Does the Nebraska Compromise secured by Sen. Nelson make Senate health care reform bill unconstitutional?

Sen. Graham (R-SC) and Sen. DeMint (R-SC) have requested State Attorney General Henry McMaster to look into "concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34551523/ns/politics-health_care_reform/). The Nebraska Compromise is in reference to the deal that Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) was given to exempt citizens in Nebraska from the cost of the $45M, annually, expansion of Medicaid program in exchange for his vote on the Senate health care debate. Other states working with Attorney General McMaster include Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington. Just a few seconds ago on MSNBC McMaster announced two more states have joined the effort as well.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott defended his decision to join the discussion by saying, "The Nebraska Compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska form 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. In light of this unprecedented and highly questionable backroom deal, Texas will join South Carolina and other states in an effort to thoroughly review the constitutionality and legality of the Nebraska Compromise" (http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/12/23/42918). While "backroom" deals are nothing new to the political but the difference between traditional "backroom" deals and the Nebraska Compromise is that traditionally the deals result in a onetime influx of money for a pet project. That is the core of the argument being made with the Nebraska Compromise is that it unfairly benefits one segment of the population. Other states were involved in getting special funding as well for Medicaid expenses which include Louisiana, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Obliviously this will play out but does the deal that Sen. Nelson secured violate the Constitution? Is it fair to the rest of America to pay for all Medicaid costs of Nebraska going forward?

Sen. Reid marginalizes Slavery

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over'. If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). I have been watching a lot of the health care debate this summer first hand and have witnessed a lack of bi-partisan approach to health care reform.

During August we heard from the media and Democrats that public radio and Republicans were using scare tactics to sway public opinion. When average Americans showed up at the town hall debates, they were marginalized by the media as a fringe group. Now, Sen. Reid is likening the debate on health care reform to slavery. WHAT!!!! Sen. Reid needs a history lesson as it was under a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that the country went to war in an effort to end slavery. I do not see how going to war with one's own citizens is a "slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough" approach; rather it says quite the opposite. Where is the deal, how can anyone, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, assert that health care reform debate equates to emancipation, suffrage, or civil rights is pathetic at best.

The words spoke; see above, by Sen. Reid marginalizes emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. Health care is not a right nor does the current health care system restrict the rights of others. Health care costs are skyrocketing and premiums continue to rise thus making it difficult for all in America to afford health care insurance but health care is not a right. Does it make sense for a society to succeed that a robust health care system is required; yes. Does the current form of health care reform really reform health care; no. Not only that, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Pelosi do not need the support of one Republican in Congress to pass health care reform. So it begs the question: Who is really digging in their heels?

Those digging in their heels are one-issue Democrats. Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) amendment to deny taxpayer funds to pay for abortion was killed on the Senate floor yesterday to which the Senator warned that he will filibuster the bill if strict abortion language is not put in the final version. On the other side of the issue, many in the House of Representatives vow not to support a bill unless a public option exists. Moderate Democrats are at odds with their more Liberal brethren. Yes, Republicans are not in favor of the type of reform being proposed but their votes are not warranted to pass "reform". But I digress.

The assertion made by Sen. Reid that health care reform ranks in the annuals of history with emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights just proves the lunacy that exists in the leadership of the Democrat party. Even though I am a white male, I feel outraged by the marginalized comments by Sen. Reid as it belittles those that gave their lives to emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. We all agree that reform is needed in health care but Sen. Reid's statement trumps any fear mongering alleged during the August research. Or am I missing something? Is health care reform on the same level of emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights?

Baucus Bill increases taxes on all Americans

Today the Senate Finance committee will start their overhaul of the Baucus bill. At last report there are 500 plus amendments proposed to the bill. One of the hot button items in the Baucus bill to be discussing the 35% excise tax on insurers "Cadillac plans" they offer. The "Cadillac plan" is defined as policies with a yearly premium cost of $8000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. The excise tax is expected to generate $215B over 10 years. Michael Tanner, a health policy analyst at the Cato Institute, warns, "They're assuming that everybody's going to keep offering and buying these Cadillac plans. A 35% tax is huge" (Los Angeles Times). President Obama and other Democrats have chimed the 20% gross margin that insurance companies enjoy and it is time for them to share the wealth. Are we naïve to believe that insurance companies will not pass along the 35% excise tax among all the plans they offer thus "taxing" low and middle class by increasing premiums on non-Cadillac plans.

There is optimism behind the Baucus bill as it moves the conversation forward. "While we each have outstanding concerns we wish to see addressed, Senator Baucus has taken an important and critical step forward with this legislation, which is budget neutral and reduces future health care costs," says a statement signed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct), and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5937). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does acknowledge the plan does reduce the federal deficit in the long term through revenue generated from the excise tax on "Cadillac plans" and savings in the Medicare program.

What if the revenue from the "Cadillac plans" does not materialize? Historically speaking when taxes are raised, i.e. capital gains, the government realizes less revenue. In the case of health care, the excise tax may see the elimination of "Cadillac plans" and an increase in premiums of lesser plans to spread the tax. The increase premium is essentially a tax on Americans. Many will argue that premiums will increase regardless if nothing is done. I agree with that statement but let's not make it worse. We all agree something needs to be done to reduce premiums and other costs within the system. But to place an excise tax on plans that insurance companies are offering does nothing but raise potential revenue for the government while not lowering costs.

During his one-on-one conversation with George Stephanopoulos, President Obama was pressed that having a health care mandate on Americans is essentially a tax. The president responded that it is "not true" that mandating individuals obtain health care is a tax, but as Politico.com pointed out that the president is wrong. The Politico points out that on page 29 of the Baucus bill states "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax" and mentions later in the bill "The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed." Is it okay now to call the president a "Liar"? The H.R. 3200 bill also calls for a tax "on individuals without acceptable health care coverage". Both bills would violate President Obama's campaign promise that no one making less than $250,000 will see their taxes raised by one cent.

President Obama, in his conversation with Stephanopoulos, rebutted on the excise tax and mandate tax that "the first thing we've got to understand is you've got what is effectively a tax increase taking place on American families right now. The Kaiser Family Foundation report just came out last week. Health Care premiums went up 5.5 percent last year, at a time when the rest of the economy, inflation was actually negative. So that is a huge bite out of people's pockets." True premiums have increased and will continue to increase if nothing is done but none of the bill in Congress assist in stabilizing cost let alone driving them downward. To drive costs down we need competition. The public option and/or the Co-Op option do nothing to increase competition. To really increase competition is to open the borders of the states and allow people from one area of the country to purchase health care coverage from other areas of the country.

Instead the government feels mandating that all citizens obtain coverage along with the public option and/or Co-Ops is the answer. They are dead wrong. The mandate is a tax even though the president fails to realize that. George Stephanopoulos asked President Obama "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?" To which the president responded with "Well, hold on a second, George. Here – here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average –our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on." Stephanopoulos continued to press the tax issue by breaking out the Merriam Webster's Dictionary to define tax which ticked off the president. In the end President Obama said that "I absolutely reject that notion" in reference the mandate of health care coverage is a tax even though it states it both the Baucus bill and H.R. 3200.

Now that being said will President Obama sign a bill of similar fashion after his pledge not to increase taxes on those making less than $250,000. The rest of the week will be focused on the Senate Finance Committee. It will be interesting to see how the political games are played and what the Baucus bill looks like afterwards. Many say that the health care reform is not an easy task; yet I contend certain aspects are. Why doesn't Congress not act on those aspects?