Daniels leads guvs' health-care revolt

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.


  • 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

    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

    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.