|
SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL EXEMPTS CERTAIN COUNTIES FROM MEDICARE CUTS
By Bob Ellis on December 12th, 2009
in the DACOTA POST
Just a few weeks ago we heard about the $300 million bribe Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) received from the architects of the Senate health care bill in order to get her vote for cloture.
As we might have expected, the sweetheart deals, the carving out of chunks of taxpayer funds for personal advantage, the corruption did not stop there.
Here is a transcript of Senator Mike Crapo’s (R-IN) statement in the Senate discussing the special deals being cut for some members of the Senate for some Americans…so that some senators can bribe Americans with their own tax dollars.
But despite the popularity of the program, the massive cuts in the Reid bill will result in most seniors losing benefits or coverage or both under Medicare Advantage.
I have a chart in the Chamber which I have shown before. You cannot see the individual States too well on it from this distance at this size, but you can see the coloring on the United States in this chart.
If you live in a State that is red, deep red, or the pinkish color–which is almost every State in the Union–then you are going to see your benefits cut under Medicare Advantage under this bill.
Why am I bringing it up again? We have already had a vote on it. In fact, we have had two votes on it. The majority has insisted on keeping these cuts in the bill. The reason I am bringing it up again is because, as we have combed through this 2,074-page bill, we have found out there is a provision in the Reid bill that would protect Medicare Advantage benefits for some people in the United States, for just a few in this country.
During the Finance Committee markup, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida advocated on behalf of Medicare Advantage and the beneficiaries in his home State of Florida. Subsequently, during closed-door negotiations, the legislative language was added to protect those beneficiaries.
This is interesting because one of the responses to us, as we have tried to stop the imposition of these cuts to Medicare, has been this bill will not cut any Medicare benefits. Well, if not, then why does Florida need a special exemption for its citizens? If not, why not support the McCain amendment that would give the same protection to all Medicare Advantage beneficiaries that the bill gives to primarily just a few in Florida? [Page: S12669]
Specifically, section 3201(g) of the Reid bill, very deep in the bill on page 894, has a $5 billion provision drafted to prevent the drastic cuts in the Medicare Advantage Program from impacting those enrollees who reside primarily in three counties in Florida: Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach. It seems unfair that taxpayers would foot a $5 billion provision that provides protection for only some of the Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. It certainly proves there are cuts to Medicare Advantage benefits in this bill; again, benefits that one out of four beneficiaries in America receives–one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing parts of Medicare. Instead of preferential treatment for some, why not extend these same protections for Medicare Advantage to all beneficiaries under Medicare? I know the 60,000 Medicare beneficiaries on Medicare Advantage in Idaho, my home State, want and deserve that same level of protection.
The founders of our great nation would be sick, livid or likely both to see this kind of corrupt deal-making, favoritism, and misuse of public office going on.
The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy. – Benjamin Franklin
Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community. – Benjamin Rush
And these words from the Federalist…
Let me now ask what circumstance there is in the constitution of the House of Representatives that violates the principles of republican government, or favors the elevation of the few on the ruins of the many? Let me ask whether every circumstance is not, on the contrary, strictly conformable to these principles, and scrupulously impartial to the rights and pretensions of every class and description of citizens?…
I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty. – Federalist #57
This unequal treatment of Americans–from the “progressive” (Marxist) taxation, to the “stick it to the rich” attitude of envy, to the granting of favors to some Americans while gouging others, to the bribing of certain groups of taxpayers with their own money to curry favor at the ballot box…it is all disgusting.
It is one of the despicable practices we must bring to a decisive end in this country in 2010 and 2012. Our country cannot survive much more of this corruption and putting of self before the good of our country
|
|
|
