December 21, 2009 3:56 PM

Tallying the Health Care Bill's Giveaways

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Health Care
(AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)
In criticizing the Senate's health care bill today, Sen. John McCain complained of the "Cornhusker kickback," the "Louisiana purchase" and the "Florida flim-flam."

McCain was echoing Republican criticism that votes for the bill, as Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said, "have been bought." But what exactly did he mean?

Critics say the "Cornhusker kickback" was added to the health care bill to appease Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat (pictured at left) who until this weekend was the final holdout keeping Democrats from getting the 60 votes they needed to overcome filibuster.

The deal gives Nelson's home state of Nebraska "a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska, meaning federal taxpayers have to kick in an additional $45 million in the first decade," as Politico notes.

The "Louisiana Purchase," of course, is the name given to the United States' acquisition of a large swath of what is now the middle of the country in the early 1800s. But within the context of the health bill, it's the name critics have given the inclusion of $100-$300 million in added federal aid for Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, the home state of Sen. Mary Landrieu. (Notes Foxnews.com: "The actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.")

On his twitter feed, McCain described the "Florida Flim Flam" as "a deal to grandfather Medicare Advantage enrollees in Florida – apprx $5 Billion." That provision is tied to Florida Democrat Bill Nelson, who denies that he negotiated a special deal for Democratic south Florida.

Not every provision that critics have deemed a giveaway has a special nickname. The New York Times details how Minnesota Democrat Max Baucus, one of the main authors of the Senate bill, included in the legislation an expansion of Medicare to cover people exposed to asbestos from a Libby, Mont., mine. (Said Baucus in defending the provision: "The people of Libby were poisoned and have been dying for more than a decade.")

Also in the bill, the Times notes, is an item that increases Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in states where half the counties are "frontier counties" -- which means they have small population densities. Those states? Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile – who complained that the bill was not liberal enough – secured $10 billion to increase community health centers around the country, including two in his home state.

Also in the bill: Additional Medicaid funding for Vermont and Massachusetts; Medicare Advantage protections for New York and Pennsylvania, in addition to Florida; and $100 million for a health care facility/medical school in an unknown state, possibly Pennsylvania or Connecticut.

"You'll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged over the weekend. "That's what legislating is all about. It's compromise."

Health Reform Bill Passes Key Senate Test
What's Next for the Health Care Bill?
Comparison of Senate, House Health Care Bills
Obama: Health Care Vote a "Big Victory"
Some Seek to Kill the 60-Vote Filibuster
Bob Corker: Health Bill Process Lacks Integrity
John McCain Evokes Bernie Madoff in Health Care Bill Critique
Washington Unplugged: Rep. Stupak Opposes Senate Abortion Compromise
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Add a Comment See all 114 Comments
by shearwaterso December 23, 2009 5:27 PM EST
From my understanding it is unconstitutional to give one state something that another state cannot have as well. This shows you how corrupt the process is. The fact that these bills were passed by one party in the dead of night shows how transparent the process is. The tea parties should be popular this spring and summer, reminding people of how democrats passed tax bills that will start accumulating taxes from 2010, but will not yield benefits until 2014. That is a broad sweeping deception of the American people to say that it was going to cost so much and then find out differently 3 years down the road!!
Reply to this comment
by markj2 December 22, 2009 7:12 PM EST
Corruption at its worst, both aprties are equally guilty, its just the Dem's in this case have flaunted in the face of the American People. When are the American people going to get fed-up enough to demand that ear marks, pay to play and lobbiests buying political favors ends and be against the law. People wake up its your money they are using to do all these things and they don't even have the courtasy of asking you if its ok.Its time to vote every single Congressional member out beginning in 2010 & 2012 both parties. We have to return to our roots and constitution and limit Government in what they can do. They have no power other than what WE THE PEOPLE give them. They work for us, yet they think we work for them and they can spend "OUR TAX PAYER MONEY" any way they want, not the way we want. Wake up ITS OUR MONEY they so freely throw around, actually its our grand childrens money they are spending.
Reply to this comment
by barbarbarbar-2009 December 22, 2009 6:40 PM EST
This article was picked up by drudgereport.com

Many of the conservatives who post here are not like my conservative friends who mean well.

Please excuse some of the hateful and angry comments by the drudgereport gang.
Reply to this comment
by mesidjz December 22, 2009 8:46 AM EST
Minnesota Democrat Max Baucus is from Montana.
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 December 22, 2009 9:06 AM EST
Explains why he included in the legislation an expansion of Medicare to cover people exposed to asbestos in Libby Mt.
by endurorob_5 December 22, 2009 7:31 AM EST
Legislative prostitution. These dems are doing anything they can to get this bill passed. It no longer has, if ever did have, anything to do with improving health carwe and controlling costs. It is now only about getting something passed so it is not a negative for Obama. Gotta protect Obama's reputation.
Reply to this comment
by payasyougo December 22, 2009 6:20 AM EST
"Tallying the Health Care Bill's Giveaways"
----

Business as usual. Except one party is missing and it is business as usual.
Reply to this comment
by foundation3 December 22, 2009 12:53 AM EST
After a quick reading of the proposed Healthcare bill I find over $23 BILLION going to ?non-profit? entities. Over $6 BILLION set aside to create new ?non-profits?. How much oversight will Congress exercise over how our money is spent and how will our complaints be handled? Let me offer an example from Oregon, Landlord shoots at disabled minority woman living in federally subsidized housing.
In depth information online at
community.kmtr.com/forums/821/ShowForum.aspx
Under Foundation Trilogy see newest postings and www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo .
Our Senator is Jeff Merkley, seen on 12-21-2009 ignoring Senate rules.
Landlord shoots at disabled minority woman living in federally subsidized housing. Incident covered up by Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart who also sits of non-profit board. Faye Stewart granted federal housing funds to a ?non-profit? that he was a board member and then covers up allegations of ?invoicing the federal government for services not rendered?. If the healthcare bill now being considered passes over $23 BILLION will go to newly created nonprofits with local politicos overseeing how it is being spent. Given Oregon?s Senator Merkley?s disregard for Senate rules and Oregon government?s disregard for following federal rules it will be a river of money flowing through hands of corrupt nonprofits with shady politicos using nets to scoop up as much of tax payers money as they can.
Reply to this comment
by markj2 December 22, 2009 7:16 PM EST
Actually the 23 Billion going to Non-profit entities is ACORN. Yup the same group Congress voted to de-fund, but Dem's realize that they need them to win in 2010 & 2012. Don't be fooled by all these "SLICK WILLIES" in Congress that tell you one thing, then do another behind your back.
by bankersvox December 22, 2009 12:29 AM EST
Taxes ? till a serf.
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 December 22, 2009 12:23 AM EST
Which plans can the subsidy be used on? When will they be received?

Federal subsidies can be used to purchase a plan on the newly created public exchange. Two more important characteristics of the subsidies: they will be advanceable, meaning recipients can claim their credit up front when paying insurance bills rather than wait until the end of the year to get their reimbursement check. The subsidies are also refundable, meaning that individuals who owe little to no taxes to government can still receive the credit.

What about out-of-pocket costs?

The Senate bill limits the amount that any American can pay out of pocket?once it hits $5,950 for an individual or $11,900 for a family, then the insurer is responsible for covering 100 percent of your costs. One small caveat for the über-wonks out there: these numbers are tied to current laws for health-savings accounts and will likely increase by the time this rule would go into effect in 2013.

So that?s the law for every insured American, but for those earning less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, the maximum would be even lower. And just like premiums, your maximum out-of-pocket costs are tied to how much you earn. If you earn between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level (an individual between $10,830 and 21,660), your maximum out-of-pocket payment would be about a third of the maximum for everyone else, or $1,983. For those in the next bracket?individuals between $21,660 and $32,490?the maximum out-of-pocket payment is set at half the national level, or $2,975. For a complete chart on out-of-pocket costs, see page 4 of this report from Georgetown University's Health Policy Institut
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 December 22, 2009 12:22 AM EST
That depends on how much you earn. The Senate bill provides ?premium tax credits,? which would reduce health-care costs to a specific percentage of an individual's or a family?s income. Premiums would start at 2 percent of income for those earning 133 percent of the federal poverty level and rise to 9.8 percent for those between 300 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Health-care think-tank Community Catalyst has a nice chart showing everything in between, available here.

Let?s say you?re a family of three living on $27,465. Under the Senate bill, the federal government would provide tax credits to make your premiums equal to 4.6 percent of your income, or $105.25 per month. Higher-earning families would be expected to kick in more. A family earning $73,240, for example, would pay 9.8 percent of their income, or a monthly premium of $598.
Reply to this comment
See all 114 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...