Healthcare Voter Casualties
 

I'm interested in seeing how the voters respond to members of Congress who voted for the healthcare bill ... especially those whose votes were bribed and bought.

There's already one Democrat casualty. Senator Ben Nelson (Nebraska) of the "Cornhusker Kickback" fame, should begin to plan for retirement as the polls are showing a huge dive in support and anger at the Senator for his vote on the bill.

I've lived in Nebraska. It's a conservative state. Nelson ran as a Democrat, but a conservative one. He's won election twice, but that will likely end in 2012 because of this vote. Polls show Nebraska voters to be more against the healthcare bill than other states nationally. That spells doom for the former Governor of the state, who has had mid-level popularity as a bluedog conservative Democrat.

I'm not sure of others yet, but will update as this continues...

Re: Healthcare Voter Casualties
 

Did all of the Democrats vote for the bill?

Re: Healthcare Voter Casualties
 

All the Democrat Senators did, not sure about Dem Representatives....

Re: Healthcare Voter Casualties
 

Nelson is going to have some air time during the Holiday Bowl game. That outta work! LOL!

He is going to tell the people that he wants to clear up their misconceptions about his vote.

He wants them to know:
Good luck with that, Nelson! :thumbsdown

Re: Healthcare Voter Casualties
 

Florida Attorney General Challenges Constitutionality of Healthcare Bill
December 30, 2009

Because Nelson's vote constituted the magical 60th vote needed to break the Republican filibuster, the Senate gave Nelson's Nebraska special considerations in the bill.

McCollum claims that the favoritism in the bill constitutes unconstitutional favoritism, and is urging the other 48 attorneys-general to sue in federal court to remove the provision if it remains in the final conference report version of the bill.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....ealthcare-bill

Re: Healthcare Voter Casualties
 

David,
This is awesome news!

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("H.R. 3590"). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590's new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and "must be in pursuit of the 'general welfare.' " South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, "that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the "Nebraska Compromise" is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state's tax dollars, except Nebraska's, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation's legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster
Attorney General, South Carolina

Rob McKenna
Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox
Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott
Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers
Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King
Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem
Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims
Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett
Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff
Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum
Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden
Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley
Attorney General, South Dakota


:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Re: Healthcare Voter Casualties
 

I especially LOVE the last paragraph!

:thumbsup :thumbsup