In 2009 Ben Nelson literally gave President Barack Obama the 60th and final vote for a government-run healthcare bill that raised taxes by $500 billion, cut $500 billion from Medicare and forced every American to purchase health insurance.
Fortunately the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals – which was comprised of two judges who were nominated by President Bill Clinton and one judge who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush – ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional.
As the Washington Examiner reports:
“A federal appeals court has ruled that the national health care law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, calling it “an unprecedented exercise of congressional power.” The 11th Circuit, which was hearing the case brought by 26 states led by Florida and the National Federation of Independent Business concluded: that the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power.”
“Despite his continued attempts to defend ObamaCare, yet another federal court confirmed today that Ben Nelson’s individual mandate is unconstitutional,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Jahan Wilcox. “Once again, Ben Nelson’s Washington record puts him at odds with Nebraskans and with the law.”
Background Information:
BEN NELSON STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
In September 2009, Nelson Said It Was “Important” That Health Care Be “Compulsory.” SIEGEL: “When you spoke of the extension of coverage, do you mean by that that you support, in principle, the idea of mandates and that individuals and employers be required to purchase health insurance?” SEN. NELSON: “Well, I think it’s important that it’d be compulsory. I don’t particularly like the idea of calling it a mandate. We have compulsory auto liability coverage in America today in virtually every state.” (NPR’s, “All Things Considered,” 9/11/09)
When Questioned On The Difference Between A Mandate And Making Something Compulsory, Nelson Questioned “Why Do We Invent New Words?” SIEGEL: “But is there any more than a semantic distinction between something that’s compulsory and something that’s mandated?” SEN. NELSON: “Well, let’s put it this way – we already have a word that outlines exactly what it is and why it exists. Why do we invent new words? To me, understanding that this is essentially an insurance issue, is important to get away from the idea that there’s too much government involvement in it. We already have that kind of government involvement in mandating compulsory auto insurance. Why don’t we talk about it the same way so that people understand, oh, it’s just about like that. Then you get away from all the discussions and the arguments about whether it’s too much government or not.” (NPR’s, “All Things Considered,” 9/11/09)
In March 2010, Nelson Voted To Kill An Amendment That Would Have Removed The Individual Mandate From The Health Care Bill. “Baucus, D-Mont., motion to table (kill) the Ensign, R-Nev. amendment no. 3710 that would repeal provisions of the 2010 health care overhaul law that provide for IRS penalties for certain taxpayers that do not obtain basic health insurance coverage.” (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #101: Motion agreed to 58-40: R 0-40; D 56-0; I 2-0, 3/25/10, Nelson Voted Yea)
In October 2009, Nelson Said The Health Care Bill “Won’t Work” Without The Individual Mandate. “Moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, aren’t keen on the idea of a mandate, either, but they understand the goal. ‘I have a problem mandating it, but I also have a pretty clear understanding that if you don’t get virtually everybody into the plan, then the law of large numbers … won’t work,’ Mr. Nelson said. ‘Then you’ll be raising premiums for people who are already in a plan to take care of those who are sick.’” (Jennifer Haberkorn, “Enforced Coverage Imperils Health Bill,” The Washington Times, 10/7/09)
In December 2009, Nelson Said Requiring People To Buy Health Insurance Is No Different Than Requiring Them To Buy Any Other Type Of Insurance. “Mr. Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat who was the key 60th vote to advance Democrats’ bill, said he viewed the constitutional objection less as a philosophical issue and more as one of many roadblocks opponents are throwing in front of the bill. He said nobody challenges where Medicare is specifically allowed by the Constitution, and said requiring individuals to buy coverage is no different than other types of insurance.” (Stephen Dinan, “Health Bill Faces Constitutional Challenge,” The Washington Times, 12/23/09)
In October 2009, Nelson Cited The Lack Of A Mandate As One Of His Concerns With The Senate Finance Committee’s Bill. “Sen. Ben Nelson said Wednesday he’s not sure he would have supported the health care reform package that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee. … With no prohibition for pre-existing health conditions, no rescission of coverage and no rates based on health conditions, he said, insurance providers need an expanded pool. But the legislation does not mandate universal coverage, Nelson said.” (Don Walton, “Nelson Is Wary Of Finance Health Bill,” Lincoln Journal Star, 10/15/09)
