, that language is very strong thanks mostly to the efforts of Ben Nelson.

    It won't pay for illegal aliens, that language is also strong.

    You see, I can prove all of this because, that's right, I have read the bill.

    What exactly are you against? Read the bill. Develop your own perspective and ignore the spin from both sides.

    Look specially how it affects you and your neighbors. Otherwise you are just one of the tin-foil-hat wearing paranoiacs ranting about things they don't have any real knowledge of. Read the bill. It's not that hard to do.

    http://www.opencongress.org/senate_health_care_bill

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 8:53 AM
  • We have the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that allows emergency treatment. If people are "dying" I'd say they would qualify under emergency treatment when the doctors do their screening of the patient. Just to humor you, we'll just go with the study's number at 44,000. That means .00015% of Americans would die for your so-called lack of access. That number will never reach zero with reform or not. The question is what number are you comfortable with and at what cost to the other 99.99985% of Americans? Given 300 million Americans and using the Harvard figures, of course.

    If you're in bankruptcy only because of medical bills then there is no way your house should be foreclosed on unless you couldn't afford the payment in the first place, regardless of medical bills or you paid your medical bills before the mortgage which is foolish but other Americans shouldn't be required to pay for their foolishness. Homes are exempt from liquidation so they aren't losing their homes from bankruptcy. There will always be a leading reason for bankruptcies and those numbers will still be high. If clothes were the leading cause should we pay for their clothes so they dont' freeze to death too? You're searching for the end of the ring.

    13.2 million of the uninsured are young people and many of them CHOOSE to forego health insurance as an unnecessary expense because of their good health. These are the people Congress wants because they know the majority of these younger people won't actually need the coverage so the younger generation is paying for the brunt of this plan. Of course, that's always been the way hasn't it? Let the next generation pay for it and so on and so forth and the cycle continues and the problems get worse because of the lack of control.

    Nelson has stated before that their were provisions that would be "fixed" in conference. That's assuming they go to conference and assuming that Senators do what they say. Namely the Cornhusker Kickback which he says was supposed to apply to all states but they couldn't get numbers in time for discussion so he just got his in there and voted for it. Of course, if they would have taken their time, had further discussions WITH all the information and numbers BEFORE making a decision that wouldn't have happened. The Senate is supposed to pass the bill they think is best and the House is supposed to pass the bill they think is best. If there are differences in the final bills, conference is for the negotiation of the two bills into one. It's not a chance to "fix" bad provisions of a bill that Nelson knowingly voted for.

    You know, I am saying no and I will obstruct because if they can't run Medicare then what makes you think they can run a program massively larger than Medicare? If you think the status quo is bad now wait until this passes. All you will be doing is trading one tragedy for another except this bill will be yet another government program forced on every generation whether they want it or not.

    Why not hit on the underlying causes of why health insurance costs are going up. Changed the requirement for a "preponderance of evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt" in these trials. Most awards go to the lawyers as a large percentage which leads firms to receiving millions of dollars and often times more than the plaintiff in the case. Either put a monetary cap on these lawsuits like we have in Nebraska or cap the lawyer's fees. Require fees to be paid for being rejected by more than 2 lawyers to prevent frivolous lawsuits in the first place. Individual tax breaks for preventive care expenses which is shown to decrease the need for major treatment due to early detection and healthier lifestyle choices. Allowing similiar businesses to form health insurance pools to get reduced rates for their employees.

    These are just some of the things we should be doing first but Democrats want a massive bill that can fail like Medicare and Social Security then I'm sure they'll try to come in as the "saviors" who will save us all from the bad decisions they made in the first place. Take a look at Medicare and Social Security and tell me why they will be able to run this any better.

    Hope and change don't pay for these bills, we do.

    Btw everybody, just ignore the whole fox, rush, blah blah blah that comes from their type. They have been programmed to default to such tactics because they can't comprehend the fact that anyone with opposing ideas from their own could possibly come to those conclusions without some influence from whatever person or organization they decide to rattle off. It's just another example of their unbridled narcissistic egos.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 10:49 AM
  • "behind closed doors". It seems the president wants to have a bipartsian meeting on the subject and the republicans are debating if they should show up or not. The doors are closed only because you refuse to go thru them.

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 12:56 PM
  • Mccook1

    Have you read the bill yet dude? You might be surprised at what you will find. No spin, just bill. Right there in the library of Congress site. It's plenty clear and, after all, it is double spaced so it is a pretty east read.

    And by the way, I believe consensus will be reached on Tort Reform. I am inclined to agree with you as long as consumer protections are still looked after. I mean, if someone sawed off your kids leg when he was supposed to take out his tonsils, I would think that you would like some recourse wouldn't you?

    Anyway, nice screed, specially the narcissistic ego thing! That is a real knee slapper.

    No need to get your knickers in a twist. Nice job, finally some specifics although most of this is nonsense based on misreading what has been written earlier and ignorant of the fact that your concerns are covered in the bill although tort reform will need to be dealt with after the study Nelson slipped into the bill to determine the effect on care cost of a system like Nebraska's. Good old Ben!

    Tell you what, tonight I'll go through the bill and write down the sections that deal with your concerns. Then you can just get on the library of congress and read along.

    And by the way (Btw), show me 1 person in McCook willing to walk away from their Medicare and Social Security and I'll show you a wealthy man. Most of the people I talk to think it works pretty well. My folks think so and they are more aligned with you politically than with me.

    I'll get back with you later with some specifics.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 3:22 PM
  • Rick,

    I read over it to get a rough idea of what it was about but I'm still in the process of cross-referencing code since it is an enormous bill given there is over 20,000 square feet of reading material in the bill and manager's amendment alone and that's before you add in supporting and amended legislation. It's not something you sit down one day, read and completely understand. You must have far more free time than I to have researched all the accompanying US Code too.

    I'd guess it'd take a staff of 5 at least a week just to do a thorough job of reading and researching the bill. Whereas, I'm working solo. That's why I'm skeptical of you sitting down overnight and pointing out anything but go ahead. I look forward to it.

    Under everything I proposed, the one-legged kid with bad tonsils would still have recourse and lawyers would still flock to the case.

    Remove requirement for mandatory health insurance by "healthy individuals": not addresed.

    Preventive care tax breaks: not addressed.

    Tort Reform: not addressed, except for a limited grant program which is not the tort reform I addressed earlier. (Just in case you want to feel like getting technical).

    Health insurance pools for smaller groups: I'm sure that one will be debatable. It's primary focus is on enlarging existing pools instead of allowing new pools.

    I'm not a wealthy man but I'd walk away from Social Security gladly. Uncle Sam just needs to give me back what I put in plus the whopping 1-2% interest and I'll invest in a plan of MY choosing. This should be no problem since the fund is so well managed by the government this should be no problem.

    Nobody will have to "walk away" from Medicare if the government continues on this path because like Social Security, it won't be funded anyway. If you're on Medicare and Social Security today, live it up, you'll be fine. It's myself and future generations that I worry about the long term effects of government mismanagement of these programs. When bankers make risky investments and lose people's money, everybody gets upset and calls for eliminating this behaviour but when the government blatantly steals from the people's retirement fund and puts their health care plan on a path to insolvency then they scream for similiar programs except larger and affecting more people?! It defies all logic.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 5:48 PM
  • As two Nebraskans who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, my husband & I are proud of Senator Nelson for standing up to help people like us. The people who already have coverage are the ones who most often oppose any effort to correct a travesty. Never in my wildest dreams did I think we'd ever be in this position. We are a nation better than this...this attitude of "I've got mine - too bad for you" has to stop. We're intelligent people - we can come together and talk about this to find a solution. Just saying "No" all the time gets us nowhere.

    -- Posted by Java on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 7:13 PM
  • Yep Obama is asking for a meeting with republicans, AFTER he tried to shove this down our throats. AFTER he lost his filibuster prrof Senate and AFTER he lost on this bill. I am not opposed to scrapping this monstrosity and starting over with some common sense reform.

    Let Insurance companies sell across state lines and foster some real competition.

    Tort reform, not likely with the trial lawyers being one of the largest lobbies for the Dems.

    Rick I really doubt you have read this entire bill.

    But just for arguments sake answer one simple question. Tell me one sucessful Gubment undertaking that came in on time, on budget and worked? If Social Security is so great where is the money they witheld from all of us? Why are SS and Medicare going to be insolvent in a few years?

    Bernie Madoff is going to prison for his Ponzi scheme yet the gubment can operate their own called Social Security and that is legal.

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 8:19 PM
  • I'm busy to and I didn't mean to imply that it is easy but the search engine prided by the library is quite a nice tool considering the gubment can't do anything right.

    The one thing you won't find in this bill is public option. I'm not sure why you keep demanding this is a gov. takeover, that this is like medicare, which I might add, works fine for my folks.

    The companies in the exchanges are all going to be private insurers.

    If we could go back and reverse the raids on the SS trust fund by both parties, we would have plenty of money for benefits. In the mean time, let me know if your "gubment" check bounces.

    But we were talking healthcare reform I believe. Here are a few places that deal with a few of you concerns.

    Mandatory coverage is a must. I'm tired of paying for freeloaders that don't think they need it but look to the government when something happens. I know I ran across this but I need to find it but Young adults would be able to stay on a parents plan until age 26 (if I remember right) so as they have a little time before they have to grow up and forage for themselves. It's a matter of taking personal responsibility.

    Tort reform: Mccook1's one legged kid? - that's all I would hope for. If we get tort reform eventually it will save an estimated 1-2 on cost of care. If you got another number in mind, let me know. I like to learn new things.

    SEC. 1333. PROVISIONS RELATING TO OFFERING OF PLANS IN MORE THAN ONE STATE.

    There are a couple places that deal with this but this is most of it. Lays out the framework. I've included a few notes so don't take them at face value. Dig in and have a look. You will find that it does actually include new products (pools) created by any companies that want to get involved in 30 -50 million new customers

    SEC. 10408. GRANTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE WORKPLACE WELLNESS PROGRAMS.

    (a) Establishment- The Secretary shall award grants to eligible employers to provide their employees with access to comprehensive workplace wellness programs (as described under subsection (c)).

    Speaking of workplace.

    There are tax breaks for businesses so I can save a ton on my 30 employees. Last year I shelled out 61,000 bucks in premiums for less coverage than I had 5 years ago. I'd like to keep some of my own money to invest in equipment and hire people to run it.

    SEC. 3301. MEDICARE COVERAGE GAP DISCOUNT PROGRAM.

    closes the donut hole

    Several things involved to provide better prevention care.

    4104 waiving coinsurance for preventive care.

    (You won't need a tax break because you won't pay for it.)

    SEC. 4104. REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO PREVENTIVE SERVICES IN MEDICARE.

    Doctor ordered screening is covered under medicare and coinsurance is waived. So if my dad has an *** scope, it doesn't cost him. This kind of screening can save thousands for a person on a fixed income and possibly save taxpayers by catching illnesses early. You suggested this is a smart investment in an earlier post.

    TITLE IV--PREVENTION OF CHRONIC DISEASE AND IMPROVING PUBLIC HEALTH

    SEC. 4001. NATIONAL PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH COUNCIL.

    I to am concerned about the future. I have a 9 year old. It is funny that we all are concerned but have drastically different views on how to go about making it more promising. I'm not doing this out of ideology, I am doing this because I honestly believe that starting to work on it is urgent and it makes sense

    More later... Meant to do this last night buy drank beer instead.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:36 AM
  • BTW everyone, I meant to throw this study in for your perusal. It deals with how rural communities and businesses would be affected by reform. A decent summary but you be the judge.

    http://files.cfra.org/pdf/Why-Health-Reform-Cant-Wait.pdf

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:57 AM
  • Caring for the health of all citizens is a pro-life issue that cannot be left up to for profit insurance companies.

    -- Posted by jelsener on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 12:26 PM
  • Jim Elsener wrote: "Caring for the health of all citizens is a pro-life issue that cannot be left up to for profit insurance companies."

    How very true. See the link below for just one example of how obvious it is that the insurance companies don't care about your well-being and are only out to maximize profits. And I wonder if this person has more on his "plate" (as say, compared to Heineman or Johanns) to warrant a multi-million dollar/year salary. Just something to ponder.

    http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/02/28/blue_cross_ceos_pa...

    And to the argument that "gubment" cannot successfully operate any program I ask you to consider our emergency sevices (police, fire, ambulance) which are also, btw, "socialist" programs. I would add that the United States Department of Agriculture seems to be doing a pretty good job. Is it perfect? Of course not, nothing is but health reform is urgently needed as the cost of medical care continues to escalate.

    Jim Thomas

    -- Posted by J. E. Thomas on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 3:04 PM
  • Well said Mr. Thomas. It amazes me the distrust some have of the government yet have no qualms about putting the welfare of themselves and loved ones into the arms of an insurance industry that is responsible to no one but their stockholders. They are in the business to make money first and foremost - your security is a secondary concern.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 4:55 PM
  • Rick,

    I have never stated there is a public option so I assume you must be addressing someone else. I have also said that I'm sure Medicare works just fine for your folks TODAY. I'm not worried about today, I'm worried about the long term viability of the program as I stated earlier.

    Mandatory coverage is only a must because without it, the cost skyrockets without healthy people paying the bill for the people who are already sick. If you're healthy and don't think you need insurance why would you buy insurance just so that someone who has a myriad of problems can benefit from the premiums you pay? Yet, the healthy are the freeloaders?

    Another thing, if they don't have insurance then how are they turning to the government? They would still be personally responsible for their own health care bills, the government's not going to pay them. Example, I don't have health insurance but I break my leg. How is the government, as of today, going to do anything for my bills? Last time I checked, I was responsible for those bills and didn't get to "freeload" off anybody.

    The entire bill's foundation rests on mandatory coverage at the expense of people who won't have to use it anyway. I think it is wrong to force someone into a plan they don't want and you know they won't use.

    Tort Reform is something I think needs to be seriously considered. However, I don't have access to the CBO. That's why our Representatives in Congress need to look at it.

    Sec. 1333 is tied to the coverage provided by mandating coverage for everyone as a requirement of State compacts which is so loosely worded that these compacts could be denied if they don't apply to every single person covered under the federal program. Of course these state pools would be smaller than that but they can be denied because of their inability to pull in the numbers a federal program can. That is, if the state allows it.

    Section 10408: Offers $200 million for Wellness Only grants and only lasts for 5 years before the funding is shut off. How is that a long term solution to anything?

    Sec. 4104 is a provision solely related to Medicare. I'm talking about tax credits for everyone who incurs preventive care expenses.

    Ah yes, the "Health Council", a group of people appointed by the President under the control of the President and with the aid of an Advisory Council appointed by the President which duplicates programs already in place and costs an extra $15 Billion over 10 years. I'd rather fix what we have now than to spend an average of $1.5 Billion a year. If you're government programs aren't working, it doesn't mean you mean you need to throw more money at yet another program and dissolve the others. It means you need to fix the ones you've got.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 6:53 PM
  • Most of you people just miss the point. You pile on more facts and figures, the truth of the matter just seems to get buried under your baloney!

    The problem with this country, the diconnect, the massive government, the fraud, the massive debt...it's all because of people like you! The people here, who are okay with Nebraska getting backdoor deals because someone else is getting backdoor deals.

    Well, we all know people who start businesses, run up a bunch of debt and then just file bankrupcy don't we? Well, let's just all do the same since others do it. That's what you're saying right? Just because some other crook is doing it doesn't make it right.

    We send people to Washington to make deals?? Where the hell did you learn that? It sure wasn't in school until the mid-90's when I got out of school. Making deals? These people are supposed to be aiding us in governing OURSELVES not governing over us or making deals!

    Sooner or later the deals are going to be done, we can no longer write checks. China is not going to let us spend anymore, especially when we just sold arms to Taiwan. What do you people think is going to happen in a few years? More deals and more deals, we are going to actually have to shut down govenment as we know it and there will be no more public services. We'll all be on our own. You simply can't write more checks!

    You want to know how you go 15 trillion dollars in debt? Everybody gets to make a deal, while the most ingorant bunch of pleabs in the world sit around picking their nonses while they do it.

    How does anyone think the bill is ever readable by non-lawyers? I tried for hours, and couldn't figure anything out. That was the House bill. They're both too big.

    Since when does the feral government need to be running healthcare anyway? Social security is a bank vault full of IOU's. Even the interest in NOT real. It's a number in a book that says...this is what the interest should be, but it's not even there. It's like Bernie Madoff has been in charge of our federal money for the last 40 years.

    You people need to take a step back so you can see where we are before you start talking healthcare.

    You need to take a civics class or read a government history book or something before you start grading candidates on who's gonna make the best deal in DC.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 11:10 PM
  • Certainly Justin, don't let facts in the the way of your simplistic view of world politics, history and economics. I'm not really sure what they were teaching in the mid 90's when you dropped out of junior high. In the civics classes I took in the 70's we learned that we elect people to go to washington and work with other legislators to move idea into policy by finding common ground with a legislators from a disparate background. This can be done by a thing called compromise. Wasn't always a dirty word you know. Daniel Webster is considered one of our greatest legislators of all time. He was known as "the great compromiser" (I read that in one of those gov. history books in high school). George Norris would never has been able to wrangle support for Rural Electrification without being a masterful "deal maker"

    And when are you people going to stop calling this government healthcare. The senate bill, the only one that has any hope, has no public option. It is regulated by the government but it is regulated today as well. Lord people, do you think if you repeat something enough that it magically becomes true.

    I get the feeling you are wishing you were back in the day of good old George. In 2000 he inherited a surplus. In 8 short years our financial system was on the brink of total collapse. Oh those were wonderful years to grow up in I'm sure.

    The bills are written in English. You may have trouble with patience but don't blame the language of the bills.

    I'd go back to school if I were you.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Sat, Feb 13, 2010, at 9:24 AM
  • I found this article interesting.

    http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7&p=4

    -- Posted by president obama on Sun, Feb 14, 2010, at 3:41 PM
  • I'd like for one proponent of this healthcare bill please tell me under which article of the constitution this is enumerated for the federal governemtn to do?

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 10:08 AM
  • its in the preamble, promote the genreal walfare.

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 12:08 PM
  • Section 8, para: 1 and 18.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 12:10 PM
  • Sorry, Article 1, sec 8, para 1 & 18.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 12:26 PM
  • To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    Really I don't see the words healtcare in there anywhere?

    This is what Madison said in Federalist #41

    "Strict constructionists have always objected that this broad and vague interpretation endows the federal government with an unlimited range of power, making redundant nonsense of the rest of Section 8, which lists the particular powers of Congress. In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?"

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 12:50 PM
  • Where does it say in the constitution that the government cannot be involved with healthcare?

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 3:23 PM
  • To paraphrase it says that all the things not enumerated in the constitution are to be left to the states. The founders spelled out the things the fed was to be responsible for and all others were up to each state.

    The living breathing document crowd however have used the commerce clause and the wefare clause to find unlimited federal power. Madison in Federalist 41 disagrees with this idea. For those who do not know he was the chief author of the constitution. There are also many other citations in the federalist papers refuting the federal power we now have

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 4:04 PM
  • common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

    seems pretty cut and dried here.

    At one time Madison opposed a standing army and a strong navy but came around by the time he was president and realized the need for a strong central government. Don't cherry pick what you want to hear and take his whole life in politics into consideration.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Tue, Feb 16, 2010, at 11:45 AM
  • Dear Chaco1,

    The Necessary and Proper Clause, or the "elastic" clause, is an enlargement of the powers granted to Congress. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland set the standard. "Let the end be legitimate," he wrote, "let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." The provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities of other departments, because of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. On the other hand, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.

    Practically every power of the National Government has been expanded in some degree by the elastic clause. Under its authority Congress has adopted measures necessary to discharge the treaty obligations of the nation, it has organized the federal judicial system and has enacted a large body of law defining and punishing crimes. Effective control of the national economy has been made possible by the authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State to the extent necessary to protect and promote interstate commerce. The right of Congress to utilize all known and appropriate means for collecting the revenue, including the seizing of property for federal taxes, and its power to acquire property needed for the operation of the Government by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, have greatly extended the range of national power. But the widest application of the necessary and proper clause has occurred in the field of monetary and fiscal controls. The various specific powers granted by Article I, sec. 8, do not add up to a general legislative power over such matters, the Court has relied heavily upon this clause in sustaining the comprehensive control which Congress has asserted over this subject.

    Basically, congress could pass almost any public option health care plan all the way to single payer if it wanted. Constitutionality is nothing more than a tea bagger rant. A rant that really means I got mine and I don't care about you.

    -- Posted by jelsener on Tue, Feb 16, 2010, at 4:22 PM
  • Sorry Jelsner the federalist papers area winmdow into the founders intent.

    Your last paragraph really shows the contempt you have for people with opposing views to yours and the contitution as a whole.

    Jefferson also wrote and I am paraphrasing, that a central Bank was the biggest threat to liberty.

    Go ahead a cite another activist judge but I will cite the founders men who actually wrote the constitution. Men so brilliant that despite the repeated attempts to subjugate and destroy the document it hasn't been done yet.

    As to the tea party the fact you bring up such a homophobic and disgustingly sophomoric name for it shows the level of class you really have. Does it scare you on the left?

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 10:01 AM
  • Chaco1, this is how scared i am. When I write something I sign my name to it. What are you afraid of. Jelsener actually sounds like he's studied the matter a little bit. You just sound like you were taking notes during Glenn Beck last night. If the tea bag fits, wear it. And please. Please do cite the founders.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 2:41 PM
  • Although FMH is obviously a genius and respected scholar, he is dead wrong on this one. Unlike FMH, I think it's great to criticize Nelson for making a deal.

    Another note - we are no longer the richest nation on Earth. We are the biggest debtor nation on earth. We are rapidly becoming a non-economic super power.

    Rick is not a liar - or FMH. They just need to further their economic education.

    We can't afford to keep spending money we do not have. This administration has a deficit 4 times larger in ONE year of spending than the previous LAME administration had in 8 years.

    Don't see how this is only going to affect an "insurance executive owning a second home or an Italian vacation." I think it will affect a lot of us economically. In a negative way.

    But as FMH and Rick said - Read the bill. Make your own decision

    -- Posted by El Quig on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 4:17 PM
  • You may wish to read up a little on Justice John Marshall. It is a stretch to call him an activist but I'll sure facts and history will do little to budge you off of what you are so certain is the truth.

    I might mention that he actually spoke with several of the founders that you give god-like qualities to but were, in fact, men that were fallible and whose positions on issues evolved throughout their lives.

    Here's a brief introduction. John Marshall (September 24, 1755 -- July 6, 1835) was an American statesman and jurist who shaped American constitutional law and made the Supreme Court a center of power. Marshall was Chief Justice of the United States, serving from February 4, 1801, until his death in 1835. He served in the United States House of Representatives from March 4, 1799, to June 7, 1800, and, under President John Adams, was Secretary of State from June 6, 1800, to March 4, 1801. Marshall was from the Commonwealth of Virginia and a leader of the Federalist Party.

    The longest serving Chief Justice in Supreme Court history, Marshall dominated the Court for over three decades (a term outliving his own Federalist Party) and played a significant role in the development of the American legal system. Most notably, he established that the courts are entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 9:27 PM
  • Mr. El, very respectful and a breath of fresh air. Yes indeed, we are in quite a pickle. I am the first to agree that we need to do something about spending.

    If you agree that doing nothing to combat the forward trajectory of health care spending has dire consequences for our economy then you are with me in believing that we are truly caught between a rock and a hard place.

    What to do about it may be where we have to agree to disagree. I know that this depends on everything going to plan and that is a big statement. I believe that we should implement changes in the system that will reduce costs long term and get people covered thereby all but eliminating uncompensated care, increase preventative care specially in at-risk populations.

    Certainly it won't be easy and the reform measures in the house and senate will need tweeking depending on how things transpire on the "ground"

    But I just think it is wrong headed to hold out that we are better off doing nothing. As the cost of insurance goes up more and more people will be unable to afford it. More people end up in emergency rooms for primary care causing more providers to shift the cost to those of us that have insurance until premium increases make it more unaffordable. In addition, taxpayers are asked to pitch in more and more to compensate providers for unpaid care.

    And the cycle repeats.

    Either way, 1 of 2 things is going to happen. A bill is passed and 15 years from now we will look back and say either I was right or I was wrong. OR we do nothing and 15 years from now we look back and say either you were right or you were wrong.

    Certainly is a tough situation that is best served by respectful deliberation. Good Luck El

    -- Posted by rickpoore on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 11:24 AM
  • hankherndon & Chacol (or whatever your real names are) I hope you read Mr. Poore's short history of John Marshall the most notable Justice in the history of jurisprudence on the United States Supreme Court.

    The healthcare debate, however, is not one of constitutionality and to take it in that direction is only an effort to take the focus away from the need for reform. The stories of our current system bring the argument into focus.

    A married couple has insurance all their married lives. The woman has a bout with cancer and she gets better. Three years down the line it returns, the prognosis looks good, but she will need chemo again. The hospital calls and tells her she has been dropped from Blue Cross because she has reached the life time limit (sounds like a death panel). Their choice now is to go into debt, have a financial catastrophe and declare bankruptcy or die. You say the constitution says die or use bankruptcy as your medical plan. I say you have a very narrow reading of the constitution.

    I do not know if you would identify yourself as a Tea Bagger, but I do. I find Tea-baggers to be a group that says I have mine, you need to get your own. Tea Baggers are childlike-selfish. And the most ironic thing is the same people are more than happy to collect Social Security and Medicaid while the entire time screaming unconstitutional, socialism. They bring home the idea that socialism is the money other people get from the government.

    You like to talk about the constitution and socialism, but what do you have to say to the couple mentioned above. And you ought to think about it because these people are real and they live in your community. And there are millions of more people just like them across the country. Grow up and become a responsible citizen.

    -- Posted by jelsener on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM
  • What a sophomoric personal attack jelsner. If I am a tea party member or not is irrelevant to this discussion but you seem to have an irrational fear of a grass roots movement that is not on the left. I find it funny that a person who so obvioulsy is a proponent of the you have yours and I want it towards the sucessful and the "wealthy" and the confiscatory tax policies of the left, pot meet kettle. As long as we are making suppositions about each other well i believe you are just fine with the gubment taking at the point of a gun the property of people and giving it to others. Go ahead and use homophobic and silly names it doesent hurt my feelings but it really says a lot about you.

    Please point out to me where I said your straw man must die or go bankrupt? I don't need you to put words in my mouth.

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Sat, Feb 20, 2010, at 10:36 AM
  • Tim,

    Good to hear from you! Wow, you sure showed me a thing or two.... Good for you. I've got a few questions maybe you can help me out with.

    1) What is this "scholar" and "genius" stuff? Hell, it took me five years to graduate from college -- at UNL. Anyone who takes that long is obviously dumb as a post. So I wouldn't puff out my chest too hard about showing me I'm wrong...happens about 50 times a day at work...and another 50 at home!

    2) So how about that soaring deficit? I'm glad you're worried about it now. I remember it was a big concern of yours when Bush was cutting taxes for the rich and financing two wars off budget. .... Oh, wait, I guess I DON'T remember. ****. I've run a lot of beer through this old head....

    3) Help me here with my "economic education"....I read somewhere...was it that silly mainstream media .... Or did I just live through it? that Bush was handed a surplus and that the Great Recession -- is that the right thing to call it? -- really took hold in his last year in office. So one guy takes office with a surplus and runs the economy into the ground, and the other guy institutes honest budgeting and tries to stimulate spending to jolt the economy out of the toilet. Hmmmm. Sounds like a fair comparison to me....I don't necessarily agree that it's the right thing to do (that "richest nation" when I meant "biggest economy" thing -- dumb as a post! See?) but at least he's trying to do something besides line his buddies' pockets. ... And at least he's the one making the decisions....Wasn't it Joe Biden who said "deficits don't matter?" Or was it your boy Cheney? You've got to help me out here, man.

    No doubt, running up the deficit is bad for us and for our kids. I think we basically agree on that problem. You're fine with insurance execs getting rich while denying people coverage ....it makes me puke-sick ... Hey, splitting hairs, right?

    It's weird what this liberal brain-rot does to a guy. It's almost like I'M the government worker and YOU'VE spent 30 years in the private sector. Go figure.

    -- Posted by fmh on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, at 3:06 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: