ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A health and welfare package that would slash projected spending by $1.6 billion over two years cleared the Minnesota on Wednesday.

The bill is far from becoming law. It differs significantly from a House proposal, and Gov. Mark Dayton’s top advisers raised significant concerns. Its next stop will be a House-Senate conference committee.

Here are highlights from the bill:

–Prohibits state spending to implement the federal health care overhaul unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the challenged law, while directing the state attorney general to take legal action to block the law from being carried out in Minnesota.

–Rolls back a Medicaid expansion Dayton ordered in January for nearly 100,000 vulnerable adults and revives a less generous state program created under former Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

–Above certain income limits, removes adults without children and — if federal officials agree — families with children from state health programs and instead offers them sliding-scale subsidies to buy private insurance. Dayton administration officials contend that the federal government is unlikely to grant permission for the change, putting some of the bill’s cost-cutting in doubt.

–Eliminates coverage for eyeglasses, dentures, physical therapy and chiropractic care for patients on public health programs.

–Eliminates or reduces an array of grants for social services and public health programs, including youth anti-smoking efforts, home health care visits for high-risk families and efforts to address obesity and tobacco use.

–Eliminates state coverage for immigrants living legally in the United States.

–Prohibits human cloning through the use of embryonic stem cells.

–Overhauls four cash assistance programs for vulnerable adults, replacing them with block grants to counties to save $20 million.

–Phases out a law prohibiting nursing homes from charging different rates for private-paying patients and subsidized patients.

–Requires welfare recipients to live in Minnesota for 60 days before receiving benefits, instead of 30 days under current law.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (4)
  1. dphilips says:

    Republicans ought to be ashamed!

  2. Wesly says:

    Republicans continue their onslaught against anybody that does not vote for them.
    I agree with the 60 day for welfare, might even back a 90 day requirement.
    Nursing home reimbursement changes would probably close many nursing homes. How anti free enterprise is it to change private pay provisions.
    Interesting thought. If they cut the family planning to poor people would that not create more poor people? Cut funding to programs designed to prevent future health care needs also is very short sighted. But these legislators indeed are very short sighted.

  3. Ginger Shepla says:

    Thank goodness someone is finally taking some action. We need reform and we need to cut back. We cannot continue to sustain these big programs that just encourage people to remain dependent of the government and the tax payers. I hope they are able to pass this through.

    1. truth hurts says:

      You raised a good question: “Who is more “dependent of the governmnet and the tax payers/” Corporations or poor people…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Watch & Listen LIVE