NOW THIS is how fair health care is claimed for all!

[rushmc 23]

Just wait until I find the articles for what Schumer and others are doing!!!

Quote

Senators bristle over Reid's deal
By: Manu Raju
October 1, 2009 05:29 AM EST

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved swiftly to ensure that his home state of Nevada wouldn’t be hurt by Medicaid changes included in the health care reform bill moving through the Senate Finance Committee.

Now some of his Democratic colleagues are demanding the same treatment for their states.

“We have to make sure Colorado is treated fairly,” Democratic Colorado Sen. Mark Udall said Wednesday.

“We’re going to take a look at the details, but if Colorado has a fair claim on being treated the same way Nevada has been, of course we’re going to ask to have that kind of treatment.”

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a moderate and a critical swing vote, said he’s “sensitive to the impact that this could have on state budgets and, indirectly, education funding, property taxes and things like that.”

Asked whether states like Indiana should get special protections that were afforded to Nevada, Bayh said: “If they want our votes ultimately, I suspect that they should take our concerns into account.”

“We’re watching it,” added Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor.

The sweeping health care bill drafted by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana would expand Medicaid to cover families of four with an income of roughly $29,000 per year and people with an income less than 133 percent of the poverty level.

When Baucus first floated the bill in mid-September, Reid strongly criticized it because the federal government would pick up just 87 percent of the new costs, leaving the rest to the states. But Baucus later modified the language to ensure that the federal government paid 100 percent of the costs in Nevada. Reid’s state — along with Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island — has been given the added protections because it has been hit especially hard by the recession.

A Sept. 16 Congressional Budget Office study estimated that state spending on Medicaid and children’s health insurance would increase by some $37 billion between 2010 and 2019, and Democratic aides expect that in the end, state spending could increase by $22 billion. But those numbers will almost certainly change once the Finance Committee finishes its markup, the CBO conducts a revised analysis and a modified version is prepared for debate on the Senate floor.

At that point, it will be up to Reid, key members on the Finance Committee; the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; and the White House to forge a compromise that would satisfy 60 senators. And to do that, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said, leaders will have to be sensitive to how the bill’s Medicaid language would affect states from coast to coast.

“At some point, whether it’s with the initial merged bill or in final passage, each of us has to sit down and be satisfied that our state has been handled fairly,” Durbin said.

In the meantime, Republicans are seeking to create a wedge between the Democratic leader and his caucus over how states are affected by the Medicaid spending.

“It means they’ve got a special deal for four states, one of them being the state of Nevada,” said an indignant Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “Who pays? Who pays? The other states.”

Added Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate: “I wonder how citizens in Wyoming, in California and Florida and other states will feel if they pay more taxes so that Nevadans can pay less taxes.”

Reid, who faces a tough reelection next year, responded sharply Wednesday, taking to the floor to defend the deal and saying the GOP’s criticism was “false.”

“Republicans are upset that we’re helping the hardest-hit states in this country,” Reid said. “Were these four states selected at random? No. Were they just picked out of a hat at the Finance Committee? No. Were they chosen to intentionally exclude the 46 other states? Of course not. These states — Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island and Nevada — are suffering more than most, and that’s an understatement.”

Reid said critics should be “embarrassed” to complain about the special protections for the states, citing the unusually tough economic times, including the foreclosure crisis in Nevada and its 12.7 percent unemployment rate — 3 points higher than the national average.

“The people of Nevada are hurting, and I make absolutely no apologies, none, for helping people in my state and our nation who are hurting the most,” Reid said.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who sits on the Finance Committee, defended Reid and predicted that the leadership would work out its differences in the end.

“He’s going to fight for his people of his state, just like I’m going to fight for people in my state,” Stabenow said of Reid. “What we’re trying to do is make sure that we are recognizing what’s happening to people across the country who have lost their jobs.”

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), a member of the Finance Committee, said states would shoulder a “relatively small portion of the costs” and that the federal government would initially take on most of them. In later years, he said, states would be in a better position from an economic recovery and could handle the additional costs.

“Frankly, considering the number of additional people that would get coverage under Medicaid, I think it’s a very good deal for virtually every state,” Bingaman said.

But other Democrats remain wary and expect the issue to get renewed scrutiny once the Finance Committee finishes its work.

“I don’t want to push an unfunded mandate onto the states,” said Sen. Jon Tester, the junior Democrat from Baucus’s home state of Montana, who added that the original versions of the bill appear to hold their state “almost harmless” on Medicaid spending.

But Tester added: “I ain’t going to break the states, you know what I mean?”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnDeere 0]

Great I cant wait for another Govt ran health program

Here is a health care report.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2009-nhirc-methodology.pdf

Look at the medicare denials compaired to some major insurance company's. I was gonna start another thread but this fits well in here. To all of the liberal that say a govt program wont deny services........

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[rushmc 23]

From the WSJ. Guess it is NOT the same for all states huh

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Quote

How good is Sen. Max Baucus's health reform bill? So good that Democrats have made sure some of the most costly provisions don't apply to their own states.

The Senate Finance Committee is gearing up for a final vote next week, and Chairman Baucus now appears to have the Democratic votes to pass his bill. Getting this far has of course meant cutting deals, and those deals, it turns out, are illuminating. The senators are all for imposing "reform" on the nation, so long as it doesn't disadvantage their constituents.


Sens. Harry Reid (Nevada) and Charles Schumer (New York) are among those inserting goodies for their states.

A central feature of the Baucus bill is the vast expansion of state Medicaid programs. This is necessary, we are told, to cover more of the nation's uninsured. The provision has angered governors, since the federal government will cover only part of the expansion and stick fiscally strapped states with an additional $37 billion in costs. The "states, with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities," griped Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.

Poor Mr. Strickland. If only he lived in . . . Nevada! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is worried about losing his seat next year, worked out a deal by which the federal government will pay all of his home state's additional Medicaid expenses for the next five years. Under the majority leader's very special formula, only three other states—Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan—qualify for this perk, on the grounds, as Mr. Reid put it recently on the Senate floor, that they "are suffering more than most."

Tell that to Mr. Strickland, who is still trying to figure out how to close an $850 million budget hole, in a state with near 11% unemployment. And tell it to Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who quipped: "I wonder how citizens in Wyoming, in California and Florida and other states will feel if they pay more taxes so that Nevadans can pay less taxes."

To pay the bill for his version of ObamaCare, Mr. Baucus's legislation would tax high-value insurance plans—a 40% tax on plans that cost more than $21,000 a year. Democrats argue it is reform to make those who can afford "luxury" health care chip in for those who can't afford any at all.

That is, unless you live in a state such as New York. That state, along with some others, has many high-value plans—in part because it boasts a lot of union members with "Cadillac" plans, in part because the state has imposed so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want a lot of angry overtaxed New Yorkers on his hands, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal by which the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states. If you live in Kentucky, you get taxed at $21,000. If you live in Massachusetts you don't get taxed until $25,000. This carve-out is at least more sweeping, applying to 17 (largely blue) states, though that's cold comfort if you live in Louisville.

Mr. Baucus will also pay for his bill by socking it to pharmaceutical companies, on the principle that drug companies are filthy rich and should have to contribute to health care. The view is a bit different in New Jersey. The state's Web site boasts it is the "global epicenter" of the drug industry, where "15 of the world's 20 largest pharmaceutical companies have major facilities." And Sen. Bob Menendez, of the Garden State, seems concerned that his home-state employers are going to struggle to both pay their federal liabilities and to continue to grow and innovate. Thus Mr. Menendez's quiet deal for a $1 billion tax credit for companies investing in drug R&D.

The Baucus bill, we are assured by many Dems, will successfully "bend down" the health-care cost curve. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow isn't counting on it when it comes to her constituents. She and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry included $5 billion in the bill for a reinsurance program designed to defray the medical costs of union members.

"This will help our employers, whether it's the auto industry or whether it's other industries, be able to lower their costs for early retirees," said Ms. Stabenow. She is apparently unaware that this is what the broader bill is supposed to do, even without $5 billion in union slush money.

So, health-care "reform" is good, smart and necessary, so long as it isn't fully applied to the states of the senators who are pushing it. The Democrats' growing problem is that somebody is ultimately going to have to pay, and Mr. Reid's bad example has given every one the same idea. "If Colorado has a fair claim on being treated the same way Nevada has been, of course we're going to ask to have that kind of treatment," promised Sen. Mark Udall, upon news of the Reid deal.

Most senators are saving up their special state demands for when the bill hits the Senate floor. At that point, we'll get an even better idea of how much health-care change Democrats truly believe in.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

A Key pharagraph.

Quote

That is, unless you live in a state such as New York. That state, along with some others, has many high-value plans—in part because it boasts a lot of union members with "Cadillac" plans, in part because the state has imposed so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want a lot of angry overtaxed New Yorkers on his hands, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal by which the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states. If you live in Kentucky, you get taxed at $21,000. If you live in Massachusetts you don't get taxed until $25,000. This carve-out is at least more sweeping, applying to 17 (largely blue) states, though that's cold comfort if you live in Louisville.

Quote

And many of you hear want to give them control.

ARE YOU NUTS??????

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

A Key pharagraph.

Quote

That is, unless you live in a state such as New York. That state, along with some others, has many high-value plans—in part because it boasts a lot of union members with "Cadillac" plans, in part because the state has imposed so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want a lot of angry overtaxed New Yorkers on his hands, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal by which the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states. If you live in Kentucky, you get taxed at $21,000. If you live in Massachusetts you don't get taxed until $25,000. This carve-out is at least more sweeping, applying to 17 (largely blue) states, though that's cold comfort if you live in Louisville.

Quote

And many of you hear want to give them control.

ARE YOU NUTS??????

i've never chided you before on your spelling but feel compelled to inform you that you've misspelt both AM (you've spelled it ARE) and I (you've misspelled it YOU)...

(and have i mis-spelt misspelt?)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

• Quote

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
ARE YOU NUTS??????

i've never chided you before on your spelling but feel compelled to inform you that you've misspelt both AM (you've spelled it ARE) and I (you've misspelled it YOU)...

(and have i mis-spelt misspelt?)

...

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 23]

Have you noticed that there are no (including you) content based replies to the shit the Dem senators are pulling?

And I am sure the R's will try (those on the committee) and do the same. Then add to the fact that today we are informed it will not start until 2013???


I love the party based silence

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

A Key pharagraph.

Quote

That is, unless you live in a state such as New York. That state, along with some others, has many high-value plans—in part because it boasts a lot of union members with "Cadillac" plans, in part because the state has imposed so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want a lot of angry overtaxed New Yorkers on his hands, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal by which the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states. If you live in Kentucky, you get taxed at $21,000. If you live in Massachusetts you don't get taxed until $25,000. This carve-out is at least more sweeping, applying to 17 (largely blue) states, though that's cold comfort if you live in Louisville.

Quote

And many of you hear want to give them control.

ARE YOU NUTS??????

i've never chided you before on your spelling but feel compelled to inform you that you've misspelt both AM (you've spelled it ARE) and I (you've misspelled it YOU)...

(and have i mis-spelt misspelt?)

Oh you feel so smart with your little PA.....

Funny shit dude, or dudet, what ever the hell you are...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln