Wednesday, September 30, 2009

ObamaCare: Not in My Back Yard


"ObamaCare would be good for you...but for me or my constituents, not so much"

We've been through this before. Serious efforts to compel or encourage members of Congress to enroll in the very health care plans that they wish to foist upon the American public have failed to garner support from Democrats. Members of Congress simply cannot be expected to give up their Cadillac plans, their VIP treatment, and their extraordinary perks.

To appease Senators in states whose governments have already driven the cost of health insurance through the stratosphere, preferential treatment is in the works. Senator Baucus has set up new health insurance taxation to phase in slowly for states such as Olympia Snowe's Maine. For the 17 states with the highest-cost premiums, ObamaCare would come in a gentler form, taxing insurance plans at a more forgiving threshold than for the rest of the country.

Nobody seems to want plain old ObamaCare in their own back yard. It has become something of a NIMBY phenomenon.

This week, we were treated to the finest example of this sickening hypocrisy:

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, has secured a special deal protecting his state against the costs of expanding Medicaid under one of the major health care bills moving through Congress.

Mr. Reid, a Democrat, complained about the impact on Nevada when the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, unveiled his bill on Sept. 16.

Now Mr. Baucus has modified the bill to spare Nevada and three other states, and Mr. Reid, who faces a potentially difficult race for re-election next year, is taking credit for getting a “major increase” in federal money for his state.

The Senate bill, like a companion measure in the House, would expand Medicaid to cover childless adults, parents and other people with incomes less than 133 percent of the poverty level, or $29,327 for a family of four. The federal government would pay most of the new costs — anywhere from 77 percent to 95 percent, with a higher share in poorer states, in the first five years.

Under Mr. Baucus’s original proposal, the federal government would have paid 87 percent of the new costs in Nevada. Under the modified version, the federal government would pay 100 percent of the new costs for the first five years.

Seems fair to me!


Update: Hawaii May Get to Opt Out of Health Bill


More


Extraordinary Health Care Perks for Congress
Little Known Office on Capitol Hill Provides VIP Medical Care for Low Price

Harry Reid makes special deal to protect Nevada from Obamacare.

Interactive refresher: From a bill to a law - health care

ObamaCare: No Insurance, Go to Jail!

Obama has spoken with Letterman more than he has spoken with General McChrystal.

Bookmark and Share

6 comments:

robert verdi said...

I would like the left to explain how such actions are progressive or egalitarian.

DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

"Obama has spoken with Letterman more than he has spoken with General McChrystal."


I Love That One!

cube said...

Reid is a vile, disgusting man.

RightKlik said...

RV: ...they're progressive in the sense that they're moving toward tyranny.

DD2: Here's another: BHO meets in person with SEIU union boss weekly, but has only met General McChrystal once…by video phone.

Cube: He's among the worst.

Nickie Goomba said...

Obama has only two goals... the destruction of American Capitalism and the destruction of American morale.

Z said...

Absolutely true about Obama and Letterman; but, hey, what's more important, late night jokes or soldiers?

As for Reid? is there ANYONE LOWER?
Oh ya......the Left, the whole anti-capitalism, anti American LEFT...and they keep indoctrinating our kids to where the kids won't KNOW what a different America it is, they'll just be TOLD the new socialist one is better.
blech