To the editor:

Would someone please explain the logic behind a decision that 1) leaves 77,920 (some estimates run as high as 240,000) of the poorest Kansans, including many children, without health insurance, 2) exacerbates emergency-room overcrowding and expense, 3) rejects care that would cost Kansas nothing for three years (now reduced to two), 4) would be 90 percent federally funded thereafter, 5) could presumably be terminated if the federales renege on their promised share, 6) rejects millions of dollars per annum coming into the Kansas economy, 7) which money would support hundreds of jobs in health care, with wide ripple effects and 8) has millions of Kansas tax dollars going to the 20-odd states that value the health care of their citizens above political ideology.

What can our leaders be thinking?  Or do they bother?