Archive for Thursday, June 28, 2012

Reactions from Kansas politicians on health care ruling

June 28, 2012, 11:37 a.m. Updated June 28, 2012, 2:52 p.m.


"Stopping ObamaCare is now in the hands of the American people. It begins with electing a new president this fall." — Kansas Republican Gov. Sam Brownback.

"This is the wrong decision for our country. After two years, we have seen the problems and pitfalls of this law and they fall squarely on the shoulders of patients and Kansas families. The Court has affirmed that Obamacare is a new, additional tax. Care will cost more, and access to quality care will be reduced. No wonder a majority of Americans oppose it." — U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.

"While I am disappointed by the decision, it just further highlights the importance of electing a Congress that does not pass bad policy in the first place. The Obama Administration and the last Congress ignored the public concerns and ramrodded this bad legislation through the legislative process. Unlike the legislative and executive branches, the judicial branch does not have the responsibility to listen to public opinion or to ensure a particular policy is good for the nation; they are merely tasked to determine if the Constitution permits it. While I disagree, in the judgment of the Supreme Court, it does." — U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan.

"I understand the concerns with the individual mandate. Those were concerns that frankly I share with a lot of Americans about the government's ability to require every individual to purchase health care. I hope that we can move on from the discussion we've been having about health care and try to do what we can to fix what is a very inefficient system and one that's not working very well for all Americans right now and move forward." Kansas House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence.

"I continue to believe that the health care reform law jeopardizes access to quality health care for many Americans, threatens the survival of Kansas communities, and stifles our country's job growth through higher taxes and burdensome regulations. The right direction for our country is for Congress to repeal this unsound law and enact targeted reforms that will actually drive down health care costs and strengthen access to quality care." — U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican.

"It will lower the quality, and increase the cost, of care for all Americans. It is a tremendous burden on small business and our struggling economic recovery, and we simply can't afford it. After today's decision, we must first repeal the administration's health care law, and begin bipartisan efforts to find bold solutions to our health care challenges that can reduce cost, improve the quality of care and ensure every American has health care access without a large federal takeover of our health care system." — U.S. Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan.

"The President's health care law has been making things worse for Americans by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. The only way to alter course is to repeal ObamaCare in its entirety. I am disappointed that the Court did not side with the majority of Americans who are concerned with this law." — U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan.

"We are thrilled the court has upheld the important consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act. There are more than 350,000 Kansans who do not have any health insurance and many Kansans have insurance that is inadequate to cover them when they get sick or have an accident. The Affordable Care Act will continue to help cover many hard-working Kansans who are struggling to afford health coverage for themselves and their families." — Anna Lambertson, executive director of the Kansas Health Consumer Coalition.

"This addresses the problem of access to health care, and now we have to find ways to bring costs under control. The law uses a market-driven approach with a measure of compassion to let people buy their own health insurance at the cost and coverage they can afford. We are going to have to wait, however, to see what the November election holds regarding the law's long-term future." -- Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, a Republican.

"Today's decision marks the beginning of a new era in health care coverage for Kansas children and their families. Working families will no longer be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition or lose their coverage when someone gets sick. More secure health care coverage, as a result of the ACA, will finally give hardworking Kansas families some peace of mind. " — Shannon Cotsoradis, president and CEO of Kansas Action for Children.


Daniel Dicks 5 years, 8 months ago

So can Gov. Blowsalot get that $31 million health exchange grant back from the Feds he refused? Maybe the Koch brothers can ante up, that is chump change to them.

JackMcKee 5 years, 8 months ago

"Stopping Sam Brownback is now in the hands of the Kansas people. It begins with electing a new Govenor ASAP" — Kansas resident Jack McKee

Paul R Getto 5 years, 8 months ago

A good example of how our system is supposed to work. Congress can revisit this if they have the nerve. Maybe we can get single payer this time and cut the insurance companies and bit pharma out of the loop. They wrote this law anyway, following mainly Republican ideas that have been around for a long time.

madameX 5 years, 8 months ago

Maybe someone else remembers it like this: waaaaay back when the healthcare bill was being debated, the only reason this mandate even came about was because the GOP flipped their collective lid at the idea of a public option, because said public option would somehow be so great and affordable and awesome that everyone would want to use it and it would put private insurance companies out of business, and yet so terrible and inefficient that no one who used it would get any healthcare, ever, and the Death Panels would make each state send one elderly man and one elderly woman to DC every year to compete in the Medicare Games, a battle to the death, the sole survivor of which would be allowed to go home with a hip replacement and a year's supply of insulin. The government option would somehow have been deceptively wonderful and disastrous all at once. And of course we can't have that, so the mandate was the compromise that everyone hated equally.

I agree with Paul Davis. Also, I think the mandate sucks. I think it's going to be a huge pain and expense to implement and run first off, and either private insurers are going to figure out that they can't make any money covering people at affordable prices and start trying to weasel out of it, or the government (state or fed) is going to have to pour insane amounts of money into subsidies. However, if I'm remembering correctly, that this sucky alternative exists at all is more thanks to people freaking out unnecessarily at the thought of a government option. Which would also be a somewhat sucky option, but better than this, IMO.
So while I'm not surprised at most of these statements, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for most of those crowing about how awful the mandate is.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.