ILNews

Indiana Democrats trying to jumpstart conversation on health care

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A coalition of Democratic senators and representatives gathered at the Indiana Statehouse Wednesday morning to “jumpstart the conversation” on health care exchanges and Medicaid expansion.

The exchanges and expansion are among the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010. The six legislators said the federal law offers an opportunity to extend health care to all Hoosiers, yet they are dismayed there have been no discussions in the Legislature and no public dialogue on the implementation of the exchanges or the expansion.

Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Jean Breaux (R-Indianapolis) called the silence deafening.

Breaux and Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Ogden Dunes, used the press conference to announce their proposal, Senate Bill 540, which provides for the implementation of the federal ACA.

The bill has two parts. The first part addresses the insurance exchanges and calls for the establishment of a committee to study and make recommendations to the legislative council concerning the implementation of an exchange. The second part calls for changes in the Medicaid eligibility requirements to allow for the program’s expansion.

The coalition emphasized the $20 billion the state is expected to receive over the next seven years in federal health care spending which would not only provide health insurance for Hoosiers but also create 47,000 jobs.

The lawmakers also highlighted areas they believe costs will be cut if Medicaid is expanded. Tallian, in particular, pointed to the Department of Correction which currently spends $100 million annually on medical care for inmates. With the expansion, these inmates would be covered by insurance.

“These are just the direct benefits,” she said. “They say nothing about the value of making sure everyone has health insurance.”  

Under the ACA, states have the option of setting up their own health care exchanges or having the federal government establish and run the exchange in the state. Gov. Mike Pence has said he does not believe Indiana should create an exchange because it could cost the state millions of taxpayer dollars.

Originally, states had until Jan. 1, 2013, to decide if they would run their own exchanges or let the federal government do it. However, the Obama administration has indicated it will give states more time to make a decision.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruling which upheld most of the ACA noted states do not have to expand Medicaid.

Pence has also raised concerns about the cost to Hoosiers if Medicaid is expanded. However, because the increasing Medicaid coverage is predicted to reduce the number of non-paying patients, Indiana hospitals and medical practices are expected to pressure the Legislature to expand the program.  

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT