Mike Pence's 'Market-Based' Plan to Reform Medicaid Is Actually a Deal Between Hospital Lobbyists and the Administration to Expand Obamacare
The Republican governor's supposedly free market plan is a big industry giveaway.

After months of negotiation with the Obama administration, Republican Gov. Mike Pence has cut a deal for Indiana to become the 28th state to expand Medicaid under Obamacare.
The deal, and the conservative-friendly terms it is being presented in, reveal how eager Pence is to portray his participation as something other than a cave to the administration and a giveaway to hospital lobbyists.
The Indiana deal is based on a proposal, first introduced last May, to expand the program under the aegis of the state's 2008 Medicaid pilot, known as the Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP). Pence described his proposal, dubbed HIP 2.0., as a multi-tiered plan with different service levels that would rely partially on health savings accounts, and required beneficiaries to pay a small monthly premium or risk losing coverage.
When the proposal was introduced, Pence restated his opposition to Obamacare, and described his plan as an alternative. "Reforming traditional Medicaid through this kind of market-based, consumer-driven approach is essential to creating better health outcomes and curbing the dramatic growth in Medicaid spending," he said, according to the Indiana Star.
Some of those elements—in particular, the requirement that some beneficiaries pay small monthly premiums that would be deposited into a health savings account—were controversial with supporters of traditional Medicaid program, and since May of last year, Pence and the administration have negotiated over the details.
Pence's announcement today makes it clear that the governor got at least some of what he wanted. On Twitter, the governor noted that the plan "includes elements that have never before been approved by [the federal government] for a program of this magnitude," a Tweet that links to a slide noting the inclusion of health savings accounts. This suggests that the administration was willing to bend somewhat in order to encourage participation in the Medicaid expansion.
But while premiums will be part of the reform, they will be essentially meaningless for those before the poverty line, where most benefits cannot be cancelled for non-payment. In addition, the administration notes in a press release that the deal did not include a work requirement.
Pence, meanwhile, is still trying to frame the plan as a conservative reform. "Medicaid isn't a program we should expand," he Tweeted today. Instead, he said, it's one "we should reform & that's exactly what we accomplished with HIP 2.0."
But of course the deal is an expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare. That's why the administration wanted it and agreed to it. Pence obviously knows that it is an expansion. His previous Tweet declared that effective next month, the HIP plan "will be available to more Hoosiers than ever before."
Even more desperately, Pence also insists that the program "will be fully funded at no additional cost to [Indiana] taxpayers" and "will require no new state spending and no new taxes." This is only true in a way that hardly matters. Obamacare's Medicaid expansion is funded federally; according to the Congressional Budget Office, the expansion will cost more than $900 billion over ten years.
Indeed, the lure of federal money is one of the major reasons Pence signed onto the plan. As Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner noted last May, Pence's office worked closely with hospital lobbyists to develop the expansion plan, which the Indiana Hospital Association approved. In essence, Pence brokered a lucrative deal between the hospital lobby and the Obama administration using taxpayer money, then decided to tout it as a "market-based" plan.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Even more desperately, Pence also insists that the program "will be fully funded at no additional cost to [Indiana] taxpayers"
Who can pass up a free lunch?
I, for one, am shocked.
SHOCKED, I tell you!
Get Paid Up To $23.75 Per hour w?w?w.W?i?k?i-Careers.C?o??m
- No Experience Necessary
- Beginners preferred
- No websites needed
- No CPA
- No PPC
- No One Click Wonder
- No Fake Gurus
- JUST REAL RESULTS
Click Here For Details
Get Paid Up To $23.75
Check-plus for a very specific amount, huge minus for the "up to" phrase. Try again.
But I like fake Gurus.
Scammers getting personal. I like. =)
Between this and The Mike Pence Propaganda News Network, he's really been a boon to the great state of Indiana.
OT: Mine protester sentenced to some prison time after stealing equipment from the mine during a protest.
Her post-sentencing statement is the greatest thing I've read in months:
" The "lifestyle enforcement" aspect of my five year probation mandate (post-jail time) with full-time employment stipulation, is culturist, and out-of-touch with today's employment landscape. Innumerable individuals work seasonal jobs for life in a responsible manner, thus Judge Fox's ruling is based on the disappearing myth of the white American Dream that supports and enforces a destructive capitalist regime. In conjunction, Judge Fox exploited my sentencing hearing to serve as a symbolic trial for my identity as an anarchist, my appearance, and my ongoing affiliation with indigenous communities, extending to my adamant stance against industrial resource extraction- this is unacceptable, yet predictable. The judge seemingly desires to stifle dissent from all things wild and free, and may as well have based his sentence off a hypothetical book in progress entitled, "White Pride and Prejudice," as the words fell from his mouth in a narrow, out-dated, and white-male privileged world perspective, and does not support or embrace hunting, fishing, or gathering."
Though I wish no harm on Stacey Saari, a geologist hired on G-TAC's dollar, it saddens me that she continues to despise the fiber of my being, and continues to support industrial resource extraction that in turn supports death to the poorest of peoples in rural/wilderness landscapes. The clich?' of "just doing your job" is no excuse to participate in colonial violence via corporate resource extraction.
Gee, I can't imagine why she hates you. Doesn't everyone love to be called a murderer by White Indians trying to destroy their livelihood?
He left out gamboling.
Its like he wants to make sure that there is at least one Republican governor on the ten most loathsome politicians in America list.
Indiana is a pretty level headed state. How in the hell did they end up with this assclown?
Indiana is a pretty level headed state
[citation needed]
In my experience, Indiana is just Illinois without a Chicago to draw attention to itself.
"How in the hell did they end up with this assclown?"
Body Armor.
That statement ROCKS!
"Consequently, colonization is everywhere, so decolonization must happen everywhere."
Translation: The human population must be reduced to "sustainable" levels.
So what does Gruber have to say about this?
"please insert $400,000 USD for reply"
^ This.
Well, there is this:
Hospitals are going to absorb the cost of these new Medicaid patients anyway. Hospitals generally run margins of no more than 3% in a good year (there are exceptions, but mostly on the downside).
By law, they are not allowed to turn these patients away.
They are going to lay those costs off on somebody. Either the "private" pay/insured population, or (partially) on the government via Medicaid.
So, you can either impose a stealth tax on the private pay/insured population, or you can impose a more overt tax on, you know, taxpayers.
"So, you can either impose a stealth tax on the private pay/insured population, or you can impose a more overt tax on, you know, taxpayers."
The first one is cheaper and needs no union clerks.
I'll take it.
They are going to lay those costs off on somebody.
The Faerie King?
"will be fully funded at no additional cost to [Indiana] taxpayers"
No, this time we're not lying. Seriously, it'll work. I promise. No joke. Really, you can trust us. OK, honestly, we're telling the truth.
We've reached the point where everything has to be magically free.
Ah, the truthiness of it.
The "lifestyle enforcement" aspect of my five year probation mandate (post-jail time) with full-time employment stipulation, is culturist, and out-of-touch with today's employment landscape.
That's just, like, your opinion, Man.
Hi peter,
Maybe we should just go with single payer. France pays a third of what we pay per capita and they live longer.
But that's not really why I'm here. I love other people's good fortune so I just thought I'd give a big round of congratulations to you and the writers at Reason. It lolokd like big pay raises for corporate-schilling reactionaries are in order. Keep a bottle of Dom cold for me, would ya?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015.....paign.html
I smell shit.
After 100+ years of Marxist and left-wing economics wrecking one country after another, it is *you*--the allegedly futuristic leftoids--who are the tired, stale reactionaries.
american socialist|1.27.15 @ 3:09PM|#
"Hi peter,
Maybe we should just go with single payer. France pays a third of what we pay per capita and they live longer."
Hi, shitpile,
Still picking those lefty cherries? Paid your mortgage yet? Still licking mass murderer ass?
"lolokd"? is that like a portmanteau of lol and looked?
amsoc:
Whereas american socialists get their funding from the proceeds ofcommunal hemp farms.
"France pays a third of what we pay per capita and they live longer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Escoffier
Without this "Rags to Riches" "Chef" AMSOC you would never experience the elegant foods you are used to, while you take you private jet to the Davos party.
AS,
The problem with people like you is that you think you are somehow special.
I'm not a libertarian so don't confuse me with these guys. Just because your mother deemed you worthy to exit her vagina instead of killing you doesn't mean that you're entitled to my stuff. You, your family, your kids, dog, cat, whatever mean jack shit to me.
I don't need you AS, I don't need any of the little poor people, I don't need any of the shit you're peddling. That rich guy that you hate so much though, yea I need him, he provides a salary, he pays for innovation, he has the resources to make shit. Your ilk, all you wanna do is take stuff for free for no other reason than you're breathing.
So essentially what I'm saying is that whether you have healthcare and live to 90 vs not having healthcare and dying at 60 doesn't mean anything to me and I really don't care. That's your problem.
It is true that the USA spends disproportionately for the results in health. I don't think single payer is responsible for the difference, but other problems.
Limited supply is always the problem for price increases.
If Dufuss opened more medical schools with the money he proposes to offer two more years of high school, the cost of healthcare would go down.
Limited supply is always the problem for price increases.
If Dufuss opened more medical schools with the money he proposes to offer two more years of high school, the cost of healthcare would go down.
Limited supply is always the problem for price increases.
If Dufuss opened more medical schools with the money he proposes to offer two more years of high school, the cost of healthcare would go down.
does the fact that you tripled the demanded quantity of your comment supplied lower it's value?
Indeed, there are a few countries that spend even less public money than the US on healthcare but are as well-rated as us; Cyprus is one I think.
Are you people really still using the word "reactionary?" Fellow, you subscribe to the system made up in the 19th century by a primitivist who didn't know what shaving was and believed in the utterly discredited labor theory of value. You're the one living in the past; you're the socioeconomic equivalent of a creationist.
And here's a fun activity: go to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe
Copy the first table into Excel, and make a scatter plot between 'European ranking' and 'Public funding', then click the 'show trend line' option.
There is no correlation between the extent to which healthcare is publicly funded and the efficiency of the system. See for yourself.
'Market-based' = company gets paid
The Republican governor's supposedly free market plan is a big industry giveaway.
*Shocked Face*
Has anyone actually read all the fine details or watched any of Pence's speeches on this topic? This blog is a strawman attack on a consumer-based approach to healthcare. This puts people in charge of their healthcare and is meant to be temporary. Eventually people have to get a good job so they can get their own health insurance. What do you people think about that?
So instead of starting my own business, and being able to afford my own health insurance, or being able to afford health insurance for any employee's, I can only afford to work for someone else in order to afford health insurance.
Sounds like a shitty deal.
True enough, but like the stock mkt, you're a fool to bet against the Fed. In this case, you have to realize that what we call the free mkt, is hardly free, and skewed towards those who can pay, a segment, which, thanks to the Fed, is increasingly leaving the rest behind. We have a choice: either give them welfare; or stop printing money which inflates assets owned mostly by the 1%. It's like telling GM to stop making Cadillacs and make more Chevys. They won't, and neither would Humana or any of the rest.
my buddy's step-sister makes $89 hourly on the laptop . She has been fired for 8 months but last month her income was $16413 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Get the facts.........
http://www.Jobsyelp.com
just before I saw the bank draft four $7417 , I did not believe that...my... sister was like actualie receiving money part time from their laptop. . there friend brother had bean doing this 4 only six months and just paid for the mortgage on there place and purchased a new Honda NSX .
read this post here======= http://www.jobsfish.com
Libertarian plan for reform.... get the fucking government out of the health insurance business.
Thats a weak argument. Yes I know what unalienable means but I also dont believe in fairy tales. We only have what rights the Supreme Court decides we have. Yes, yes thats not the way it's spposed to work but that's the way it is.
In regards to your snide remark, if his mother had aborted him then it would be killing but not murder. If you take something that is alive and make it not alive, you have killed it, ex. Grass, skin cells, lettuce, a rabbit.
So my point stands. Just because his mother thinks he is special, doesnt make it so.
Apparently, you believe in the fairy tale that the Supreme Court is never wrong. Or do you believe that it is impossible for the government to infringe upon our rights because we get our rights from the government, so if the government limits, say, your right to free speech, then you only have that right so far as it isn't limited by the government, therefore your right to free speech is intact?
That's because we're not central planners.
I am not a statist but I am a realist. The point that I was making was that there are no such thing as unalienable rights. I agree that there should be but wanting something and having something are two totally different things. If there were such a thing as unalienable rights then why are our rights constantly being debated and watered down? It's because they are not unalienable and are constantly being infringed.
Additionally, I do not believe that every human being is special in the way that you think they are special. I was referring to the way that AmSoc thinks that just because he is breathing that me and him share some kind of bond and he has the right to my stuff or that I have any kind of responsibility and duty to him or anyone else.
Your weak attempt at dragging me into some sort of abortion debate is amusing. I was not asserting one way or the other, only explaining to AmSoc that just because his mother didn't kill him does not make him special.
I wish that rights were unalienable or come from some sort of higher power but the fact remains that they do not. It's fantasy at worst, idealism at best. I'm merely pointing out reality. They are made up by us and they are constantly changed by those who lord over us. Wishing it weren't so doesn't change the fact that this is the way it is.
I have seen nothing that I have written that should make you need to shower or make you angry. We agree in some respects and disagree in others.
I must not have stated my thoughts very well.
Of course I think the SC can wrong. They are dead wrong about their latest 4th Amendment ruling.
That is exactly my point, however. This SC thinks that if a cop doesn't know the law then that exempts them from the 4th Amendment. Put different judges on the court and they come to a different conclusion. So, in effect rights are not unalienable. If they were then there would be no debate because there would be universal agreement.
If you think that life, liberty, and property are unalienable then I challenge you to commit certain victimless crimes and see if you don't end up in prison. I challenge you to try and reverse a SC ruling that is blatantly infringing upon your rights.
You will not succeed because the powers that be will not allow you to succeed and there's nothing that you can do about it. That's reality, not some fantasy about what should or shouldn't be.
Lastly, yes your right to free speech is in fact limited. We have things like hate speech laws that limit what you can say. That is in effect the gov't telling you that there is a limit to your right. Therefore it is not unalienable. Is it right, no. However, that's the way it is.
Oh Jesus Christ, you brought the ole slavery argument into this. That's like invoking Godwin's Law.
I'm not flip flopping. I'll take responsibility for this as I am the writer and you're not comprehending what I am saying.
I am not bitching about the Constitution or rights for that matter. You've had someone challenge that your idealistic, naive view of the way things should be and you're having a heart attack.
I attacked a leftist, collective minded person and now I'm stuck trying to teach reality to man that should be old enough to know by now.
I never said that rights were invented by the court. I stated that the way things are in reality however is that you have what rights the court deems to give you based upon their current interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, our rights are nothing more than those interpretations.
If rights were truly inalienable, there would be no hate speech laws and no Patriot Act. If the Constitution were really the end all be all there would be no "Police Actions", no abuse of the War Powers Act etc.
Further more I never agreed to answer questions from you nor did I open myself for questions.
At your insistence however, I don't have much of an alternative. Mankind is imperfect and therefore any system designed by man is imperfect. There is no denying however that the Supreme Court is nothing more than 9 shills serving at the behest of the party of the President that appointed them. Why do Republican Presidents nominate conservative judges, while Democrat Presidents nominate radical judges? Why if rights are inalienable are they capable of being attacked? If they were so set in stone then any challenge to them would be quickly quashed but lo and behold that doesn't happen.
I don't get why you brought Ron Paul into this as if that's supposed to mean something to me.
I have a question for you. On your little cute web page you advocate "Taking Back America". How can you take something back that you've never held. Your little faction has never held power in this country and nor shall you ever (Check Duverger if you're confused on that).
You're not having a discussion. You are having an argument, failing to comprehend what I am writing, and making wild accusations about things that I've never even thought about. You are so stuck in your dogma that you think any challenge or alternative view is a personal attack on you and you immediately go on the defensive.
I never said that the Court was not supposed to defend the Constitution. There is however no provision for the Court to do such a thing and Marbury v Madison was the case that set the precedent for Judicial Review. It is an implied power and is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution (your ignorance, not mine). That is something you argue about, things that may or may not be implied.
If rights are therefore truly unalienable then they can not be argued and any infringement upon them must be struck down with haste. However, this does not happen so one must assume that rights are therefore not unalienable. Your 5th Amendment rights say you have right to legal counsel and a hearing, unless of course you're suspected of terrorism and then those rights magically disappear (upheld by your great bastion of rights, the SC by the way).
As far as slavery, dude that is a weak argument. One could say the Constitution did apply to all men but it was ignored (what a shocker) and gradually we came in line with it and slaves were set free and gained rights. The rights didn't change as you say, they were just finally recognized.
I normally don't do this sort of thing but here goes. You are one of the dumbest mother fuckers on the face of the planet.
You do nothing but resort to childish antics in an attempt to belittle your opposition. The fact that you can't comprehend what I am saying and continue to stay lost in your little delusional world all the more satisfies by first paragraph. God damn how dumb can someone be.
You attempted to call me a statist but it is in fact you dumb fuck. All you have ranted on about is the SC ruling on everything which was exactly my original point, that you only have the rights that the SC interprets that you have. You have done nothing but prove my point dumbass.
Your stupid analogy about me hitting you doesn't even make fucking sense. I have no right to hit you but I do have the right to speak and you don't have the right to silence it just because it offends you. The fire in a theater argument is also dumb as hell. I would expect reasonable people to look around and see for themselves there is no fire instead of stampeding like a bunch of dumb fuck Michael Hihns obviously would.
You wanna know what my alternative is. It's to revise the Constitution and respell the rights interred within to where even a dumb fuck like you could understand them. The Founders made critical errors in that they pulled the ole "Well you know what I mean" stunt. All the more I never said I was displeased with the SC. I stated that there are no such thing as unalienable rights as you may think you have protection but the SC can interpret it a different way based upon their own biased assumptions.
You know this, which is why you never answered why Presidents nominate their lapdogs to the SC in the first place. Could it possibly be so that conservative or radical lenses will skew the decision to favor a certain political ideology? (That's a rhetorical question, dumbass).
So let me spell out my argument so that even a dumb fuck retard like you can understand it.
Rights come from a group of individuals deciding what those rights shall be. They're not natural, God ordained, or anything of the sort. Therefore they are subject to change at the whim of people because that is who fucking made them. My whole argument has been on the reality that while unalienable rights sound good in theory, that what we see in reality is a far different story. I never said we shouldn't have rights, never said that we shouldn't spell them out. I did say however, in reality we see that they are only unalienable so far as public opinion and the SC allows them to be.
Still not your decision, Napolean. What's your alternative?
So who is the fucking statist? You think that just because the gov't suspects me of terrorism that I lose my 4th and 5th amendment rights. Talk about thinking that the court is never wrong. You scared of little evil brown men, dumb fuck?
You think it's reasonable for a cop who is ignorant of the law to detain me when I committed no offense, search me and use evidence discovered in said search against me?
You think it's reasonable to force me to provide services to someone who I disagree with on personal grounds?
You think it's reasonable to restrict speech because it might offend your sensitive ears or because you can't control your emotions?
Now that we have that out of the way, rights are not unalienable as you could have the 2nd Amendment now but as soon as public opinion shifts, you will see the SC stop defending the 2nd. The same way you saw them shift gears on gay marriage, abortion, bi-racial marriages, etc. That means that your rights are at the whim of public opinion and the way the SC decides to respond, through their interpretations of the Constitution.
Me stating that the SC does not have powers stated explicitly in the Constitution to perform Judicial Review and also stating that I think it is fine for the SC to do so isn't a contradiction. I was never bitching about anything of the sort. You are just too fucking stupid to realize otherwise, because you can't read, dumb fuck.
So in closing, I would like to say that you are dumb as fuck. I would also like to say again that you are dumb as fuck. Lastly, you are dumb as fuck.
So which is it, o great and wise Master? Do I have unalienable rights to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure or can they be watered down by allowing a stupid cop to completely run all over them.
Do I have the right to a trial by jury or do I only have that for certain offenses.
Can I own property that I'm not harming anyone with or can the SC take that away because it makes Uncle Sam uncomfortable?
You'll say that it's the SC's job to determine those things, which is exactly my point. You have what rights they determine. There's no such thing as unalienable rights if you can be stripped of them based upon someone else's interpretation and public opinion.