Patterico's Pontifications

12/19/2009

Nelson Gets a “Basket of Goodies” for Nebraska

Filed under: Health Care,Politics — DRJ @ 5:15 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Are you celebrating, Nebraska? Your Senator knows how to get the most for his vote:

“[Senator Ben] Nelson, the most determined of the Democratic holdouts on health care reform, announced this morning that he will vote for cloture on the bill, shutting down debate so that the Senate can hold an up or down vote on passage. But he only did so after securing handouts for his home state of Nebraska.

According the Washington Post:

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

Vermont, which is represented by potential liberal holdout Sen. Bernie Sanders, got a similar deal.”

Meanwhile, polls show “We, the People” oppose health care legislation in ever-increasing numbers.

— DRJ

24 Responses to “Nelson Gets a “Basket of Goodies” for Nebraska”

  1. it’s a good thing bribery isn’t illegal, and it’s too bad that a lack of shame isn’t intrinsically fatal in and of itself.

    i could go find hookers over on Sepulveda or Santa Monica, with more moral fiber than this slut.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  2. No, were not celebrating. Nelson is out on his ass in ’12. I don’t care what he got. Bought and Sold.

    Dopey (a812c5)

  3. I want to know if this is constitutional and if it will stand up to legal review

    bizjetmech (022d42)

  4. “I want to know if this is constitutional and if it will stand up to legal review”

    What could be unconstitutional?

    imdw (7c85b9)

  5. I’m not certain but I think bizjetmech is asking whether the health care legislation is constitutional.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  6. of course its legal: Congress passed the law.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  7. “I’m not certain but I think bizjetmech is asking whether the health care legislation is constitutional.”

    Talking points memo had some congresspeople saying the nelson abortion deal is unconstitutional. I don’t see it. But that might be a good idea: get him on board with something the courts will strike down.

    imdw (cd4b7a)

  8. imdw,

    The federal government is simply a government of enumerated powers. It can only act where it has the authority to do so. And even where it may have authority it is still limited by the bill of rights.

    The current bill allows the government to force people to buy insurance simply because they are alive.

    There are only 2 possible arguments for the government’s current action:

    -commerce clause
    -welfare clause

    The commerce clause is not applicable as there is no interstate commerce where people don’t purchase anything. This only leaves the welfare clause, but to accept that the govt. can use this clause to argue for healthcare is to accept the argument that the govt. can require anything so long as it is justified as being for the general welfare of the people.

    bill (0d4ddf)

  9. One could make the case that it is in the “general welfare” of the people to purchase a new car every year. It would certainly help Government Motors (GM) with their recovery. What’s next? Mandatory purchase of new digital TV’s? New homes?

    So where does it stop? Where is the point that the Supreme Court or — ultimately — the people say “you have exceeded your authority under the Constitution”?

    Or is it in the “general welfare” to just ignore the Constitution? I fear that day is approaching all too swiftly.

    What happens then?

    navyvet (c99bbf)

  10. There’s a big controversy about whether the Nelson-Reid deal implies that federal money would pay for abortions. Senator Nelson says “n” but GOP Senators say “yes.” I’ve concluded that the GOP Senators are correct.

    What do you think, DRJ?

    Andrew (59b742)

  11. “The commerce clause is not applicable as there is no interstate commerce where people don’t purchase anything.”

    Oh dear.

    “This only leaves the welfare clause, but to accept that the govt. can use this clause to argue for healthcare is to accept the argument that the govt. can require anything so long as it is justified as being for the general welfare of the people.”

    The house bill did it with an income tax. That you got to avoid if you had health insurance. Income taxes are allowed in the 16th amendment.

    “One could make the case that it is in the “general welfare” of the people to purchase a new car every year. It would certainly help Government Motors (GM) with their recovery. What’s next? Mandatory purchase of new digital TV’s? New homes?”

    The government CAN tax people and take that money and purchase a car and give it to them.

    imdw (017d51)

  12. “The government CAN tax people and take that money and purchase a car and give it to them.”

    imdw – Obama still hasn’t paid my mortgage. Why should I expect a car?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  13. imdw,

    Income taxes are allowed but they aren’t a result of your mere existence, and they required a brand new amendment.

    Even with that particular amendment the govt. cannot order you to purchase a good. The present bill allows the govt. to threaten you with fines or imprisonment if you fail to purchase from one of their authorized corporations which hardly counts as a tax.

    bill (0d4ddf)

  14. “Income taxes are allowed but they aren’t a result of your mere existence, and they required a brand new amendment.”

    They are a result of your income. The way I read the house bill: no income, no income tax, no mandate. The bill set a 2.5% tax on incomes, with some exemptions. And another exemption for someone with a qualifying health plan.

    “imdw – Obama still hasn’t paid my mortgage. Why should I expect a car?”

    What the can do and what they will do are different things. But there’s no denying that it would be constitutional to set a tax, buy cars, and give them away.

    imdw (603c39)

  15. Two things…
    Many will find the insurance mandate unconstitutional under Rule 7.62; and,

    can we now refer to Sen. Nelson as the Senior Whore from Omaha?

    AD - RtR/OS! (88245d)

  16. “Many will find the insurance mandate unconstitutional under Rule 7.62; and,”

    What is “rule 7.62”?

    imdw (8e7a13)

  17. Save your breath, folks. Imdw ain’t here in good faith. Sen Nelson appears to have had his nose all bent out of shape when Sen Mary from LA was being noted to be an expensive whore, and was determined to be the most expensive whore. For the general welfare, b*tches!

    Is it provide the general welfare, or promote the general welfare?

    JD (a5d4c8)

  18. Is there an equal protection problem with the federal government treating the people of Nebraska differently than the people of Florida?

    Mike S (9e0515)

  19. What is “rule 7.62″?

    To the common man it’s also known as 30 caliber. Many various lengths and weights are available and widely popular.

    In the right length and hands it can reach out and touch scum at over 1000 yards!

    History paints a broad picture of it’s effectiveness to straighten out warped thinking of politicos and other scum.

    TC (0b9ca4)

  20. “Rule 7.62” is a play on words derived from a dialogue in “Breaker Morant“, where the term “Rule .303” is used; and is, as TC accurately described, an effective disciplinary tool.

    AD - RtR/OS! (1217bb)

  21. So, what does Warren Buffet Of Omaha, NE get? Dig a little and he’s have something in there.

    I just can’s wait until Obama double crosses Warren and stumps to nationalize car insurance.

    There will be a priceless photo of Warren on the internet just after he hears the news in a speech, not even a courtesy call.

    You could have helped earlier, Warren.

    Bill Lever (a16f35)

  22. Meanwhile, polls show “We, the People” oppose health care legislation in ever-increasing numbers.

    Doesn’t mean a thing. For the most part, the people that are supposed to “represent” us, don’t.

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (76097c)

  23. Newsflash NE, you still have to pay federal taxes which includes the huge indigent state of CA.

    Smitty (4d8a5b)

  24. I have a couple Qs on this. Does this legislative preference violate the Equal Protection clause?

    Can’t the senator vote against the bill and have it pass? He believes that will give him cover, I’d guess. That is, Reid just need to find 50 votes and that will let 10 at-risk senators vote against it, with Biden casting a tie-break. Is that right?

    jim2 (96d10c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0807 secs.