IBJNews

Indiana GOP wants to block federal health reform mandates

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT