ILNews

AG questions constitutionality of health-care bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Not only would federal health-care legislation significantly cost Indiana if passed, the state's Attorney General also believes aspects of the legislation could be constitutionally questioned and possibly overturned by courts.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a 55-page report today studying the constitutionality of the U.S. Senate-created health-care bill and what its impact might be on Indiana. The in-house research and drafted report comes a month after some of Indiana's congressional delegation asked the state agency to review provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under Indiana Code 4-6-8-2 that allows this specific review if requested.

If the legislation is passed, the AG has determined that Indiana would bear substantial economic costs - roughly about $500,000 more added to the Medicaid rolls - and create unintended consequences for patients, taxpayers, and the state's medical-device industry.

Legally, the report notes that some provisions could be struck down in a court challenge:

· The bill's "individual mandate" requiring everyone to buy health insurance or face a penalty would be unprecedented; never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase any good or service, nor has it regulated inactivity.

· The bill's "Nebraska Compromise" amendment would expand the number of Medicaid participants in all states but fully fund the expansion for Nebraska only, while the other 49 states would have to absorb additional costs. While courts are properly reluctant to second-guess legislative deal making, such disparate treatment of one state appears to violate Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the report says.

· The bill would also require states to create insurance "exchanges" and require for-profit health insurers to offer certain types of coverage, making private insurers essentially highly regulated entities similar to public utilities, the report says. Before insurance exchanges are available, states would have to administer a temporary reinsurance program for high-risk patients. That mandatory obligation on the part of state officials might be found unconstitutional, according to the report.

The full report can be viewed online.

While passed by the Senate Dec. 24, the health-care proposal remains pending in Congress and the Indiana Attorney General's Office report is being offered for legislators to consider as that process continues.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT