BREAKING: KS Senate gives initial approval to Medicaid expansion on 25 to 13 vote

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
Obama is somewhere laughing.



http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article141024998.html


Brownback’s office criticizes Medicaid expansion as Kansas Senate begins debate
Ks%20cap


The Kansas Senate appears poised to vote to expand Medicaid three days after a congressional plan that would have barred more states from expanding the program fell apart. The uncertainty of the future of the program, which provides health coverage to low-income and disabled Kansans, had been a major talking point used by opponents of expansion.John Sleezer File photo
BY HUNTER WOODALL

hwoodall@kcstar.com

AND BRYAN LOWRY

blowry@kcstar.com


Gov. Sam Brownback’s office voiced strong opposition to expanding Medicaid Monday as the Kansas Senate began debate on a bill to expand the program three days after a congressional plan that would have barred more states from doing so fell apart.

“To expand ObamaCare when the program is in a death spiral is not responsible policy,” Melika Willoughby, Brownback’s spokeswoman, said in a statement as the Senate kicked off debate on the bill, which would expand Medicaid to cover roughly 150,000 uninsured Kansans.

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, enabled states to expand Medicaid, which provides health coverage to the disabled and low-income families, to cover people who earn too little to buy insurance through the federal health care exchange but also earn too much to otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

ADVERTISING
Nineteen states, including Kansas and Missouri, have yet to expand the program, but the Kansas Senate appeared poised Monday to send legislation to the governor’s desk to enact expansion. Based on Willoughby’s statement it appears unlikely that Brownback will allow it to become law.

“Kansas must prioritize the care and service of vulnerable Kansans, addressing their health care needs in a sustainable way, not expanding a failing entitlement program to able-bodied adults,” Willoughby said.

The Kansas debate takes place three days after U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, canceled a vote on a controversial bill that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and barred states from expanding the program beyond March 1 due to a lack of GOP support. The bill, which had been pushed by President Donald Trump, appears to be dead for the time being.

The uncertainty of the future of Medicaid had been a major talking point used by opponents of expansion. State Sen. Laura Kelly, a Topeka Democrat, said the collapse of the congressional bill “takes away a huge argument against” expansion in Kansas.

The Kansas House passed expansion by a margin of 81-44 earlier this session. That is still three votes shy of a veto-proof majority.

Kelly said she doubts the Senate, which is more conservative by comparison, will pass the bill with a veto-proof majority but she does expect the legislation to pass and advance to Gov. Sam Brownback’s desk.

“It’ll be close, but I’m optimistic that we can get there and the failure of Trumpcare doesn’t hurt,” Kelly said, noting that she still thinks Brownback remains the biggest obstacle to Medicaid expansion in Kansas.









FACEBOOK TWITTER EMAILSam Brownback calls federal KanCare review 'parting shots'[/paste:font]
The Kansas governor has continued to stand by KanCare, the state's privatized Medicaid program, after a critical federal review.

Hunter Woodall The Kansas City Star
David Jordan, the executive director of the Alliance for a Healthy Kansas, said that Ryan’s decision to pull the congressional bill “removes any doubt that Medicaid expansion will remain in place.”

Senate President Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, has previously predicted that the Kansas bill will pass the Senate, but she’s also questioned the wisdom of the policy.

“We’d be entering into a contract with an unreliable partner,” Wagle said, referring to the federal government.

State Sen. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican and retired physician who supports expansion, said that it could be several years before Congress makes significant changes to health care law and “until that happens we need to move forward with what Kansans need.”

Brownback could have expanded Medicaid on his own to cover an additional 150,000 Kansans, but in 2014 he signed a bill that required legislative approval before the program could expand. Supporters now say that Brownback should weigh that heavily if the Senate passes the bill.

“If the Legislature passes this, the governor needs to listen,” Bollier said.

Bob Beatty, a political scientist at Washburn University, predicted that Brownback would veto the bill based on his decision earlier in the session to veto a bill that would have rolled back his signature tax cuts to right the state’s finances.

“If he didn’t go along with the budget bill, it’s pretty unlikely he’ll go along with this,” Beatty said.

The vote comes amid speculation that Brownback could be tapped for a post in the Trump administration. “It’s become a very difficult time to figure out where Gov. Brownback wants to go both figuratively and literally,” Beatty said.

Conservative Republicans said Monday morning that they still plan to oppose the bill even after the federal changes failed Friday.

State Sen. Dennis Pyle, a Hiawatha Republican, acknowledged that the congressional bill’s failure to even get a vote did take an argument away from expansion opponents, but said that he would still vote against expansion because he opposes growing government.

“I just think it’s more government,” Pyle said. “We have to look at things from that standpoint.”

Sen. Julia Lynn, an Olathe Republican, said that the time isn’t right to expand Medicaid given the state’s financial problems. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has previously projected that expanding the program would increase costs for the state.

“It has nothing to do with not having sympathy and empathy for the people affected,” Lynn said. “This is just a fiduciary question. I don’t think we’re in a position to answer that call right now.”

A key provision of the Kansas bill meant to address financial concerns would end expansion if federal funding for expansion falls below 90 percent.

Brownback highlighted concerns that federal funding for expansion would not last in his 2017 State of the State address.

“Promises of limitless ‘free’ money from Washington to cover expanded populations were never going to be kept, but that reality might now arrive sooner than later. For states who took the expansion path, the reckoning could be severe,” Brownback said in his January speech.

Bryan Lowry: 816-234-4077, @BryanLowry3 


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article141024998.html#storylink=cpy
 
Why don't they just drop the BULLSHIT and just go SINGLEPAYER (MEDICARE/MEDICAID)????

It doesn't say in the constitution that mofos can't have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
 
Single payer could not have gone
Through with Lieberman and
Ben Nelson having some say on
The matter
If the Repubs controlled congress the way the Dems did when Obama was elected president; they would have pushed every single bill they wanted thru within those first 2 years; Dems had 60plus senators and controlled the house and the presidency; Fuckers should have gotten single payer done!!!!
 
If the Repubs controlled congress the way the Dems did when Obama was elected president; they would have pushed every single bill they wanted thru within those first 2 years; Dems had 60plus senators and controlled the house and the presidency; Fuckers should have gotten single payer done!!!!
Dems had 58 + 2 independents and then
They even lost 1 member...the Gop
Just failed to get healthcare out of the
The House...
 
Last edited:
If the Repubs controlled congress the way the Dems did when Obama was elected president; they would have pushed every single bill they wanted thru within those first 2 years; Dems had 60plus senators and controlled the house and the presidency; Fuckers should have gotten single payer done!!!!
You had a few blue dogs that wouldn't budge with single-payer
 
You had a few blue dogs that wouldn't budge with single-payer
Exactly; they would not entertain the Public
Option;
and even to get this diluted Obama Care, Ben Nelson
of Nebraska, who was in the pockets of Healthcare
companies, had to be given inducements
 
Last edited:
They're almost in full revolt to Brownbacks draconian conservative policies.

Shit had them so strapped they've gone into panic mode.

Who would've thought a Republican state Senate would increase taxes AND expand Medicare within months of each other?
Republicans have to someday admit that the democratic way is the best way to go in governing. That trickle down bullshit do not work in selfish America
 
It should have been single payer in the first place; shows how pussy acting the Dems were; hopefully this Trump nonsense causes them to get their act together...
If you read how the law came to be you could not in say this.

Unless you were being dishonest or just stupid, that is.
 
Republicans have to someday admit that the democratic way is the best way to go in governing. That trickle down bullshit do not work in selfish America
To quote Frankie Beverly: "Look at California."
Kansas was so broke, they were having 3 day school weeks at one point. Trickle down simply does not work. "Trickle down", IMO, was just a slick way of rewarding those at the top without facing backlash from the masses. They painted it as a strategy, instead of what it really was, a cash grab.
 
If the Repubs controlled congress the way the Dems did when Obama was elected president; they would have pushed every single bill they wanted thru within those first 2 years; Dems had 60plus senators and controlled the house and the presidency; Fuckers should have gotten single payer done!!!!
If they controlled congress the way the democrats did???

Okay mayne, you don't need to comment On this shit any more.

You don't know wtf you're talking about AT ALL.
 
If the Repubs controlled congress the way the Dems did when Obama was elected president; they would have pushed every single bill they wanted thru within those first 2 years; Dems had 60plus senators and controlled the house and the presidency; Fuckers should have gotten single payer done!!!!

Single payer was not going to happen...GOP wasn't having it.
 
Single payer was not going to happen...GOP wasn't having it.
when you control the house and have 60plus senators and the presidency, it doesnt matter what the opposing party not having; when Obama was first elected, thats what they had; and they wasted it....
 
when you control the house and have 60plus senators and the presidency, it doesnt matter what the opposing party not having; when Obama was first elected, thats what they had; and they wasted it....

See. You've mistaken. They only had 57 senators. They didn't have the supermajority (60) to push through anything they wanted. The GOP kept blocking everything. That's why they changed things (except the Supreme Court) to a simple majority (51).

Single payer was never going to pass the Senate and the GOP made that clear.
 
See. You've mistaken. They only had 57 senators. They didn't have the supermajority (60) to push through anything they wanted. The GOP kept blocking everything. That's why they changed things (except the Supreme Court) to a simple majority (51).
Gotcha, I was under the impression they had the 60 plus senators...
 
Dems had 58 + 2 independents and then
They even lost 1 member...the Gop
Just failed to get healthcare out of the
The House...
@Spectrum said they had 57; if they had 58 plus 2 independents then thats 60; majority of the time the independents vote with Dems; Thats why I was under that impression of the super majority...
 
Dems had 58 + 2 independents and then
They even lost 1 member...the Gop
Just failed to get healthcare out of the
The House...

See. You've mistaken. They only had 57 senators. They didn't have the supermajority (60) to push through anything they wanted. The GOP kept blocking everything. That's why they changed things (except the Supreme Court) to a simple majority (51).

Single payer was never going to pass the Senate and the GOP made that clear.

" January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes."

so the Dems had total control of the Congress for 4 months!!!! Lets be clear, do any of you think that the Repubs wouldnt get what they wanted in those 4 months???
 
If they controlled congress the way the democrats did???

Okay mayne, you don't need to comment On this shit any more.

You don't know wtf you're talking about AT ALL.
Like I just stated, the Dems had total control of congress for 4 months; in that window they controlled everything; Repubs do not have total control of congress; the last time they controlled all 3 levels was when George W Bush was in office and it wasnt total control; before that it was 70 years when they controlled all 3 levels of government....
 
"

so the Dems had total control of the Congress for 4 months!!!! Lets be clear, do any of you think that the Repubs wouldnt get what they wanted in those 4 months???

GOP has total control of the senate, house, and the WH and they couldn't repeal Obamacare.

Having control of House is one thing. When you send a bill to the Senate, if you don't have control of the Senate, it can die there. Not one Republican was voting for Single Payer. They couldn't get the votes in the Senate.
 
GOP has total control of the senate, congress, and the WH and they couldn't repeal Obamacare.

Having control of Congress is one thing. When you send a bill to the Senate, if you don't have control of the Senate, it can die there. Not one Republican was voting for Single Payer. They couldn't get the votes in the Senate.
Ok, we are dancing around the subject; they do not have total control of congress; total control means the majority of the house and 60plus senators in the senate; DO the Repubs have that?? When the party has 60plus that means they cant be fillabustered; Repubs control all levels of government, but in politics it isnt considered "total control"; thats all im saying...
 
Back
Top