Several prosecutors probing the "Nebraska Compromise"

[IndyColtsFan]

I didn't see this posted yet. It appears at least seven states are investigating whether or not the "Nebraska Compromise" is Constitutional:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34551523/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

This was a question I asked earlier, and I think it is dubious at best. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution — as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

I like this quote as well:

"Whether in the court of law or in the court of public opinion, we must bring an end to this culture of corruption," McMaster said. The negotiations "on their face appear to be a form of vote buying paid for by taxpayers," he said.

I'm sure the usual suspects will chime in with their usual brilliant observations:

1. Obstruction!
2. That's how business is always done in Washington!
3. These guys are in the pockets of (insert bogeyman du jour)!
4. These guys are sore losers!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't know how states can be exempted from costs others have to pay. That would seem to be a violation of equal protection, as others are penalized to pay for the program. It's not a matter of need, but political expediency.

The expanded medicaid programs ought to be interesting too. Medicaid is a huge unfunded federal mandate. They're cutting funds for education to pay for it now. We'll simply not be able to fund schools to cover it.

 

[CycloWizard]

There are any number of items in this bill that are probably unconstitutional. Maybe things will come to a head the first time someone gets locked up for not buying health insurance.

 

[StageLeft]

Sounds good but my guess is that by the time this issue gets to the point in the power structure that anybody could actually reverse it that person is by virtue of the corrupting nature of said power structure uninterested in doing so.

 

[piasabird]

What constitutional right is there that guarantees health care? That is not in the constitution. The federal government has absolutely no right to take the money. The only reason it still happens is that people like free government healthcare.

It is a giant drain on national resources. Health care is nice, but not having healthcare would increase the elderly death rate.

So what happens if the federal government says, they will not pay for medicare in that state? Will the people revolt?

 

[Zebo]

There will be tons of lawsuits regarding this abomination - like how the Feds have a right to force us to make contributions to private insurance.

 

[cubby1223]

No way could there be something unconstitutional in this health care bill. They have all read through it, studied the language thoroughly, consulted all opinions, and most importantly listened to the American people. For sure if there were a problem it would have been corrected before the vote

 

[KK]

No way could there be something unconstitutional in this health care bill. They have all read through it, studied the language thoroughly, consulted all opinions, and most importantly listened to the American people. For sure if there were a problem it would have been corrected before the vote

Of course, those democrats are the smart ones.

 

[woolfe9999]

I seriously doubt that the Nebraska deal is unconstitional. However, if it turns out to be, that wouldn't be a bad thing for people who support the bill but are nonetheless angry about that deal, because the Court would throw out only that provision of the bill and leave everything else. It would be actually be nice to see Ben Nelson giving his vote and not getting all the fruits of his extortion.

- wolf

 

[nageov3t]

I get that there's always back and forth horse trading in the legislative process, but this seems a little... idk, shameless?

some token money for a museum or a road is one thing; exempting an entire state from a tax seems like a whole other level.

 

[CycloWizard]

What constitutional right is there that guarantees health care? That is not in the constitution. The federal government has absolutely no right to take the money. The only reason it still happens is that people like free government healthcare.

It is a giant drain on national resources. Health care is nice, but not having healthcare would increase the elderly death rate.

So what happens if the federal government says, they will not pay for medicare in that state? Will the people revolt?

Don't even worry about whether or not it's a right - now it's a legal requirement.

 

[Patranus]

Don't you like the fact that congress passes something and then it gets challenged in court. Don't you think that congress should have to justify their constitutional authority before it passes legislation?

After all, don't they all take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution.

 

[ElFenix]

The expanded medicaid programs ought to be interesting too. Medicaid is a huge unfunded federal mandate. They're cutting funds for education to pay for it now. We'll simply not be able to fund schools to cover it.

literally the young and the healthy are paying for the old and the sick.

good job baby boomers.

 

[cubby1223]

The expanded medicaid programs ought to be interesting too. Medicaid is a huge unfunded federal mandate. They're cutting funds for education to pay for it now. We'll simply not be able to fund schools to cover it.

Here in Illinois (where Obama began his political career) the state government is so far in debt that medicare/medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals is delayed by up to 2 full years from treatment.

And you can forget about education payments... state government started up a new program some years ago for parents to give money to the government early on, as a down payment towards college tuition with a guaranteed return. Well, our infinitely wise state officials took all the tuition money and invested it all those derivative security thingies. (and a note for the "progressives" of this forum, IL state gov't has Democrats as Governor, Lt. Gov., State House & Senate control) Yeah, what was supposed to be a savings account, Illinois parents now have nothing to send their kids to college with...

Now this expanding rol of medicare/medicaid, as well as the cuts they say they will make with this health care bill, sucks to be old I guess

 

[0marTheZealot]

What constitutional right is there that guarantees health care? That is not in the constitution. The federal government has absolutely no right to take the money. The only reason it still happens is that people like free government healthcare.

It is a giant drain on national resources. Health care is nice, but not having healthcare would increase the elderly death rate.

So what happens if the federal government says, they will not pay for medicare in that state? Will the people revolt?

Again, you people keep bringing up the constitutionality arguments. It's quite obvious you don't know what the Constitution actually means because there are literally thousands of departments, programs and such that are "unconstitutional" by the definition you use.

As for being a drain, yes it is a drain right now. We have the world's most inefficient healthcare system. Europe pays less for more in every single country. So yea, of course it's a drain on our government, it'll be a drain no matter what. What this country needs is true reform, on the order of what the Taiwanese/Swedes/Swiss did in the '90s. Not half-hearted garbage like this legislation. It's telling to see that not a single country in the world adopts our system when they reform their healthcare system. Except for us, we are perfectly happy to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on some misguided ideal that our system is perfect and only needs slight tweaks.

 

[Patranus]

Again, you people keep bringing up the constitutionality arguments. It's quite obvious you don't know what the Constitution actually means because there are literally thousands of departments, programs and such that are "unconstitutional" by the definition you use.

I see. I guess we need a ruling class to tell us that...right?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I seriously doubt that the Nebraska deal is unconstitional. However, if it turns out to be, that wouldn't be a bad thing for people who support the bill but are nonetheless angry about that deal, because the Court would throw out only that provision of the bill and leave everything else. It would be actually be nice to see Ben Nelson giving his vote and not getting all the fruits of his extortion.

- wolf

It comes down to the fact that this deal effectively favors the citizens of one state by exempting them from taxation for political purposes. This would be different from federal funding formulas which take average income etc into account. It would be the same as exempting a state from federal income taxes if the leaders play ball on some issue. I dont think that would fly. I agree that it wouldn't invalidate the bill itself but rather any special arrangment.

 

[0marTheZealot]

I see. I guess we need a ruling class to tell us that...right?

yea, you do, it's called the Supreme Court. File briefs with the Supreme Court and bring down all those departments, programs, laws, and such you find unconstitutional. Should be a slam dunk, the way you guys talk about it.

 

[woolfe9999]

It comes down to the fact that this deal effectively favors the citizens of one state by exempting them from taxation for political purposes. This would be different from federal funding formulas which take average income etc into account. It would be the same as exempting a state from federal income taxes if the leaders play ball on some issue. I dont think that would fly. I agree that it wouldn't invalidate the bill itself but rather any special arrangment.

Oh, it's terribly unfair. In fact, it's disgusting. Don't get me wrong. But immoral is not the same thing as unconstitutional. Equal protection, for example, doesn't apply here, because it doesn't protect states from being treated unequally versus other states.

However, as a supporter of the bill who is sickened by this deal, and by the antics of Ben Nelson, I'd love to see it thrown out of the bill, for whatever reason.

BTW, even worse IMO than his medicaid exemption for Nebraska is the fact that he got exemptions from the insurance excise tax for two insurance companies in Nebraska, both of whom are contributors to his campaign. At least the Nebraska exemption helps Nebraskans. This other exemption is a direct giveaway of taxpayor money to two of his corporate contributors. Utterly repugnant.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not a Constitutional attorney but if you are correct then Congress could raise the income tax on states whose representatives don't play ball. It would allow them to selectively destroy based on party.

While equal protection may not apply to states I'd think it would to it's citizens which is the same thing.

Bears watching because this would set a horrible precident if allowed to stand. Imagine if a party controlled Congress and the Presidency with a substantial majority. It could easily create a one party dictatorship. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Not good.

 

[Patranus]

yea, you do, it's called the Supreme Court. File briefs with the Supreme Court and bring down all those departments, programs, laws, and such you find unconstitutional. Should be a slam dunk, the way you guys talk about it.

If the Supreme Court acted within its role as outlined in the Constitution and didn't try and push certain political agendas than you might have a point.

 

[Zebo]

It's not an equal protection issue but an apportionment one. ....imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... heard of that?

 

[Zebo]

If the Supreme Court acted within its role as outlined in the Constitution and didn't try and push certain political agendas than you might have a point.

Stacking the court <see wiki > proceeded about 15 cases with judges under duress changed America forever. Commerce Clause and General Welfare clause were butchered to mean congress can do anything and enumerated lost it's meaning. But that's so 1930's time to deal in here and now ...

 

[Ausm]

I go with 2 and 4 do I get the door prize?

 

[StageLeft]

literally the young and the healthy are paying for the old and the sick.

good job baby boomers.

It's ok. They are fvcking you, but you can fvck your children. it's the new American way.