ILNews

Indiana Democrats trying to jumpstart conversation on health care

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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

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. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT