Attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott was among the group who sent a letter Wednesday night to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objecting to Nebraska’s tax break on federal Medicaid payments.
ABBOTT
That provision, which has come to be known as the “Cornhusker Kickback,” was negotiated into the version of the healthcare reform bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve. The amendment was crafted primarily to gain the support of Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson.
In a statement, Abbott called the amendment “outright vote buying” and questioned the provision’s constitutionality.
“The ‘Nebraska Compromise’ reflects the very worst of backroom dealing – it amounts to outright vote buying, it effectively forces Texas taxpayers to foot Nebraska’s Medicaid bill and it is constitutionally questionable,” Abbott said.
He also said the letter to the federal Democratic leadership pointed out “significant legal problems” inherent in the Nebraska Compromise because it favors one state to the detriment of 49 others.
Abbott also said the amendment violated the fundamental American notion of fairness and is “inconsistent with basic principles of nondiscrimination that are guaranteed by our Constitution.”
“No public policy goal, no matter how important or challenging it may be, can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by our Constitution,” Abbott said.
As he did in a statement last week, Abbott also pledged to conduct a full review of the legislation and, if necessary, mount a legal challenge.
“The Texas Attorney General’s Office will explore all available legal options to challenge this provision if it is ultimately passed and, equally important, will continue reviewing other aspects of the federal health care legislation that are legally and constitutionally troubling,” Abbott said.
The Senate’s $871 billion version of health care reform must be merged with the House of Representative’s $1 trillion version, a process that is expected to include tough negotiations in the weeks ahead.
Key sticking points include the government-backed “public option” and whether the final version would include taxpayer-funded abortions.
Very good idea mcty! I say sweep the house clean. You could count the honest ones on one hand.
Someone sure is patriot. Some like when these guys don’t do their jobs.
The ‘this is just the way it’s done’ attitude is not a good enough reason to go with the flow. One could say the same thing about our local government as well.
‘Well, that’s just the way it is. Our mayor and his cronies pad the pockets of his contractor/developer buddies and get things done the way they want to get them done. Don’t hate the player – hate the game.’
How about, we hate the player(s) and the game? And then how about we oust officials who are having a little too much fun wheeling and dealing and elect people who have a conscience?
Way to go, Greg Abbott! Don’t let these crooks in Congress get away with their blatant vote pandering.
Where is this AG when it comes to “enforcement” of his judgments on important open records cases?
I am certainly not impressed with this AG.
“Oh, a thought just occurred, if Abbot cannot carry weight to impact a government entity to honor the Open Record’s Act, his impact on the United States of America’s Congress is highly unlikely.”
Yes, that is a very good point factually. I’m just a little tired of the selective enforcement we see though from so many of our politicians. They don’t dare step on the wrong toes.
Whether you agree or disagree regarding any and/or all of the particulars of the Healthcare Reform Bill, it is a start to something better than we presently have because for the first time one cannot be denied medical coverage due to a preexisting condition. However, there will still be those, nonetheless, who are against it no matter its good points———so be it.
Oh, a thought just occurred, if Abbot cannot carry weight to impact a government entity to honor the Open Record’s Act, his impact on the United States of America’s Congress is highly unlikely.
This looks more like a re-election style public relations release for Mr. Abbott. You always see these high profile cases right before elections. I believe last time he ran he had a huge case on consumer protection and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Naturally all the culprits were out of state. He would never attack industries in this state that prey on consumers or might make a large contribution to the campaign.
Now, without addressing the actual issue above, one could take this process and micro-analyze it to death. I do agree with you that people should be angry at this model that allows brokered deals like this. There are many “losers” in this thing. For one, we should look at the states that supported it throughout. Did they get anything extra like the hold-out deal sweeteners that were handed out at the end? Are those AGs now joining this fight questioning the constitutionality of these backroom practices? Regardless of the issue in the spot-light, these backroom deals in congress, the whitehouse or at any level of government do not pass the smell test. The process needs to be fair, transparent and obviously in the open. We have seen both parties and almost all presidents engage in this activity. It looks more like corporate board room back stabbing and business than open government or democracy in action, but it certainly is an accurate reflection of how far we’ve fallen as a nation.
We could argue that the moral imperative on this bill or that one makes it ok, at least until the issue and fluff of the riders begins to stink it up, but as long as this is allowed to be the “business as usual” approach in D.C. and around the rest of the country on the local level too, then we will continue to get what we got and that is exactly what we have. A government by and for the special interest and not the people.
Now on this issue, I have too many concerns to name and certainly don’t think there is anything friendly in a bill that requires Americans, some who can’t afford it, to purchase health insurance, but I’m sure the industry and their lobbyist are very happy with this continued monopoly with just one added player, our government.
Well, what I’m trying to understand if you are an attorney general of one of the states where your Congressmen were not apart of the Healthcare Reform negotiations, purposely–How can you now cry foul when your Congressmen selected on purpose not to become positively involved with Healthcare Reform.
How can the attorney generals from states whereby their elected congressmen from their state did not look out for the best interest of their constituents be in a huff because the Congressman from Nebraska did?
Hate the game not the player. Don’t’ be mad at the player; the Congressman from Nebraska simply brokered a deal; and it was a choice deal for his state because he was positively apart of the Healthcare Reform negotiations.
Had the Congressmen from Texas been looking out for us, they too, would have been apart of the negotiations to have an opportunity to get the best deal for us, their constitutions.
Consequently, since the Congressman from Nebraska brokered a great deal for the constituents of his state, the attorney generals of states whose congressmen only involvement in the Healthcare Reform has been in the negative, no, never, nunca–now those attorney generals of these states are teed off and have the nerve to try and start some cow manure and hate due to what the Nebraska Congressmen brokered for his state of Nebraska.
Sounds like hypocrisy and sore losers whose elected congressmen to Washington D. C. were invited to the party, but turned down the invitation; now there is hate and anger become one of the party attendees who accepted the invitation to the party won a prize, which happened to be a gold ticket.
More over, it has become obvious that those who have taken on the role of spoilers are tying to have it both ways. In other words, in essence, these state attorney generals seem to be saying: Though, my elected congressmen have played the role of spoilers regarding Healthcare Reform, but, nonetheless, we are still angered because the Nebraska congressman who participated in the main game, showed up and showed out in playing the main game and won a golden egg at the expense of our elected congressmen’s nonparticipation in the main game because they were too busy concentrating on being spoilers in their side-show spoilers’ game.
In fact upon further reflection, it seems as if these state attorney generals frustrated anger and resentment is misdirected.
Single Payer, Medicare for all!!