Columbia City Council passes resolution calling for Medicaid expansion

Monday, December 16, 2013 | 10:28 p.m. CST; updated 12:29 p.m. CST, Thursday, December 19, 2013

COLUMBIA — The Columbia City Council is asking the state legislature to accept Medicaid expansion as provided by the Affordable Care Act.

By a 5 to 1 vote Monday, the council passed a nonbinding resolution that expresses support for Medicaid expansion in Missouri, saying the expansion would improve the health of Missouri families, reduce the costs of health care access and save and create thousands of jobs across the state.

Mayor Bob McDavid said at the council meeting that expanding Medicaid in Missouri would make 221,000 people eligible for Medicaid, create 4,000 jobs in the state in 2014 and increase tax revenues by $856 million by 2020.

"This does not even speak to the humanitarian aspect of it," said McDavid, who voted for the resolution.

The Affordable Care Act created new regulations on health insurance providers, established the health insurance exchanges and expanded Medicaid to cover more people, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Some states sued the federal government to be excluded from the new health care law. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed most parts of the law to stand but found mandatory Medicaid expansion unconstitutional, opening the door for states to opt in or out.

If states choose to expand Medicaid, the federal government would pay all costs associated with the expansion for three years. After three years, the federal government would gradually reduce its subsidy to 90 percent by 2020, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Third Ward Councilman Karl Skala also voted for the resolution Monday night, declaring it a matter of "the public good" and saying that it "has to do with expressing our opinion in a democratic fashion."

The lone dissenting voice on the council was Laura Nauser. Nauser cited federal government debt and deficit as one of her reasons for not supporting the resolution.

"We have a federal government who is $17 trillion in debt. We have $90-plus trillion in unfunded liabilities for such programs as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security,” Nauser said. She said supporters of the resolution should contact their state and federal representatives, believing that this matter is not for the city to get involved in.

Missouri Rep. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, said Monday before the meeting that he is in favor of the Medicaid expansion. Webber said that because of Columbia's large number of hospitals, the area could see millions of dollars in revenues added to the local economy.

Webber, a member of the House's Medicaid Transformation Committee, also said Medicaid expansion could save the state millions of dollars per year. Because the federal government subsidizes the cost of Medicaid expansion, costs currently borne by the state would be shifted to the federal government, Webber said. He said the bipartisan committee estimates a minimum savings to the state of $43 million annually, even after the federal government reduces its subsidy to the 90 percent level.

"There's zero debate that this would be a positive thing for Columbia," Webber said.

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.


Mark Foecking December 17, 2013 | 8:32 a.m.

I don't have a strong opinion on the Medicaid expansion (I can see both benefits and costs) but this is not how the Council should be spending its time. If it's nothing they can directly influence, they should spend time discussing and voting on it.


(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2013 | 8:51 a.m.

Supporters like Webber say the federal government will provide most of the funds (politically expedient), never stating where the federal government will GET those funds (politically not expedient).

It's a lie-by-omission.

If you, a citizen, file a 1040 or 1040A each year, YOU are the source of those funds.***

*** = Or China, or printing by the treasury.

PS: Does this sound FREE to you? Political moral of the story: If you can't sell a program on the whole truth, tell only the part of the truth you CAN sell. Leave out the rest.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders December 17, 2013 | 10:01 a.m.

Gee, it seems that Nauser is the only member of the Council who isn't math impaired.

Anybody who believes that increasing subsidized services decreases the costs overall needs to have their head examined (preferably by a fellow believer).

Simply put, the more the federal government spends (aka "borrows"), the poorer society gets overall, as the new money siphons wealth away from the masses, and into the pockets of those who are politically connected (like say, health insurers).

Whatever its alleged intentions, the ACA is just another Wall St. bailout for the insurance industry that has been undermined by the Federal Reserve's Zero Interest Rate Policy.

America is being consumed by debt, and it is the corporate/political class that is growing fat. Thing is, we're in a trap. The instant the Fed lets interest rates rise (by "tapering" bond purchases), is the instant the US Gov. becomes insolvent, as the Treasury simply cannot afford to finance the debt at market rates.

So, they will keep rates low until the entire edifice self-destructs, choosing to destroy the currency, rather than their hold on power. They are admittedly creating over $1 Trillion per year to keep Wall St. afloat. Who knows what the real number is.

Humanitarian aspects, indeed!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2013 | 10:17 a.m.


The absolute worst investment anyone can make, (including individuals, corporations, and governments), is one made to pay current expenses rather than the creation of new assets.

Such an investment gets you from day-to-day until the REAL money runs out, but there is no hope of betterment next week, next month, next year, or next generation.

I think Nauser knows this. The others believe in money trees owned by someone else.

(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.