PDA

View Full Version : The $100 Million dollar Health care vote!



Deeman3
12-08-2009, 09:18 AM
<span style="color: #FF0000">So, for a mear $100 million one single vote can be bought for the Health Care Bill? This is change we can all beleive in. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif </span>


ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

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.’’.

pooltchr
12-08-2009, 09:48 AM
This was made public a couple of weeks ago, but the "right wing" MSM didn't report it. If you don't listen to talk radio, or watch the fair and balanced news network, you never heard it.

Fraud and corruption is rampant in the Dem controlled congress, and nobody really seems too concerned. They would rather worry about a book signing.

I don't know if they don't see what is going on, or if they just refuse to admit that things are no better, and in many ways far worse, that they were under the previous administration.

Change you can believe it! Yeah, right!!!!!!!

Steve

Gayle in MD
12-09-2009, 11:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In addition to Starr, five other independent counsels are currently conducting investigations. Four of those focus on the Clinton administration. The combined costs of those four inquiries and the Starr probe now comes to $69.4 million.

A four-year investigation of Henry Cisneros, former secretary of housing and urban development, is scheduled to culminate in a trial of the former Clinton administration official in July on charges related to statements he made about payments to a mistress.

Independent counsel David M. Barrett spent $1.4 million from April through September last year on the probe, which has cost $8.7 million so far.

An investigation of Clinton's former agriculture secretary, Mike Espy, who was acquitted by a jury last year, has cost $19.2 million.

Two newer investigations--of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman--have cost less than $2 million. A probe of the late commerce secretary Ronald H. Brown, a victim of a 1996 airplane crash, was terminated after expenditures of $3 million.

Financial documents made public last year by Congress in connection with the Starr investigation shed some light on the details of his spending. It included payments to private investigators, a company that helps prosecutors assess jurors and "suicidologists" hired to evaluate the late Clinton aide Vincent W. Foster, who committed suicide in 1993.

Yesterday's GAO report revealed that the special three-judge panel that appoints independent counsels had authorized reimbursement from government funds of $99,767 to cover the legal expenses of "an individual who had been investigated by Independent Counsel von Kann but not indicted."

Segal, the principal subject of the von Kann investigation, could not be reached for comment as to whether the individual was him. His lawyer also could not be reached.


Staff writer Bill Miller contributed to this report.




</div></div>

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=244867

<span style='font-size: 20pt'> <span style="color: #000066">Republicans Is De Cwaziest People!!!! </span> </span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
12-09-2009, 12:30 PM
The thread was about payments promised to the state of Lousiana in exchange for a vote on the healthcare bill.

After reading your response I only have one question...What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

eg8r
12-09-2009, 01:05 PM
Gayle in another thread about Palin charging for pictures you got pissy with people changing the subject. Again are your rules different for you?

eg8r

pooltchr
12-09-2009, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle in another thread about Palin charging for pictures you got pissy with people changing the subject. Again are your rules different for you?

eg8r </div></div>

There is no possible way to justify this kind of corruption. Changing the subject is the only other option.
Steve

Chopstick
12-09-2009, 01:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #FF0000">So, for a mear $100 million one single vote can be bought for the Health Care Bill? This is change we can all beleive in. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif </span>
</div></div>


<span style="color: #3333FF">I'll vote for it and I'll give you and pooltchr a mill each to swear I didn't. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif