Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns took to the Senate floor yesterday and made it all clear.

Just in case Senator Ben Nelson wants to weasel out of his commitment to vote against any Health Care Bill that contains anything less that the anti-abortion Stupak amendment, Johanns noted…

I applaud my colleague from Nebraska. I want to end my comments there. Senator Nelson has stood up on this issue and recently in an interview, he said this:

“I have said at the end of the day, if it doesn’t have Stupak language on abortion in it, I won’t move — I won’t vote to move it off the floor.”

I think that’s a courageous statement. I don’t mind standing here and saying I’m very, very pleased to associate myself with Senator Nelson and Senator Hatch on this important amendment.

Of course Nelson’s version of the Stupak Amendment did not pass the Senate — going down 54-45.

So where does that leave Nelson?

We’ll see if Harry Reid tries to chopper Nelson out of the corner he has painted himself into. Don’t be surprised in the end, kids…

**UPDATE 9:50**

Last week, Nelson said that unless his abortion amendment or language like it was added to the health bill, he would join a Republican filibuster against the measure. “That’s not negotiable,” he said at the time.

But his tone changed Tuesday evening, after his amendment was tabled. Nelson said only that the outcome “made it harder to be supportive” of the legislation. “We’ll just have to see what develops,” he said.


  1. Right Wing Professor says:

    Nelson's going to have a hard enough time in 2012. I can't see him voluntarily depriving himself for the Nebraskans for Life endorsement.

    That would be the two-by-four that broke the camel's back.

  2. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Nebraska Right to Life is very appreciative of not only Senator Nelson's efforts to get Stupak language in the Senate bill but of Senator Johanns' strong support of that effort and speaking to it on the floor several times. We have a later-in-the-day clip of Senator Johanns up on our Facebook page which has Senator Johanns praising both Senators Nelson and Hatch for their "longstanding commitment to pro-life". Today's Roll Call reiterates that Senator Nelson continues to be a hard sell for the Dems. In any event, it was nice to see a public gesture of bi-partisanship between our two U.S. Senators yesterday.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Julie, will you commit to refusing future endorsements of Ben Nelson if he votes to invoke cloture on the health care bill without the Stupak amendment language attached?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Julie, are you kidding me?
    We are being sold up a river! When will you realize that Nelson is simply using you and our organization as a pawn in his game of chess? First you support an amendment in the House which, if it hadn't passed, would have killed Obamacare once and for all. Then you get on the EBN bandwagon and give him HUGE political cover for a vote he knew he would lose. You even gave him a quote of yours in his press release! All you've done is make his job easier, and your political naivete should cost you members, as you've done us a tremendous disservice by bowing to All Powerful Ben. Nelson voted FOR Sonia Sotomayor – the most ardent anti-life jurist in decades, and you give him a pass. Then he voted for Sebelius at HHS – who is in favor of late-term abortions – and you give him a pass as well. Pro-life means just that. Perhaps we need to look at new leadership at NRTL–someone who actually understands the legislative process.

  5. GeosUser says:

    EBN doesn't have anything to worry about when he votes against Obamacare, for whatever reason. His vote won't matter and Reid isn't counting on it. The Senate Dems will get (aka buy) Collins and/or Snowe from Maine, thereby rendering EBN's vote meaningless. EBN's only calculation now is how much he can sell a yes vote for versus a shot at another term in the Senate.

  6. Concerned pro-life voter says:

    "Julie, will you commit to refusing future endorsements of Ben Nelson if he votes to invoke cloture on the health care bill without the Stupak amendment language attached?"

    Best post yet!!! Any answer Julie?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Nice to see EBN carry some water for the pro-life movement, especially after he endorsed and cut radio ads for Ken Haar in his 2008 legislative race. For those who don't know, Haar's wife is a honcho with Lincoln Planned Parenthood. Let's hope NRTL remembers THAT endorsement Ben gave the next time NRTL considers giving them theirs.

  8. Right Wing Professor says:

    Don Walton says that Nelson will definitely not vote for cloture without the Stupak-like amendment.

    Sen. Ben Nelson made it all but certain Wednesday that he won't be one of the 60 health care reform votes Democrats need if his abortion concerns are not addressed in the bill.

    When I heard about this alleged 'deal', however, I suspected the idea was not to get Nelson on board, but to get Snowe and Collins.

  9. Uncle Wiggily says:

    Bennie the Jet will vote "nay" – he knows he's safe because Olive Oyl Snowe will vote "Aye" … she is bought and paid for.

    Ben will look golden, Snowe will look … well … skinny and haggard, but nobody in Maine will care because they're used to it

    And the wheels on the bus go round and round.

    Everyone ready for Harry-care?

  10. Ricky says:

    Senator Johanns is irrelevant and a back bencher and Sen Nelson is a grandstanding Dem who represents only about two million citizens.
    Nelson's voice should not carry nearly as much weight as it apparently does.
    Health care legislation will pass, but with it being so watered down, will it be consequential?
    At least the Repukes will be denied a victory over my hero Obama.

    Ricky From Omaha

  11. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Anon 10:55 a.m. Okay, I'll bite. I'll trade you a Sotomayor vote for two: Roberts and Alito. Yeah, I'm sure you weren't on here praising Sen. Nelson for those. Sebelius: Sen.Brownback voted yes. What, he's not pro-life? And he's even from Kansas, should have known better. (Oh that's right, good GOP reasons for why they needed Sebelius out of KS and every pro-lifer I know is giving Brownback a pass there.)Diss the Stupak amendment in the House in favor of that "let's vote present on Stupak to kill the bill" plan? The one that garnered one vote? When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was coming out of the woodwork for Stupak? Guess they and every other credible national pro-life organization are politically naive too. New leadership at NRL? Still bitter over 2006? Take it up with my Board, the folks who just gave me a raise. Now, the point of my previous post was that Sen. Johanns seems capable of putting partisanship aside to work with Sen. Nelson. What part of NRLC and NRL's current efforts on healthcare suggest that we are giving Sen. Nelson a "pass" on voting against cloture?

  12. Anonymous says:

    Julie, you ignored the important question. Will you commit to refusing future endorsements of Ben Nelson if he votes to invoke cloture on the health care bill without the Stupak amendment language attached?

  13. Too Bad says:

    Who cares if Schmit-Albin got a raise, and who cares if the outfit she works for doesn't endorse Nelson. How pathetic that Nebraska voters would cast their votes on the basis of one issue. Maybe she should run for Nelson's seat. Or maybe Guyla Mills can move back and challenge him. We get what we deserve. And the Catholic church should be taxed as are all corporations that lobby Congress and get to write legislation.

  14. Macdaddy says:

    Nelson's political career is at an end. He's currently trying to decide if he wants to live in Nebraska or pull a Bob Kerrey. His vote will reflect that. The good Senator is starting with the wrong assumption: the government should be the steward of health care. Once you're ok with that, the rest is a charade.

  15. Pro Life Voter says:

    "Julie, you ignored the important question. Will you commit to refusing future endorsements of Ben Nelson if he votes to invoke cloture on the health care bill without the Stupak amendment language attached?"

    Whoever you are anonymous, I'm with you. If this isn't answered, many phone calls are going to being made. This is a line in the sand vote.

  16. Percy says:

    I would hope that Julie and the other NRTLers will support universal health care so that the life is not only protected before birth but after it as well. It is too bad that we can all agree that human life is sacred and worth protecting but then bash any politician who has the courage to say that we need to have health care as basic right afforded all citizens. To the GOP and NRTL it seems like pro life is a worthy goal as long as taxes don't go up. Bunch of hypocrites.

  17. Right Wing Professor says:

    I don't see how you can have a 'basic right' that requires the voluntary labor of another person.

    You are sick. You live on an island with one doctor, and that doctor, for whatever reason (maybe last week you tried to kill him) doesn't want to treat you. Should you be able to force him? How are you going to do that?

  18. Loafofhair says:

    Julie Schmit-Albin does not understand her role as a leader of an issue. Her job isn't to weigh the pros and cons of elected officials' waffling on issues. Her job is to be 100% for her issue.

    Instead, she waffles like a slimy politician, trying to justify why she climbed in bed with Ben Nelson (not literally, we presume).

    This isn't about Nelson's position on an issue. This is about his lack of sincerity that makes it impossible to trust him on any issue.

    A sincere Ben Nelson would not have any indecision on any issue that he truly felt was more important than his own future. But in Nelson's eyes, there is no issue more important than Nelson.

    This ultimately isn't about Pro Life. This is about how Nelson can best position himself so he makes the most personal gain from everything that happens around him while making it seem that he's doing the voters a big favor.

    How is this a surprise? Nelson made a career out of being impossibly conservative in a liberal party and impossibly Democrat in a mostly GOP state. To anyone with an ounce of brains, that is a dead giveaway that shows Nelson cares only about Nelson.

  19. macdaddy says:

    RWP, it goes even further than that. What does having a "right to healthcare" mean? Is it to a little health care? A lot? Do I get to go to the Mayo Clinic when I get sick and if not, why not? Some people get to. Why not me? Vaccinations and check-ups but no surgery? Surgery but only if it is life-threatening? If I have a right to a CAT scan, why not an MRI? Do I have a right to 24/7 in-home nursing care or do I get dumped in a nursing home where the ants and roaches steal the food off my tray. Are transplants included? Free medicine? How much should I have to pay if it is my right to have it? Currently, I pay nothing for the right to free speech or to go to church. I can plead the 5th for free. I can vote for free. Not being someone's slave is also free to me. But healthcare? Are some people more righteous than others? What are the criteria? I really would like to see someone try to flesh out this whole "healthcare is a right" meme with some careful thought and actual examples of what will happen were we to adopt it rather than some will-this-help-me-get-laid?-cocktail-party-cliche.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Medicare and Medicaid can't go to the Mayo unless they live in that state already. They don't like the varying reimbursement rate from state to state.

    If it passes, were screwed.

    Speaking of screwing things up, I saw a news piece on California's Model Cap and Trade Program (they have already implemented in out in LaLaLand), you can continue to pollute if you will plant trees in the rain forest or pay for coupons that the Government wants to sell you.

    Where are there treeless rainforests in our country? Am I missing something or is this just more redistribution of wealth? The government contends that the big companies can absorb the costs of the carbon credits,(in the millions and billions for some factories), the shareholders just get less return on their investment.

    Why don't they just come with me to my bank and put a gun to my head, it would be a lot more efficient, wouldn't it?

  21. Shoe Salesman says:

    Poor Mike Johanns. He's stuck out in the lobby reading newspapers while Ben Nelson is inside the room driving the train on abortion, insurance companies, and cost. MJ has to bring Nelson's clips to the floor for reading. How hilarious. Maybe if he's tired of reading Nelson's clips he can get Lee Terry's lobbyist/speechwriter to craft something more unoriginal.

  22. Nathan says:

    RWP and Macdaddy,
    A trial by jury is a 'basic right' of our democracy. Should we do away with those? All trials decided by throwing darts while blindfolded and leave it to chance? Voting is a 'basic right' of our democracy too. Some people volunteer for the voting thing, but others are forced to perform 'voluntary labor'. Any other basic tenents of our democracy you would like to disassemble? Thinking before typing aint a strong suit is it?

    Should the paramedics check your wallet for an insurance card before they take you to the hospital? Should they revive you for the purpose of getting your PIN number, that way they can make sure you can afford life saving treatment?

  23. Anonymous says:

    Did everyone see how they extended the 8K bonus to first time home buyers, the Senate voted to approve it 98 to 0.

    This 55+ medicare buy-in option will be so popular that the federal government will either expand it in a few years, either that or guarantee Democratic victories for the next few years until they do.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Under the new Health plan, why would anyone want to start Medicare at 55? Wouldn't that just make end of life counseling begin all the sooner?

    Some of the oldest and happiest people I know had a couple cocktails a day most everyday of their adult lives. Maybe we should just give everybody free drink tickets so they can get themselves good and "pickled".

    That'll work just as well as most of the lame-brained stuff the Dems are trying to swindle us with.

    As for Shoe? I am already bored with you and your dimwitted tactics-Goodbye.

  25. 2006? says:

    Hey Julie, what do you mean by "still bitter over 2006?" My recollection is that 2006 was a good year for pro-life… I'm confused.

  26. Right Wing Professor says:


    We administer trial by jury by forcing involuntary service on jurors. So can we take it that you wish to implement health care as a 'basic right' by forcing doctors and nurses to work?

    Thinking before you type is good, yes.

  27. Nathan says:

    Unlike you and Macidiot I did think before typing. I have no problem requiring doctors and nurses to treat sick patients. I am for a single payer system, and I think we'll get there eventually.

    Are you against Article 3 section 2?

  28. Karl says:

    Democracy is the road to socialism.

    -Karl Marx

    I'm glad nathan you would use democracy to force the labor of others for the prolitariat. Keep up the good work!!!

  29. Anonymous says:

    NYTimes reports that White's Medicare cuts will slam home health care w/38% cut–h.c. is one of the most cost effective ways of treating seniors.

    Tom White's plan—-> push srs back into nursing homes.

  30. Right Wing Professor says:

    Nathan sez: I have no problem requiring doctors and nurses to treat sick patients.

    Well, as a Democrat, it's unsurprising you have a problem with the 13th Amendment.

  31. bob says:

    Comrade Nathan:
    I have no problem putting you in my gulag and forcing you to dig coal for me. But thats okay because I use that coal to heat an orphanage. Isn't that nice? That kindly thought will keep you happy while you swing that pickaxe 12 hours a day. I am sure you don't mind being forced to work because it is all for the social good.

    Here's a news flash…..

    Sharing the wealth includes your wealth. And forcing "them" to work, includes forcing you to work. You are "them".

    You liberal thinkers are heavy on liberal and dangerously short on thinking.

  32. Uncle Wiggily says:

    "I have no problem requiring doctors and nurses to treat sick patients."

    The scariest blog comment I have read for a long, long time.

  33. Anonymous says:


    The $500 billion in cuts is misleading. It's the amount that is projected to be saved in medicare because patients having actual healthcare before they turn 65 will make them more healthy once entering medicare. This money, once saved, will fund other projects. Factcheck.org has a great piece on it. Go vote for Lee "122 Americans dying everyday is OK" Terry and vote against seniors.

  34. Nathan says:

    Newsflash to everybody, although I bet UW already knows this. Hospitals already are required to treat sick patients anyway (technically I guess they're not required, but there are heavy penalties if they dont). Its only for life saving treatment which is all I was talking about anyways. Look it up folks and get edjmuckateds.

    Article 3 Section 2 professor?

    And since you all seemingly had heart attacks, wasn't it the great hero of the right, Ronald Reagan, who forced railroad workers not to strike when they wanted to? Reagan was a communist I guess, who'd a thunk it. It was in 1987 if I recall correctly, look it up folks.

  35. Anonymous says:

    If Nelson doesn't kill the bill, he's going to lose my vote — that's certain. Lots of conservative Dems have voted for him in the past — that will be over, finished. CNN poll shows over 60% of Americans don't want the stinking hell care legislation.

  36. Where's Julie? says:

    Julie, why do you refuse to answer basic questions about core issues facing the life community? How can you expect elected officials to take courageous positions on life issues if you don't have the courage to answer such a fundamental question?

    It's a simple yes or no. Will you commit to refusing future endorsements of Ben Nelson if he votes to invoke cloture on the health care bill without the Stupak amendment language attached?

  37. macdaddy says:


    Since you think obviously that healthcare is a right, please enlighten us as to how that works in the real world. Because you're so much smarter than me. Anytime, now.

  38. Nathan says:

    Whatever you dont want is what we should go with Macdaddy. Mostly because its probably right and partly because you would have an ulcer because of it.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Only in a state like Nebraska with rampant knee-jerk conservatism could a complete joke like Lee Terry get elected, do absolutely nothing and get reelected for 10 years. Voters need to stop and think things through.

  40. macdaddy says:

    Nathan, come on back when you actually understand how any of this works. Your 7th grade Civics teacher wasn't real bright. You shouldn't have internalized his "wisdom."

  41. Right Wing Professor says:

    Hospitals are not doctors, Nathan. Doctors are mostly either sole proprietors or members of small corporations. Nowhere in our economy does the government force individuals to work according to the government's dictate. Even in the United Kingdom, with its state-owned and -run health care system, a doctor can set up a private practice and treat whomsoever he wants. Your proposal is more extreme than implemented in the most centralized health care systems in the world.
    It is totalitarianism, plain and simple.

    The experiment has already been run. It finally failed in 1989.

  42. Right Wing Professor says:

    Oh, Article 3 section 2. Sure we should have jury trials. However, the Constitution does not mandate forced jury duty, or indeed any system for selecting juries.

    The present system of impanelling juries is pretty bad. As some wit once put it "You're going to put your fate in the hands of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty?". Interestingly enough, though I've been a registered voter — and voted every election — the entire time I've been a US citizen, I've never been called.

    Most people don't care, because most of us will never have our fate in the hands of a jury. All of us, however, will need medical treatment at some stage in our lives, and I for one, don't want to be treated by a doctor working in a system of corvée labor.

  43. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    "Where's Julie" for you and others who want to draw me into a personal declaration on future endorsements in Senate races: Nebraska Right to Life's current message as regards Senator Nelson is to thank him for standing up on Nelson/Hatch and to ask him to stand firm on his public statements that he would vote against cloture if abortion language is not rectified in the healthcare legislation. That message is currently going out through several mediums to communicate to pro-life Nebraskans that yes, indeed, while we support his action on Nelson/Hatch we also expect him to follow through on his further public commitment. It remains to be seen whether Senator Nelson will run for re-election in 2012. The NRL PAC board makes any determination on endorsements and since I am but one member of that board it is not my decision and I don't have a crystal ball to see how the NRL PAC board will deal with the 2012 Senate race. Just as I don't know what determinations they will be making on 2010 races as they look at the circumstances in each race and weigh that with what they know from the NRL PAC survey, interviews, public record and actions of each candidate.

  44. Where's Julie? says:


    I suspect that you would be outraged if an elected official answered such a basic life question in the convoluted way you responded.

    Since you won't answer for the PAC board, maybe you will be willing to set a standard for yourself? Considering the level of adoration that you say the NRL board has for you, I would think they would take your opinion very seriously.

    So, Julie Schmit-Albin, will you commit to recommending to the NRL PAC board that they refuse endorsement of Ben Nelson if he votes to invoke cloture on the health care bill without the Stupak amendment language attached?

  45. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Give it up "Where's Julie?" I'm not an elected official/candidate seeking office and PAC endorsements. I'm under no obligation to an anonymous person on a blog to pledge to some oath, whether you are a donor/member/supporter of Nebraska Right to Life or not. The time for deliberations on endorsements in 2012 races will be taken up in 2012 by NRL PAC. First we have to get through the 2010 cycle, perhaps there is a candidate(s)coming up then that you have a burning desire to go after.

  46. Where's Julie? says:


    It's not that complicated. It doesn't matter if Ben Nelson is up in 2010 or 2100. The vote will be happening in a few weeks. Or is it your position that elected officials will only be judged on votes taken in the last few months of their term?

    Just to confirm. You are refusing to make a statement regarding the consequences of elected officials voting for a bill that will result in taxpayer dollars being used to fund abortions?

  47. Anonymous says:

    So the so called "pro life" right would have no problem with a doctor or hospital refusing care and letting a patient die. wow. This is what we get when pure capitalism rules the decision making. That's why the public cleaned house on all the conservatives because they started to see through the so called compassionate conservatism that y'all have been preaching but not practicing. Since Medicare seems to be so socialistic to the right that's what they will go after if they ever get back into power.

  48. Tired of Progressive Pansies says:

    To the Anonymous jack ass above: Socialized medicine countries kill thousands of people everyday using rationing and not screening for cancer and other diseases until it is too late. Britain has a very high cancer mortality rate!!!!

  49. Brian T. Osborn says:

    To the Jackass above, aka "Tired of Progressive Pansies": Please supply us with a credible source of information that backs up you claim. I'm sorry, but you have pegged my B.S. meter.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Here is the pro life stance in regards to health care as outlined by US Council of Catholic Bishops.

    Health care reform must include a
    a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity; access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of immigrants; pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
    restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

    So the GOP considers the bishops a bunch of progressive pansy jackasses. Nice.
    So it is obvious that the Nebraska delegation is not truly pro life when it comes to health care reform.

  51. Tired of Progressive Pansies says:


    Britain has among worst cancer survival rates in developed world
    Britain has among the worst cancer and heart attack survival rates in the developed world, according to an international survey.

    By Matthew Moore
    Published: 7:30AM GMT 09 Dec 2009

    Healthcare standards in this country are worse than many former communist states despite billions of pounds of extra funding being pumped into the NHS under Labour, the figures indicate.

    The report by the Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development compared medical data and spending across European countries plus the United States, Mexico, Japan and South Korea.

    Women 'more worried about their weight than cancer'Britain came in second bottom of its bowel cancer survival league table, with only patients in the Czech Republic less likely to be alive five years after diagnosis. The survival rate in Britain was 51.6 per cent, compared with an OECD average of 57.4 per cent and 65.5 per cent in the US.

    There was more…BTO

  52. Dick Morris says:

    By Dick Morris 12.2.2009 As the Congress prepared to vote to let us enter the world of waits for doctors, waits for specialists, waits for testing and waits for surgery, radiation and chemo — we should pause to consider the relative records of the private medical care system in the United States with the socialized system in the U.K.

    In 2008, Britain had a cancer death rate 0.25% while the United States had a rate of only 0.18%. The UK cancer death rate was 38% higher than in the United States.

    The Guardian, the UK’s left wing daily, estimated that “up to 10,000 people” are dying each year of cancer “because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government’s director of cancer services.” While many people die because of late detection due to their own negligence, there is no reason to believe this self-neglect is more common in the UK than in the US.

    In Canada, the cancer death rate is 16% higher than in the United States.

  53. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Ah, yes, the U K Telegraph. Isn't that the paper that recently published the unbelievably wrong information about global warming? And Dick Morris, go back to sucking toes and quit polluting the news media.

  54. Anonymous says:

    Anon 6:46–pls check the facts.

    The CSMS report on the Sen. bill concludes it would spend $234 bil. more than current law over 10 years.

    Your Dem. plan doesn't bend the cost curve–it actually increases costs above current policies.

    Medicare is cut $500 billion to fund a portion of it. $400 bil. in taxes are also raised.

    I'm glad Tom White endorsed the approach.

  55. Anonymous says:

    BTO–glad to see you are posting on this fine Saturday!

    How'd you guys do this week in recruting a Dem candidate for Gov?

  56. Anonymous says:


    Does anyone here know if either political party entered an election year w/out an announced candidate for Gov, LT Gov, Treas., AG or Auditor?

    Has this ever happened before–or has the NDP just cratered? Nice to see all of the residual effects of Obamamania…

  57. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Anony 3;10/3:12,
    You need to get some new material. Telling the punch line the same tired joke over and over and over and over and … gets old.
    We got it the first time.

  58. Right Wing Professor says:


    Eurocare has consistently shown far lower cancer survival rates for the UK than for the rest of the developed world. The British are acutely aware of and concerned about it. When I get to my office on Monday, I can post peer reviewed studies on it. But if I post the references, will you look them up?

    If you want to take a stand on socialized medicine, use Canada, which does not do quite as well on cancer survival as the US, but is far better than the UK.

  59. Brian T. Osborn says:


    I'll look 'em up, as I always do (damn, this politics stuff is taking up too much of my life). While you're at it, see if you've got anything on France.

    By the way, my cousins that live in Canada disagree with all those that say their health care system sucks. But then, what do they know? They don't listen to Limpballs and Beck.

  60. Too Bad says:

    @ Uncle Wiggily 6:02: Really?

    Why not treat medicine as a professional service. . . You don't have to produce a valid credit card when you call the fire department, for instance. It works in the real world, macdaddy. Cancer mortality rates notwithstanding, there is no way citizens of nations w/national health care would switch to the United States' system of disease care. They laugh at us for throwing stones from our glass house.

    As for costs, this is brand-new and interesting:


    "Medicare for all" would actually save money. It would create surpluses. And think of what it would mean for our economic engines if private business were freed from having to provide health insurance for employees.

  61. macdaddy says:

    Too bad, Too Bad, but just asserting that "it works" doesn't make it so. I asked specifically how this whole "health care is a right" thing works in real life and no one is either willing or able to give me an answer beyond something that they saw on a bumper sticker. It doesn't work in other countries without rationing as evidenced by what's going on in Canada, the UK, Germany, and yes, even France. Oh, and there are some high taxes that go along with that rationing as well. In other words, you don't get what you pay for even though it is your "right" to get healthcare. In other words, in reality, the government determines your rights and so it isn't really a right but a whim.

    As for expanding Medicare, CMS, which is Medicare, says doing that will increase healthcare costs by $250 billion. So much for bending the cost curve down.

  62. Anonymous says:

    the only thing I hear Julie Schmidt Albin talking about as "PRO" life is my uterus and the fetus that may or may not come out of it. I never hear about the man's contribution to this life or for that fact do I ever hear her advocate for seniors as part of the life cycle. Nursing homes are
    corporately owned that are full of abuse, neglect and negligence. How PRO is that life?

    I heard her on Chippy's show yesterday talking about how close she is with Nelson. How sweet. What's her take on what the male's responsibility should be? Never hear, yet I'm betting they had something to do with the matter.

    Ben Nelson manages to promote himself as a Democrat, yet is as vanilla as they come in terms of making a stand that isn't politically to his benefit. He knew he was in deep waters with his vote to carry forth discussion on health care so he had to CYA plenty to pull off his PRO life position and please that vocal minority.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Rats jumping from the ship

    Maybe that's what will start to happen w/the D's if the CBO ###s on the latest Senate idea are as bad as some think.

    We'll know more Mon/Tues

    Throw 'em a liferaft BTO!

  64. Anonymous says:

    It's laughable for some to think that giving health care away for free will do anything but escalate the total cost. The only way to control the cost of health care in this country is to control demand. The only way to control demand is to make everyone pay something for each service received.

  65. Anonymous says:

    A study a few months ago showed the US has good cancer survival rates…..if you have insurance. If you don't, it's down to around 40-50%. So only if you can pay for it can you get treatment. Otherwise, they want you to die quickly.

    As for the Dems, Jim Rogers is paid over $4000 a month and the party is broke. Go figure.

    I hate both Republicans and Democrats, by the way.

  66. Anonymous says:

    As long as Ben Nelson is running the show the Nebraska Democratic Party will always be broke. No one will contribute to it if they think a dime of their donation might help him.

  67. Anonymous says:

    Anon 10:16–thanks for the info. It seems to me that even $4k/month is too much for what the NDP is getting from Rogers. I mean, jeez, they can't even scrounge up one no-name candidate? Embarassing.

  68. Anonymous says:

    Maybe the front office at NDP will get the message if people withhold contributions for a while. Just a thought–they need a reality check of how angry people in the field are at NDP operations.

  69. Right Wing Professor says:


    The paper is "Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD)", authors Coleman et al, Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 730–56.

    When I retrieved it, it was open source.

    The US scored higher than almost every other country in the developed world on all four kinds of cancer studied. Canada was below the US on all four, but never by very much. France did OK on three of the four (even scoring slightly ahead of us in colorectal cancer of women) but badly on prostate cancer. The UK scored below the weighted international average on all four.

  70. Anonymous says:

    @10:25PM – Ben Nelson is so bad he's got a 60% approval rating, same level as the governor, in a liberal-ran poll. And there are a lot of people who have walked away from the party and stopped contributing, including a lot of big dollar donors, and it had everything to do with the current leadership and their incompetence. Where is the candidate for Governor? Nobody wants to run in a party ran by Vic Covalt.

    @7:14AM – The info was on the publically available FEC reports. And don't blame it all on Rogers. He's stuck doing whatever the leadership lets him do. But a party can't raise money if they don't do regular fundraising drives.

  71. Anonymous says:

    Anon 11:27–thanks for the FEC info. I wonder if the $4,000/mnth is only part of Rogers' salary atributable to federal activities. If so, is Rogers making $6k or $7k/mnth? For what…

  72. Anonymous says:

    Anyone who doesn't think that Vic Covalt and Jim Rogers have put together a winning NDP must be completely oblivious to the spring city elections. The Democrats made a clean sweep and now control the city council and mayor's office in the two largest cities. Instead of Mark Fahleson admitting that he misjudged the races he said the losses were "candidate specific" and basically threw Svoboda and Daub under a bus.

  73. Anonymous says:

    The Dems won because it was shortly after all the hard work for the 2008 elections. You can thank the Obama campaign and the coordinated campaign they were part of with the NDP, including those involved at the party at the time. If you hadn't had that, you would have lost the city elections.

    With that, if the NDP was in such great shape, why are they broke all the sudden and can't get a candidate for Governor? You can try to blame Nelson, but he's got a lot of support in this state and has a high approval rating. Right now with health care, not matter what he does, he'll have about 30% of the people turning their backs on him. That leaves 70% still approving of him.

  74. Anonymous says:

    Ben Nelson is not going to get re-elected in 2012 anyway. After this Dem controlled congress has behaved like a drunken sailor with a check book all year Nebraskans wont elect another Dem for a long time. Trust me… I live there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.