HotAir falsely suggests "Louisiana purchase" doesn't have "anything to do with health care"
HotAir.com blogger Cassy Fiano criticized President Obama for standing by a provision in the health care bill that provides funding for states that have suffered natural disasters and stated, "I just don't see how disaster relief has anything to do with health care." In fact, the funding is tied to health care because it would fix gaps in federal Medicaid payments that some states -- such as Louisiana and Hawaii -- have experienced as a result of recent disasters.
HotAir.com: "I just don't see how disaster relief has anything to do with health care"
From Fiano's March 17 HotAir.com post:
This moment, from Bret Baier's interview on Fox News with Obama, might just be one of the biggest "WTF?!" moments from Obama's presidency yet. Obama is either completely making things up, living in an alternate reality, or really, really confused.
Actually, my guess is that's it's probably a combination of all three.
OBAMA [video]: I'll give you some exceptions, though. Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions of dollars -- millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana obviously went through Katrina, and they're still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that. ... That also -- well, I'm giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that's not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.
Apparently, there was a devastating earthquake in Hawaii that we all somehow missed.
Oh, wait, no. That's right. There was no earthquake, and Obama is just totally clueless, as usual. In fact, the last earthquake in Hawaii to cause any deaths at all was in 1975, and two people died.
In any case, why is he using this argument, anyways? He's turned this health care bill into a one-size-fits-all solution for everything. Not only will it fix our health care, but it will apparently create jobs and give disaster relief around the country!
Maybe I'm the only person who doesn't get it, but I just don't see how disaster relief has anything to do with health care. This is just more evidence that Obama is just talking out of his you-know-where now. He's become this desperate. And you know, I say good. That means we're getting to him, and now's the time to push even harder.
Health care bill provision fixes Medicaid gap caused by recent natural disasters
Funding would fix FMAP rates for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The Senate bill as passed includes a provision -- often referred to as the "Louisiana Purchase" by conservative media -- that would adjust the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The bill requires that it only applies to states "for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster" and "determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government."
The Department of Health and Human Services states that FMAP is "used in determining the amount of Federal matching funds for State expenditures for assistance payments for certain social services, and State medical and medical insurance expenditures. The Social Security Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to calculate and publish the FMAPs each year."
Times-Picayune: Temporary post-Katrina spending "spiked" per capita income "long enough" to skew Medicaid funding formula, causing state Medicaid funding shortfall. The Times-Picayune reported on January 22 that "FMAP refers to the percentage of a state's payments under Medicaid that are covered by the federal government. Louisiana usually gets a higher match because of how poor the state is, but because of all the recovery and rebuilding money that poured in after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, state per capita income spiked long enough to throw the formula out of kilter and threaten to blow a hole [in] the state budget. [Sen. Mary] Landrieu's fix was, according to state officials, only the beginning of a solution for a huge Medicaid shortfall the state is facing." The article stated that Landrieu said "attaching the Medicaid provision to a health-care bill made sense, and there is no obvious and feasible legislative alternative."
Jindal: "If not corrected in Washington, D.C.," FMAP problem will cost $500 million a year. Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's fiscal year 2010-2011 budget proposal says that the "Louisiana state government faces significant, multi-year budget challenges, compounded by a faulty federal FMAP formula that, if not corrected in Washington, D.C., will cost the state approximately $500 million a year in Medicaid funding, impacting services for the poorest in our state, and often those who need care the most." The proposal also says that "[w]hile there is discussion in Washington about extending the enhanced federal Medicaid match rate for six months for all states, without a permanent fix to Louisiana's faulty FMAP calculation, combined with the loss of federal stimulus funding, Louisiana will still face a projected $1.7 billion shortfall for FY 12."
HotAir post oblivious to 2006 Hawaii earthquake
Hawaii was declared a disaster area following earthquake. During the Fox News interview cited by HotAir, Obama stated that Hawaii could benefit from the health care bill provision that helps Louisiana deal with the FMAP problem. The HotAir post responded: "Apparently, there was a devastating earthquake in Hawaii that we all somehow missed. Oh, wait, no. That's right. There was no earthquake, and Obama is just totally clueless, as usual." In fact, a magnitude 6.7 earthquake hit Hawaii on October 15, 2006, as Media Matters for America noted. At the time, President Bush "declared a major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by an earthquake." USA Today also reported that Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle also issued a disaster declaration for the state, after reports of damaged buildings, landslides, and power outages.
Times-Picayune: Hawaii might also be eligible for aid under health care reform. The Times-Picayune reported on February 23 that the provision "was intended as a one-time, partial fix for a sharp drop in federal Medicaid money coming to the state because of a temporary surge in per capita income in Louisiana as recovery dollars flooded into the state in the wake of Katrina and Rita." The article noted that Hawaii could also be eligible for aid under the Senate health care reform bill:
In order to qualify, a state would have to face an FMAP decline of a magnitude that would only include at this time three states: Louisiana, North Dakota and Hawaii. The legislation also requires the state be one that experienced a major disaster in the past seven years in which every county or parish in the state was eligible for FEMA public assistance. That would eliminate North Dakota, leaving only Louisiana and Hawaii, where all four of its counties were eligible for aid after the 2006 earthquake.
Hawaii officials reportedly pursuing FMAP funding. A March 11 Times-Picayune article quoted a Hawaii Department of Human Services spokeswoman as saying they are "optimistic we will find a way to get the FMAP provision," amid some confusion over whether Hawaii will ultimately qualify for the fix.
















There's no money being appropriated to one state, first off. It's to any state that has this problem. Any state is eligible.
Secondly, the day I believe that I should take the word of MagCynic over the experts in the House and their staff's expertise on what is legit to do and how to word things to make them legit and proper, that's be the day hell freezes over.
Rich.
And you think this process is something to mock?
Just goes to show everyone that either you don't have a clue about how the gov't works, or your personal animus is so great that you just couldn't resist inventing an objection to what I wrote.
Well if you are talking about Democratic authored bills you may have a point, and are probably right. No argument from me Sue. It's best if they use doublespeak so they won't and can't be pinned down on what is actually in the bill.
How does your foot taste?
If that is what you meant?
What am I supposed to do?
"Had you said something along the lines of writing legislation to make sure all the legalities are covered, fine."
What DID I do?
Say that they (not just Democrats, but ALL bills in ALL legislatures and city halls) craft bills (AND all contracts between ANY businesses) so that they are legit and proper and don't have unintended consequences. I said that by saying "the experts in the House and their staff's expertise {is used to determine} what is legit to do and how to word things to make them legit and proper". I DID exactly what you claim I needed to do.
So, your rant above?
Solely an ad hominem attack motivated by your personal animus.
Please, keep showing everyone how eaten up by that animus you are!
[Orrin Hatch's longer-than-"War-and-Peace" claim has been debunked.]
Well, here's what they don't say: Five of the top 10 longest bills in the past decade were written by Republicans. In fact, the House health care bill is a mere 68 words shorter than a transportation measure introduced in '05 by Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young.
Why some of you are so defensive and protective of your political party is beyond me. You act as though a family member has been insulted. Lighten up.
You're the one who brought "Democratic authored bills" into it. Were you not being defensive and protective of Republicans?
Feel better now. geesh
1. Hamilton is dead. He won't be casting a vote on this matter.
2. His opinion that the states should support themselves are an entirely different issue.
3. Founding Father or not, he was one man, with one point of view, and a point of view is an opinion and not a law.
4. The issues being faced by a nation formed in the 18th century are not the same as the issues being faced by a nation in the 21st century.
5. Hamilton also believed dueling Aaron Burr was a good idea. We all know how well that worked (see 1.).
It's NOT Harry Reid's word. He's just your scary monster that's under the bed. Congressmen and their staffs craft bills like this, and they all have experience and knowledge, INCLUDING that bills can't be limited in illegal ways.
Your assertion that YOU know better than THEY do (not that Hamilton knows better, that YOU know better) is ludicrous on its face.
This would have nothing to do with distribution.
Whose word are we going to take on the Constitutionality of this provision (that allocates money for all states affected by disasters)? The highly educated Constitutional professor/Harvard Law School graduate/President of the United States? Or this punch-drunk hillbilly whose ironic handle implies both a marked disingenuity and a lack of intellectual rigor that simply does not inspire confidence?
You know why trotting out the founders to bolster your argument doesn't ever make a mark? Two things:
1. You always, always, always misquote the founder in question. Hamilton was a Federalist, what's also been called a "loose constructionist." He believed in the broadest possible application of Federal power and the least rigid application of the Constitution. You evoked the spirit of a man whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to your own.
2. The founders, though no two of them agreed on almost any issue, all wanted the new democracy they formed to belong to the living. When you and your ilk assert that the founders wanted this or that, it's just too easy to refute. For any given signatory to the Constitution that you can dredge up (almost always inappropriately), I can refute you with another. Constitutional arguments that appeal to Old World sensibilities from 200 years ago are just flat out stupid. We live in a future that none of the founders could have contemplated, and the Constitution, the democracy it informs, and the worldwide, interdependent community that we lead, these things belong to us, not to the mouldering corpses to which you genuflect.
Explain to me under which provision of the Constitution would this be violative? It appears to me no one should take your word at understanding the law not to mention your mind reading of Hamilton.
If you don't KNOW why something is happening, a BETTER option is to find OUT why it's happening.
A much worse option is to assume that it's not being done for good, honest reasons, and then fail to verify that there's some evidence for your conspiracy theory before you make a public fool of yourself and deceive others!
If this blogger had done that, they could have found out from the biggest newspaper in Louisiana that "Times-Picayune: Temporary post-Katrina spending "spiked" per capita income "long enough" to skew Medicaid funding formula, causing state Medicaid funding shortfall."
This isn't rocket science.
Hey BJFan, where are you? Whaddya know, looks like your hero's on our side this time.