Healthcare vote may wound some Dems, like Ben Nelson

December 29, 2009

Truly shocking numbers on  Sen. Ben “60th Vote” Nelson from Rasmussen:

The good news for Senator Ben Nelson is that he doesn’t have to face Nebraska voters until 2012.

If Governor Dave Heineman challenges Nelson for the Senate job, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the Republican would get 61% of the vote while Nelson would get just 30%. Nelson was reelected to a second Senate term in 2006 with 64% of the vote.

Nelson’s health care vote is clearly dragging his numbers down. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan. Overall, 64% oppose the health care legislation, including 53% who are Strongly Opposed. In Nebraska, opposition is even stronger than it is nationally.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters in the state believe that passage of the legislation will hurt the quality of care, and 62% say it will raise costs.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

It is absolutely astonishing to me how health care legislation can pass despite such huge public opposition. The left wing ideologues in the Congress don’t give a damn what the public thinks, they’re determined to ram this thing down our throats no matter what the cost because they think they know what’s best for the rest of us. That’s the leftist way of thinking

But the political cost to the Democrats is potentially huge. The breadth of anger throughout the country at what this Congress is doing to us may well energize the vote in 2010 to go against them bigtime. Nancy Pelosi apparently doesn’t care about that, she’s willing to sacrifice a big chunk of her caucus in return for a ‘historic’ health care bill. Well, the rest of us do care and we look forward to an electoral rout that moves the Congress back to the more sensible center-right.

Posted by Bill, Fairfax, VA | Report as abusive

Health care costs could be drastically reduced, if a “no fault” health insurance option be made available, for people that are not intent on sueing their health care providers.It seems obvious that the legal profession is responsible for skyrocketing costs.

Posted by Gerardus Gieskens | Report as abusive

To keep a job say no and to lost a job say yes and to know something before it completed well lets go there and find out what happen in 2010 since one speak for a many people.

Posted by willie | Report as abusive

Even though “past performance is not indicative of future results”, it feels like we’re going to see in 2010 the repeat of 1994. Remember the Dem majorities in both houses, newly elected smooth-talking and extremely telegenic Prez, all the talks about the healthcare reform – and then the news on the morning after elections that were like a sobering bucket of water in the face of the liberals. It’s not a question if the Dems will lose the 2010, the question is by how many seats.

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive

The main issue here is that the Democrats have bound themselves in to this reform.

They wanted bipartisan support, to keep them safe. But in the end, they now have to go it alone.

If the reforms never happen, they look like fools. If it happens but doesn’t work, they get eaten alive in the next election. If it happens and works, they have to figure out how to finance it.

The main issue will be the next election. If Obama can be reelected, then it will not matter to the democrats if these reforms fail during the second term.

But if the reforms fail prior to the next election, Obama will be a one termer, and a historic failure. Something which will stick on the Democrats like mud.

Posted by Defcon | Report as abusive

What I have seen over my 23 yr career is that it has become popular to blame the doctor and beat up on him. While my costs of practice have increased expotntially since 1987, my payment for services has been decreased to where it is 1/3rd what it was in 1987. With an anticipated 22% decrease in payment from Medicare physicians can not continue to practice and provide seervice. What you don’t realize is that physicians may not be able to continue to supply you with care given these economics. As an example, in 2005 my liability insurance costs $80,000 per year. As a busy general surgeon doing 400 operations a year, my cost per case just for insurance was $200. The State of Illinois would pay approx $300 for a hernia repair. From the remaining $100, I would have to pay my staff, rent, lights and other expenses for the business. A Surgeon would loose money on providing this type of service which ultimately puts us out of business. Medicare is no different.

My point is this, if the American public wants to continue to “beat up” on its physicians and think that we all make too much money, they won’t have access to care. Many of my colleagues who are near retirement will retire and with the cost of education for medical school being typically $200-250,000, America is not training and educating enough physicians. You the public will not have doctors who are american born and trained to take care of you at any price. We all will have quit.

My advise to my kids, “Don’t go into Medicine”

Who will take care of you the next time your appendix ruptures or you get hit broadside in your car by a truck?

Posted by Gregory A Bohn, MD FACS | Report as abusive

Dr. Bohn,
I red somewhere that some docs, particularly ob/gyn surgeons, are working for about 1/2 year just to cover malpractice insurance, but it looks like you have it even worse – it’s 2/3. Working just for coverage from January thtough August – it’s completely ridiculous. If there’s any place for public insurance option, it’s right there – in malpractice insurance. Maybe if Uncle Sam himself becomes the target of trial lawyers, he’ll be able to keep them back, and the costs of coverage more reasonable then they are now.

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive