With the U.S. Senate seemingly poised to pass its version of sweeping health care reform legislation this week, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has issued a statement saying the so-called “Nebraska exemption” may be unconstitutional.
The exemption, which would permanently exempt Nebraska from paying Medicare costs, was included in the Senate bill in order to gain the support of Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson.
Nelson was the last member of the Democratic caucus who was withholding support for the bill. After behind-the-scenes negotiations led to Nebraska being exempted from the Medicare payments, Nelson said he would vote for the bill, giving Senate Democratic leaders a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority.
No other state has been given such an exemption. That, Abbott said, may make the legislation unconstitutional since it would effectively disadvantage all other states.
“The Nebraska Compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution, as well as other provisions of federal law,” Abbott said. “In light of this unprecedented and highly questionable backroom deal, Texas will join South Carolina and other states in an effort to thoroughly review the constitutionality and legality of the Nebraska Compromise.”
Abbott added that his office would look at challenging the exemption, if it remains a part of the final bill. He also called the exemption a “backroom deal.”
“Because it disadvantages Texas taxpayers, the Texas Attorney General’s Office will explore all available avenues to challenge and overturn this legally problematic provision. Our democratic system of government depends upon transparency and openness,” he said. “This backroom deal goes too far and must be challenged because Texas deserves better.”
The Senate health care bill passed a second test vote yesterday and is scheduled for final passage on Christmas Eve.
The Senate’s $871 billion version of health care reform must then be merged with the House of Representative’s $1 trillion version, a process that is expected to include tough negotiations.
Key sticking points include the government-backed “public option” and whether the final version would include taxpayer-funded abortions.
patriot, you are correct. In discussing this delightful faucet experience to some of my elders this weekend I came a across a saying. The saying goes…we live in a free market unless you can lock it up first.
To confirm your point. You can’t fix anything anymore. There were no parts from the manufacturer available for my faucet this weekend. This summer my control board on my A/C had to be installed by my a/c contractor. Lennox refused to sell me the part. All of my sons baby equipment ( car seat, basinetts, toys, etc. ) none of them have parts available, you have to buy new, or take it back to the retailer and get another one.
But, I will draw the line with Blue Ray. I refuse to download upgrades to be able to use something I already have purchased ( does that sound familiar? ). They will not get me to buy into that monopolistic BS.
Look dead on at the battlefield that is being described. Open eyes and reason will be the only way to dig ourselves out of this mess. “Rolling eyes” is a child’s game or a fool’s diversion, and we don’t need children or fools on this battlefield.
Oh brother. *rolling eyes*
Multiple issues are involved in your post. As one all too experienced in installing faucets and other plumbing parts, I will start here.
We are a disposable society, and for the past 30 plus years it has been growingly true that it is easier and cheaper* to replace than to repair. This is not a “free market choice that you or anyone else makes. Governments work with corporations to externalize the real costs for creating and trashing “things” as fast as they can be made. I suggest reading, “Hot Flat and Overcrowded” by Friedman.
You may have only needed a new seal, but when you tried to open the system, something stripped or cracked. This is made to happen so that whole systems must be sold and purchased. Again, this is not free market, and it is he$$ on the planet too.
As for comparing plumbing to healthcare, I agree that we must know the costs of what we are consuming, however, we must also be aware that we are loonngg past free markets in this country for any product including healthcare. Corporations own our government and they get to decide what limited choices we have.
Knowing the battleground is a first step.
Thanks Patriot, I am a conservative, it took a while for everyone else to catch up. Here is my philosophy based on my wonderful holiday weekend….my faucet hose went out, I went to Home Depot and priced the fix and priced a new one. I tried to fix it but it did not work out. I bought a new one and I am having it intalled. The government did not give me a new one because I have no “rights” to a new faucet or for new parts. I checked Walmart, Lowes and Home Depot and Home Depot won the bid. Style, Price and Customer Service all played a part.
If I would have been given everything for free I would have picked the most expensive faucet and called the most expensive plumber on 24 hour call because I had a “right” to it. But the free market leveled the playing field and we got a reasonable faucet for a reasonable price with reasonable terms. No insurance company or governemnt involved. WHY CAN’T THAT BE HOW WE PURCHASE HEALTHCARE?
This is a solid part of the structure of many of our local and national problem. Corporations get lucrative deals and then “externalize” the real costs and damage. FBISD divides income from highly profitable vending machine contracts while they “externalize” the real costs of student’s poor health and jacked up poor attention due to Doritos and coke for breakfast and lunch. And FBISD tells the teachers to manage classrooms of Doritos and coke junkies thanks to our FBISD board and superintendent brain trusts.
We support FBISD vendor with sale of only healthy snacks(fruits) and drinks (V-8).
I noticed recently too that junk food has been reintroduced to our local school system. Apparently a vendor was successful at getting certain junk food redefined again at the state level. Of course you wouldn’t know that from the the fact-myth release on this from FBISD. I just wonder why their communications office doesn’t feel the need to keep the public informed when they are paying for this service. Of course we see the same behavior from many of the local taxing entities. I think they call it the ‘feel good’ crowd. I guess they believe you can fake your way out of any situation rather than meet it head-on. I expect this from private corporate PR people, but not those supported by our taxes.
There are many distructive and unhealthy “externalities” that corporations have dumped on the backs of people. Coal burning plants, CO2 and mercury etc.are just a few.
I just buried a 16 year old friend with cancer, due to one of these plants. There are 4 other young people in his small high school with the same cancer. Some have insurance and some do not. There are multiple issues of responsibility here.
It might be helpful not to get too sidetracked with junk food, though the point is not insignificant.
Health costs funds needs tobe raised an paid by large industrial polluters(landills, oil, coal,& chemicals) effecting the publics health enviornment.
You buy on your own and pay the price on junk food eaters? A high sales tax on unhealth junk foods would help raise health funds, to pay health costs an issues by unhealthy food eaters.
Trying to ensure that an increased number of people have insurance is unconstitutional? Blah, Humbug!
Oh, Puhleez!!! Hypocrites! No, nunca, nada!
Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina put his foot in his mouth when he stated that about 30% of his constituents could benefit for what the Senator from Nebraska brokered for his constituents regarding Medicaid.
So my question is: If Lindsey Graham know that 30% of his constituents could benefit from what another senator has brokered for his state, why, then, is Lindsey being a sell out to the big insurance companies and standing in the way of progress by trying to block healthcare reform by any means necessary—even, to say, it is unconstitutional!
Moreover, Lindsey Graham, simultaneously, cries woe is me because the Senator from Nebraska brokered a Medicaid benefit for his state—that, likewise, Lindsey state could benefit from if Lindsey was on the “right’ side of history. To know your constituents are in need of help that the healthcare reform could provide, yet not vote for it is the ultimate act of hypocrisy and being an obstructionist!
What we have folks is that the Jedi-eye mind trick is in play once more and being advanced again. sadly, there are those who will fall hook, line, and sinker for it.
Healthcare reform is historic! Those on the wrong side of history will go down in history as being obstructionists—and, certainly, not on the side of the American people!
If it were possible to tax it, it would have already been done.
If you work for Wal-Mart you only pay $50.00 a month for your health insurance, but your deductible is $100,000.00. Wal-Mart is happy to continue externalizing all of their responsibilities, and the insurance companies are happy to have written such stock enhancing legislation.
From their standpoint, he people can all go to he** as long as they die fast.
Let’s do it the way all the First World countries do it: Single Payer – Medicare for all!
Personally I think a good serving of anti-trust years ago would have kept all this from growing into such a mess. I also agree that it is wrong to force people to purchase it. Just another government aided monopoly. I wonder why they just don’t pass a law requiring people to buy certain products like homes and cars too and while they are at it they could tax the air we breath. They could even tell us which companies we should purchase from or not (this all sounds way to familiar).
Conservative1, you must be a real conservative. I like your insights. 1-7 are EXCELLENT.
#1 Healthcare shouldn’t be tied to employment. You buy it on your own and it gets a tax deduction.
#2 It should not be mandatory
#3 Coverage should be portable to any insurance co.
#4 Insurance companies forced to provide policies in any state and should not be exempt from anti-trust laws
#5 Doctors and Hospitals should be be made to quote the job before its performed and post rates just like regulated untilities.
#6 high risk pool created for folks not covered now for pre-existing conditions just like states do for windstorm coverage and feds do for flood.
#7 Incentives should be there for healthy lifestyles and regular checkups and and number of premium payments already paid.
Five Critical Flaws in the Senate Health Care Bill
The Senate bill would:
#1—Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.1
#2—Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses.2
#3—Impose dangerous restrictions on women’s reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill.3
#4—Tax American workers’ health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach.4
#5—Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws. Under current law, insurance companies are actually exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, but the Senate bill leaves it in place.5
Of course, these aren’t the only problems with the bill. Most glaringly, both the Senate and House bill would leave millions uninsured,6 a far cry from the vision of universal coverage so many of us have fought for. That remains a long-term goal.
But these five things need to be fixed immediately—and we need to spread the word to make sure House and Senate leadership and the White House get the message we’re counting on them to craft a final bill with these key fixes.