IBJNews

Indiana Democrats to seek Medicaid expansion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Democratic leaders in the Indiana General Assembly are seeking expanded Medicaid coverage with the argument that it will lower health care costs statewide.

House Minority Leader Scott Pelath and Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane said Friday that Indiana risks becoming an "island of the uninsured" as other Republican-led states approve the federal expansion.

Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, announced this week he will oppose an expansion unless the state's health savings accounts plan is approved as an alternative.

Opponents of the Medicaid expansion have said it would cost the state too much money. An actuary hired by former Gov. Mitch Daniels determined the expansion would cost $95 million next year and jump to $525 million by 2020.

Democrats say that analysis ignores cost savings as residents stop relying on emergency-room care.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • not a new cost
    The "cost" to the State is not a new cost. Uninsured Hoosiers are getting care today at hospitals and providers and not paying for it, so the cost is passed to insureds and employers. Or they are NOT getting care early, and eventually racking up a expensive health care bill. What is the cost of those people declaring medical bankruptcy? If Indiana does not expand Medicaid, what is the alternative for our fellow citizens? Continue to use the ER after the problem becomes cost prohibited. If every person against expansion would examine their own personal life and how much better they are because they have insurance, this would not be an issue. Why are you against this? Because you have a job that offers insurance? Ha, what happens when that goes away? If ever the phrase "But there for the grace of God, go I" applies in a situation, it is this one. Except for giving the Dems a "victory" tell me one good reason why not? It's too costly to pass up! Not too costly to do.
  • Wow- big numbers
    There are all these "scare tactics" that the Republicans use to fend off the expense of making health care available to a larger group of citizens. It's sad that these cheap shots get publicity and the facts what are the costs/ what are the benefits get lost in all the carping and moaning about spending tax dollars that might benefit the middle class. The Fed is paying for the expansion of Medicare-- but Hoosier Repubs won't allow that cause they might have to give some credit to the Democrats who passed a health care bill that many from both parties have tried to do for decades. It would be commendable if some facts (not just the skewed, partisan ones) would be put before the public to see what is the best course-- and stop the scare tactics. It sounds like this new Governor reports to Wellpoint, not the citizens of Indiana.

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