At first there were two democratic and one independent senators who decided to vote against the healtcare bill keeping them form obtaining the 60 votes needed to pass the senate. There was the senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana who decided to vote for the healthcare bill after she was guaranteed 300 million dollars in taxpayer monies for here state of Louisiana. Then there was Joe Lieberman who said he would not vote for the bill, but after meeting with Obama he changed his mind, I wonder what he recieved in exchange for his vote. Then today Senator Nelson changed his mind and has now decided to vote for the plan thus giving Reid and Obama the 60 votes needed to pass the healthcare bill. So what did Nelson recieve, according to early reports, we will now have two health care systems in this country; one for Nebraska and one for the other 49 states. Because Medicaid is a program whose costs are split between the federal and state governments, this expansion in eligibility raise costs dramatically for states. States will be forced to either raise taxes or cut other services to accommodate the forced increase in Medicaid spending.

 

Unless that state is Nebraska.

 

Below is the text for Nelson’s bribe. Under this language the federal government will forever cover the costs of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska. Taxpayers in every other state will forever be responsible for the expanded Medicaid program in Nebraska.

 

 

BTW Senator Nelson also secured an exemption from a new insurance tax for non-profit companies in his state. Mutual of Omaha and Nebraska’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield won’t have to pay a tax other companies will be required to pay.

 

 

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/19/sen-nelsons-bribe/

Welcome to Chicago politics!

-- Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., won between $100 million and $300 million in additional federal aid for her state's Medicaid population. The deal, secured before she cast her critical vote in favor of bringing the health bill to the floor, was immediately dubbed the "Louisiana Purchase," though the actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.

 

-- Vermont and Massachusetts got $1.2 billion in Medicaid money -- a change that was described as a correction to the current system which exempts those two states because they have robust health care systems. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also boasted Saturday that he requested and won an investment worth between $10 and $14 billion for community health centers.

 

-- Western states secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. The provision covers the low-population "frontier" states and applies to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming -- the latter two states are both represented by two Republicans, but ended up as beneficiaries anyway since they qualify. The legislative language defines frontier states as states where at least 50 percent of the counties have fewer than six people per square mile. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the "special deal," telling "Fox News Sunday" that those five states were getting an increase in reimbursements because they get the lowest amount in the country. "That doesn't offend me at all," he said. "It's in fact, fair."

 

-- Florida, New York and Pennsylvania -- where five of six senators are Democrats -- will have their seniors' Medicare Advantage benefits protected, even as the program sees massive cuts elsewhere.

 

-- Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., reportedly secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in a mine in Libby, Mont.

 

-- One unknown state is receiving $100 million for a "health care facility" affiliated with an academic health center at a university that contains the state's only "public academic medical and dental school." It's unclear for which state that language was written.

 

-- Nebraska's Nelson won permanent federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population, a benefit worth up to $100 million over 10 years. Other states get the federal aid for three years, but Nebraska's benefit is indefinite. His state also got an exemption for nonprofit insurance companies from a health insurance company tax. Many believe this was targeted at Mutual of Omaha, but senior Democratic aides would not confirm that.

 

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/12/your-tax-dollars-used-for-bribes.html

Looks like Nebraska will be the home for thousands of new retirees...

The only one out of the norm for Washington politics seems to be the Nebraska deal. The rest if fairly common.

 

This whole process has been a disappointment. One side wants to be able to say they passed "something" while the other side just wants to block "something."

 

Its created a bill that is less than needed.

The "Nebraska Clause" is absolutely ridiculous. How something like that is evenable allowable under a new "national" healthcare system is beyond me. But it's absolutely critical for the Dems/Obama to get their pet project passed before X-mas, so I guess anything is permissible.

I would think this would be unconstitutional..................

Looks like Nebraska will be the home for thousands of new retirees...

 

 

Hey...as long as there's a wal-mart where I can work part time to supplement my social security, I'll move there.

The only one out of the norm for Washington politics seems to be the Nebraska deal. The rest if fairly common.

 

This whole process has been a disappointment. One side wants to be able to say they passed "something" while the other side just wants to block "something."

 

Its created a bill that is less than needed.

 

I disagree. This is not a insignificant bill where passing or opposing "something" is the most important result of the debate. Even though the exact definition of the bill is subject to change it is arguably the most significant piece of legislation in the last 50 years. If there is something worth being for or against on principle, it's this bill.

How can Republicans who are just trying to "block" the bill help to come up w/ a good bill if they aren't allowed to give input?

I would think this would be unconstitutional..................

 

The group in power right now could care less about the constitution.

I disagree. This is not a insignificant bill where passing or opposing "something" is the most important result of the debate. Even though the exact definition of the bill is subject to change it is arguably the most significant piece of legislation in the last 50 years. If there is something worth being for or against on principle, it's this bill.

 

I'm for this bill on principle. I am against some of the realities, though.

I just gets better and better...

 

Bill includes fundemental change or override to basic rules in Senate.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp

 

And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

 

...and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

 

this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

Is this the "change" we all can believe in?...:ohbrother:

I disagree. This is not a insignificant bill where passing or opposing "something" is the most important result of the debate. Even though the exact definition of the bill is subject to change it is arguably the most significant piece of legislation in the last 50 years. If there is something worth being for or against on principle, it's this bill.

 

Knowing you personally a bit and following you on here I know that you're smart enough to know that "wins" and "losses" sometimes outweigh doing the right thing.

 

Its a flawed bill. No question. However, 99% of the Rs do not want to give what would seem to be a victory for President Obama and other Ds to campaign on. It would have the same result even if it was a great bill.