IBJNews

Daniels leads guvs' health-care revolt

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Boy does Gov. Mitch Daniels have an ultimatum for President Obama: Wave off the health reform law or I’ll do nothing to help while it wreaks havoc on Hoosier citizens.

That’s the message Daniels sent in an op-ed piece this week and a letter addressed to Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s secretary of health and human services. Daniels was one of 21 governors to sign the letter, which said their states will not set up the health insurance exchanges called for in the law unless the feds undo most of the rules that will apply to those exchanges.

If a state fails to act, the law calls for the federal government to operate an exchange for that state’s citizens.

“Washington's attempt to set up eligibility and exchange bureacracies in all these places would invite a first-rate operational catastrophe. If there’s to be a train wreck, we governors would rather be spectators than conductors,” Daniels wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, calling the health care law “a massive mistake” that would cost Indiana billions.

The governors' letter also objects to Congress requiring states to expand their Medicaid programs to accept people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty limit. Indiana currently has similar or higher limits for mothers and children, but for childless adults, only those with incomes below 26 percent of the poverty limit can receive Medicaid benefits.

In the letter to Sebelius, the rhetoric was a little less pointed than Daniels’ column. The governors—all of whom are Republicans—wrote, “In addition to its constitutional infringements, we believe the system proposed by the [health reform law] is seriously flawed, favors dependency over personal responsibility, and will ultimately destroy the private insurance market. Because of this, we do not wish to be the federal government’s agents in its present form.”

Specifically, Daniels and his counterparts want Sebelius to make these changes:

1.    Allow states complete flexibility to decide which insurers can offer products in the state-based exchanges.
2.    Waive all the minimum-benefit mandates on insurance policies that are allowed to be sold through the exchanges.
3.    Waive provisions in the law—mainly the roll-back of some tax incentives—that the governors say discriminate against health savings accounts.
4.    Allow states to require non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries to buy insurance through the exchanges.
5.    Fully reimburse states for the administrative costs of the exchanges—as determined by an independent auditor.
6.    Commission an independent projection of the number of people likely to seek insurance through the exchanges.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • a plan?
    Yes, because the federal government has proven itself to be so much more adept at efficiently and cost-effectively running large programs.
  • a plan?
    if things were that bad, surely some democratic governors would be on the band wagon. perhaps what needs to happen is the feds to run the insurance exchanges. i would rather see the feds in charge than the inept indiana dept. of insurance. the governors' actions might precipitate the melt-down that will finally get us to a single payer and, yes, destroy the private insurance industry, a valueless, financial intermediary which sucks 25% of the health care dollar right out of the system

    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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT