Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
03.10.2009 11:12 am

Mo. House Democrats try to codify Nixon’s health care proposal

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this
Bringer

Bringer

JEFFERSON CITY — Democrats tried to facilitate Gov. Jay Nixon’s health care proposal to raise taxes on hospitals for health care in the House today.

Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-Palmyra, sponsored an unsuccessful amendment on a bill from Budget Chair Allen Icet, R-Wildwood.

Icet said couldn’t support the amendment because he hadn’t heard from hospital providers, who Bringer said were on board.

The chamber had a tense — but brief — moment when a Hospital Association lobbyist showed up to talk to Icet, who didn’t leave the floor.

The amendment specified that the Legislature try to get matching federal funds from Medicaid money. It also allowed providers to agree to pay a higher rate to get federal funds.

Supporters said this would allow Missouri to get its share of federal dollars. Opponents said it would send Missourians the message that the state doesn’t respect their federal tax dollars.

The amendment failed 69-84, with the votes almost completely following party lines.

5 comments

Comments are closed.

What a crock.

I’m so tired of dems talking about the unaffordability of health insurance!

If you think about it logically, which I know is difficult for most dems, the health INSURANCE is there to offset the potential cost of health CARE!

The point is — you pay a LITTLE money in order to insure that you don’t have to pay a LOT of money in the event of something catastrophic.

That’s what insurance is all about!

If Nixon and his dems want to address this issue, perhaps they should consider putting caps on the cost of the DELIVERY of health care services.

Isn’t that what it’s all about, anyway??

— Jim (the republican)
11:31 am March 10th, 2009

Wow Jim, thank you for showing how amazingly out of touch Republicans are! I know this will be hard for you to understand, but the expression “health insurance is unaffordable” actually means that “health insurance is unaffordable.” That is, when people have a choice between buying food and buying insurance, they’re going to buy food, and they can’t help it that this leads to higher health *CARE* costs down the road. It does, however, show that our system is currently very stupid because this leads to larger costs for the public because people are not able to afford preventative care.

— Adam
2:09 pm March 10th, 2009

Icet is crazy. First the Feb’s offer to pay to insure more people and he refuses. Then the hospitals offer to pony up the cash and he refuses. It is almost like the Missouri Republicans are trying to find ways NOT to insure people. Not repsecting our tax dollars? More like not respecting us.

— Richard
4:53 pm March 10th, 2009

Wow, Adam! Thank YOU for showing how amazingly lame dems are!

Re-read my comments.

Think to yourself — what is the insurance COVERING? It is there to offset the COSTS associated with the delivery of health care. Insurance companies don’t treat people. Health care professionals do.

You just don’t like where the logical conclusion leads you, so you want to attack me and republicans who will take it there.

Offset the cost of health care delivery, and it’s a BAD thing — because insurance companies end up making money.

That’s why so many people look at you dems and roll their eyes.

— Jim (the republican)
7:29 pm March 10th, 2009

Someone tell me why this doesn’t break Nixon’s promise to not raise taxes.

— Mark B
8:59 pm March 10th, 2009