ILNews

Legislator says state trying to deny health care insurance to Hoosiers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Democratic State Rep. Ed DeLaney has called for the state’s lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act to be thrown out of court “as quickly as humanly possible.”

The state and 15 school corporations filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Internal Revenue Service, challenging the employer mandate requirements of health care reform. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the individual mandate to buy health insurance did not address the IRS regulations regarding the employer mandate.

“We contend the ACA improperly regulates sovereign states and does not authorize the IRS to do what it is doing in treating the state as a taxable entity,” Zoeller said. “We are raising this respectful challenge for the federal courts to decide these questions.”

DeLaney, an Indianapolis attorney, charged the state is trying to gut the Affordable Care Act provisions that benefit Indiana residents.

“This lawsuit confirms the desire of our state’s Republican leadership to deny affordable health care coverage to hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers and takes that to dangerous new levels,” he said.

DeLaney held a press conference Wednesday and issued a statement regarding the lawsuit.

The Indianapolis Democrat reiterated the argument his caucus made during the recent session of Indiana General Assembly about the state’s decision to not expand Medicaid. He said nearly 400,000 additional Hoosiers who live below the poverty level will not be able to get coverage under Medicaid even though Indiana taxpayers’ dollars are funding the expansion.

Now, DeLaney continued, Indiana residents are being told that the state’s decision not to operate its own health insurance exchange means that another 400,000 Hoosiers who make between $15,000 and $80,000 a year in the private sector should not receive any subsidies from the federal government to pay for their health care coverage.

“This lawsuit deserves to be tossed out of court as quickly as humanly possible,” DeLaney said. “Someday, there will need to be an accounting for the willful neglect demonstrated by the leaders of this state’s government toward the basic human need for health care.”
 

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