Senate health care bill provides $100 million to Louisiana

I am so sick and tired of the highfalutin language in Congressional legislation. There is no reason they need to put in crazy formulas describing who gets how much cash. Unless of course, you want to hide $100 million in bribes to ensure a senator votes for health care.

You see, Harry Ried (D-Nev.) needs at least 60 votes to push through his legislation entitled Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 which has almost nothing to do with home ownership, rather it’s about destroying health care and America.

Thanks to Radio Vice Online reader comanchepilot who links us to ABC’s The Note.

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 confusing language happens all the time in Congressional legislation. This is how Congress works these days. You read the following and e-mail or call your Senators right now and ask them exactly who would benefit from the special rules outlined in section 2006.

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 percent age for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjust ment 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 1115

(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 1115. (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 1115

(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 1115, 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 de termined 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..

4 replies
  1. donh
    donh says:

    This is open sewer politics. If oil companies sit around a table and conspire against the consumer to fix a monopoly price, it is an evil trust.  When politicians  sit around a table  to conspire against the voters , monopolize a market,  and pay off politicians to vote against their constituencies , its called an "historical moment". The recent  court ruling that allows Katrina victims to sue the Army Corp of engineers for negligance needs investigating. The timing of this ruling coming just hours before a key Senate vote on Healthcare reform fails the smell test. The FBI needs to investigate communications between the trial  judge and Dirty Harry to be sure political pressure was not brought to bear on this ruling. If the FBI really cares about breaking up terror cells, Washington DC needs to be their prime suspect.

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I agree with don.  The stench from the Congress is overpowering, and the sheer audacity these toads display probably makes Bernie Madoff wish he had been a politician.   The way they are jamming these bills through, under cover of darkness (or is it under a rock?), with nobody being able to read any of the bills, is criminal.

     

    I, for one, refuse to vote for any incumbent that votes for this travesty of a bill.  It is near treason, and should be tossed out for being unconstitutional.

  3. Erik Blazynski
    Erik Blazynski says:

    This is how just about every piece of legislation gets passed.  They use our money to buy political capital. It has been this way for a long long time and it's not going to change. And it is not like the Louisiana can say no or come next election time they will tout the fact that she said no to $100 million for her state.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Fund reminds us of payoffs to ensure a yes vote which I wrote about this morning. These calculation fixes are pure bribery and must be […]

Comments are closed.