Archive for Thursday, February 20, 2014

Kansas plan for avoiding federal health law advances

February 20, 2014


— A proposal to allow Kansas to exempt itself from the national health care overhaul is a serious attempt to shield the state from federal requirements and not merely symbolic, supporters said Thursday as the measure cleared its first significant legislative hurdle.

The Kansas House Federal and State Affairs Committee approved a bill to bring the state into a compact with others to ask Congress to give them control over health care policy within their borders. The Republican-dominated committee's voice vote came after no debate and sends the measure to the entire House for debate, possibly early next month.

The Republican-dominated Legislature has shown a strong antipathy toward the federal health overhaul championed by President Barack Obama. Most GOP officials in Kansas have said repeatedly that the 2010 law represents an overreach by the federal government and has imposed burdensome mandates that harm the economy.

Some critics of the federal health overhaul are advocating an interstate compact because such an agreement wouldn't require the president's signature once Congress approves it. But most supporters have conceded that congressional approval of a compact isn't likely unless Republicans capture control of the U.S. Senate in this year's elections.

AARP's Kansas chapter has labeled the measure "frivolous," and Democrats contend it amounts to a public protest against the president's signature domestic policy. But Rep. Brett Hildabrand, a conservative Shawnee Republican and the bill's chief advocate in the House, said as Kansans are looking for "any way possible to get out from underneath these federal programs."

"This is far from symbolic," he said after the committee's meeting.

Eight other states have enacted similar compact laws, including Missouri and Texas, according to Competitive Governance Action, the Houston-based group advocating the interstate compact. The group says on its website that "consolidated power" in Washington is a threat to the nation.

Obama and other supporters of the federal health care law contend that it's bringing affordable health coverage to Americans who haven't been able to obtain it or keep it. They've also argued that parts of the law already are popular, such as allowing parents to keep young-adult children on their plans or preventing companies from denying coverage over pre-existing medical conditions.

"It is the law of the land," said state Rep. Louis Ruiz of Kansas City, the House committee's ranking Democrat. "When are they going to realize that it is the law?"

In 2011, Kansas enacted a largely symbolic "health care freedom" law to protest the federal overhaul's mandate that most Americans purchase health insurance. Opposition from GOP state officials toward the federal law kept Kansas from setting up its own online health insurance marketplace and has blocked an expansion of the state's Medicaid program as encouraged by the overhaul.

Many Kansas Republicans had predicted the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn the law; instead, a majority of justices upheld most of it in 2012. GOP critics of the overhaul then pinned their hopes on Obama losing re-election, but he won a second term. They're hoping problems with the health care law's implementation lead to a shift of power in Washington.

"I do not like nationalized anything," said state Rep. Marty Read, a Mound City Republican who supports the bill. "I'm going to fight it as long as I can."

AARP opposed the bill partly because it's broad enough that states in the interstate compact could seek to assume control within their borders over Medicare, which provides health coverage for seniors, as well as Medicaid, which provides coverage for the needy and disabled.

And House Minority Leader Paul Davis, a Lawrence Democrat who's running for governor this year, said supporters of the bill would do better focusing on creating jobs, reining in local property taxes and boosting funding for public schools.

Davis said of the bill's supporters, "It's folks that aren't really focused the issues that really matter Kansans and issues they can do something about."


Richard Heckler 4 years ago

Imagine if the Koch brothers and ALEC controlled congress and all state legislatures. USA would be very much like Russia,China,Iraq and Nazi Germany. After all the Koch brothers are John Birchers.

Who wants their state legislatures and congress controlled by John Birchers and ALEC legislation written up in secret meetings? Bill Moyers -

The Koch brothers have spent $8.2 million alone thus far on their conservative choice for North Carolina Senate. Think what they can potentially spend nationwide just to keep ALEC party members in power? And to keep their solider Sam ALEC Brownback in office.

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

The majority of Kansas voters want their federal tax dollars working for them on health insurance.

No one voted for Sam Brownback to deny their federal tax dollars based on his personal agenda of ALEC big government. Had he informed Kansas voters this was on his agenda during the campaign he would not have been elected ..... of course he knew this.

This tactic is straight out of the ALEC Party legislative agenda.

James Howlette 4 years ago

The Tea Party News Network? Yeah, there's some serious unbiased reporting, lol. If one simply clicks through the frame to the actual open secrets study linked in the article, it clarifies that only transparent donations are counted in that list, not the dark money network that the Kochs love. "It's also important to note that we aren't including donations to politically active dark money groups, like Americans for Prosperity, a group linked to the Koch brothers, or the liberal group Patriot Majority — because these groups hide their donors"

But yes, Act Blue tops that list. "It is also worth noting that certain organizations, such as ActBlue and Club for Growth, are included although they function for the most part as pass-through entities: individual donors give to them with the contributions earmarked for specific candidates."

Study is here:

I'm not sure anything on that list counts as particularly shocking, but whatever.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.