| |
If ObamaCare is such a great program, why has it been necessary to have so many deals,
pay-off's and bribes made that benefit specific states (at the expense of others) and politicians, along with
various public and private groups? Why, if ObamaCare is such a great program, are there so many questions about
the proposed legislation being asked by so many thinking Americans? Let me spell out some of these
questions.
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why was it necessary
amend the Senate health care legislation to provide Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska (a crucial 60th vote
for the bill) with a number of benefits for his home state of Nebraska that are not available to the other 49
states in the Union?
"Among the Nebraska-specific provisions {in addition to giving in to Nelson's demands
for tighter curbs on abortion}:
- The federal government will pick up the full cost of a proposed expansion of
Medicaid, at an estimated cost of $100 million over 10 years.
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska will be exempted from an annual fee on insurers;
the exemption could also apply to nonprofit insurers in other states, possibly including Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan.
- Supplemental 'Medigap' policies such as those sold by Mutual of Omaha are exempted
from the annual fee on insurers, something that would help other companies selling such policies."
(Ref. 1)
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why was it necessary
to buy the vote of Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida by exempting roughly 800,000 seniors in Florida from
potential benefit cuts by private Medicare Advantage plans? In other states, Medicare
Advantage patients risk losing benefits because the private plans are a major target of planned cuts to
Medicare.
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why was it necessary
to bribe the American Medical Association (AMA) with some last-minute changes to please the doctors? "A
5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery procedures was replaced with a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning
services; a proposed fee on physicians to enroll in Medicare was dropped; and payment cuts to specialty and other
physicians to pay for bonuses to primary care doctors in underserved areas were also eliminated."
(Ref. 2)
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why was it necessary
to have Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut., who is facing a difficult re-election next year, add
"an item making $100 million available for construction of a hospital at a public university? The measure
leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where to spend the money. Dodd says more than a
dozen sites could be eligible, but he hopes the University of Connecticut will be the beneficiary
." [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 1)
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why was Democratic
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont allowed to negotiate "$600 million in additional Medicaid benefits for his state
over 10 years? He said Vermont is due the additional benefits because the state already has acted to
expand Medicaid eligibility to the levels now contemplated by the federal government. Vermont would be unfairly
penalized if other states are now being helped with that expansion, he said. Massachusetts is getting $500 million
in Medicaid help for similar reasons." (Ref. 1) In addition to the $600 million
Medicaid benefits for Vermont, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders also obtained some $10 billion for his
pet project, community health centers.
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why was it necessary
for doctors and hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming to get paid more than providers
in other states under formulas in the bill designed to help the so-called Frontier States?"
(Ref. 1)
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why were longshoremen
specifically added to the list of high-risk professions shielded from the full impact of a new tax on high-value
health insurance plans? Electrical linemen were already shielded, along with policemen, firefighters,
emergency first responders and workers in construction, mining, forestry, fishing and certain agriculture jobs.
(Ref. 1) Did political support from unions for
Democratic politicians have any influence here?
Why was language included in the Senate health care bill that will exclude all
but the very smallest construction industry companies from the bill's small business exemption?
In general, the exemption says that companies with fewer than 50 workers aren't subject to penalties if they don't
ensure their employees. In the construction business, only firms with fewer than five workers and a payroll under
$250,000 would be exempt. (Ref. 1) Was the change union
inspired?
Why was language included in the Senate health care bill to ban collection of
data on gun ownership in the bill? (Ref. 1)
What does gun ownership have to do with health care? The language was obviously included
to buy the support of gun rights lobbyists.
Why did makers of brand-name biotech drugs win 12 years of protection against
would-be generic competitors and why were drug-makers successful in defeating proposals to allow importation of
cheaper drugs from Canada and other countries, and to let the government negotiate drug prices for Medicare
recipients? Who does this benefit - American citizens or the pharmaceutical companies?
(Ref. 1)
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why was it necessary
for the Senate health care bill to contain "a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for 'certain states
recovering from a major disaster'? The section spends two pages defining which 'states' would qualify."
Apparently, "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. Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, {could not} pass it
without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu." The cost to the rest of us was estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office to be $100 million in 2011.
(Ref. 3)
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why are there
different deals for different states? Heath care reform should be the same across the country
and not a special deal for any specific state.
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why are the
Democrats shoving this pork-barrel healthcare bill down the throats of Americans in the face of nearly 60%
opposition in virtually every poll in America? "Make no mistake, if the people who wrote this bill
were proud of it, they wouldn't be forcing this vote in the dead of night." said Republican Minority Leader Sen.
Mitch McConnell. (Ref. 4)
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why the headlong
rush to pass the legislation? First, health care reform had to be passed by the end of the summer, then
it had to be finished by the end of the year, now it has to be completed early in the new year. Why was it
necessary to rush the Senate bill through "by Christmas, preparing for more votes at odd hours"? The first Senate
vote of the "final bill" came shortly after 1 a.m. on December 21st and the final vote on the morning of the day
before Christmas. Why the "frenzy of last-minute deals and concessions to win over the final holdouts"? Moderate
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, who originally supported the Senate health care reform bill, said she
was extremely disappointed by a rushed process that left scant time to review, much less, to amend the bill.
(Ref. 5) Could it be that the more the American people
learn about the Democrats' health care reform bill, the more they find that they don't want it? Could it be that
the longer it takes to pass the bill, the more the number of Americans that will oppose it? Isn't this the real
reason the President and the Congressional Democrats have been rushing its passage?
If ObamaCare is such a good deal for all Americans, why did Democratic
Senator Harry Reid have to use a pay-to-play approach for buying "the votes of senators whose understanding of the
duties of representation does not rise above looting the nation for local benefits? And Reid had two
advantages - the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an absence of principles.
Principles are general rules, such as: Nebraska should not be exempt from burdens imposed on the other 49 states."
(Ref. 6)
------------------------------------------------------
References:
- A look at concessions lawmakers and interest groups won in the Senate's health care bill,
Associated Press, StarTribune.com, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, 22 December 2009.
- Health care bill clears 2nd Senate hurdle Tues., Associated Press,
22 December 2009.
- What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?, Jonathan Karl,
ABC News, 19 November 2009.
- Evening Buzz: Buying Health Care Reform Votes, Maureen Miller, CNN - AC360deg,
21 December 2009.
- Health-care victory sought by Christmas, Erica Werner, Associated Press, Boston Herald,
Page 8, 22 December 2009.
- Empty victories on the double, George F. Will, Boston Herald, Page 19,
22 December 2009.
| |
