Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) blinks over the ‘Nebraska Compromise”……

In getting his vote for the Healthcare Bill in the Senate….. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) held out for the ‘Nebraska Compromise’ that would exempt the state from paying certain Medicaid fee’s……….the GOP….. sensing a weakness..has gotten 13 Attorney General’s from states with Republican Governors to threaten legal action to get the same benefit……Nelson has also ran into a buzz saw of opposition to the bill back home in Nebraska which has a republican Governor….

In a bid to tramp down some of negatives he has earned for his action….. he has blinked….

Nelson has now let it be known that he would not be averse to the policy change of having any state of the union be able to get the “Nebraska ” deal…….

Sometimes a little sunlight cause a change, huh?

Payback is a b*t#h…….

Advertisements

January 8, 2010 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Men, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Polls, The Economy | , , , , | 1 Comment

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) blinks over the 'Nebraska Compromise"……

In getting his vote for the Healthcare Bill in the Senate….. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) held out for the ‘Nebraska Compromise’ that would exempt the state from paying certain Medicaid fee’s……….the GOP….. sensing a weakness..has gotten 13 Attorney General’s from states with Republican Governors to threaten legal action to get the same benefit……Nelson has also ran into a buzz saw of opposition to the bill back home in Nebraska which has a republican Governor….

In a bid to tramp down some of negatives he has earned for his action….. he has blinked….

Nelson has now let it be known that he would not be averse to the policy change of having any state of the union be able to get the “Nebraska ” deal…….

Sometimes a little sunlight cause a change, huh?

Payback is a b*t#h…….

January 8, 2010 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Men, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Polls, The Economy | , , , , | 1 Comment

13 GOP Attorney General's want the "Nebraska Compromise" stripped from the Healthacare Bill….

They have written to Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid formally requesting Senator Ben Nelson’s (D- Neb.) sweetner be eliminated as illegal……

Here’s more…..

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution,” they wrote.

The state officials say they are “contemplating” legal action but would not go through with it if it is removed from the bill. They claim they do not find any other Constitutional objections to the bill.

Some Republicans have argued that the bill’s individual mandate to buy health insurance also violated the Constitution.

…..and this is copy of the letter…….

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker, United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader, United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a “display of arbitrary power.” Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster

Attorney General, South Carolina

Rob McKenna

Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox

Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott

Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers

Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King

Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem

Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims

Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett

Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff

Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum

Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden

Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley

Attorney General, South Dakota

Ok, how far is this going to go?……Does a state have a chance against something the majority party wants?…..the Supremes can read the tea leaves also……

Stay tuned….

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Politics, The Economy | , , , , , | 9 Comments

13 GOP Attorney General’s want the “Nebraska Compromise” stripped from the Healthacare Bill….

They have written to Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid formally requesting Senator Ben Nelson’s (D- Neb.) sweetner be eliminated as illegal……

Here’s more…..

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution,” they wrote.

The state officials say they are “contemplating” legal action but would not go through with it if it is removed from the bill. They claim they do not find any other Constitutional objections to the bill.

Some Republicans have argued that the bill’s individual mandate to buy health insurance also violated the Constitution.

…..and this is copy of the letter…….

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker, United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader, United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a “display of arbitrary power.” Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster

Attorney General, South Carolina

Rob McKenna

Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox

Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott

Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers

Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King

Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem

Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims

Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett

Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff

Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum

Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden

Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley

Attorney General, South Dakota

Ok, how far is this going to go?……Does a state have a chance against something the majority party wants?…..the Supremes can read the tea leaves also……

Stay tuned….

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Politics, The Economy | , , , , , | 9 Comments

Senator Ben Nelson takes it on the chin in Nebraska……new polling numbers….

Merlin does his magic again…..

Here is the latest on the last hold out senator for the Healthcare Bill……ouch!

Rasmussen Survey

Nebraska Senate 2012

Dave Heineman (R) 61 %

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) 30 %

Others 5 %

Undecided 4 %

Note:…..The back and forth with the governor ( a Republican) was out in the open…..time may heal the wounds…but he ’s gonna have to use a good amount of shoe leather in the state…..the next election for him is three years away, in 2012…..

December 29, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Men, Politics, Polls | , , | 4 Comments

Oh, Snap!…..someone just reminded me…there are a few Healthcare Companies headquartered in Connecticut…..

I know they are there …..Can anybody give us some names and locations in the state?

Could this be behind Lieberman’s try trying to gut the Senate Bill?

Here’s the latest on the wrangling over the bill with Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senators Lieberman (I-Conn) and Nelson (D-Neb)…..

Update:….by way of mydd.com….it seems there is a campaign beginning to target Joe Lieberman’s wife…..who is associated with the healthcare giants Pfizer and ALCO…..

Lieberman’s ties

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 06:05:24 PM EST

Looks like a swift well-timed call to action:

Activists are setting their sights on Hadassah Lieberman, launching a celebrity-studded petition drive to convince the nation’s largest breast cancer non-profit to end the Connecticut senator’s wife role as a spokeswoman.

The move to pressure the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation came the same day Lieberman’s husband angered Democrats by announcing that he would not support an expansion of Medicare to cover individuals under the age of 55. Organizers did not point to that decision, instead citing Hadassah Lieberman’s own ties to the health care industry.

Lieberman has worked as a consultant for companies including Pfizer and ALCO.

“We are asking Ellen DeGeneres, Christie Brinkley and other high-profile celebrities who are associated with Komen to demand that no more money raised for cancer treatment be given to Hadassah Lieberman or any other ex-Pharma/Insurance strategists,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of the Firedoglake blog.

Yglesias is calling it a “murder/suicide” pact that Senators like Lieberman, Lincoln, and Nelson have out for killing any sort of Public Option in healthcare reform, while a “new national poll finds that fully one third of Democratic voters say that they’re `less likely’ to vote in 2010 if Congress doesn’t pass a public option.”

December 14, 2009 Posted by | Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Men, Politics | , , , | Leave a comment

Sen. Ben Nelson wants 65 senate votes for a Healthcare Bill…….

Simple…65 votes provide cover for the democrats and Obama…something I have said from the beginning….I know the democrats could do it alone…but that would be bad politics………

September 29, 2009 Posted by | Healthcare, Politics | , , , , | Leave a comment