Missouri Gov. Nixon backs Medicaid expansion

Thursday, November 29, 2012

By DAVID A. LIEB

Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Gov. Jay Nixon announced his support Thursday for expanding Medicaid eligibility in Missouri, calling it both “the smart thing” and “the right thing to do.”

Nixon’s endorsement of the Medicaid expansion comes after months of pre-election silence on the subject and could give a significant boost to an effort by hospitals and other medical groups to persuade state lawmakers to embrace the change.

But it won’t be an easy sell for the Democratic governor. Republican legislative leaders responsible for passing a state budget generally have expressed opposition to a Medicaid expansion, citing concern about the future cost to the state.

Under a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, each state can decide whether to expand Medicaid to adults earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, as called for under President Barack Obama’s health care law. The federal government would pay the full cost starting in 2014, but states would have to begin paying a 5 percent share in 2017 that would gradually increase to 10 percent by 2020.

Cost estimates have varied. A report released Wednesday by the Missouri Hospital Association and the Missouri Foundation for Health estimates a Missouri Medicaid expansion would cost the federal government $8.2 billion and the state $333 million between 2014 and 2020. A report released earlier this week by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute projected the federal government’s cost at $17.8 billion and the state’s share at $1.6 billion from 2013 to 2022.

Either way, the federal government will pay most of the bill.

“If we take a pass on billions of health care dollars — dollars that come out of Missourians’ paychecks — that money will go to some other state. They’ll get the benefit, and we’ll get the bill,” Nixon said in a conference call with Capitol reporters. “That’s not smart, and that’s not right.”

Nixon planned to highlight his support for the Medicaid expansion by holding news conferences at medical centers Thursday in Kansas City, St. Louis and Springfield.

Nixon said the Medicaid expansion could provide health care coverage to an additional 300,000 state residents. But those estimates have varied. The hospital association’s report estimated an additional 161,000 people would enroll in Medicaid because of the expansion in eligibility. The Kaiser foundation’s report estimated that 383,000 people would join Missouri’s Medicaid rolls because of the expanded eligibility, and an additional 103,000 would gain Medicaid coverage because of other provisions in the federal health care law.

A look at Medicaid eligibility in Missouri

By The Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon announced his support Thursday for an expansion of Medicaid eligibility, as allowed under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Medicaid is a health care coverage program funded jointly by the federal and state governments. Here’s a look at Missouri’s current income eligibility thresholds for Medicaid based on the federal poverty level, and how they would change if the Legislature agrees with Nixon’s request to expand eligibility.

Current Eligibility

Custodial parents: 19 percent of poverty; $2,875 annually for a single parent and child, or $3,627 annually for a single parent with two children.

Disabled adults and seniors age 65 and older: 85 percent of poverty; $9,495 annually for an individual, or $12,861 annually for a married couple.

Pregnant women: 185 percent of poverty; $20,665 annually for a single women, or $33,317 annually for a mom with two other people already in her household.

Children: premium-free coverage up to 150 percent of poverty; $28,635 annually for a child in a family of three, or $34,575 annually for a child in a household of four. Coverage with gradually increasing premiums for children in households with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty; $57,270 annually for a child in a family of three, or $69,150 for a child in a household of four.

Proposed Expansion

Senior citizens: no change.

Adults under age 65: 138 percent of poverty, regardless of whether they are custodial parents, single or disabled; $15,415 annually for an individual, $26,344 annually for a family of three; $31,809 annually for a family of four.

Pregnant women: no change.

Children: no change.

More like this story

JCLifer 5 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm OK with the additional money coming into the state, because if we don't take it, other states will just get it. We do have plenty of poor and lazy who refuse to take care of themselves, so we might as well let the federal money take care of them so we don't have to.

The only things I would suggest is that we implement drug testing so we are not throwing money at crack heads and dopers. The most important thing we need to do for the long term is to provide sterylization services to stop these people from reproducing. We might be able to make a dent by incentivising benefits for those who get sterilized, but if that doesn't work we need to force it. We cannot keep paying for this stuff forever, and if they cannot get off the government supports, we need to make sure they are not reproducing to perpetuate the cycle of poverty. We don't need more and more of these folks to pay for.

muleman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

So you think its ok to sterilize a person that was born blind, or missing a limb from a auto accident at an early age thru no fault of their own? I'm sorry that everyone cant be as perfect as you think you are. What you are saying here is that you want to do away with those that dont live up to your standards. Hitler had the same idea.

connor 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Did you not read his statement? Wait, I know you didn't. He said crackheads and dopers not blind accident victims. Typical Cleftwing word twisting at it's finest.

asb 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Did you not read the statement? He essentially said drug users. Since alcohol is an abused drug, more so than any other, isn't he suggesting that unemployed all drug users should line up for the sterylization program which might finally provide the solution to our indigent drug fuzzled 47% and free the makers to build a thousand year utopia. Folks, Lifer is trolling, not actually making a suggestion that should be taken seriously,.such an idea would be psychotic.

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 3 weeks ago

How much will the incentive pay? I can pass the PEA test already! Rob

Paroquet 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Lifer? Isn't sterilization thwarting God's will, sort of like pre-abortion? I think the Pope would lump that in with the Catholic's view of contraception. Can you rationalize that seeming contradiction in your stated theological views for us? I'd be keen to hear it.

stop1 5 months, 3 weeks ago

We need to put an end to the Federal Government’s ability to hand out money b/c everyone justifies taking the money the same way "if we don't someone else will" it’s a downhill spiral. I do have a problem with the State taking the money! Someone needs to have the guts to walk away from the trough and I’d be proud if it was Missouri to start things off.

connor 5 months, 3 weeks ago

The Federal Government is all about taking resources away from some states and transferring that wealth to others. This is how they control the more rural states and then try and claim the rural states receive more money. The truth is that since the Federal Government controls what and where resources are taxed that the Blue enclaves are the ones who end up collecting most of the revenue especially in exports and final sales. While the Red States end up shouldering the production burden including infrastructure and labor costs.

The Federal Government is quite happy with this arrangement of trickle down economics that they control of course.

dokeus6 5 months, 3 weeks ago

slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

Here connor, this wasnt too hard to find. Seems to me that this website pretty much blows your statement out of the water. I'm sure you will have some come back about how this is flawed or some other lame excuse. That is Par for the course coming from your end of the spectrum.

connor 5 months, 3 weeks ago

NO it isn't flawed in fact it supports what I said. The taxes are collected in Blue enclave land and then given to the Federal government which decides how much the individual states keep for their entitlement programs. The Federal government decides where the taxes on all commodities and export fees are levied NOT the states.

It's a pretty obvious scam actually.

The Blue states actually pay more in entitlements that the Red states. Look at the case loads. This is a common argument the Liberals attempt to throw out and it is false because the resources transferred from the Red States are collected by and given credit to the Blue States.

The actual production of food and energy takes massive amounts of infra-structure and other payments that the Federal government then trickles down. I understand Liberal's are challenged in the cause and effect department and seem hazy on how everything has a price. Being more interested in the numbers someone else collects for you is a big part of what got us in the predicament we are in.

connor 5 months, 3 weeks ago

As I have pointed out before this is the same scam the Cleftwing uses to distort educational spending. Education spending amounts to more most years than all other spending but through Federal manipulation it is managed through the States being allowed to keep revenue. Thus Federal spending appears to favor Pensions or Defense when in fact as a country we spend much more on Education.

3633 5 months, 3 weeks ago

So Lifer you want to impose things that foreign countries do that we are trying to stop, but you think this is ok to sterilize people in the US. Also you think everyone who gets Federal help is lazy, is that what you are saying?

JCLifer 5 months, 3 weeks ago

What is your solution to reducing entitlements? You have none, just like Obama?

hudson 5 months, 3 weeks ago

I think we need to change the abbreviation USA to USSA .

3633 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Lifer, entitlements are not the problem, the problem is we need to come together to approve the job plan that President Obama sent to the house a long time ago. Also, he is the President, do you not respect the office? The entitlement of Social Security is the money I put in when I worked for over 50 plus years, the government is not giving me a dime and SS,Medicare,Medicaid, Workmens Comp. Taxes; State,Local and Federal were all taken out of my check. So yes, I'm entitled to what I paid over those 50 years. I worked for it and I'm not expecting anything else but what I earned.

JCLifer 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Codified entitlements are the majority of the expenditures. Discretionary spending is a very small percentage. Entitlements have to be cut. Our government is stealing a third of our GDP. Surely you do not want to grow this monster?

connor 5 months, 3 weeks ago

They are simply in denial. Just like the several government employees I know who voted for Obama. They have no choice but to hope that the Cleftwing fantasy spending/revenue story is correct because if it isn't they will be in the poor house and/or actually back to working for a living.

Really it is simple and makes sense when you think about it. They know we are so far down in the hole like we do but unlike me or you our financial security and future is not tied to the spending. The only hope these Liberal supporters have is that we can indeed continue to kick the can down the road. Let our children foot the bill. Half of them don't have children anyway.

bluesfan13 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Workmens Comp and Medicaid aren't payroll taxes, they're not taken from your paychecks. Workers comp is not even the government, it's an insurance program, paid for by your employer to a private insurance company.

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Lifer and Spellck collect at the TEAT, They are secure, retired secured, and they don't get it! Both will complain about spending, but have no answer? Jobs will solve this problem, we cannot allow them to continue to depart, and we have to MAKE THEM RETURN! Business that left, Tariff, Tax, and then convince the American people we do it better. If you want to build your junk in Bangladesh for 18 Cents an hour, or 55 cents hour on some conversion scales? TAX THEM! Congress could put and end to this? Last night on the TV, there was a small business guy, a Florist, saying he was going to have to let people go? His Taxes were going up $8,000.00 a year, that is $22 a day folks? I don't buy any of this Drivel these people are spewing, grab your Chinese calculator, and do the math! You can drive in Jefferson City, or almost any town, and see old buildings that did something else? Until Greed forced them to leave! Maytag is a classic example, left Iowa to escape UNIONS, came to Jefferson City with big plans? 5 Plants in a row! NON UNION could not deliver the proper percentage either? Moved to Mexico after the Tax Break was up? Chrysler moved their truck plant to Mexico, and bull dosed, they are still charging the same for their Mexican Truck? Now thats GLOBAL for you JC Lifer. A friend of mine said he gave Maytag the best 17 years of his life? If we want to fix the Debt, we need good jobs, with good wages, retirement, and Health Care! People who make money spend money, people who are secure spend money, people who are doing that are paying TAXES, businesses are paying Taxes, and that is the only way out of this mess. World War 2 got us out of the last problem, but won't work today! Rob

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Unemployment Insurance, Workmans Comp Insurance, and Did not Social Security have Insurance with it as well? Medicare is a deduction on my check? Medicaid, if you need it, be grateful someone put it in place for you! JC and Spck when you run out of the other Medicaid is all that is left! Rob

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune