IBJNews

Candidate Gregg 'leaning' to hybrid health exchange

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Gregg would likely support a hybrid health insurance exchange for Hoosiers if elected in November and said Monday that proposals to do nothing are an abdication of responsibility that places Hoosiers "at the mercy" of the federal government.

The flexibility of state control and the financial aid available from the federal government "is something that merits us looking at it and is something that we think is the way, at this point in time, to go," Gregg said Monday.

Gregg and running mate Vi Simpson met Monday morning with Gov. Mitch Daniels to discuss an exchange. Daniels has until Nov. 16 to tell the federal government which type of exchange the state will pick and has asked the three gubernatorial candidates to advise him.

The pending decisions were set in place after the Supreme Court found the requirement that individuals purchase healthcare to be constitutional. That decision cleared the path for state leaders to decide how they would implement the exchanges that would be used to sell insurance.

Gregg's position echoes recommendations made by Libertarian candidate Rupert Boneham last week. Both Gregg and Boneham have criticized Republican Mike Pence for proposing the state do nothing in response to the federal mandate.

"Not participating is not an option, because if you take no action you're going to be left at the mercy of the federal government, because they will place you in their program without any protection, (without) any input from the state," Gregg said. "That means if we choose nothing, Hoosier citizens will pay the price. Like it or not, when you run for the office of governor, you have to govern, you have to lead, and this is one of those tough things."

A Pence campaign spokeswoman declined repeated request for comment about Gregg's remarks this week and Boneham's similar critiques last week. Instead Pence released a statement attacking the federal health care law.

In his letter to Daniels last week, Pence argued that there was enough "uncertainty" to justify not submitting a plan to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He cited the possible election of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to be president, pending control of the U.S. House and Senate and questions about health care rules being written as reasons for not taking action now.

Pence's position is in line with many Republican governors who have flatly said they will not abide the law. The Obama administration has said that states that do not submit a plan will have their residents placed in the federal exchange.

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT