Nebraskans, your action is NECESSARY.
Please see the bottom of the article for:
- FLYER to download, read, share, print, and distribute
Are YOU among the majority of Nebraskans opposed to “ObamaCare”? If so, YOU should be keenly interested in the Medicaid Expansion bill, LB577, and alerting people you know to WAKE UP now about it and the whole issue of health care implementation.
The fight to stop the health care law is NOT over.
It’s moved right into Nebraska.
Those of us behind the scenes here at GiN, have had a running debate since the beginning of February about WHY crickets seem to be chirping about the proposed Medicaid expansion. If ANYONE reading this would like to provide insight about the lack of interest, our inquiring minds truly would love to know, so, PLEASE use the comment form at the bottom of this article, or use the contact form (here) to send us a message.
One confusing factor: as recently as October 2012, even Omaha-World Herald’s polling reported a firm majority of Nebraskans – 54.5% – favored REPEAL of “ObamaCare” a.k.a. the health care law. I said “even”, because the polls commissioned by OWH are notoriously skewed. For some evidence of that assertion, be sure to read the footnotes1 First, here are complete results of the OWH, October 2012 “ObamaCare” poll: 54.5% favor repeal, 38.6% oppose repeal, 6.9% undecided. ...continue. The Oct. 2012 poll could be viewed as underplaying the level of opposition across the state. It’s difficult to know, as the only prior comparison is from October 2011: Public Policy Polling found that 60% of respondents (all Nebraskans) opposed “ObamaCare”.
No matter what the current sentiments across the state, earlier opposition has diminished to a degree: immediately following the now-infamous “Cornhusker Kickback”, a CBS poll showed 64% of Nebraskans opposed the proposed health care bill, and a Tarrance poll showed 67% of Nebraskans opposed it. Considering all of the things mentioned, I’ve been wondering all over again, just WHY it is that Nebraskans turned against Ben Nelson:
- Was it national embarrassment only?
- Was it a belief that all would be well if he was gone?
- Was it a full “purge” of anger about the health care law, and then…move on?
OR, did it truly constitute a rejection of Nelson MOSTLY because of the health care law? One would think so, considering the polls and typical incumbent re-election percentages. Nelson’s forced “retirement” is even more unusual because he was not the average incumbent: it’s especially difficult to remove a sitting official from a rural state who has a long history in politics and significant influence in D.C.
I’ve actually had the unusual opportunity to witness the ousting of two such incumbents, and find the comparison instructive. As a member of a South Dakota county GOP executive board in 2004, I endorsed the objective to “Dump Daschle”. Voters unseated the Senate Minority Leader, something which hadn’t occurred since 19522 Among our Union County GOP priorities in 2004, was the objective to “DUMP DASCHLE”. South Dakotans had become increasingly fed up with ...continue. Tom Daschle’s ouster came four years after a particularly embarrassing incident that made national news (see footnote 2), indicating voters turned against him for many reasons.
Can the same thing be said about Nebraska’s ousting of an influential Senator? Nelson’s reputation within his home state was never as tarnished as Tom Daschle’s, mostly due to Nebraska traditional media protection of his reputation3 I’m going to cite my own memory: I had a personal interest in trying to understand what Ben Nelson was all about. Having lived through the ...continue It’s recently occurred to me the lack of full understanding by Nebraskans about their former Senator is a huge problem.
Of course, a majority of Nebraskans DO know that the political calculi for Nelson included that infamous Kickback, a huge pot of money to pay for ads in Nebraska to help rehabilitate his reputation in time for his re-election in 2012 AND an expectation that memories would fade by 2012.
BUT, few Nebraskans seem to know that the “Cornhusker Kickback” included many goodies for insurance companies (especially “the Blues”), and a contingency career plan (more on that to come).
Ben Nelson seemingly went off into the sunset.
I say seemingly, because, at the very least, through his “legacy”, Nelson remains a problematic factor for Nebraskans.
In the inner circles of Nebraska politics – I’ve been told by more than one source – it’s well known, that State Senator Jeremy Nordquist (and another young Omaha Democratic State Senator, Health Mello) are closely connected to, influenced and supported by Ben Nelson and his network of resources.
The reports I’ve received line up with the fact that Nordquist has been leading the Democratic charge within the state to implement the health care law since 2009. In addition, Nordquist’s history with the media alone, beginning immediately following his first election in 2008, clearly indicates his network of influence far exceeds what one might expect, considering all.
I mention Ben Nelson’s protege because his ability to do damage to Nebraskans has always been greater than his mentor’s. Why?
Nordquist’s conduct as a legislator is ethically repugnant, yet his conflict-of-interest-riddled advocacy for imposing the health care law on Nebraskans rages on, unchecked.
BUT, EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, pointing out Nordquist is just one way to draw a attention to the following facts…
- State Senators have much more impact on citizens’ daily lives, pocketbooks, and freedoms than U.S. Senators.
- Lack of scrutiny and attention from Nebraskans has resulted in a lack of accountability from STATE OFFICIALS for their conduct, policies, and votes.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1. Regardless of the reasons for the lack of interest in the issue, Nebraskans need to WAKE UP, if they ever really cared about the health care law.
2. The fight about “ObamaCare”, the implementation of the health care law is NOT over and it’s actually come HOME, to Nebraska, where it’s much easier to fight.
3. The IMMEDIATE PROBLEMS ARE, in order of importance:
Nebraska State Senators
- LB577, the Medicaid Expansion bill
- Governor Dave Heineman
- Attorney General Jon Bruning
- Nebraska Republican Party
Download, read, send by email, share online, print and distribute the flyer, images for which are embedded below – click either of the images to download / view the PDF version:
Please consider doing at least the MINIMUM recommended actions on the flyer and to urge at least two or three people you know to do the same
In addition to the basic information on the flyer, if you aren’t informed about LB577 and would like to be, Linda has written a well-researched series, all linked from here:
- NE Medicaid Expansion: The Race is On
- Let’s See What Condition Our Condition is In
- People Don’t Walk Away From a Fool and His Money
- Sending Granny (and Gramps) to the Home
- Congratulations! She’s Having His Baby . . . And You’re Paying for It!
- Families Need Medicaid Like Fish Need Bicycles
- Money for Nothing and Health Care for Free
- Projections re Cost of Medicaid Expansion: Too Good to Be True
- LB577: Nebraska’s Unaffordable Care Act
- Pelosian Economics: Medicaid Expansion as Fiscal Stimulus
AGAIN, let us know why YOU think Nebraskans are demonstrating so little interest in the subject of ObamaCare and its implementation.
Stayed tuned for updated information about last Thursday’s hearing, which we’re working on publishing.
Notes & References [ + ]
|1.||↑||First, here are complete results of the OWH, October 2012 “ObamaCare” poll: 54.5% favor repeal, 38.6% oppose repeal, 6.9% undecided. Regarding inaccuracy of OWH polls in 2012, one need only examine the last polls commissioned before November 6, 2012, (most were conducted October 23 – 26, 2012) and contrast them to actual Election Day outcomes. In the U.S. Senate race, OWH’s final poll reported 48% Fischer, 45% Kerrey, 7% Undecided. OWH’s report of the actual results: 58% Fischer, 42% Kerrey. OWH’s poll predicted that Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District would vote 49% Romney, 44% Obama, 7% Other. Official result was 53% Romney, 46% Obama, 1.17% Others (NOTE: I had a hard time finding that particular official result, resorting to doing my own calculations using the NE Secretary of State’s numbers. That link is provided, so if you are curious enough to crunch numbers, PLEASE, inform me of any possible error, thank you). For Nebraska overall in the Presidential race, OWH polls showed 52% Romney, 38% Obama, 10% Undecided. Official result was 60.5% Romney, 37.8% Obama, 1.7% Others. The 2nd District Congressional race is the “outlier” among OWH polls, sort of. Reporting with a headline, “Ewing makes big gains against Terry in 2nd District race”, OWH reported 47.5% Terry, 41.6% Ewing, and comparing those results from the previous month of 50.5% Terry, 37.6% Ewing. The actual Election Day results were far closer: 50.8% Terry, 49.2% Ewing.|
|2.||↑||Among our Union County GOP priorities in 2004, was the objective to “DUMP DASCHLE”. South Dakotans had become increasingly fed up with the manifestations of left-wing nonsense from the supposedly “blue dog Democrat”, Tom Daschle. The last straws for voters in the state included Daschle’s highly public series of stunts associated with the 2000 Election, which foolishly supported Al Gore’s damaging decision to keep recounting chads in cherry-picked counties until he obtained a number he liked. South Dakotans had voted for George W. Bush by 60%+. South Dakotans sent Daschle packing in 2004, despite his influential position as Senate Minority Leader (his tenure immediately preceded that of Harry Reid).|
|3.||↑||I’m going to cite my own memory: I had a personal interest in trying to understand what Ben Nelson was all about. Having lived through the whole Tom Daschle saga, assertions by my “Kennedy Democrat” grandfather, who lives in Ralston, that Ben Nelson was a “Blue Dog Democrat”, really piqued my curiosity. Was there really such a creature as my grandfather described? After four or five years of observation, I distinctly observed a pattern: Nebraska media reports about Nelson would feature the fact that he was going to vote NO on something, that he was the last hold out on some issue, was part of a “gang of six” (or four, twelve, eight…whatever), and on and on, but, when Nelson frequently did precisely what he said he wasn’t going to do in the first place (reported by national media), there didn’t seem to be reports within Nebraska press about the result of his vote very often, and even if the follow-up occurred, the explanation was spun to make it appear as if Nelson’s “reluctance” was vital to making very important improvements to the legislation.|