Posted on 05/19/2011 3:17:16 PM PDT by RINOs suck
During his 2003 run for governor, an Indiana newspaper reported that Mitch Daniels supported a form of an individual health insurance mandate.
An item in the South Bend Tribune from October, 23, 2003, on a campaign stop Daniels made to a health clinic, reported:
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.
Under his plan, Daniels said, the nation could get away from the inefficient and unfair way in which health care is provided to those who are uninsured, many of whom end up in emergency rooms or "at clinics like this one."
This was first noted by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post, and then I located the Tribune article to confirm.
Earlier today, I defended Daniels from what I thought was an unfair attack. But this apparent past support for a form of a federal mandate is legitimately alarming and warrants greater scrutiny.
UPDATE:
NRO reports:
“Governor Daniels favors giving every American a tax credit individually so they can purchase insurance that is right for them,” Jankowski told National Review Online. “He believes nearly all would use it, so coverage would be nearly universal. He does not support a mandate.”
Jankowski added that opposition to an individual mandate “has always has been the governor’s position.”
“I don’t believe in mandates,” Daniels said in a radio interview with Michael Smerconish earlier today. “We took a very, very different approach here in Indiana, more or less health saving accounts for low income people.”
Daniels added that he didn’t agree that “as a matter of either good health care policy or, frankly, our constitutional liberties, that government at any level should be ordering Americans to buy a given product.”
The fact that the newspaper story's reference to mandatory health insurance is a paraphrase, rather than a direct quote, provides Daniels with some wiggle room here. But if similar stories emerge -- or video clips of him speaking of mandatory health insurance during his 2003 campaign -- it will spell deeper trouble for him.
Does not happen that way. I don't have a time machine. They don't either, but I do have a memory, and I know how to research on the net, and an awful lot of them appear to have neither memories nor skills.
Makes me think the TEAParty is a faction that's going to self-extinguish before it gets a good start. They imagine that it's time to hold blood purges to get rid of the real Conservatives before we blurt out what may be wrong with them.
Sounds like that Davis guy isn't the only Leftwingtard to infiltrate them.
In fact, the efforts to provide it following Bismarck's model (through employers) probably resulted in some serious delays in a normal development.
It's like this, I have universal grocery store service. They're all over the place. I pick and chose on a daily basis.
I have universal "road service' and over time there's been a mix of local, state, national or private vendors 'road service'.
What you guys get hung up on is the issue of PAYMENT. Neither payment nor medical insurance constitutes medical care.
“Mitch Daniels is not a “RINO” here, he is saying that each of us must face the responsibility for our own healthcare. It does not necessarily have to be insurance plan, but YOU better be ready to pay for your own health care.”
My friend, you have a statist approach to this issue.
The government creates this false dilemma. Government takes the position that no one should be denied health care. But some choose not to buy insurance because they are willing to take the risk that they’ll remain healthy and therefore don’t want to spend their money on a health insurance policy. The government says, but if you do get sick, you can go to an ER and be treated and the government (i.e., taxpayers) may have to pay. Well, I am not in favor of the taxpayers paying for ER visits for anyone who walks in (uninsureds, illegals, etc.) But Big Government dictates “We can’t have that.” The government dictates that the taxpayers must pay for those who do not insure themselves. This results in an expensive proposition. To counter this boondoggle government spending mandate, the government has to take away more freedom: everyone must be insured. Therefore, Big Brother is taking away your freedom to choose whether to buy insurance or not. You WILL buy it or face government force.
Of course, to extend this a little further, you have to admit that some people don’t take care of themselves. They have unhealthy lifestyles: couch potatoes, McDonalds meals all the time, smoking, obese, etc. That’s a burden on the rest of the group and runs up health costs for everyone. Therefore, government should become food police, restricting what you choose to eat and mandating a healthy lifestyle for you. Maybe there should be mandatory exercises for everyone a couple of times a week.
The bottom line for conservatives is returning the federal government to its constitutional limits—a very limited role in our lives. The federal leviathan has no constitutional right to require me to buy health insurance and should not be taxing me to pay for other people’s healthcare. The flip side of this conservative position is personal responsibility. I am responsible for my health. You have no obligation to pay for my unwise choices in life.
That's a lie.
"Why would the Republicans do that anyway? We are not Fascist Pigs like the anti-semitic Democrats who are preparing to kill the Jews. I mean, your President today sold Israel down the river and somebody is worrying about who said what about individual mandate?"
And that's a non sequitor.
You can shill for Daniels if you want. It's only Jim that makes the rules.
But from my point of view you're attempt to associate me with the betrayal of Israel today is offensive, irrelevant to the discussion at hand and completely untrue.
However, it's apparent you're here to shill for your loser/commie/statist Daniels.
That shows you are neither a conservative nor a lover of liberty.
That's technically correct to a degree.
He said that everyone should have to report to the IRS their proof of insurance and that those who could not afford it would be given vouchers.
Without slicing too thin, I'll just say it still shows him to be a federal statist and commie to boot.
He's over. Get your check back.
Let's say we have emergency rooms ~ quite common aren't they ~ so we have them, and people come there who have insurance.
About 85% of emergency room users have health insurance, or are otherwise prepared to pay (like rich folks).
The folks who work there are doctors, nurses and medical technicians.
They are trained to work with the sick and injured, so what they naturally want to do is take care of the sick and injured who come into that emergency room.
Your suggestion is that they NOT take care of anyone who is not prepared to pay or who does not have medical insurance.
In short, you recommend that the doctors, nurses and medical technicians step back from the broken bodies and sick babies and do nothing.
Your only answer has to be that then the doctors, nurses and techies DO IT ON THEIR OWN TIME ~ hmm.
I doubt you can see the problem but if you put techies, doctors and nurses into their natural work environment and tell them to let some die (without any effort on their part to stop the bleeding for example), they might decide it's not a good place to work, so when you come in you will get second rate talent. Not only that they'll be second rate talent who are most likely sociopathic!
Now if you could get a sign put up that says "SharpRightTurn gets his emergency service here, so you are gonna' die unless you have insurance", ......
I am sure you get the idea.
I am still of the impression that the 13th amendment prohibits the imposition of slavery on doctors, techies and nurses. That means they gotta' get paid.
Now there are a lot of ways making sure they get paid for the work they do. We could even hire professional pickpockets to deftly cash in credit card credit limits for 50% of value. That sort of thing.
Or, rather than have an emergency room that lets in only those who pay, we could restrict it a little bit differently ~ let in only those who don't mind if they or someone else pays ~and if you don't agree with that, just keep you out so you don't make everybody else so fearful of dying on a gurney parked in the lobby!
We could even arrange a proportional TAX REBATE so that if you were an objector you'd get your share of any taxes spent on the operation ~
That way we would have emergency rooms for folks who are happy enough to have one, and folks who kvetched about the presumed ripoff artists who make the lines long could GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
The point I'm making is you probably have your heart in your beliefs, but it's dollars to doughnuts the nurses, techies and doctors probably don't care to work for free on injured people ~ although they will ~ but we long ago decided that was an abuse and tapped into the tax revenues.
No doubt there's a better way, but even the insurance companies have figured out it's better to send their people to hospital emergency rooms than to just let them die in a gutter somewhere.
Just one darned thing after another.
Look newbie, you're right here on FR (after all these years) advocating for somebody far to the left of the worst RINO. Not even Romney advocated for Federal control over the means of healthcare which your statist...go along with the breeze...Gov of Indiana has.
Look, you start running around a thread calling people names WHEN YOU KNOW VERY WELL they are hard core, rock ribbed Conservative Republicans of long standing you will get FLAMED RIGHT BACK.
We know your kind. You've gone over.
Though, perhaps you're philosophies are in concert with his and you're not a shill after all.
If that's the case, please accept my apologies on that single matter.
“In short, you recommend that the doctors, nurses and medical technicians step back from the broken bodies and sick babies and do nothing.”
I don’t recommend it. That’s up to them. I would not dictate what they do. I don’t want to dictate. And I don’t want the federal behemoth to dictate, either.
They can refuse to treat them or they can treat them pro bono.
And generous Americans can contribute to charity hospitals.
And people can realize that if they want health coverage they should save for it, buy insurance, or take a chance they may not always be healthy and will not receive medical treatment if they haven’t planned for it.
If there are to be socialist healthcare programs, then it should be done at the state level, like RomneyCare. I would not want it but if the good citizens of Mass. decide they want socialized medicine and their state constitution doesn’t prohibit it, then by all means let them embrace it and any other big government program their hearts’ desire.
I prefer to live in a state that doesn’t take away health care freedom. Abiding by the constitution and leaving it to the states, both of us can win. muawiyah can move to a state with socialized medicine; I can reside in a state with more freedom. That’s the beauty of the constitution and why conservatives embrace a return to constitutional rule.
So far you've come up with nothing to demonstrate that ANY REPUBLICAN of any consequence has ever advocated making all the medical personnel into government employees (that's what socialized medicine is).
If you match Daniels up against Romney, which I don't ~ since I'm not a MITBOT ~ you'll find that even Romney didn't advocate totally socialized medicine.
That doesn't mean I'm campaigning for Romney, and I'm not campaigning for Daniels, but I do detect a whiff of MITBOT on this thread anyway.
That's simply not a position that's going to draw a crowd, and if you want to get political power you have to win elections.
That's what the simple statist can't seem to understand. We are a Federal Republic by Constitution and there are enormous amounts of disinformation, ignorance...and in deference to those who would suffer any tyranny to help their fellow man..."do-gooders".
Samuel L. Clemens tried to warn us about the do-gooders, but we didn't listen.
You have got to back up that sort of accusation with cold, hard facts.
I doubt you have them.
Perhaps you agree with that too? Did you know that Eli Lilly was one of the strongest advocates (along with the entire pharmaceutical industry) for Obamacare? Did you know that Mitch Daniels was one of the top people at Eli Lilly for 11 years through 2001? EVP for Corporate Strategy.
Healthy Indiana Plan
In 2007, Daniels signed the Healthy Indiana Plan, which provided 132,000 uninsured Indiana workers with coverage. The program works by helping its beneficiaries purchase a private health insurance policy with a subsidy from the state. The plan promotes health screenings, early prevention services, and smoking cessation. It also provides tax credits for small businesses that create qualified wellness and Section 125 plans. The plan was paid for by an increase in the state’s tax on cigarettes and the reallocation of federal medicaid funds through a special wavier granted by the federal government. In a September 15, 2007 Wall Street Journal column, Daniels was quoted as saying about the Healthy Indiana Plan and cigarette tax increase saying, “A consumption tax on a product you'd just as soon have less of doesn't violate the rules I learned under Ronald Reagan."[35][5]
The plan allows low to moderate income households where the members have no access to employer provided healthcare to apply for coverage. The fee for coverage is calculated using a formula that results in a charge between 2%–5% of a person's income. A $1,100 annual deductible is standard on all policies and allows applicants to qualify for a health savings account. The plan pays a maximum of $300,000 in annual benefits.[36]
He's just another member of the DC/Corporate/Wall St./Banking Oligarchy. He is DEFINITELY no conservative. He is a statist through and through.
The individual mandate, so-called, is about FORCING PEOPLE to buy insurance plans whether you want them or not.
What is there about the materials you just cited that says MUST BUY INSURANCE OR BE FINED $250,000 AND BE SENT TO PRISON ~ which is what Obamakkkare says ~ and that's what the issue in the courts is.
Are you sure you know which is which?
Do you oppose private insurance plans?
If you are a syndico-anarchist this thread's really not for you.
That's the position Daniels took in the '93 gov campaign concerning national healthcare. Why he was dumb enough to opine on this matter is beyond me. Did YOU read the article?
Levin talked about it on his show tonight.
Perhaps Mitch will stand up and declare he didn't say it. Perhaps he'll state he said it but no longer believes that way.
Right now he's saying only what his supposed position is today.
We'll soon see what Mitch Daniels is made of.
If he continues to dodge he's no different than Gingrich or Romney...and that's what I believe him to be now.
There are millions that have had it with this crap...politicians who advocate the issue of the day looking only at which way the wind is blowing and how they'll increase their own power and wealth.
They want money from young people. They'd take their spare organs as well, but money will do I suppose.
So far no one in any of these threads has managed to get a DIRECT QUOTE of Mitch Daniels demanding "individual mandate".
"It does not necessarily have to be an insurance plan, but YOU better be ready to pay for your own health care."
That's statist???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.