New ad to pressure Nelson

A group called the 60 Plus Association is spending 2 million bucks on ads in Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota…and Nebraska focusing on the Health Care re-form bill and cuts to Medicare.

60 Plus calls itself, “the conservative alternative to the AARP”. The spot starts running today.
See it here:

They go on to say:

“Senator Nelson would be smart to read the bill and listen to the experts that run Medicare, instead of hiding behind the rhetoric and accounting gimmicks in Sen. Reid’s bill.”

Note to Nellie: Cranky seniors vote.


  1. Six(now eight)Dollar Parker says:

    Since AARP was supporting health insurance reform, the health insurance companies had to create a phoney senior citizen association for this ad as part of the lobby effort.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Actually there are several non AARP associations out there. If I was a member I would leave that group. Their lobbyists sold out their constituents years ago.

  3. Pat says:

    At least Democrats are willing to let Medicare's chief actuary do his job. As Ezra Klein pointed out last week, when Richard Foster said in 2003 that the Republican prescription drug plan would cost $140 billion more than Congressional Republicans were willing to admit, he was told to shut up or be fired. He shut up and his report was buried until after the bill passed.

    Democrats may disagree with Foster's analysis (or at least hyped-up distortions of his analysis of the type seen in this ad), but at least they are willing to have a debate and are not going to muzzle anyone who disagrees.

  4. Right Wing Professor says:

    AARP is a phoney senior citizen association.

    You can't cut half a trillion from Medicare without damaging it. Either you don't really intend to make the cut, and simply want to add to the deficit, or you intend to damage Medicare.

  5. Anonymous says:

    RWP, Medicare Advantage costs about 18% more per person than traditional Medicare and has proven to not provide any new coverage, and only provides a subsidy to the private insurance at expense of taxpayers. End that and go back to traditional Medicare and according to Bush's previous CBO head, it would save as much as $54 Billion per year. That was several years ago, too. It was a giveaway at taxpayer expense, and it's time for it to end.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Medicare isn't getting "cut." Where the half billion dollars comes in is it's the amount medicare will save by having their patients enrolled in an effective healthcare system before the age of 65, and this bill passes those savings to low income people under 65(most of which will enter Medicare at some point). Medicare will be stronger than it ever has been.

  7. Right Wing Professor says:


    The head of the CBO is appointed by Congress, not the President, and it is not a partisan position. Talking about 'Bush's CBO' merely shows you don't know what you're writing about.

    As for (Anonymous 6;46) how being enrolled before 65 will pass on the savings when you're over 65, please explain to me how that works.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Just remeber the Obamacare will be an UNFUDED mandate over $600M to Nebraska Medicaid.

    Hmmm the state is projected to have $600M+ shortfall in the next 3 years WITHOUT Obamacare.

    So there you have it Nebraska $1.2+ Billion in the red. And you thought a 2.5% sliding up to 5% cut was a tough one. Haaaaaaa.

    The cuts to account for Obamacare will 4 times what it was this year. So where do all the Obamacare supporters suggest the cuts be made? HHS? Education? State aide to counties? OR do you propose to raise taxes? I know for most of you it is elementary ….. raise taxes. On who? There are only 1.7 million Nebraskans. Thousands don't even pay taxes. Oh tax the fortune 500 companies. Good idea….. they can move and take the jobs with thems so we have fewer people working to pay the bills. Ya great idea.

    Nope cut, cut, cut.

    You want free medical care and govt run insurance you got it. Spend Spend Spend.

  9. Anonymous says:

    RWP, I notice you couldn't refute the 18% more that is spent on MA than on traditional. And by referring to Bush's CBO, that was to let you know it was testimony will Bush was in the WH. SO, can you justify spending at least $1000 more per person so they can have a private insurer subsidized but are not getting any better coverage, and that your tax dollars are therefore being wasted? It was, after all, a program Republicans claimed would cut costs. It hasn't. It costs far more and does nothing better than traditional Medicare.

  10. Dayton Headlee says:

    AARP is not a seniors group, they have become an insurance company.

    Not sure of their funding, but 60 Plus is a legit seniors group that's been around for a while.

  11. Nathan says:

    According to wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt) 60 Plus gets most of its donations from the pharmaceutical industry. They also earn money from sponsoring insurance for its members.

    Clearly then they are a insurance company, not a seniors group. Oh wait, they're conservative so its ok. The whole do as I say, not as I do thing.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Okay, so when Lee Terry made a mistake, he took the blame for it an apologizes.

    Tom White steals $1000 from his State Legislature campaign (which is filled with corporate dollars-unlike Federal election campaigns that MUST be donations from a citizen's personal checking account)to give to his Tom White for Congress campaign and then never apologizes for it?

    Nice, he threw his female finance director under the bus. Poor girl, first he pays her nothing to do the job of raising $200,000 and then he blames her for stealing money from an account that she has no control over?

    Real nice Tom White, I hope Ian Russell wasn't the one that told you to do that, that would make people wonder if he also told you to use your office in the Legislature to create and run your congressional campaign from. You should probably fire him.

    I also hope that your finance director doesn't get paid by your law office-that would be a no-no too.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Actually, I would question whether Tom White could accept any of the dozen or so donations he got for $1000 from multiple campaign committees. Reason being, they all accept corporate donations into their coffers. The only way they can use their "unclean" money campaign accounts to give to Tom White for his Congressional run is if they actually attended the event. Tom White should be required to prove attendance for all the cash he got from Chris Jerram's City Council campaign fund (among many others).

    I wonder what the FEC will have to say about that?

  14. Anon from above who posted too soon without the whole mssg says:

    There was no suspicious loan. The campaign was unable to access $100,000 in a Reserve Fund, a money market fund that was not giving its investors the access they needed to their funds during last year's financial crisis.

    So they took a loan out to cover that amoumt…big deal.And it was probably wise of them to use a bank ikn the 3rd district so it did not look inproper, or so some White lackey could try and bring up this non issue again.

  15. Gerard Harbison says:

    Anonymous 11:49: please provide a pointer to the alleged testimony. Testimony by whom, on what date, to which body of Congress. Thanks.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The left out part is available on the Quarterly Report for the Last Quarter of 2008, and the 1st and 2nd Quarters of 2009.

    The loan is paid off, in full, with interest, and on time(which was within 6 months).

    That poor Bank was taken over by the Feds and if they had given more loans to entities like Congressman Terry that paid on time, in lump sums, and with interest, then maybe they would not have been taken over.

    Ian, you need to learn the law and get your facts straight before you continue to open your mouth on behalf of your Boss in the Legislature. Oh, and quit funding your full time job with the pay from your less than part time job in the Legislature, that's against the law too. Did you see what happened to that poor woman that helps foster kids?

    The law is the law, live with it.

    BTW, how come Tommie Boy White isn't answering any of these questions himself. Did he enjoy throwing that girl under the bus?

  17. Anonymous says:

    GH/RWP – you asked for it:



    Witness – Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office

    Also, in April 2007, Orszag wrote a letter to Sen. Wyden at this request that laid out the average ration spent on Medicare vs. MA per state. In Nebraska, for every dollar spent on Medicare, 1.16 is spent on MA.

  18. Right Wing Professor says:

    Thank you.

    Orszag's testimony confirms what's generally known about Medicare Advantage. it costs more than Medicare A + B. It does not corroborate your claim that MA does "not provide any new coverage". In fact, Orszag says the opposite.

    Plans that offer Medicare benefits for less than the amount of their payment from the government are required to give enrollees additional benefits or, in an option that became available recently, rebates on their Part B or Part D premiums. Those additional benefits and rebates of premiums are a major incentive for beneficiaries to enroll in Medicare Advantage plans and may be particularly attractive to people with relatively low income….

    A key feature of many HMO and PPO plans under Medicare Advantage is wellness programs and case management services; those services are intended to promote better coordination and more effective use of health care.

    In fact, Orszag testified that the growth in MA is directly attributable to the additional benefits it offers, particularly to the poor. Fully 1/4 of Medicare recipients in 2009 are in MA. Cutting MA will be a major disruption to those recipients, who are now enrolled in HMOs and PPO networks. It will also cost them benefits. I'm sure they will remember this.

  19. Anonymous says:


    Those extra benefits from HMO's, however, are things like free band aids or paying for gym memberships. Per a Washington Post article just this year:

    "The trouble is, the extra benefits are not exactly free; they are subsidized by the government. And some of the plans pass their costs on to seniors, who pay higher co-pays and additional fees to get care."

    Many private plans require no additional monthly premiums, yet the government pays an average of $849.90 in monthly subsidies to insurance companies for a person on Medicare Advantage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That is about 14 percent more than the government spends on people with standard Medicare, according to the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

    "The promise of Medicare Advantage and Medicare HMOs was to save the government money, to save consumers money, all the while providing additional benefits and coordinating care," said Joseph Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center. "That promise has been unfulfilled overall because the plans are overpaid by the federal government at this point."

    In Tucson, many Medicare Advantage policies have no premiums, while some beneficiaries pay relatively small monthly fees to get added benefits such as dental care. But many pay fees for each doctor's visit, on top of co-payments as high as 20 percent of costs.

    Many seniors said they were drawn to the plans because they were relatively healthy and visit hospitals rarely, and because their premiums would be substantially higher if they bought full-coverage supplements to traditional Medicare.

    "The appeal is cost, obviously," said Norman Powers, 72, a retired electrical engineer, who signed up with his wife, Carole. He said they have not had any costly medical operations — and then knocked on a wooden table. The gym membership that Health Net gave away has been a plus, he said.

    But Medicare Advantage policies can be frustrating, too. As with traditional managed-care programs, beneficiaries must consult through primary-care physicians in their insurers' networks, and the companies sometimes deny coverage. Bernie Keegan, 68, was hospitalized in March when he got sick and was throwing up blood. But his HMO did not cover some of his bloodwork or doctor's fees, leaving him with hundreds of dollars in medical bills.

  20. Anonymous says:

    And in the testimony, you left out this:

    There are other dimensions along which you can evaluate Medicare Advantage in terms of quality of care, in terms of overall efficiency of the health care system. But for the federal budget by itself, the result is that we are providing a benefit that raises net cost to a particular set of beneficiaries.


    REP DAVIS: Dr. Orszag, I want to ask you, on average — not theory, fact — on average, how much extra tax-funded subsidy is there per Medicare recipient under Medicare Advantage versus fee-for-service per person on average?

    MR. ORSZAG: Again, roughly 12 percent.

    REP. EDWARDS: How about dollars, actual tax dollars per person — average, ballpark?

    MR. ORSZAG: (Off mike consultation.) I'm told about $1,000.

    REP. EDWARDS: So $1,000 more of cost per taxpayer in America today for every person who under this theoretical program that was going to save taxpayers money, $1,000 per Medicare recipient extra cost to the taxpayer.

    How much is the total cost to taxpayers for the Medicare Advantage program compared to fee-for-service is — are we talking about in fiscal year 2007?

    MR. ORSZAG: This year — and I'll give you the calendar year number; we can get the fiscal year number — total payments are about $75 billion. I think I said 77 billion (dollars).

    REP. EDWARDS: The extra cost of — compared to if we had everyone under fee-for-service. What's the extra cost this year, FY '07?

    MR. ORSZAG: Something like 10 (billion dollars).

    REP. EDWARDS: Somewhere around $10 billion? And am I correct that you both testified that over five years, Medicare Advantage is an additional $54 billion cost to taxpayers? Is that correct, compared to fee-for-service?

    MR. ORSZAG: That is correct.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Rut Row…

    NYTimes said econ grew slower (2.8%) than first reported last quarter, and that housing is slowing way down again.

    Bad news for D's like Tom White.

  22. Right Wing Professor says:

    Nothing you've posted backs up you original contention, which is that MA plans don't provide additional benefits; they do, and they're more than a free band aid or two. Maybe you could set a nice example of honesty by admitting you were wrong.

    If you shut down MA and force the 25% of Medicare recipients who are in the program back onto A and B, you will cut their benefits. You can protest all you want; the people who have their benefits cut will know about it. The exact problem with MA is that it's become too popular in recent years, and it's therefore costing too much money.

    By the way, I thought Obama was in favor of prevention and wellness programs?

  23. Interested says:

    Anyone ever read the novel Logan's Run or the movie with Michael York? No health care issues when the population has a mandatory death sentence at 30 years of age. I would suggest you read the writings of Obama's top advisers concerning population control and medical spending for senior citizens.

  24. Anonymous says:

    This is fun reading the board to see what Tom (the radio show Liberal) is doing. I just wish some citizen would make a Freedom of Information Act Request to the Patrick O'Donell's office (the Clerk of the Legislature) for the phone records from Sen Tom White's office. He has to sign off on all calls made. The request should also be made for IP addresses visited and duration of visit. Now that would be interesting!!!! A request through Foley's office might work too.

    Didn't some guy get a $1000 fine for using the servers with his laptop to lobby against a ballot issue? What was White's vote on the Diminimus use bill? Was that LB 626, which lets White use his office for political gain? White did vote for the bill and to override the Veto the Gov put on the bill.

    Of course any the work done at the capitol on his campaign prior to being signed by the Gov would not be legal.

  25. Jessica 6 says:

    Yes! Saw the movie…and some episodes of the subsequent television series. Farrah Fawcett even starred in the movie.

    Very chilling if you compare some of this stuff!

  26. Jessica 6 says:

    Sandmen…where did the author come up with that name? On a note about the book, apparently you die at 21 but you live in a society that glorifies sex and drugs. BUT, smoking tobacco is illegal. In fact, in the book cops will raid places where people are smoking cigarrettes…wonder if that is where Mark Welsh (name?) of GASP gets his inspiration!

  27. Bus Driver says:


    How do you know that that loan was paid off? As of today the Reserve fund is still under water by about 10 per cent. I know this because I was also caught by the same money market fund at Ameritrade as Lee was. The only difference being the fact that the risk that I took was with my own money, not from campaign funds.

    At this time his campaign is still light about 9,000 with no guarantee of ever getting it back! If you want to verify that just check with Ameritrade. The most Lee can count on will be about 3 per cent of the remaining funds, which is supposedly guaranteed by Ameritrade, when some bankrupcy court finally makes its ruling. The rest will go to the lawyers.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Because his report for the last quarter shows it is paid off stupid. Just because it is paid off, doesn't mean that Lee Terry got all his campaign money back that was in a very secure money market account. He probably did that for a couple reasons, but off the top of my head, the limits on the FDIC promise if the money is held all in the same institution.

    Maybe he did it for a higher return, who knows, but I bet he is hoping that any amount that the money market hasn't taken out of the freezer yet, gets thawed in about mid October next year.

    A lot of people got screwed 14-15 months ago, elected officials weren't immune.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Getting this "dirt" on Tom White was so worth the 2 football tickets that the NEGOP offered and Make a Wish made out like bandits on the sale of the donated tix!

    And, just to be clear, the dirt had nothing to do with Tom's family-as he suggested, it was all about Tom White's integrity as a member of the Bar! SWEET!

  30. Bus Driver says:


    Looks like I ruffled some feathers. I wouldn't have asked but no one from Terry's office has ever mentioned that they've paid the loan off. You'd think, after being called out on it by the OWH during the last election that Lee would want to finally put it in the rear view mirror before it comes up again.

    Nobody doubts his ability to pay his bills– that was the delemma which faced the other 30,000 people who had their Reserve accounts frozen and were unable to make "sweetheart" loans out in the middle of Nebraska. By the way, why do you think Lee didn't just step up to one of the 30 or so banks in Omaha? Seems like a waste of gas.

  31. Anonymous says:

    PAT, the the republican part d plan actually came under the estimate by $100 billion. so perhaps Mr. Klein was playing politics and deserved to be called out for it.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Just as someone earlier mentioned, any bank in the 2nd District that would have giving the Congressman a loan during that time frame would have been accused of favoritism. It seems more prudent to go out of your District to get a loan.

    As for the paying off of the loan? Why would a person have a press conference to state what is already available on a federal document on a public website? You really don't know anything about your Congressman do you?

    Let's get back to the issue of the day. Why did Tom White break Federal Election law by making an illegal transfer of funds from a corporate funded State Office Campaign account to a Federal fund that is barred from accepting corporate donations?

    I also think that it is weird that he would hire an Obama operative to manage his Congressional Campaign Funds, but she is completely inept as to what Federal Election laws bar? Makes you wonder what kind of money games that girl played when collecting checks for the Obama Campaign here in Omaha.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Well, folks…

    Another week is coming to a close … how about those new Dem candidates for Gov, et al…

    NDP——> Covalt=incompetence

  34. Anonymous says:

    Funny post over at NNN. Vile Kyle takes aim again at Terry (surprise, surprise) but most of the comments are from other D's attacking Lisa Montana Hannah!

    Circular firing squad, again! NDP is collapsing…lol.

    Several of the posters there bluntly say they think MHannah made up the suspicious note left in her mailbox just to get sympathy…

  35. Anonymous says:


    And there are ways to address that without costing the country $1 trillion that it doesn't have. Make insurance more affordable by allowing it to be sold across state lines; let individual buyers purchase policies from the companies that are in the fed employees plan, and have subsidies/tax credits for lower income buyers. We don't need a national gov't takeover that forces everyone to buy a commodity (health insurance) and, frankly, we don't need to increase everyone's taxes to fund insurance for illegal aliens–who are 15 million of the 40 mil figure you use.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Anon 10:32–AMEN!! SImple solutions to a serious problem..who would've thunk?? But, the libs want to throw the baby out with the bath water and spend a trillion dollars we don't have!!

  37. Anonymous says:

    It's time someone with some credibility stepped up to run in the second district. Let's see; we've got Lee (I've done nothing in 10 years) Terry; Tom (I can steal campaign money) White; and Matt (the pretender) Sacklosky. It's like watching the three stooges reinact "Who's on First".

    Time for some arm twisting to get Dan Welch involved. Maybe dust the cob webs off of Hal Daub. Even old timer John Lindsay has more credibility than any of these guys.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.