This is something me and a lot of the opposing factors to the latest HCR bill saw coming the other night when Democrats caved to Lieberman:
Nelson's key points:
- Asked if he would vote for cloture even if his initiative to restrict abortion were adopted, Nelson flatly said "no."
- Nelson not only said a vote before Christmas was not feasible, he joked about it taking until next Christmas.
- Nelson said unless the bill's Medicaid expansion provisions were made optional he would oppose cloture.
- Nelson said the bill's revenue provisions were unacceptable because the economy was bad.
- Nelson said because the subsidies which provide the bill's coverage expansion couldn't be paid for without additional revenue, they needed to be "scaled-back"
- Nelson also that unless cost control were addressed first, coverage couldn't be expanded.
So if the Medicaid expansion becomes optional then what about mandates? If Ohio decides to drop out and leave our current Medicaid requirement at 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), does that means someone at 101% of the FPL will now have to fork over for insurance? And if the answer to that is yes, then how much out of pocket will they pay for it with Nelson’s desires to scale back subsidies?
Honestly I can’t blame Nelson for this move one bit. He saw Lieberman get exactly what he wanted, so why not go for what he wants. It’s the same thing any of us would do, and the result of a weak Democratic leadership who has set a precedent to cave to these types of demands. So don’t go blaming Nelson for this – blame the Democrats, including the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.