• 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

You can't explain it, because you don't know what you're talking about. Each and every state has the right to allow any health insurance company to sell in their state - in other words its the states that are stopping this competition, not the Federal Government.

So the Federal Govt. has no impact on insurance regulations? So then why did you bring up the Federal Govt. as being a problem?
 
If you believe in states rights then you support the state to decide NOT to implement a state or national run program. That isn't what Obama wants. 26 states do not want the mandate and Obama is fighting that. Obama cannot fund his national healthcare program without the mandate. You want the federal govt. to mandate that the states implement a healthcare program even if they do not want to do so. That argument holds no water.


george1_091498.jpg


I believe that this fellow was also a strong states rights advocate when he was blocking the door at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963.:2wave:
 
george1_091498.jpg


I believe that this fellow was also a strong states rights advocate when he was blocking the door at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963.:2wave:

While conservatives viewpoint is more less bullet points from AM talk radio I do think there are valid reason for State and local controls over healthcare:

Within the United States, there are dramatic variations among regions and racial or ethnic groups in the rates of death from preventable causes. While aiming to provide solutions to the problems of incomplete insurance coverage and inefficiency of care delivery, health care reformers have given insufficient attention to the design, funding, and evaluation of interventions that are tailored to local realities and address preventable causes of death. The big picture — the poor and declining performance of the United States, which goes far beyond the challenge of universal insurance — will inevitably get lost if we do not routinely track performance and compare the results both among countries and among states and counties within the United States.

Ranking 37th
 
Yes, asinine far-right hyperbole.



Oh, Rasmussen? Why am I not surprised? Here, take a look at a real study on the role of health care reform in the '10 elections. You'll find that health care was not the main issue of the '10 elections; and that support for the law was largely divided along party lines with a slight majority of independents having negative views; but a large majority of Americans supporting the individual components of the law. Hardly a mandate on health care reform, like you keep repeating. More of a mandate on the economy, like I said.

Ya missed a few quotes from your article.

In addition to having concerns about the impact of the health care law, many Americans question the federal government’s ability to solve health care problems. When asked how much confidence they had that when the federal government decides to solve problems in health care, those problems will actually be solved, a majority (56%) of the public said they had just a little confidence or no confidence at all (WP–KFF–Harvard University).

People have no confidence in the federal government to enact reforms effectively. In fact quite a lot think they will simply make matters worse. I mean, this is from your own link.

You also missed this :
A plurality (48%) of registered voters who say they intend to vote for a Democratic candidate believe the law will not make much difference to the economy; more of them think that the economy will be better off (39%) than think it will be worse off (9%) because of the law. On the other hand, three fourths (75%) of those who say they intend to vote for a Republican candidate believe that the nation’s economy will be worse off because of the health care law (HSPH).

So I guess it was about the economy.
shrug
 
george1_091498.jpg


I believe that this fellow was also a strong states rights advocate when he was blocking the door at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963.:2wave:

Race card. Thud.

Cmon, at least pretend like you can make a valid point.
 
That opens the doors to the feds.

but in the venue in which it was intended to be. During the Articles of Confederation time-period, states had a field day imposing tariffs, fees, and all manner of trade restrictions on each other. Hence, when the Constitutional Congress attempted to delineate precisely what the powers of the Fed would be v the States, they put in a regime based (in this area) mostly around the Fed having the ability to enforce peace between the states, but not positive action. Congress can tell New York that it cannot ban grain shipments from Illinois, but it can't tell New York that it must buy them. Like much of our Constitution, it was negative in nature. Flat out embargoes (which is what these are. The state of (for example) Kentucky currently has a trade embargo on all 49 of the other states in the health insurance markets) certainly fall under that schema of area's where Congress has the right (and I would say the duty - if not the mandate) to act.
 
george1_091498.jpg


I believe that this fellow was also a strong states rights advocate when he was blocking the door at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963.:2wave:



oh yeah? well you know who wasn't a fan of decentralized decision making when it came to a national healthcare policy?


that's right.......



adolf_hitler_portrait.jpg






Charlie Chaplain.



:roll:

I see your race-card and raise you a godwinning.
 
Last edited:
but in the venue in which it was intended to be.

Intended to be? I just don't think it is all that clear. We both could present arguments as to the intentions supporting our POV. And We could probably quote the same person saying the exact opposite things. The couple of things I do know are that the Founding Fathers were pretty smart people and very knowledgeable about the most contemporary ideas of their time. Another thing I know is they lived in the 18th century and while could have imagined all these wonderful gadgets we have today they did not have to deal with them.



During the Articles of Confederation time-period, states had a field day imposing tariffs, fees, and all manner of trade restrictions on each other. Hence, when the Constitutional Congress attempted to delineate precisely what the powers of the Fed would be v the States, they put in a regime based (in this area) mostly around the Fed having the ability to enforce peace between the states, but not positive action. Congress can tell New York that it cannot ban grain shipments from Illinois, but it can't tell New York that it must buy them. Like much of our Constitution, it was negative in nature. Flat out embargoes (which is what these are. The state of (for example) Kentucky currently has a trade embargo on all 49 of the other states in the health insurance markets) certainly fall under that schema of area's where Congress has the right (and I would say the duty - if not the mandate) to act.

If you are trying to start a conversation about negative and positive rights you will not get to far with me. I pretty much think it is a false dichotomy especially in the area of health care and prevent health care delivery from moving into the 21st century.
 
Intended to be? I just don't think it is all that clear. We both could present arguments as to the intentions supporting our POV. And We could probably quote the same person saying the exact opposite things. The couple of things I do know are that the Founding Fathers were pretty smart people and very knowledgeable about the most contemporary ideas of their time. Another thing I know is they lived in the 18th century and while could have imagined all these wonderful gadgets we have today they did not have to deal with them.

:confused: so your argument is that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have supported the right of Congress to strike down trade restrictions between the states?

....given that that is precisely how they put that law into effect ..... i'm going to have to go with suggesting "no."

if I may cite Gibbons v Ogden:
...the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government..

If you are trying to start a conversation about negative and positive rights you will not get to far with me. I pretty much think it is a false dichotomy especially in the area of health care and prevent health care delivery from moving into the 21st century.

:shrug: it's certainly how the Founding Fathers viewed them - and how they wrote them into the Constitution. The only things they said Government had to provide was (as far as i am aware) pertaining to the rights of the accused - swift trial by jury and so forth. Everything else generally starts off with the "Congress shall not...." format.

Even President Obama ("Constitutional Scholar" that he is) agrees with this basic idea - though he thinks it is a problem, and I disagree and find it a feature.
 
that is correct. state level politicians are currently paid well by the insurance agencies in their borders to keep those borders sealed. however, breaking these kind of trade restrictions between the states is precisely why we gave the Congress the right to regulate interstate congress. They don't have to knock down the restrictions, but they have the legnitimate right to, and it would go far towards lowering health insurance prices. That is what Conservative is talking about.
Actually, it would lower the restrictions of health insurance companies which is currently required by every state. Change these rules and the health insurance companies will lower their standards. This would effectively be a deregulation of the health insurance industry and an invitation to shysters to setup shop.
 
yes, it would increase competition. consumers would be free to choose any healthcare plan they wish, with any coverage they wish. the effect of this would be to increase efficiency in the market and lower prices - just like for every other product. that's sort of the point.
 
Race card. Thud.

Cmon, at least pretend like you can make a valid point.


Just pointing out that I am seeing similarities of the rhetoric that wingers are using in their opposition to healthcare is the same as was used by George Wallace in his "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!"stance.Kinda looks like the same playbook.

Errie."no healthcare now, no healthcare now tomorrow, and no healthcare now forever! for 20 percent of people in the United States.Kinda wonder why wingers dont run with this slogan.Maybe the Wallace clan has it copyrighted.





Here judge for yourselves…

<George Wallace for President 1968. >

<ON STATES RIGHTS.>

<I recommend that the states of the Union continue to determine the policies of their domestic institutions themselves and that the bureaucrats and theoreticians in Washington let people in Ohio and New York and California decide themselves. I recommend states rights and local government, and territorial Democracy.
>


<George C. Wallace is the undisputed leader in the fight for personal and property rights, and against excessive taxation and the takeover of personal rights by the "great society.">


The only thing that has changed in the rhetoric is the race and the time. :2wave:
 
Just pointing out that I am seeing similarities of the rhetoric that wingers are using in their opposition to healthcare is the same as was used by George Wallace in his "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!"stance.Kinda looks like the same playbook.

Errie."no healthcare now, no healthcare now tomorrow, and no healthcare now forever! for 20 percent of people in the United States.Kinda wonder why wingers dont run with this slogan.Maybe the Wallace clan has it copyrighted.





Here judge for yourselves…

<George Wallace for President 1968. >

<ON STATES RIGHTS.>

<I recommend that the states of the Union continue to determine the policies of their domestic institutions themselves and that the bureaucrats and theoreticians in Washington let people in Ohio and New York and California decide themselves. I recommend states rights and local government, and territorial Democracy.
>


<George C. Wallace is the undisputed leader in the fight for personal and property rights, and against excessive taxation and the takeover of personal rights by the "great society.">


The only thing that has changed in the rhetoric is the race and the time. :2wave:

pshaw. like i'm going to take the time to bother responding to charlie chaplain :roll:

congratulations on taking a history of posting that - while i found certainly opposed to my own beliefs, i considered worth of consideration and response - and pooping all over them with bullhockey like this.
 
Last edited:
pshaw. like i'm going to take the time to bother responding to charlie chaplain :roll:

congratulations on taking a history of posting that - while i found certainly opposed to my own beliefs, i considered worth of consideration and response - and pooping all over them with bullhockey like this.

"States’ rights" new code word for anything we don’t like that Obamas for.:2wave:
 
:confused: so your argument is that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have supported the right of Congress to strike down trade restrictions between the states?

That is not at all what I said. Maybe I said it badly? Of course Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. And given the opportunity they certainly will in healthcare.





:shrug: it's certainly how the Founding Fathers viewed them - and how they wrote them into the Constitution. The only things they said Government had to provide was (as far as i am aware) pertaining to the rights of the accused - swift trial by jury and so forth. Everything else generally starts off with the "Congress shall not...." format.

Even President Obama ("Constitutional Scholar" that he is) agrees with this basic idea - though he thinks it is a problem, and I disagree and find it a feature.

Voting, positive right so obviously they were aware of them. And I do not think the Constitution is perfect. And I do not think the Founding Fathers were perfect. They lived in the 18th century. And I do not think the Founding Fathers think they were perfect. I can understand how people can see the Constitution though as mostly negative rights.

However I see negative and positive rights intersecting each other often. But that is another conversation.
 
"States’ rights" new code word for anything we don’t like that Obamas for.:2wave:

hah. says the guy who loves hitler.
 
That is not at all what I said. Maybe I said it badly? Of course Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. And given the opportunity they certainly will in healthcare.

alrighty then. perhaps you were simply objecting to my depiction of the striking down of state trade barriers as the original intent of the interstate commerce line?

Voting, positive right so obviously they were aware of them.

can you direct me to the part of the Constitution where the Founding Fathers established the right to vote? :)

yes, they were definitely aware of the concept. they had just fought a revolution (for example) over parliament and the kings' claims to positive rights. Their opinions were a little more...

Thomas Jefferson said:
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

this.

And I do not think the Constitution is perfect. And I do not think the Founding Fathers were perfect. They lived in the 18th century. And I do not think the Founding Fathers think they were perfect. I can understand how people can see the Constitution though as mostly negative rights.

However I see negative and positive rights intersecting each other often. But that is another conversation.

:) truth.
 
hah. says the guy who loves hitler.

Hey, Adolph was your strawman, my strawman is still standing tall, thanks to winger rhetoric.:2wave:
 
Ya missed a few quotes from your article.



People have no confidence in the federal government to enact reforms effectively. In fact quite a lot think they will simply make matters worse. I mean, this is from your own link.

You also missed this :


So I guess it was about the economy.
shrug

Yes, it was about the economy. Which is exactly hat I said. Got any other useless points?
 
Yes, it was about the economy. Which is exactly hat I said. Got any other useless points?

You argue that people are for the bill and point to a poll, a poll which you cherry picked quotes and numbers from. A poll which also has contrary results to your posts.

People dont believe the fed can make health care better.
People are not for the health care reform in the bill in its entirely, they are good and bad in the bill, but for the most part people do not like the bill as it stands now.
People are not educated on the issues because a good percentage believe the bill will have no economic impact---good or bad a bill that affects the health care industry with as much depth as this one will have an impact, guaranteed.

The useless points thing...that would be you, not me. Your own link undermines your position because you cherry picked it, getting snarky with me doesnt change that.
 
Yet another potential Republican presidential hopeful has issues with his record on health care reform. Looks like Mitch Daniels has some explaining to do.

So you are for the health care bill but bemoan the fact that this guy agrees with you? Can there be no common ground for people who run against each other????
 
Yet another potential Republican presidential hopeful has issues with his record on health care reform. Looks like Mitch Daniels has some explaining to do.

Anything having to do with possible issues for a Daniels presidential campaign appear to moot at this point ~

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels decides not to run for president

"Gov. Mitch Daniels says he won't seek the Republican nomination, prompting more concern among GOP leaders about the strength of the party's candidates."
 
Back
Top Bottom