To the editor:

This from the Nov 26 Journal-World: Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, said members of the Kansas Legislature accepted doubling of the state’s investment in NBAF based on a promise (my emphasis) future cost increases would be the responsibility of the federal government. Documents affirming that arrangement (my emphasis) need to be in hand before the State Finance Council approves new bonding, he said. “Until that happens,” Bruce said, “I don’t feel comfortable voting for any of this.”

This from the Journal-World on June 23, 2014: But under the Affordable Care Act (my emphasis), or Obamacare, states can expand Medicaid eligibility, and the federal government will pay for it for three years, and pay no less than 90 percent of the cost after that. Brownback, a Republican and ardent opponent of the ACA, and the Republican-dominated Legislature have rejected Medicaid expansion, saying they don’t trust the federal government to pay for the bulk of it. Kansas is one of 19 states not moving forward on expanding Medicaid under the ACA.

Is this the same federal government they mention? A promise/arrangement versus a law? A law that would benefit thousands of Kansans and rural communities if Medicaid was expanded? If the federal government can’t be trusted to fund a law, how can it be trusted to fund an arrangement? Seems a bit hypocritical.