First, let's see what Nelson got:
Changes for Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)Other courtesans scored big, too:
Nelson secured more than just 100% federal funding for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion, the list of “sweeteners” (also called the “Cornhusker kickback” by Senate Republicans) includes:
• An exemption from the insurance tax for Nebraska non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that only applies to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Nebraska (and Michigan). According to news reports, Nelson’s office states that BCBS “would pay between $15 million and $20 million less in fees under the Senate bill than it would have without a change.”
• An exemption from taxes for Medicare supplemental (“Medigap”) insurance providers. Specifically, Mutual of Omaha, will not have to pay taxes on Medigap insurance, while reports also indicate that this tax break will be extended to other companies.
• Some changes requested by Nelson would benefit people across the country, such as the inflation adjustment to the $2,500 cap on tax-exempt contributions to Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs) and exemptions for nearly 55 physician-owned hospitals that have a provider agreement to participate in Medicare by August 1, 2010 (pushed back from February 1, 2010).
Changes for Sen. Levin (Michigan)
• According to reports, Like Nelson, Levin sought an exemption from the $6 billion annual fee for non-profits, as non-profit insurers make up 76% of industry profits, but drew opposition from liberals. Ultimately, Levin got an exemption from the insurance tax for Michigan non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that applies to Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Michigan (and Nebraska).
• Furthermore, the amendment changes the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Michigan (as well as Connecticut) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.
Changes for Sen. Landrieu (Louisiana):
• Landrieu was one of the first Senators to secure a sweetheart deal, aptly nicknamed the “Louisiana Purchase”; she traded her support for bringing the bill to the floor for a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The underlying bill was cryptically written to increase federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” during the past 7 years that have been declared a “major disaster area” — and is meant to replenish the decrease in federal money resulting from an “abnormally inflated” per capita income in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. This was due to an influx of insurance dollars, federal grants and increased labor wages.
Changes for Sen. Sanders (Vermont):Meanwhile, Max Baucus, Reid's traffic cop who was most recently noted for his dalliance with a staffer, got a little something for the effort, too:
In addition the Vermont FMAP increase, the amendment includes a provision pushed by Sanders to provide an additional $10 billion in funding for community health centers and the National Health Services Corps which he argues would provide primary care to 25 million more people.
Changes for Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida)
As noted above, Nelson was able to secure a deal to keep Medicare Advantage plans enrollees in Florida grandfathered in. Notably, when McCain tried to offer an amendment to allow all enrollees to be grandfathered in, 57 Democrats voted against it.
Changes for Hawaii: The Manager’s Amendment singles out Hawaii as the only state to receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) extension.
Changes for Sen. Lieberman (Connecticut): It amends the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Connecticut (as well as Michigan) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.
Changes for Sen. Dodd (Connecticut): It was a mystery until just revealed that Chris Dodd’s state will benefit from a cryptically awarded $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” at a public research university that contains a state’s sole public academic medical and dental school—criteria designed to apply to the University of Connecticut.
Changes for Sen. Baucus (Montana):Let's set aside how horribly unseemly all this is for a moment. Here's the question: if congressional courtesans from other states are getting paid, what the hell did Franken and Klobuchar get for us? Near as I can tell, all Franken got was a chance to garner the applause of the harp seals in the Netroots when he decided to gavel down Joe Lieberman. And based on the available evidence, Klobuchar got to enjoy some bean dip or something at the Obama Super Bowl party.
• Baucus secured a pilot program in the amendment to “provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care” to certain qualified individuals. A qualified individual “is an environmental exposure affected individual…who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” And who might these select few individuals be? Well, according to EPA, “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a Public Health Emergency (PHE) finding at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site in northwest Montana.” This provision would help residents of Libby by allowing them to sign up for Medicare benefits.
C'mon guys -- you need to do better than that. Harry's spreading the money around. Don't just give it to him for free!
20 comments:
How is any of this change I can believe in? Cronyism, Patronage, Insincerity and Spending are the By words of this corrupt Congress, and the Corrupt President who sprang forth from the Corrupt Congress.
If Republicans don't do as much pork laced ear-marked legislation, it's only because they aren't as good at it.
How is it fair that Nebraska is exempt for certain costs forcing other to subsidize their expemption. The guess is here that it's not fair, leading to either a court challenge, or a serious price to pay in the fast coming next election cycle.
Franken was already bought and paid for through Acorn contributions; no need to throw him or Minnesota a tip.
"Let's set aside how horribly unseemly all this is for a moment."
Because horse-trading and compromise didn't exist in Congress before 2009? If your only complaint here is that your Senators didn't get anything in the negotiations, I understand the post. But if you are implying that something has dramatically changed in the way Congress does business, you'll have to explain.
Rich
Because horse-trading and compromise didn't exist in Congress before 2009?
Notice the type of horse trading going on. Some of it is payola, but a lot of it is rent seeking and getting protection from the laws that will be presumably promulgated here. Floridians get to keep their Medicare Advantage, but the rest of the country gets to pound sand?
That doesn't trouble you, Rich? I'd always thought that liberals were really big on the idea of equal protection and weren't too keen about legislators carving out exemptions and whatnot. Right?
But if you are implying that something has dramatically changed in the way Congress does business, you'll have to explain.
Well, one thing has changed for sure -- legislators used to be embarrassed to admit that they were doing shit like this. Based on what I've read, Harry Reid couldn't be more proud....
Rich, does it bother you to be constantly put in the position of having to defend such behavior? Because you don't seem to be particularly bothered by anything this congress and administration has done. On the other hand, you are one of the devil's advocate here and maybe you're just filling a role?
It's not the psychology of it that interests me, but the question of whether you see anything in the present government that is troubling.
If you guys can explain to me how this is significantly different than the way Bush 43 and the Republicans passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan that was also passed in December, of 2003, I'll try to answer your question. If I remember correctly, the bigger battle was in the House of Reps, but the legislation was funded in a highly complex manner that reflected the priorities of health industry lobbyists, various special interests and individual Congressmen whose support was needed to get the legislation passed. In the end, Tom Delay ordered the Congress into lockdown, closed the chambers and had the CSPAN cameras turned off. The final vote came in at 3am, after a lot of arm twisting and horse-trading. Sound familiar?
I am not here to defend a practice that has been going on in this country since the Continental Congress started meeting (you do remember the compromises that took place in Philly during the Constitutional Convention, right?). It is what it is. Pretending that this is different in anything other than particulars is absurd. You'll end up sounding as sill as the leftists who were fine with cloture while Bush was President, but complain about it now.
Respectfully,
Rich
If you guys can explain to me how this is significantly different than the way Bush 43 and the Republicans passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan that was also passed in December, of 2003, I'll try to answer your question.
It's not different. And I opposed that. Still do. Were you okay with that process?
The prescription drug benefit legislation was an abomination. I don't remember the particulars of its passage, but I was opposed to it for the very same reasons that I'm opposed to the current train wreck. It is government usurpation of citizens' rights.
I know plenty of conservatives who were willing to condemn GWB and the Republican Congress, especially on domestic issues. Less so with foreign policy, but I think that has to do with the water's edge and all that.
In other words, we aren't ganging up on Obama and the Congress because they are the wrong party, but because they are doing things that are abhorrent. Granted, there is some home team attitude involved, but this is much larger than mere politics.
Practically everything that had to do with the founding of this country, the writing of our Constitution and the subsequent history occurred where various factions did not get all they wanted. Politics is the art of compromise. This is the way our Founding Father's set up the system and it has served us pretty well for over 200 years. I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water and when I see people who are, on the right or the left, I think they lack historical perspective. So, to answer your question about the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan: yes, I was okay with that process. I wasn’t too fond of many provisions in the plan, but I was fine with the process. As you frequently note, elections have consequences. I, for one, am fully ready to accept those consequences. That doesn’t mean I have to roll over. I can and do bitch about the policies of various administrations all the time. But complaining about democracy in action seems pointless to me. BTW, I have been having a heated email exchange with most of my left-wing family all week. They are, for the most part, Jane Hamsher/FiredogLake/DailyKos style libs who sound an awful lot like you guys right now. You’ll find this hard to believe, but I spent much of the last eight years defending the Constitutional grounds of many of the actions of the Bush Administration (not the torture stuff, but pretty much everything else). One must remember that there will be a time when they are on the opposite side of the vote margin.
You may have trouble admitting this, but the bill that is being passed this week is a very centrist piece of legislation. You say that you aren’t ganging up on Obama and the Congress because they are the wrong party, but because they are doing things that are abhorrent. I’ll take you at your word, but I do ask you to consider this: Significant pieces of the legislation that is being passed are, in fact, what you yourselves have espoused. In both the House and Senate bills, there is some of the most significant anti-abortion law in 30 years. The Senate bill allows for interstate health insurance competition and cost transparency within exchanges. So, is there anything in these bills that you like? Additionally, Obama was open to tort reform, physician review boards, and other measures that could curb malpractice abuses. I could go on, but my point is that the GOP had opportunities to help craft this legislation, and could have made it even more centrist. But the GOP decided early in the process that their best tactic was to hand Obama a huge loss and critically damage his Presidency. So they refused to participate and, figuratively, they took their ball and went home. And now that that it looks like that hasn’t panned out, they are complaining about the process. Am I wrong?
Rich
Politics is the art of compromise. This is the way our Founding Father's set up the system and it has served us pretty well for over 200 years.
Stipulated.
I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water and when I see people who are, on the right or the left, I think they lack historical perspective.
Show me where the Founding Fathers set up laws that would apply in one way for one state and another for another state. In fact, they put the 10th Amendment to let states pursue their own solutions to most problems. This sort of legislation makes that a dead letter.
So, to answer your question about the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan: yes, I was okay with that process. I wasn’t too fond of many provisions in the plan, but I was fine with the process. As you frequently note, elections have consequences. I, for one, am fully ready to accept those consequences.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about this part.
That doesn’t mean I have to roll over. I can and do bitch about the policies of various administrations all the time.
As do I. I'm not rolling over. I'm fighting this abomination. That's why I write this stuff.
But complaining about democracy in action seems pointless to me.
Jamming this crap sandwich down the throat of this country is not "democracy in action." Ben Nelson taking an open bribe that his own constituents reject by overwhelming margins is not "democracy in action."
BTW, I have been having a heated email exchange with most of my left-wing family all week. They are, for the most part, Jane Hamsher/FiredogLake/DailyKos style libs who sound an awful lot like you guys right now.
My sympathies.
You’ll find this hard to believe, but I spent much of the last eight years defending the Constitutional grounds of many of the actions of the Bush Administration (not the torture stuff, but pretty much everything else). One must remember that there will be a time when they are on the opposite side of the vote margin.
And good that you did, because most of what the Bush administration did was constitutional. Advisable? Proper? Wise? Not always.
You may have trouble admitting this, but the bill that is being passed this week is a very centrist piece of legislation.
I disagree, but we'll leave that aside for now. You're entitled to your opinion.
You say that you aren’t ganging up on Obama and the Congress because they are the wrong party, but because they are doing things that are abhorrent. I’ll take you at your word
Yep, we think it's abhorrent. And we were quite angry with Olympia Snowe when she helped to shepherd it along earlier on, so it's not a partisan thing.
but I do ask you to consider this: Significant pieces of the legislation that is being passed are, in fact, what you yourselves have espoused. In both the House and Senate bills, there is some of the most significant anti-abortion law in 30 years.
But in the end, federal funds will go to pay for abortions. Watch and see.
The Senate bill allows for interstate health insurance competition and cost transparency within exchanges.
Within exchanges, in other words, only under the government aegis. We could have that without the government aegis.
So, is there anything in these bills that you like?
I'm still studying it, or at least the fragmentary versions that I have been allowed to see. No one has seen the actual bill in its entirety yet. Which is yet another issue.
Additionally, Obama was open to tort reform, physician review boards, and other measures that could curb malpractice abuses.
Open to? Is any of that in the final bill? Watch what happens.
There's more, but that's all the space I have for now.
Federal funds already pay for a ton of things are offensive to millions of people in the country.
Why in the should abortion be any different? Because conservative christians say that's it's wrong??!?!
We don't live in a THEOCRACY.
The anti-abortion crap in that bill is so incredibly misogynist I can't even type without pounding the keyboard in anger, so I'm going to stop (almost) here.
Please feel free to comfort yourselves with getting that much closer to control over women's uteruses. NEVERMIND that I wouldn't be able to force YOU to give a kidney or a lung, in order to save someone's life. Let it be the one ray of sunshine on this horrible, frightening foray into "teh socialism!"
Mark, you said:
"Show me where the Founding Fathers set up laws that would apply in one way for one state and another for another state".
Do you mean to tell me that the three-fifths compromise, which allowed the slave states to "count three-fifths of all non-free, non-Native American people" (nobody wanted to use the word slave in the Constitution...18th Century political correctness???) towards population counts for census and legislative purposes, wasn't put in the Constitution to entice the Southern states to ratify? As I said previously, some very ugly compromises have been a part of our legislative process since 1776.
Rich
Do you mean to tell me that the three-fifths compromise, which allowed the slave states to "count three-fifths of all non-free, non-Native American people" (nobody wanted to use the word slave in the Constitution...18th Century political correctness???) towards population counts for census and legislative purposes, wasn't put in the Constitution to entice the Southern states to ratify?
But did the federal government mandate slavery in all states? Or did they just mandate it in all but exempt one? They didn't, did they. Why? 10th Amendment, Rich. 10th Amendment. That's the point here.
Look, I know that the because of the Interstate Commerce Clause, there are enough ways for the federal government to impose its will on states that we'll never have a way out of it.
But unless I'm wrong, and I could be wrong, I don't believe that the idea was ever to impose laws on all the states and then carve out exemptions for favored states. Equal protection, right? You still haven't addressed that issue. And it's about time you did. On the bright side, the Supreme Court will too, eventually.
Amanda,
I can't help you. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. And if you can convince enough of your fellow citizens that they ought to pay for abortions, you'll get your wish. Get to it.
Mark, I said "Additionally, Obama was open to tort reform, physician review boards, and other measures that could curb malpractice abuses".
And you said "Open to? Is any of that in the final bill? Watch what happens".
I know what is going to happen. Tort Reform is not going to be there, or will be there in a very diluted form. My point was that it could be there and this bill could have been much friendlier to your side of the aisle if you all hadn't been so sure that you were going to be able to stop this thing in the legislature.
Obama played this thing smart. He saw what had happened to Clinton when Clinton tried to bull this through on his own. So Obama listed his preferences, tort reform being among them, and handed it over to the legislature to figure out how to pass it. Your side took its ball and went home. Problem was, it was a basketball and the Dems had enough resources to field two football teams. And they kept playing. You might want to focus some of your ire on your leadership.
Rich
Mark, I am no constitutional scholar and I know you are light years ahead of me on legal issues, but I will try to address your concerns. Regarding the Nebraska provisions that Nelson wangled, I’d be lying to you if I said I don’t find them to be a little rum. Obviously, having one state get special tax treatment, especially in perpetuity, raises some serious Constitutional concerns around equity and tax fairness. I suspect that if this is left in the bill that comes out of reconciliation, it will be challenged pretty quickly. And if the Courts shoot it down or let it stand, then so be it. The Courts are the Constitutional arbiters, right? (Nelson may already know this and may be looking for political cover). If this is solely what you are referring to in regards to the 10th Amendment, then I agree that there are issues there that will need to be addressed. But if you mean to use the 10th to attack the notion of Federal jurisdiction over health care, then I think you are going to run into problems. I know enough about the 10th to know that it is probably the single most vague and open to interpretation of the original 10. Immediately, you are confronted with the very difficult issue of defining which powers are or are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Then you have two clauses, the reserve clause and the "general welfare" clause, which establish that Congress does have the right to tax for the general welfare. And then you run smack dab into the "necessary and proper” clause, which can be construed as giving the Federal government the power to conduct a wide range of business. Our Founding Fathers wrote a charter dedicated almost exclusively to the design, structure, officers and powers of the government. They assiduously avoided writing policies into the constitution because they believed that policy should be left to the legislature.
Regards, Rich
Your side took its ball and went home.
You keep saying that and it isn't true. There were multiple Republican proposals out there and a full-fledged alternative bill that was out there. If this had been a true negotiation, the Republican proposals would have had a full airing in the House. That never happened. Pelosi jammed her version of a crap sandwich down the throat of the people without entertaining any Republican proposals. And in the Senate, the Republicans offered any number of amendments in recent days, all of which were rejected pretty much on party line votes.
The only consolation I have is that the Democratic Party thoroughly owns this monstrosity. And it will be our pleasure to hold the Democratic Party responsible for every last jot an tittle of it. And the reckoning will begin in November 2010 and continue in 2012. All I can hope is that someday there will be a Republican president with a similar legislative advantage who can begin to undo some of the horrific damage this bill will inflict on our nation.
Meanwhile, enjoy your higher taxes now and your rationed care later. I hope you can make enough money that you'll be able to go to the maquiladora hospitals in Mexico, dude.
Mark,
Most of you outcomes are conjecture. Furthermore, your telling this to someone who spent 20% of his income on health care this year and then got served a notice that my premiums are going up 30%. So you've got your work cut out if you're going to convince me that things are going to get worse. I am quite ready to roll the dice.
Regards and Merry Christmas to You, Mrs D, Ben and Maria.
Rich
Rich
Of course my comments are conjecture. That's what we do here, dude. But I'll bet you a hot dog (or any other sandwich you'd like) at Portillo's that I'll be right about all of it within a decade. Except for the maquiladora hospitals -- those will be probably be under construction and not yet open.
And I'm sure that you are willing to roll the dice, given your circumstances. Problem is, my dice are getting rolled, too. And my privately-held employer will almost certainly drop us into some quasi-governmental plan eventually because of this bill. And I'm frankly pretty pissed off about it. And I'll be one of tens, maybe hundreds, of millions who will feel similarly.
But we'll set that aside. Merry Christmas to you as well.
Post a Comment