PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Another Example Of Why the Health Care Bill and Big Government Are Bogus Enterprises


RINGLEADER
11-19-2009, 05:55 PM
ABC News has the inside analysis of how Reid and Co. have bent over backwards to bribe Louisiana Senator Landrieu without actually doing it...

:rolleyes:

ABC NEWS: What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here’s the incredibly complicated language:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Reaper16
11-19-2009, 05:56 PM
tl;dr

RINGLEADER
11-19-2009, 05:58 PM
tl;dr

Exactly.

I can't wait for Obama to go line by line through this and cut out all the wasteful spending.

:rolleyes:

bevischief
11-24-2009, 10:39 AM
ROFL

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 11:55 AM
Sort of reminds me of livestock class in college where we studied the effect of "hybrid vigor" where cross breeding an angus bull as example to a Hereford cow gives you a calf that has the good of both and will out perfeorm either parent offspring within the breeds.

In this case you take the historical corruption of Louisianna politics (predates the civil war) and cross it with the legendary dirty politics of the Chicago Democrat machine, then stir in the Nevada/Las Vegas crime syndicate history and Bingo, we get HarryCare with MaryBribe installed for all to see

If it walks like a duck.........

Democrat ethics. Yea, right.

Mr. Kotter
11-24-2009, 11:57 AM
You act as though this is something "new?" :spock:

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 12:00 PM
You act as though this is something "new?" :spock:

Is it acceptable?

Mr. Kotter
11-24-2009, 12:06 PM
Is it acceptable?

Of course not; but it is what it is. And it's been going on for a long time. Either fix it (good luck w/that); or at least chastise your own "side" when they do it. Otherwise, it's just more hypocritical whining.

BigRedChief
11-24-2009, 12:08 PM
Of course not; but it is what it is. And it's been going on for a long time. Either fix it (good luck w/that); or at least chastise your own "side" when they do it. Otherwise, it's just more hypocritical whining.
THIS!

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 12:11 PM
So to point this out today do we need to go dig up a crooked republican offset? Can we just use any or does it have to be current and applicable?

My assumption here is that the lack of any objection to this behavior will be replaced with moral outrage if a dirty republican can be outed so that the democrats can get on board with the outrage that one of their own is so foul and dirty.


http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Dog_Treats.jpg