U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has repeatedly said he promised the ObamaCare socialized medicine plan a crucial 60th vote in the Senate only after tough provisions were added to ensure taxpayers would not involuntarily wind up paying for abortions.
That claim, as it turns out, is at best questionable.
For one thing, the “tough” provisions don’t look so tough after all.
Anti-abortion language in the Senate bill is far weaker, for instance, than it is in the House bill, and appears to amount to little more than accounting gimmicks. And once the differing bills are reconciled and final legislation is sent to President Barack Obama for his signature, there is no guarantee that taxpayers won’t have to pay the cost of killing innocent babies through abortion.
Another reason to question Sen. Nelson’s support is the sweetheart deal he got for his home state of Nebraska by agreeing to give the Senate bill his vote.
Along with similar special favors going to just a couple of other states, Nebraska will get $100 million in extra federal assistance to cover the higher Medicaid expenses that Washington plans to impose upon the states through ObamaCare.
Most states will not benefit from Sen. Nelson’s expensive “extra,” which ironically is called “Equitable Support for Certain States.” How can “equitable support” apply only to “certain states” but leave other states facing crippling unfunded mandates on Medicaid?
“You’ve got to compliment Ben Nelson for playing ‘The Price is Right,’ ” Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., told The New York Times. “He negotiated a Medicaid agreement for Nebraska that puts the federal government on the hook forever. … This isn’t the Louisiana Purchase; this is the Nebraska windfall.”
Do you believe that reducing costs, improving access and providing better care are really the goals of ObamaCare?
Or do you think it has become an excuse for political payoffs and that it will increase out-of-control federal spending, reduce access and harm the quality of care?
We are afraid it’s the latter.