sixcard

This is two pages (0.1%) of the Senate approach the health care.

Here?s the incredibly complicated language:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended? (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ??subsection (y)?? and inserting ??subsections (y) and (aa)??; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

??(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
?(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111?5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and ? of section 5001 of Public Law 111?5.

??( In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

??(2) In this subsection, the term ?disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State? means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 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 under such Act and for which? ??(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111?5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and ? of section 5001 of Public Law 111?5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ??( in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

??(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.??.




sixcard

skelevirus

That can't be real

m630

Oh sure it is, how do you think the health care debacle got to be over 2,000 pages? This is what you get when lobbists aka lawyers write bills to ensure that they get what they want...

DRANGED

Two pages just to say one word, Louisiana.

J, we're all screwed...

kscarrol

Guys, come on. The language says any state where a federal disaster has been declared in the past seven years. That would apply to more than just Louisiana. Mississippi and Texas were declared disaster areas as well...

sixcard

True. but Reid does not have to buy the votes from TX or MS.

sixcard

kscarrol

True, but then you should call it what it is, an attempt to sway Sen. Landrieu... You're initial posting implied that the people of Louisiana were asking for a special handout when that is not the case. The real issue at hand is the sad state of politics at play in DC!

kscarrol

And proving that any politician can be bought, our senator says she will vote for the bill... :thumbsdown:

sixcard

"True, but then you should call it what it is, an attempt to sway Sen. Landrieu... You're initial posting implied that the people of Louisiana were asking for a special handout when that is not the case. The real issue at hand is the sad state of politics at play in DC!"

ks, my exact intent was as you stated and not to impugn the people of Louisiana. I did not imply anything about Louisiana. If you read it that way then you have my apology.

When I posted we did not know how Ms. (oops ? Senator) Landrieu would vote.

"And proving that any politician can be bought, our senator says she will vote for the bill... :thumbsdown:"

But now that you noted she did vote for it, may I imply anything about the voters in LA who put her in office?

sixcard

kscarrol

No apology needed, I knew what you meant, just clarifying for others who might be reading. As for the voters of Louisiana, read into it what you may...

Not justifying her actions but the good senator said she would vote to allow debate over the bill but that she thought it had some flaws. A nice non-commital but given the balance of power in the senate it is as good as a vote for the bill...