Quantcast
Connect with us

Kansas passes Medicaid expansion bill despite governor’s objection

Published

on

he Kansas Senate gave final approval on Tuesday to a bill expanding eligibility for Medicaid under the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) even though the measure faces a likely veto by Republican Governor Sam Brownback.

The 25-14 Senate vote followed the House’s 81-44 passage of the bill last month, with the vote totals falling short of veto-proof margins in both Republican-controlled chambers.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a tweet on Monday, Melika Willoughby, the governor’s spokeswoman, said instead of addressing the health care needs of vulnerable residents in a sustainable way, the legislature was choosing to expand “a failing entitlement program.”

“To expand Obamacare when the program is in a death spiral is not responsible policy,” she tweeted.

After legislation to replace and repeal the act championed by former President Barack Obama was pulled in the U.S. House last week, President Donald Trump warned Obamacare would collapse. The replacement bill pushed by House Speaker Paul Ryan would have ended the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, the federal and state funded insurance program for the poor and disabled.

Kansas was not among the 31 states as of 2016 that had opted to expand Medicaid with the federal government footing much of the cost under Obamacare.

ADVERTISEMENT

With the ACA’s enhanced federal funding, Kansas’ expansion effective Jan. 1, 2018 would cost the state an estimated $31 million in fiscal 2018, which begins July 1, and $67 million in fiscal 2019 with the addition of more than 180,000 recipients, according to estimates cited in a legislative report on the bill.

Without enhanced federal matching funds, the state’s costs would balloon to $465 million by fiscal 2019.

Kansas is already struggling with a structural budget deficit largely due to tax cuts enacted in 2012. In addition, the state supreme court ruled earlier this month that Kansas was underfunding public schools in violation of a state constitutional requirement for adequacy.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Reporting By Karen Pierog; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Here’s the real reason why Trump rolled over on holding the G7 summit at his golf resort

Published

on

President Donald Trump blamed his reversal on hosting the G7 summit at his Doral golf resort on Democratic critics, but the real reason is exactly the opposite.

An administration official revealed that Trump decided not to host the international event at his struggling Florida club after Republicans objected to the idea, reported the Washington Post.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Kushner increasingly frustrated with Mulvaney after ‘self-immolation’ on Fox News: report

Published

on

Following what turned out to be another disastrous performance by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on Fox News on Sunday, Politico is reporting that his tenure serving Donald Trump may be coming to an end now that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner is turning against him.

On Sunday Mulvaney curiously decided to appear on "Fox News Sunday"with combative host Chris Wallace to defend his quid pro quo comments he made in a press conference where he all but admitted that the White House was asking for dirt on political opponents in return for foreign aid. Mulvaney's off-hand remark that Trump views his first job as being in the "hospitality business" to defend his G7 Doral decision then made the situation worse.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

The impeachment of Donald Trump: Here’s how it will work — assuming anything still works

Published

on

Now that the House of Representatives has launched an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, it’s time to understand how this process will actually work. It has only played out in full twice before in American history, 130 years apart. What does it take to impeach a president and remove him or her from office? How many times has a president faced this type of crisis? What are the undisputed facts (if any) regarding Trump’s situation?

Impeachment is not the same thing as removing a president from office.

The term “impeachment” is commonly used interchangeably with “removal” as regards a president, but this is not accurate. When a president is impeached, that refers to the constitutional process wherein a majority of members of the House decides that the president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” serious enough to warrant removal from office. If the House impeaches the president, the Senate then holds a trial — with the chief justice of the Supreme Court as presiding judge — to determine whether he or she should be convicted. While only a simple majority is necessary for impeachment, a two-thirds majority is necessary to convict a president in the Senate.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image