Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
07.17.2008 11:49 am

Hulshof switches vote on Medicare reimbursement bill

U.S. Rep. Kenny Hulshof was one of 24 House Republicans to switch their votes on Tuesday’s vote that will postpone cuts in Medicare payments to doctors.

When the bill was voted on in the House on June 24, Hulshof voted against it. A no vote would mean that doctor’s Medicare reimbursement rates would be cut by about 10 percent starting this month. But Tuesday, after the bill was vetoed by President George W. Bush, Hulshof and 23 other Republicans voted to override the veto, in effect changing their no votes to yes.

Hulshof, of course, is engaged in a primary race for governor in Missouri, and his opponents seized the opportunity to label the Congressman as a flip-flopper.

“Let me get this straight,” said Oren Shur, spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon, who is running for governor. “First Congressman Hulshof voted against a health care bill and then a couple weeks later he says ‘never mind, I actually support it?’  That’s the type of Washington double-talk that everyone is sick of, and it’s why Missourians can’t trust a Washington politician to fix our state’s broken health care system.”

But Hulshof’s Congressional office spokesman, Erik Rasmussen, defended the switch in votes and said it wasn’t a flip-flop.

“He voted against it the first time on procedural grounds only,” Rasmussen said. Rasmussen, who is also Hulshof’s adviser on health care matters, said Congressional Democrats tried to “pound the bill through with no real debate. It’s not the way to do things in Congress.”

Rasmussen pointed to Hulshof’s other votes on Medicare issues to indicate that the congressman has consistently voted in favor of higher reimbursement fees to physicians. Last year, Hulshof inserted language into a budget resolution urging a better fix to the broken Medicare doctor reimbursement program.

But it’s worth noting, that in the time from Hulshof’s no vote on June 24, to the day of his yes vote on the veto override, Hulshof’s gubernatorial campaign took in about $20,000 from entities that would benefit by the Medicare payments.

Hulshof’s primary opponent, Treasurer Sarah Steelman, suggests Hulshof changed his vote purely for campaign donations:

“You cannot trust Congressman Hulshof,” said Steelman spokesperson Spence Jackson. “He changed his vote explicitly for campaign contributions at Dr. Steve Reintjes house in Kansas City just a few days ago. Missourians can’t afford a government that’s for sale.”

Rasmussen said campaign contributions would have had no effect on Hulshof’s vote.

“I don’t even know what goes on in his campaign in terms of contributions,” Rasmussen said. “Did it impact his vote? Not at all.”

Hulshof campaign spokesman Scott Baker said that Hulshof did have a fund-raiser at Reintjes house but denied it had anything to do with the vote to override Bush’s veto.

“This is a desperate grasp at straws,” Baker said. “Even a cursory look at Kenny’s record would show that his vote to override is consistent with votes he has cast for many years on this issue.”

The other irony in the vote is that it happened on the day that Hulshof was scheduled to appear at a news conference with Associated Industries of Missouri. At the news conference, AIM endorsed Hulshof, but he wasn’t there because he returned to Washington, D.C., to cast his veto override vote. Hulshof’s opponents have criticized him during the campaign for missing votes.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 votes, average: 3.5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
14 comments

Leave it to Kenny to turn a flip-flop into an all-out spin.

Kenny has given all Missourians plenty of good reasons not to trust him.

Two kinds of people support Hulshof:
Those that don’t know what he has really done, and those that will benefit from his lack of ethics. Fortunately, the first group can be educated. (and they makeup the majority of supporters)

— observer
12:26 pm July 17th, 2008

Isn’t it worthy to note he was one of 24 to change their votes? That should show something…perhaps they saw something they did not before. If it were only Hulsolf, I could understand the concern. But it wasn’t!

— Angel
1:41 pm July 17th, 2008

The facts haven’t changed, they just got enough phone calls to change their mind.

— Richard
4:02 pm July 17th, 2008

The “observer” doesn’t have a clue about Hulshof. I’m from his congressional district and know him well. You would be hard pressed to find someone with more integrity than Hulshof. He is not swayed by campaign contributions.

Anyone who will stand up to do the right thing on the House Ethics Committee the way Hulshof did in the DeLay case — even knowing that it would have negative consequences for his own political career — is not going to be swayed by a few contributions from wealthy doctors.

Why is it that so many liberals have a tendency to make such sweeping condemnations of anyone who might disagree with their point of view, i.e., if I don’t agree with you I therefore must be either stupid, or corrupt with no morals.

— useyourbrain!
4:29 pm July 17th, 2008

useyourbrain!

If you know Hulshof so well;
Why did you use hearsay evidence and ignore exculpatory evidence to send an innocent man to jail?

Why have so many of his convictions been reversed in the appellate courts?

“Critics say Hulshof’s record reflects a lawyer crossing the line from people’s representative to ambitious prosecutor willing to bend the rules for the sake of a conviction.”
Check it out for yourself -Hulshof’s conviction record under tough scrutiny

Why doesn’t he say that he has a financial interest in the Ethanol Mandate when he supports it, while completely ignoring the impartial report presented by the Show-Me Institute?

I joined the military to protect the freedom of everyone in this country, and I’ll spit nickels before I let a malicious prosecutor, like Hulshof, be the leader of Missouri.

Prosecutors that ignore the law in order to put someone in jail should be prosecuted and jailed themselves.

— observer
4:46 pm July 17th, 2008

If Hulshof has so much integrity why is he as a sitting full time, highly paid attorney/Congressman receiving $50,000.00 in the last two years in federal corn subsidies for a farm which he values at $3-5 million. He votes to fund the program and, in effect, line his pockets. Mr. Ethical.

— Churchill
4:51 pm July 17th, 2008

useyourbrain!…

Here’s one more link for you.
Hulshof’s record comes under added scrutiny

Make sure you read the whole article (it breaks up with more at the bottom)

Hulshof preys on the weak. Hulshof will prey on Missouri. Don’t give him that chance.

— observer
4:59 pm July 17th, 2008

I applaud Congressman Hulshof for changing his vote. It takes a man with strong integrity and sound morals to be willing to stand up for what is right - especially when it requires changing a vote!

— Sandra Bollinger
10:37 pm July 17th, 2008

As someone who has worked with Congressman Hulshoff over the past six years, I have always found him to be fair and honest. We have agreed on some issues and disagreed on others - but he has always been upfront and honest about his positions on issues. This was a complicated bill and many in Congress struggled with their vote. I applaud him for having the courage to try to leverage his vote initially to try to correct some issues within the overall bill that he did not like. He then voted to support the broader concepts in the bill when it became clear that this was the best bill we were going to get. Missouri is fortunate to have a Congressman such as Kenny Hulshof who is willing to confront issues head-on.

— Ron Fitzwater
8:08 am July 18th, 2008

Observer, that’s a great way to win over people to your side: tell them that they either have no clue what they’re talking about, or that they’re corrupt.

The fact of the matter is that this is keeping in line with Hulshof’s principles. The original bill was authored on June 20. On June 24, Frank Pallone moved to bring it to the floor, with no committee action having been taken on the bill, at 10:59 a.m. By 12:37, the bill was passed, with only 40 minutes of debate.

Hulshof has been entirely consistent on voting no on bills that have went through no congressional scrutiny. By the time that the bill came up for the override vote, there had been plenty of opportunity for members to talk about it amongst themselves and debate in private about the merits of the bill.

— SMC
9:23 am July 18th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All