• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mitch Daniels Not Only Took ObamaCare Funds, He Pushed Similar Reforms

Sgt Meowenstein said:
How is it wrong for the POTUS to ensure that most Americans have health insurance? That's the kind of things presidents are elected to do. It was THE major issue of his campaign. Health insurance, or the lack thereof is a big problem in the USA. IF governors are unable, or unwilling to take care of the uninsured in their state, then the federal gov't should step in. Again, if these Republican governors have such great ideas about health care reform, then they can implement them as long as they achieve the same goals as Obama's. You can keep moving the goal post, but the state's rights argument is out the window.
Click to expand...

Healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a Presidential responsibility. Presidents aren't elected to be a parent, they are elected to be a leader in national security and to promote economic growth. If governors are unable or unwilling to do anything then it is up to the people of the state to make the change and implement their will. Our Founders understood where the power belongs and it isn't a massive Federal Govt. What does the President know about the healthcare problems in your community? It is you that pays for state and local healthcare costs, not the Federal taxpayer which will happen with Obamacare and that is totally and completely wrong.

You still don't get it, Obama has given the states two choices, create your own health care program or accept mine. State governments have said NO there is a third option, let we aren't implementing a program and aren't accepting yours. This is a states rights' issue and you want want the Federal Govt. to be a parent and force you to do what they want you to do.
 
winston53660 said:
Then the States shouldn't go crawling to the feds when they get in trouble.
Click to expand...

With the exception of natural disasters I agree with you. I had no problem helping the people of New Orleans after Katrina. Your argument on Medicaid however is bogus and you are seeing the reason that TX is going to opt out. Federal Govt. increases the mandate and then doesn't fund it. That is wrong
 
Conservative said:
With the exception of natural disasters I agree with you. I had no problem helping the people of New Orleans after Katrina. Your argument on Medicaid however is bogus and you are seeing the reason that TX is going to opt out. Federal Govt. increases the mandate and then doesn't fund it. That is wrong
Click to expand...

For once I agree with you.
 
Conservative said:
With the exception of natural disasters I agree with you. I had no problem helping the people of New Orleans after Katrina. Your argument on Medicaid however is bogus and you are seeing the reason that TX is going to opt out. Federal Govt. increases the mandate and then doesn't fund it. That is wrong
Click to expand...


What additional burden is placed on the State in the first three years? After that what additional burden is placed on the State?

I posted that for you the other night.
 
winston53660 said:
What additional burden is placed on the State in the first three years? After that what additional burden is placed on the State?

I posted that for you the other night.
Click to expand...

Nothing, but the expansion of the program by the Federal Govt. has to be funded by the Federal Govt.
 
from cpwill

it is sort of entertaining how democrats are now admitting that the President's healthcare plan is a poison-kiss, and attempting to tie it to the candidates that they see as a threat.
Click to expand...

cp - I think you are wise enough and astute enough to fully understand that this tieing of Daniels to the healthcare plan is only a poison kiss to the right wing constituency which has disproportional influence in the GOP primary process.

They do NOT see it as a poison kiss to the nation as a whole or the November electorate.

And I suspect you understand that also.

Every incumbent would love to pick their opponent. Were I in the White House or on the upper levels of the Democratic political team, I would be doing everything possible to make sure that my opponent in 2012 was either Palin, Paul, or Bachmann. Any of those three would give you a repeat of the Democratic results in 1964. Others might have just as bad of luck and results. But those three are sure bets with sure results.
 
Last edited:
Sgt Meowenstein said:
How is it wrong for the POTUS to ensure that most Americans have health insurance? That's the kind of things presidents are elected to do. It was THE major issue of his campaign. Health insurance, or the lack thereof is a big problem in the USA. IF governors are unable, or unwilling to take care of the uninsured in their state, then the federal gov't should step in. Again, if these Republican governors have such great ideas about health care reform, then they can implement them as long as they achieve the same goals as Obama's. You can keep moving the goal post, but the state's rights argument is out the window.
Click to expand...
because its unconstitutional and I should not have to work hundreds of hours a year to pay for your health care-especially if you impose costs on the system by the irresponsible behavior that so many of the poor engage in
 
TurtleDude said:
because its unconstitutional and I should not have to work hundreds of hours a year to pay for your health care-especially if you impose costs on the system by the irresponsible behavior that so many of the poor engage in
Click to expand...


You do that anyways even with private insurance.
 
cpwill said:
Until 2003, when he left to go run for governor. :)

It is sort of entertaining how democrats are now admitting that the President's healthcare plan is a poison-kiss,...
Click to expand...

You mischaracterize the Democrat's position as to why we're laughing at some of the GOP 2012 presidential hopefuls. This thread sums it up (topic: http://www.debatepolitics.com/healt...ndate-they-were-before-they-were-against.html

...and attempting to tie it to the candidates that they see as a threat.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the nature of politics during an election cycle? To expose the weaknesses or hyporcrytical nature of the potential candidate?

Obama has made a point of saying specifically how wonderful he thinks Romneycare is on... how many occasions since Romney took in $10 million?
Click to expand...

I fail to see what you're getting at here. Okay...so Mitt Romney has taken in over $10M in campaign contributions. What's that go to do with the health care reforms he enacted while Gov. of Massachusettes?

:D Having spent 3 years blaming them for his inability to spark an economic recovery, it seems that Obama has decided to blame Republicans for Obamacare, too :D
Click to expand...

WRONG! If anything, he's calling three GOP hopefuls out for claiming to be against ObamaCare while having made claims to support the individual mandate in the past (or a form of it presently; Re: Newt Gingrinch...they were for it before they were against it...see link above.)

However, before we get into the words (and I have more than a few questions about those), let's look at deeds. what did Mitch Daniels actually do to reform healthcare in his state?

Oh, well would you look at that.
Click to expand...

Oh...wait to toot your own horn, Mr. Daniels. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a Presidential responsibility. Presidents aren't elected to be a parent, they are elected to be a leader in national security and to promote economic growth. If governors are unable or unwilling to do anything then it is up to the people of the state to make the change and implement their will. Our Founders understood where the power belongs and it isn't a massive Federal Govt. What does the President know about the healthcare problems in your community? It is you that pays for state and local healthcare costs, not the Federal taxpayer which will happen with Obamacare and that is totally and completely wrong.

You still don't get it, Obama has given the states two choices, create your own health care program or accept mine. State governments have said NO there is a third option, let we aren't implementing a program and aren't accepting yours. This is a states rights' issue and you want want the Federal Govt. to be a parent and force you to do what they want you to do.
Click to expand...

And how are individuals going to implement their will against a state government that's unwilling to provide affordable health care? The founding fathers also understood that the gov't should provide for the general welfare of its citizens. That's why they put it in the Constitution. And no, I'm not saying that the right to health care insurance is in the Constitution. But one could easily make the argument that affordable health care is part of providing for the general welfare of citizens.

Essentially, your argument is that states have the right to either ensure that their citizens have access to affordable health care or just to let them die fending for themselves. I wholeheartedly disagree and think that your interpretation is a perversion of what the founding fathers intended for this nation. State and federal gov'ts have a constitutional obligation to provide for the general welfare of their citizens.
 
Last edited:
Sgt Meowenstein said:
And how are individuals going to implement their will against a state government that's unwilling to provide affordable health care? The founding fathers also understood that the gov't should provide for the general welfare of its citizens. That's why they put it in the Constitution. And no, I'm not saying that the right to health care insurance is in the Constitution. But one could easily make the argument that affordable health care is part of providing for the general welfare of citizens.

Essentially, your argument is that state's have the right to either ensure that their citizens have access to affordable health care or just to let them die fend for themselves. I wholeheartedly disagree and think that your interpretation is a perversion of what the founding fathers intended for this nation. State and federal gov'ts have a constitutional obligation to provide for the general welfare of its citizens.
Click to expand...

The world you are looking for is in Europe not this country where freedom of choice comes in the form of elected individuals. You either sell your state on the healthcare issue or take personal responsibility for your inability to have insurance. There are programs available to you and everyone has access to healthcare. The Founders put into the Preamble to the Constitution PROMOTE the General Welfare and politicians created article 1 Section 8 which says provide which to me means creating an atmosphere that encourages the private sector to get involved.

Right, all state politicians want to get re-elected by killing off their uninsured. What a great campaign platform. Where does your responsibility lie on personal issues? If you cannot sell your program to your local or state govt. whose fault is that>?
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
And how are individuals going to implement their will against a state government that's unwilling to provide affordable health care? The founding fathers also understood that the gov't should provide for the general welfare of its citizens. That's why they put it in the Constitution. And no, I'm not saying that the right to health care insurance is in the Constitution. But one could easily make the argument that affordable health care is part of providing for the general welfare of citizens.

Essentially, your argument is that state's have the right to either ensure that their citizens have access to affordable health care or just to let them die fend for themselves. I wholeheartedly disagree and think that your interpretation is a perversion of what the founding fathers intended for this nation. State and federal gov'ts have a constitutional obligation to provide for the general welfare of its citizens.
Click to expand...

My problem with this is:

A) WE do promote the general welfare in healthcare and we do it by making ERs take in pretty much any one who comes to see them if they are in a life-threatening state (and that can be defined pretty loosely). But seriously, a bad cough could be pneumonia and left untreated, the person could die, so they will be seen.

B) In providing for the general welfare in this fashion, we are wasting not just tax-payer dollars but premium dollars hand over fist.

Thus, the way I look at it - you have three choices: you can 1) let people die or continue getting sicker until they do; 2) continue this highly inefficient form of "socialized medicine"; or 3) come up with a way of doing it that is much more efficient and inexpensive for tax-payers and premium-payers.

Those are the options: 1) live like the developing world; 2) maintain the status quo; 3) develop something that is either our own solution or develop something based on what all the rest of the developed nations of the world do.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
And how are individuals going to implement their will against a state government that's unwilling to provide affordable health care? The founding fathers also understood that the gov't should provide for the general welfare of its citizens. That's why they put it in the Constitution. And no, I'm not saying that the right to health care insurance is in the Constitution. But one could easily make the argument that affordable health care is part of providing for the general welfare of citizens.

Essentially, your argument is that states have the right to either ensure that their citizens have access to affordable health care or just to let them die fending for themselves. I wholeheartedly disagree and think that your interpretation is a perversion of what the founding fathers intended for this nation. State and federal gov'ts have a constitutional obligation to provide for the general welfare of their citizens.
Click to expand...

If your state doesn't provide the coverage you want it's pretty easy to move to one that does. It's a bit harder to move to another country.
 
tessaesque said:
If your state doesn't provide the coverage you want it's pretty easy to move to one that does. It's a bit harder to move to another country.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty easy if you have the means. If you're poor, living check to check, and can't find adequate employment in another state, or afford the cost of relocating assuming you can find adequate employment, then you're **** out of luck.

This argument is absurd. You're saying that state's have the right to let people die in the street, and if the people don't like it, tough luck - move to another state.

If you think that your version is even remotely close to what the founding fathers had in mind for the citizens for this nation, you are sadly mistaken.
 
Conservative said:
The world you are looking for is in Europe not this country where freedom of choice comes in the form of elected individuals. You either sell your state on the healthcare issue or take personal responsibility for your inability to have insurance. There are programs available to you and everyone has access to healthcare. The Founders put into the Preamble to the Constitution PROMOTE the General Welfare and politicians created article 1 Section 8 which says provide which to me means creating an atmosphere that encourages the private sector to get involved.

Right, all state politicians want to get re-elected by killing off their uninsured. What a great campaign platform. Where does your responsibility lie on personal issues? If you cannot sell your program to your local or state govt. whose fault is that>?
Click to expand...

And since Obama was elected by a majority of Americans on a platform that included national health care reform, I'd say the voters got what they asked for.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Yeah, it's pretty easy if you have the means. If you're poor, living check to check, and can't find adequate employment in another state, or afford the cost of relocating assuming you can find adequate employment, then you're **** out of luck.

This argument is absurd. You're saying that state's have the right to let people die in the street, and if the people don't like it, tough luck - move to another state.

If you think that your version is even remotely close to what the founding fathers had in mind for the citizens for this nation, you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

It isn't the state's or the fed's responsibility to provide healthcare or income for anybody. That responsibility lies solely on the shoulders of the individual. Do I like the idea of people dying because they can't afford healthcare? No. Is it their fault? Yeah, partially. I have worked jobs that did not provide insurance benefits. I didn't like not having insurance, so I got a better job. I've had insurance almost constantly since I was 19. The only lapses I've had were during transitions into new jobs. At 19, I had little experience and few marketable skills, but I still managed to find a job that provided health benefits (as well as vacation and sick time). It isn't impossible, and people must take responsibility for themselves. Would I rather have that $70-150 a month in premiums to spend on other stuff? Yeah. Is the lack of spending money worth it? Absolutely.
 
tessaesque said:
It isn't the state's or the fed's responsibility to provide healthcare or income for anybody. That responsibility lies solely on the shoulders of the individual. Do I like the idea of people dying because they can't afford healthcare? No. Is it their fault? Yeah, partially. I have worked jobs that did not provide insurance benefits. I didn't like not having insurance, so I got a better job. I've had insurance almost constantly since I was 19. The only lapses I've had were during transitions into new jobs. At 19, I had little experience and few marketable skills, but I still managed to find a job that provided health benefits (as well as vacation and sick time). It isn't impossible, and people must take responsibility for themselves. Would I rather have that $70-150 a month in premiums to spend on other stuff? Yeah. Is the lack of spending money worth it? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, your argument is absurd. If you think that's what the founding fathers intended or that most Americans agree with you, you're delusional.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
I'm sorry, your argument is absurd. If you think that's what the founding fathers intended or that most Americans agree with you, you're delusional.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers did not intend for those who choose not to provide for themselves to be rewarded for it. The vast majority of Americans are more than capable of taking care of themselves, and the vast majority of those who aren't damn well could be. I'm not going to justify spending more non-existent money because people refuse to work their asses off to get something they "need". If you need it, find a way to get it. Stop waiting for big government to step in and give it you.
 
tessaesque said:
The founding fathers did not intend for those who choose not to provide for themselves to be rewarded for it. The vast majority of Americans are more than capable of taking care of themselves, and the vast majority of those who aren't damn well could be. I'm not going to justify spending more non-existent money because people refuse to work their asses off to get something they "need". If you need it, find a way to get it. Stop waiting for big government to step in and give it you.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to repeat this:

My problem with this is:

A) WE do promote the general welfare in healthcare and we do it by making ERs take in pretty much any one who comes to see them if they are in a life-threatening state (and that can be defined pretty loosely). But seriously, a bad cough could be pneumonia and left untreated, the person could die, so they will be seen.

B) In providing for the general welfare in this fashion, we are wasting not just tax-payer dollars but premium dollars hand over fist.

Thus, the way I look at it - you have three choices: you can 1) let people die or continue getting sicker until they do; 2) continue this highly inefficient form of "socialized medicine"; or 3) come up with a way of doing it that is much more efficient and inexpensive for tax-payers and premium-payers.

Those are the options: 1) live like the developing world; 2) maintain the status quo; 3) develop something that is either our own solution or develop something based on what all the rest of the developed nations of the world do.

You're paying for it already. Just in an really inefficient manner.
 
tessaesque said:
The founding fathers did not intend for those who choose not to provide for themselves to be rewarded for it. The vast majority of Americans are more than capable of taking care of themselves, and the vast majority of those who aren't damn well could be. I'm not going to justify spending more non-existent money because people refuse to work their asses off to get something they "need". If you need it, find a way to get it. Stop waiting for big government to step in and give it you.
Click to expand...

Republicans, the party of higher morals and family values, basically telling poor people that they'll sooner watch them die in the street than lend a helping hand. Gotta love those compassionate conservative values. You people are hopeless.
 
Good! His support of universal healthcare only solidifies my intention to vote for him if he runs.
 
Krhazy said:
Good! His support of universal healthcare only solidifies my intention to vote for him if he runs.
Click to expand...

So his hypocrisy on health care ensures your vote for him? How about his position on Planned Parenthood? Does his willingness to take away health care services for poor women ensure your vote for him?
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Republicans, the party of higher morals and family values, basically telling poor people that they'll sooner watch them die in the street than lend a helping hand. Gotta love those compassionate conservative values. You people are hopeless.
Click to expand...

I can be compassionate without enabling people to stagnate. If you are capable then you need to earn your way. That's the way this country and life work. Excuses breed nothing but stagnation.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
And since Obama was elected by a majority of Americans on a platform that included national health care reform, I'd say the voters got what they asked for.
Click to expand...

Guess you missed the November 2010 election results and the 26 states that are now suing Obama. Not surprising but tell me where did you learn that it was someone else's responsibility to pay for your healthcare? Are they to monitor your lifestyle as well including what you eat and drink? Where does the nanny state end in your world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom