advertisement

Missouri senators vote down federal Medicaid expansion

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 | 8:31 a.m. CDT; updated 9:24 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, April 23, 2013

JEFFERSON CITY — Republican senators have made it clear that there will be no Medicaid expansion in Missouri this session.

The Republican-led Senate voted down a Democratic attempt Monday night to insert $890 million of federal funds into Missouri's budget to expand Medicaid eligibility to an estimated 260,000 lower-income adults.

The vote was just the latest in a series of similar defeats in the Missouri legislature for the Medicaid expansion backed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon and called for under the Affordable Care Act.

But this vote carried a bit more weight. That's because it ensured that neither the Senate nor the House version of the budget includes the Medicaid expansion. Under legislative rules, negotiators cannot insert money into the final budget that wasn't in either chamber's plan.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ken Geringer April 23, 2013 | 2:33 p.m.

As a child in Hazelwood in the 50s and 60s we would say a person was, "Too stupid to live."
Republicans in the Missouri legislature that would say no to six billion over three years to be spent on health care for working citizens are "Too stupid to be reelected."
Perhaps if you take 260,000 voters, multiply by their friends, loved ones, and those that can't believe a Missourian would turn down free money, you would have a movement that would vote the wackos out.
We'll have to wait and see.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 23, 2013 | 3:43 p.m.

"turn down free money" What free money? That ain't the traditional "tree", borrowing that 6B$ that you and the stupid Democrats think is "free". Get a grip!

(Report Comment)
Ken Geringer April 23, 2013 | 6:22 p.m.

Frank, can't you understand that if we do not take this money, hospitals will close, many people will be adversely affected, jobs will be lost, and it won't cost Missouri for three years. Estimated at six billion dollars to be spent on health care for Missourians. After that we can opt out, and not get in on the same deal we do with the feds for roads. I can't believe Missourians would reelect somebody that would would say no to that deal.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams April 23, 2013 | 7:16 p.m.

Ken:

I just can't support the views of anyone who posts "would turn down free money." Such a statement shows a perspective about money that I just can't fathom.

I'm just stunned......

What if everyone was like you? Where would your "free" money come from then?

Trees?

PS: I saw this statement the other day from someone I do not know: "I'm to the point where I'd like to keep ALL money sent in for taxes and send the gov't that which I now get to keep."

That's not good at all........

(Report Comment)
Ken Geringer April 23, 2013 | 8:42 p.m.

Michael you know I am talking about a program that will provide six billion dollars over three years without the State of Missouri paying in to the deal. This is how you seem to argue the hell with the people, I'm OK. Try to make some sense if you care.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams April 23, 2013 | 9:14 p.m.

Ken: You said, "I am talking about a program that will provide six billion dollars over three years without the State of Missouri paying in to the deal."
________________

Just where in the hell do you think that 6 billion dollars comes from, Ken?

Originally.

Do you REALLY think the EARNING PEOPLE of the State of Missouri did not pay into that fund? Or OTHER people in this nation?

Where does the money come from, Ken?

What makes it "free" to you?

That you didn't contribute?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams April 23, 2013 | 9:19 p.m.

Even the "free" candy your grandma gave you had a price. Perhaps not to you, but I'm fairly certain your grandma had to work for the nickel it cost to give you free candy.

"Free" is not without consequences to those providing the "free".

And that's what cranks me the most....that you and many other progressives do not understand that free to you actually cost someone else. It is that mindset on the part of many so-called progressives that often brings the word "mooch" to mind.

(Report Comment)
Ken Geringer April 23, 2013 | 9:37 p.m.

Michael. so we can not participate because there is no driver on the top. I get it.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 24, 2013 | 7:44 a.m.

Ken writes like the liberals that address every problem only as far as it benefits them. Nothing before, or after matters, only what is there for "me" - Now.

"if we do not take this money, hospitals will close, many people will be adversely affected, jobs will be lost,"

Talk about a failure to communicate! Look around you, Ken, jobs are already being lost, Medical equipment companies are leaving the country, 40% of all Dr. are estimated to retire rather than participate in the hassle of BOcare. Dr./Senator M. Baucus helped write the monstrosity and now refers to it a "train wreck" coming down the track.

Our MO legislators are doing us a favor in staying as far away as possible.

Do you ever concern yourself with the aspect of a nation, borrowing and printing money so that it's government may survive yet, another day?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams April 24, 2013 | 7:51 a.m.

Ken says, "Michael. so we can not participate because there is no driver on the top."
___________________

What?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking April 24, 2013 | 8:20 a.m.

Ken Geringer wrote:

"if we do not take this money, hospitals will close, many people will be adversely affected, jobs will be lost, and it won't cost Missouri for three years."

Then what do the people do that would be on it? Are we going to come up with another $2-3 billion/year for Missouri to fund the program after the three years is up?

Whether we should expand Medicaid nationally could be answered quantitatively, by comparing cost savings (if any) over what indigent and low-income care costs us now in taxes. I suspect it's pretty close to a wash, however, the point still remains that the funding of this expansion would revert to the state after three years. Unless we're prepared for that, we shouldn't do it.

DK

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements