Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, June 10, 2010

Parkinson urges senators to support increase in Medicaid funding for states

June 10, 2010

Advertisement

— Gov. Mark Parkinson on Thursday urged Kansas’ U.S. senators to vote for an extension of increased federal Medicaid funding.

“Without this assistance, our budget will no longer be balanced, causing more damage to the services we have already cut to the bone and stalling Kansas’ economic recovery,” Parkinson said.

Under the proposal, Kansas would gain $130 million. Parkinson said the funding has already been built into the current state budget to keep it in balance.

A $130 million hole in the budget could result in losses in other areas of the budget such as 4,000 teaching jobs, he said.

U.S. Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Republicans, have voted against the increased federal funding in the past. Despite their opposition, the extension of increased funding has already passed twice in the House and once in the Senate, but has yet to be reconciled by both chambers, so the measure is again under consideration in the Senate.

Parkinson met with Roberts and Brownback earlier this week when Parkinson went to Washington, D.C., for a meeting of the Governor’s Military Council.

Republicans have been opposed to the increased spending, saying it will add to the national debt. Medicaid is the federal and state funded program that provides health care to the poor. It assists nearly 300,000 Kansans.

Roberts indicated he was still opposed to the additional funding.

“The governor and I agree that Medicaid funding is vital to Kansas, but we must be able to pay for it without going further into debt,” Roberts said. “I consistently hear from Kansans who want the federal government to reduce, not increase the federal debt, and to spend less, not more of their tax dollars.”

Brownback’s office did not respond to questions from the Lawrence Journal-World on the issue.

Comments

Dan Eyler 4 years, 6 months ago

How many ways can we say hell no to more spending. I am so darn sick and tired of hearing from Kansas politicians who continue threatening how schools will suffer if we don't get another 130 million dollars from the federal government. Cut government spending and start now. Those cuts will included cuts to schools. Your budget is rediculous.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 6 months ago

If Bush/Cheney had not occupied the mideast with their multi trillion dollar war plan the USA economy might not so bad off.

If Reagan/Bush had not hosted the Savings and Loan rip off our economy would not have had such a difficult time. If their Reaganomics global economy had not cost the USA millions upon millions upon millions of jobs the USA would still be developing new wealth daily.

OOPs then there is Bush/Cheney again setting our economy in a tail spin one more time put 11 million people out of work. Those republicans seem to put financial institutions in dire straights and milions upon millions out of work. That is some economic philosophy.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 6 months ago

Yes it is too bad we need Medicaid. There is one smart solution that is definitely business friendly. It is known as IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for All. Yes the battle is still alive because the USA does NOT need nor can the USA afford the medical insurance industry.

All the medical insurance industry does is take YOUR money and NOT provide health care. Wow what a scam!

Expanded and Improved Medicare for All

Would Provide Real Insurance Reform!

The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on healthcare – $8160 per capita – yet performs poorly in comparison and leaves over 46 million people without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

Expanded and Improved Medicare for All is the solution.

  • Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.

  • Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies. Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.

  • Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you chose your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.

  • State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and local tax burdens.

  • Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental, vision, mental health services, and long-term care.

  • Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.

  • No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and force people into bankruptcy.

  • Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare. Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated prices for prescription drugs.

63BC 4 years, 6 months ago

"our budget will no longer be balanced"

Who said it was balanced now?

dana_laine 4 years, 6 months ago

When the wealthy of this nation, have gotten so much more wealthy, and the gap is so wide, I cannot believe that some people say "cut out benefit programs." Some people are barely staying alive as it is. Some are dying, because the ultra wealthy do not want to pay taxes. I would think they would be ashamed of their greed. Some people always say, "no more moochers." There are no moochers. There are the needy, and there are the greedy. I will never vote for Pat Roberts or for Brownback, they want to give to the rich and take from the poor.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.