PDA

View Full Version : The $100 Million Health Care Vote


Abnormal
11-20-2009, 07:38 AM
Well, now we know what the lady is (or at least what Reid thinks she is) so I guess it's time to start arguing about price:

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

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.’’.

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

Standtall
11-20-2009, 09:15 AM
She should have held out for much more.

Wigmeister General
11-20-2009, 09:35 AM
When I run for POTUS in 2012, watch me undo all of this nonsense .... but input a 5-page proposition that effectively translates to "permanent tax relief, retroactive to 1910, for all POTUS's that worked as actuaries."

The Biz
11-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Nothing to see here...

lennie
11-20-2009, 10:16 PM
Well, now we know what the lady is (or at least what Reid thinks she is) so I guess it's time to start arguing about price
JN

Big Jim Slade
11-21-2009, 11:57 AM
Why wouldn't you try to get a bigger slice for your constituents? That's why they are elected.

lennie
11-21-2009, 12:45 PM
Of course, that's why she whored herself out. No one is arguing that.

Pseudolus
11-22-2009, 08:43 AM
Sen. Landrieu wants us all to know she did not sell herself for $100 million. She sold herself for $300 million (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272.html?hpid=topnews).

Actuary321
11-23-2009, 07:35 PM
I am wondering how many other Democrat Senators are kicking themselves for not thinking to get earmarks.

Delothus
11-23-2009, 07:56 PM
She should have held out for much more.

You're too polite to the Honorable Democrat from Lousiana.

How about something like...

Mary you ignorant slut, if you gonna sell it get what you can for it...

WellThen
11-23-2009, 08:27 PM
Why wouldn't you try to get a bigger slice for your constituents? That's why they are elected.

Yeah, who the f cares if the entire nation's tax money is being spent inefficiently. True patriots only care about their own districts.

Omikron
11-23-2009, 11:02 PM
I am wondering how many other Democrat Senators are kicking themselves for not thinking to get earmarks.

:lol: All of the sudden there was a deep divide in the Democratic Party! Every Democratic Senator screamed at the same time "My constinuents are too liberal/conservative for this bill". As the Hammer says "the bidding begins at $300 Million". YEEHAW, it's CHRISTMAS.