• 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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
757
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yet another potential Republican presidential hopeful has issues with his record on health care reform. Looks like Mitch Daniels has some explaining to do.

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

WASHINGTON -- A race to pre-define the prospective presidential candidacy of Republican Mitch Daniels took off in haste on Thursday, as Democrats heaped praise on the Indiana governor for his implementation of the president's health care law.

It's low-hanging fruit, as far as political attacks go. The Affordable Care Act is toxic among Republican voters -- something that those attacking Daniels are implicitly acknowledging. While the Indiana governor has called for ObamaCare's repeal, his acceptance of the ACA money does set him apart from some of his GOP colleagues.

It also underscores that extent to which Daniel is vulnerable on the health care front. Like nearly every other candidate in the GOP field, his record contains several potential points of friction among conservative voters. The most obvious one would be his previous support for the notion that the government could mandate individuals to purchase insurance. Below, for instance, is an October 23, 2003, South Bend Tribune article about Daniels on the gubernatorial campaign trail.

The candidate said he favors a universal health care system that would move away from employee-based health policies and make it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance.

Daniels envisioned one scenario in which residents could certify their coverage when paying income taxes and receive a tax exemption that would cover the cost.

"We really have to have universal coverage," Daniels said.
 
Another problem for Daniels: he was Bush's budget director. Oops.
 
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, and attempting to tie it to the candidates that they see as a threat. Obama has made a point of saying specifically how wonderful he thinks Romneycare is on... how many occasions since Romney took in $10 million?

: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

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.
 
Yet, I have no doubt the left will demagogue him as far right.

Let the attacks commence, he is a possible GOP front runner after all.
 
Yet, I have no doubt the left will demagogue him as far right.

Let the attacks commence, he is a possible GOP front runner after all.

He hasn't helped himself on the "far-right" issue.

But, like nearly all Republicans in the field, he does have the "not conservative enough" thing against him.

Despite calling for "a truce on social issues" (bad in the primary, good in the general), he's gone along with Indiana's new-far-right-wing contingent in Congress to pass bills that anyone from the center on would largely consider to be "far right-wing".

I get it. He has to do it; because you can't "call a truce" and win the Republican Primary. But it doesn't bode well for the general election. The same thing (along with a lot of other things) hobbled McCain.
 
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, and attempting to tie it to the candidates that they see as a threat. Obama has made a point of saying specifically how wonderful he thinks Romneycare is on... how many occasions since Romney took in $10 million?

: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

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.

You sure have a funny way of looking at things. The point of the article is not that Democrats are complaining that Obamacare is too far to the right. You're not even remotely close. The point is that Republicans like Daniels and Romney don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing Obama over his health care reform law. Romney's law was the blueprint for Obama's law, and Daniels pushed for similar reforms and also accepted Obamacare funds. Nice attempt at deflection, though.
 
You sure have a funny way of looking at things. The point of the article is not that Democrats are complaining that Obamacare is too far to the right. You're not even remotely close. The point is that Republicans like Daniels and Romney don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing Obama over his health care reform law. Romney's law was the blueprint for Obama's law, and Daniels pushed for similar reforms and also accepted Obamacare funds. Nice attempt at deflection, though.

What a surprise, Sgt doesn't know the difference between state run programs and Federal mandated programs. Apparently the good ole Sgt doesn't understand health savings accounts either. Healthcare is a state responsibility, Daniels implemented a state run program in Indiana that the Hoosiers love, Romney implemented a state run program in MA that the people voted on. When did the American people vote on Obamacare? Oh, wait, Nov. 2010. Those here looking for a national healthcare program are doing so because they cannot sell their state on the program thus they want the Federal govt. that has created a 14.4 trillion dollar debt to manage healthcare nationally. That is intellectual bankruptcy
 
What a surprise, Sgt doesn't know the difference between state run programs and Federal mandated programs. Apparently the good ole Sgt doesn't understand health savings accounts either. Healthcare is a state responsibility, Daniels implemented a state run program in Indiana that the Hoosiers love, Romney implemented a state run program in MA that the people voted on. When did the American people vote on Obamacare? Oh, wait, Nov. 2010. Those here looking for a national healthcare program are doing so because they cannot sell their state on the program thus they want the Federal govt. that has created a 14.4 trillion dollar debt to manage healthcare nationally. That is intellectual bankruptcy

What a surprise, Conservative is trying to take the easy way out by splitting hairs. Daniels and Romney are both on record supporting a form of health care reform that resembles Obama's. The "I support it in my state, but not nationally" argument isn't working for Romney, won't work for Daniels, and isn't working for you.

Romney and Daniels are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if they fully stand behind their reforms, while simultaneously bashing Obama's, they'll look like hypocrites. On the other hand, if they denounce their own reforms as mistakes, they'll look bad because they won't stand behind their own laws. Either way, they look bad. Good luck.
 
If they're supporting a state-managed health care program but opposing a nationally-managed health care program then it would fall in line with the conservative's "state's rights" argument.
 
What a surprise, Conservative is trying to take the easy way out by splitting hairs. Daniels and Romney are both on record supporting a form of health care reform that resembles Obama's. The "I support it in my state, but not nationally" argument isn't working for Romney, won't work for Daniels, and isn't working for you.

Romney and Daniels are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if they fully stand behind their reforms, while simultaneously bashing Obama's, they'll look like hypocrites. On the other hand, if they denounce their own reforms as mistakes, they'll look bad because they won't stand behind their own laws. Either way, they look bad. Good luck.

Most people support healthcare reform but not NATIONAL HEALTHCARE mandated by the Federal Govt. Most people, unlike you, understand that healthcare is a personal responsibility. The people of MA said they wanted state run universal healthcare and voted on it. I have no problem with that. I have no problem if your state wants to do it as well. Why should the Federal taxpayer pay for it. Do you know how pays for ER services in your state? YOU DO, not another state. Under national healthcare the federal taxpayer funds those costs. The only hypocrit here are the Obama supporters who want to compare state healthcare with national healthcare. 26 states filed suit against that Federal mandate and the Supreme Court will decide. I believe they will decide in favor of the states.
 
If they're supporting a state-managed health care program but opposing a nationally-managed health care program then it would fall in line with the conservative's "state's rights" argument.

I understand the conservative argument, but I just don't think it holds water with most Americans. If you support something, you support it. Period. Otherwise, you just look like a flip-flopper.

Anyway, as Obama stated a couple months back, if states can come up with their own health reform plans that achieve the same goals as Obama's, they're welcome to give them a go after 2014. Obama even said the federal gov't will help them implement those plans. The conservative argument holds no water.
 
I understand the conservative argument, but I just don't think it holds water with most Americans. If you support something, you support it. Period. Otherwise, you just look like a flip-flopper.

Anyway, as Obama stated a couple months back, if states can come up with their own health reform plans that achieve the same goals as Obama's, they're welcome to give them a go after 2014. Obama even said the federal gov't will help them implement those plans. The conservative argument holds no water.

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.
 
I understand the conservative argument, but I just don't think it holds water with most Americans. If you support something, you support it. Period. Otherwise, you just look like a flip-flopper.

Anyway, as Obama stated a couple months back, if states can come up with their own health reform plans that achieve the same goals as Obama's, they're welcome to give them a go after 2014. Obama even said the federal gov't will help them implement those plans. The conservative argument holds no water.

It holds no water because you don't agree with the premise. The issue of states' rights vs. federal authority is a valid one. The federal government has no constitutionally granted authority to mandate that every citizen purchase a specific product or utilize a specific industry. I believe that is the primary issue of contention with (most) conservatives. Of course, most of us don't support any form of single-payer health care either, but that is a separate point.
 
It holds no water because you don't agree with the premise. The issue of states' rights vs. federal authority is a valid one. The federal government has no constitutionally granted authority to mandate that every citizen purchase a specific product or utilize a specific industry. I believe that is the primary issue of contention with (most) conservatives. Of course, most of us don't support any form of single-payer health care either, but that is a separate point.

I agree that states' rights vs. federal authority is a valid argument in some cases.

I'm not talking about Daniels specifically here, but if we take a look at RomneyCare in Massachusetts, I believe that when it comes to his "conservative credentials," the states rights vs. federal authority argument is irrelevant. The problem many conservatives have with RomneyCare is the concept of the individual mandate in and of itself. For many conservatives, that's the sticking point and that's where Romney failed the litmus test, regardless of the whole states' rights vs. federal authority debate. These conservatives believe that no government, at any level, should be forcing citizens to buy a particular product, and that an individual mandate is repulsive no matter what level of government it resides at, and an affront to the conservative values and ideals about small/limited government.

Now I have no idea about what the Daniels' proposal looked like, so I won't judge right now. Just trying to make a point here.
 
Last edited:
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.

But like I said, Obama's decision to let states implement their own health care law destroys that argument. He told them to go for it, as long as they can achieve the same goals as his law. It's up to them. If they can't come up with an equal or better plan, then they get Obamacare. If they can come up with something equal or better, they're welcome to do it. So, what's the problem? It seems to me that Obama is trying to give states some freedom.
 
But like I said, Obama's decision to let states implement their own health care law destroys that argument. He told them to go for it, as long as they can achieve the same goals as his law. It's up to them. If they can't come up with an equal or better plan, then they get Obamacare. If they can come up with something equal or better, they're welcome to do it. So, what's the problem? It seems to me that Obama is trying to give states some freedom.

Obama is mandating that the states implement a healthcare program or forced into the national program and 26 states said NO. that is the issue. It is a federal mandate on a sovereign state to implement a personal responsibility issue. The freedom that the states are being given is do it your way or my way but do it, and that is wrong.
 
I agree that states' rights vs. federal authority is a valid argument in some cases.

I'm not talking about Daniels specifically here, but if we take a look at RomneyCare in Massachusetts, I believe that when it comes to his "conservative credentials," the states rights vs. federal authority argument is irrelevant. The problem many conservatives have with RomneyCare is the concept of the individual mandate in and of itself. For many conservatives, that's the sticking point and that's where Romney failed the litmus test, regardless of the whole states' rights vs. federal authority debate. These conservatives believe that no government, at any level, should be forcing citizens to buy a particular product, and that an individual mandate is repulsive no matter what level of government it resides at, and an affront to the conservative values and ideals about small/limited government.

Now I have no idea about what the Daniels' proposal looked like, so I won't judge right now. Just trying to make a point here.

Of course, the problem conservatives have is that they once supported the individual mandate before it became part of Obamacare. Not only did they support it, but it was their idea in the first place. They just look like hypocrites and flip-floppers.
 
Obama is mandating that the states implement a healthcare program or forced into the national program and 26 states said NO. that is the issue. It is a federal mandate on a sovereign state to implement a personal responsibility issue. The freedom that the states are being given is do it your way or my way but do it, and that is wrong.


Yet these States will go crawling to the Feds when they medicaid money.
 
Of course, the problem conservatives have is that they once supported the individual mandate before it became part of Obamacare. Not only did they support it, but it was their idea in the first place. They just look like hypocrites and flip-floppers.

BS, a State mandate is different from a Federal Mandate and the people of MA voted on Romneycare. Did you vote on Obamacare?
 
Yet these States will go crawling to the Feds when they medicaid money.

You really have an obsession with me, Medicaid is a FEDERAL/STATE program and if the Federal Govt increases the mandate who should pay for it?
 
You really have an obsession with me,

Not really you are just posting and I'm bored. So shooting down your BS is something to do. Even though it is like shooting ducks in a pond.

Medicaid is a FEDERAL/STATE program and if the Federal Govt increases the mandate who should pay for it?


And if the State rejects the mandate who should pay for it?
 
The real problem here is, for Daniels is that a large number of Republicans support repealing Obamacare. Thus he has to explain, and prove he'd be the right guy to do that and repeal it. This hurts him.
 
Last edited:
Obama is mandating that the states implement a healthcare program or forced into the national program and 26 states said NO. that is the issue. It is a federal mandate on a sovereign state to implement a personal responsibility issue. The freedom that the states are being given is do it your way or my way but do it, and that is wrong.

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.
 
Last edited:
Not really you are just posting and I'm bored. So shooting down your BS is something to do. Even though it is like shooting ducks in a pond.




And if the State rejects the mandate who should pay for it?

The one that created the mandate should pay for it
 
Back
Top Bottom