Archive for Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Kansas attorney general asks Congressional leaders to remove pro-Nebraska provisions from health reform bill

January 12, 2010

Advertisement

— Kansas Attorney General Steve Six is asking Democratic leaders in Congress to remove language in the Senate health care bill that benefits Nebraska.

Six wrote a letter Monday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Six says the special treatment for Nebraska would unfairly require taxpayers in Kansas and other states to share the cost of health care reform.

Language inserted during Senate debate on the health care bill would give Nebraska additional Medicaid funds to cover expanded services. The provision was viewed as an effort to win the vote of Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Six said he’s also studying whether the Senate bill is constitutional.

Comments

Phillbert 5 years, 3 months ago

And our state attorney general is jumping into the federal health care debate why?

Steve Jacob 5 years, 3 months ago

I am a democrat, and read what Sen. Nelson (and Landrieu) got in the bill for his/her state. It is a absolute joke, and I am ashamed. I understand pork, but this is off the charts.

I like what McCain called it the "Cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase".

Steve Jacob 5 years, 3 months ago

A let's give Six some credit, he's is a democrat after all, he's biting the hand that feeds him.

Phillbert 5 years, 3 months ago

@KRichards - I read the article, and nowhere did it state that the Attorney General of the State of Kansas has any role in the federal legislative process.

If he would like to get involved in the federal health care debate, I encourage him to run for Congress or the U.S. Senate.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

Okay, everybody moves to Nebraska when they get to 65!

Steve Jacob 5 years, 3 months ago

You want to bet other State Attorney will get on board? When people from your state has to pay more because other states got a good deal, why not fight it.

Rex Russell 5 years, 3 months ago

Actually, what I like most the most about Steven Six is that he rarely acts like a Democrat OR a Republican. He acts like an Attorney General and he acts like a Kansan. This refreshing.

right_down_the_middle 5 years, 3 months ago

a better question to ask is why are the Feds involved in healthcare at all? Afterall, healthcare is a uniquely state issue (your doctor is state certified). Perhaps Attorney General Six is doing exactly what he should be doing-----protecting Kansas from federal intrustion on State issues. That little thing called Federalism enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Ah, but the New Deal Democrats eviscerated the Commerce Clause and now everyone thinks everthing is a "federal case." A losing argument as far as the leftwing is concerned, but legally and Constitutionally a very good question for our Attorney General to ask. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your political motives.

monkeyspunk 5 years, 3 months ago

The AG can get involved, just as any other citizen can and challenge the constitutionality of any law/bill passed by congress. As an AG, a lawyer, and a judge, Six is well qualified to bring such an issue before a Federal Court.

He is indeed biting the hand that feeds him, and he should be commended for it.

Perhaps Six has gubenatorial aspirations. I would vote for him.

StrangerCreek 5 years, 3 months ago

This whole thing stinks. They were buying the Nebraska vote. By the people and for the people? Yeah, right. We need term limits. They don't have a clue. Look at all the cash they blew in Stockholm. Took their kids, took their wives. At our expense. The health care system is screwed up. We do need to clean it up. Some how.

It's the old adage, if you get sick and have money, you live. If you get in trouble and have money you walk.

bearded_gnome 5 years, 3 months ago

Six is the chief legal officer of the state of kansas, and as such it is his job to represent us in these matters.

before the louisanna purchase, cornhusker kickback, before 10-billion dollars to Vermont, or the wacko provisions for Libby Montanna, I and others were writing about how unconstitutional this plan is, including requiring people to buy something just because they live here.

now, one very hyperventilated poster hasn't posted on here...According to him (BC) Kansas Attorney General Six is just a "tea bag type" for considering that this might be unconstitutional. Funny that, he's not posted on here...hmmm, wonder why? Same poster loves to use very inflamatory language and promote the Feds' H1N1 hype/scare, kinda like Maryon with slightly different subject matter.

Jimo 5 years, 3 months ago

"This whole thing stinks. They were buying the Nebraska vote."

Votes are bought daily. How naive can you be?

To think, none of this would have proved necessary if Roberts or Brownback or any of 38 other Republican Senators had been more reasonable and worked on a compromise. As some more rational voices on the right are now asking: hasn't this "no no no" approach been even worse than a complete failure?

Stephen Roberts 5 years, 3 months ago

Good for Six. Maybe Congress will get the picture that this deal stinks.

bearded_gnome 5 years, 3 months ago

scrap the whole thing! it won't bring down costs, it won't bring down premiums unless you are one of the lucky designated people who get subsidies. it will raise the premiums of many health insurance plans by taxes and by extreme mandates for coverage.

it is unconstitutional, and was before the nebraska/louisiana/vermont/montanna vote buying.

as to Roberts or Brownback being "reasonable" how about the dems having been reasonable: they're negotiating in secret now between house and senate despite Mr. Obama's promises (8 of them) to put it on C-span for public viewing, they're pushing something through without proper discussion,they will expect legislators to vote with little or no time to read the resultant bill from the secret negotiations, the bill puts in 14 new taxes and empowers the IRS, you have to buy health insurance if you are alive in the U.S. and if you don't you're fined--don't pay the fine you go to jail. reasonable? that's funny.

Obama opposed compulsory confiscatory health insurance requirements as a candidate and criticized Hilary for such.

weeslicket 5 years, 3 months ago

this nebraska part of the health care compromise bill will not stand anyway, once the bill has left "reconciliation". i should think most people would recognize it as mostly grandstanding from a politician facing an election year. nothing new there.

yet still, the key word in the first sentence is "compromise". everybody gets some of what they wanted, nobody gets all of what they wanted.

that said, it also means that our elected leadership can re-visit this topic and do a much better job. remember: democracy happens continuously. (even in election cycles)

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 3 months ago

right_down_the_middle (Anonymous) says…

a better question to ask is why are the Feds involved in healthcare at all?

You really want to put that horse back into the barn? The Feds, through Medicare and Medicaid, have a controlling interest of health care spending in this country. Through those programs, the federal government is the largest provider of health care - larger than all private insurers combined.

Your question was extremely relevant in 1965. Do you have a flux capacitor?

63BC 5 years, 3 months ago

Ahem,

this is bandwagon politicking. Derek Schmidt, the next Attorney General, was on this weeks ago.

If this is genuine conviction, why the wait? He's posing.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 3 months ago

I believe that makes 17 AG's and 4 Governors that are non too happy about the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback.

Even if this POS of legislation passes, the legal challanges to it are monstorous.

With 59-64% opposing this bill in various polls, it is a wonder than any elected representative would vote for it.

It simply is a pork fest and has nothing to do with health care or health insurance accessibility, nor does it have anything to do with controlling health care costs.

They needed to start over 6 months ago and lock the lobbyists out, get rig of the PharmaCos reps and the Hospital Reps, and have the damn thing on CSPAN like they said they would.

notajayhawk 5 years, 3 months ago

Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…

"Through those programs, the federal government is the largest provider of health care - larger than all private insurers combined."

Except for the little detail that neither the federal government nor private insurers provide health care (with the exception of the VA). They provide money. And this is a large part of the problem in this debate - people equate funding with care.

right_down_the_middle 5 years, 3 months ago

No flux capcitor for me; apparently, though, the SCOTUS does have one. Because they appear to be consistently ruling in a fashion that rolls back the liberal New Deal steamroller that made a mockery of the 10th amendment. The fact that intellectually corrupt politcians have done everything they can to centralize power in D.C., doesn't abdicate citizens' (and Attorneys General) of their duty to demand that politicians follow the Constitution they are sworn to uphold; to the extent that we can force them to not expand on already tenuous forays into un-constitutional-ville, we should. Healthcare regulation is not now, nor ever was, a federal issue. Only those with an interest in expanding the role of government and weakening the authority of state governments argue otherwise.

gphawk89 5 years, 3 months ago

Sen Nelson - You allowed the Dems to buy your vote and now they might not keep up their end of the deal. Sucker!!

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 3 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…

“Through those programs, the federal government is the largest provider of health care - larger than all private insurers combined.”

Except for the little detail that neither the federal government nor private insurers provide health care (with the exception of the VA). They provide money. And this is a large part of the problem in this debate - people equate funding with care.

When in doubt, argue semantics.

The fact remains the largest purchaser of health care, commonly referred to as provider in the American vernacular, is the federal government.

LoveThsLife 5 years, 3 months ago

"scrap the whole thing! it won't bring down costs, it won't bring down premiums unless you are one of the lucky designated people who get subsidies. it will raise the premiums of many health insurance plans by taxes and by extreme mandates for coverage."

I totally agree with you.

"The Feds, through Medicare and Medicaid, have a controlling interest of health care spending in this country. Through those programs, the federal government is the largest provider of health care - larger than all private insurers combined."

And Medicare and Medicaid are two excellent examples of why I don't want the government involved in my health care.

I don't think reform is even good word for what is going on...it is more like expansion of costs.

Spend. Spend. Spend. Then we all should raise our debt ceiling....so we can spend spend spend some more.

Jimo 5 years, 3 months ago

"Because they appear to be consistently ruling in a fashion that rolls back the liberal New Deal steamroller that made a mockery of the 10th amendment"

I realize this may be a surprise to you but courts having be ruling against the 10th amendment (per your interpretation, not mine or anyone else's) since the first term of the Supreme Court at the end of the 18th century.

The question of whether Congressional power can pass laws under the General Welfare clause (ignoring for now the Interstate Commerce clause as well as its power to raise revenue), while a serious question, was settled (against your viewpoint) in American constitutional law long before FDR was a sparkle in his great-great grandparents' eyes.

If you don't like government, my understanding is that there are several places -- Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan -- that don't have one. You should leave and be happy there.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.