IBJNews

Indiana GOP wants to block federal health reform mandates

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

Republicans in the Legislature have joined their counterparts in 25 other states in trying to block key aspects of the federal government’s health care reform from taking effect in Indiana.

Joint resolutions in both the Indiana House and Senate were filed Jan. 11, calling for an amendment to the state constitution that would allow individuals, employers or health care providers to purchase or perform health care services without buying health insurance.

Schneider

The amendment would attempt to block enforcement of provisions in the federal bills that would require individuals to buy insurance and require all but the smallest employers to provide health insurance benefits.

“A person, an employer, or a health care provider shall not be compelled, directly or indirectly, to participate in any health care system,” reads Senate Joint Resolution 14. Identical language was filed as House Joint Resolution 6.

The Senate resolution is sponsored by five Republicans—Scott Schneider, Indianapolis; Dennis Kruse, Auburn; Marlin Stutzman, Howe; Ed Charboneau, Valparaiso; and Greg Walker, Columbus. The House version is authored by Republican Cindy Noe of Indianapolis.

Conservatives around the country have argued that the mandates in the federal bills, particularly the requirement on individuals, violate the U.S. Constitution. They point out that the U.S. government has never required its citizens to purchase any product or service.

They also note that, since insurance companies are restricted to selling within state lines, Congress cannot claim the bills are protected by the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause.

However, the “mandate” is worded as a tax that would be levied on citizens who do not buy health insurance. Most legal scholars say the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to meddle with Congress’ authority to tax citizens in whatever way it decides is best.

If the federal health care legislation survives a challenge to its constitutionality, it would probably trump changes to state constitutions. Nevertheless, national Republican leaders are encouraging the state efforts for their symbolic disapproval, if nothing else.

“This growing rebellion in the states is yet another indication of strong grass-roots opposition to Washington Democrats’ plans,” said the Republican leader in the U.S. House, Rep. John Boehner, D-Ohio, in a Jan. 14 statement.

For the amendment to become law in Indiana, it would have to pass this year, then pass again next year, then be approved by voters in a statewide referendum.

However, it seems unlikely the measure will move out of the Democrat-controlled House. Last year, a similarly worded resolution was approved in the Indiana Senate but was never introduced in the House.

 

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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT