Oh my: Did Mitch Daniels support a health-care mandate in 2003?

posted at 6:38 pm on May 19, 2011 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Suddenly, Newt Gingrich having only the second-worst week among major candidates.”

You know who this helps? I think you do.

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.”

Aspiring to universal coverage is one thing, aspiring to do it via a mandate is another. (Remember how The One was anti-mandate during the 2008 campaign despite wanting to make coverage universal or near-universal? Odd how no one brings that up anymore.) Looking to torpedo Daniels right out of the gate, HuffPo conducted a “lengthy search of the governor’s various statements on health care policy” over the years; apparently, this was the only example they found of Daniels allegedly endorsing the mandate, and even here there’s no direct quote to confirm that he was actually saying what the reporter thinks he was saying. Which is surprising: After all, the mandate wasn’t nearly as radioactive on the right until ObamaCare exploded and the constitutional arguments against a free-floating Commerce Clause power of compulsory purchases began to sharpen. For instance, I don’t remember Romney’s endorsement of the mandate being a major strike against him in 2008, especially in comparison to his abortion flip-flop. You would think more Republicans would have long-ago flirtations with the idea on their records somewhere. (And of course, some do.) With Daniels, this one piece is it — so far.

Reached for comment this afternoon by NRO, his office assured them that he supports using tax credits to help people buy insurance, not mandates. Mitch the Knife himself addressed the subject in a radio interview later:

“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.”

If he’s serious about running — and judging by this story, it sounds like he is — he’d better have staffers trawling Lexis/Nexis exhaustively for any “troubling” prior quotes on this subject. The base is already suspicious of him, I think, especially given his ostentatious support among the dreaded Republican elite, so any bombshell revelations in his past involving conservative heresies will do major damage, needless to say. You don’t suppose Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty have 10 or 20 or 1,000 people digging on him right now, do you?

Via Breitbart, here he is in 2009 (at 2:45) insisting he wouldn’t subject himself or his family to the savagery of presidential politics. In other news, he told the Indy Star today that he’ll reach a decision on whether he’s running for president by month’s end.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

pseudoforce on May 19, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Except I’m not crying about it. I’m happy to let Mitch speak up for himself when and if he runs. I’m following Twain’s advice regarding pig wrestling.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:29 PM

* Raising all kinds of taxes and fees and selling off highways is the way to balance budgets (deep spending cuts are unnecessary).

When the former Office of Management and Budget director took control of Indiana in 2005, the state was $200 million in the hole. Digging out was his first priority-and one of his first proposals was a sizable tax hike on all individuals and entities earning over $100,000. The legislature blocked the plan, but Daniels eventually passed a handful of new taxes: one on liquor, one on rental cars, and one that increased the state sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent. Indiana soon had a $1.3 billion surplus.

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:29 PM

pseudoforce on May 19, 2011 at 8:21 PM
Except I’m not crying about it. I’m happy to let Mitch speak up for himself when and if he runs. I’m following Twain’s advice regarding pig wrestling.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Except that this is a blog and people are encouraged to comment. If we all sit on our hands like you and wait for Mitch’s wife to make up his mind if he is going to run, it would get pretty quiet around here.

HornetSting on May 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM

HornetSting on May 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Well make some noise :-) I’m not stopping you.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM

* Raising all kinds of taxes and fees and selling off highways is the way to balance budgets (deep spending cuts are unnecessary).

In 2006, Mitch Daniels strong-armed permission to sell the Indiana Toll Road through the Legislature. While the $3.6 billion dollars (one third of our normal 10 year highway spending budget) will be spent within 10 years, the lease will run for 75 years. So, if you are 20 years old, your great-great-grandchildren will be teenagers when the contract comes up for renewal.

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:36 PM

I’m happy to let Mitch speak up for himself when and if he runs. I’m following Twain’s advice regarding pig wrestling.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:29 PM

You’d better be prepared to do a lot of pig-wrestling, considering that Mitch’s own words don’t seem to help him very much.

pseudoforce on May 19, 2011 at 8:38 PM

HornetSting on May 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM
Well make some noise :-) I’m not stopping you.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Uh, no one stops me.

HornetSting on May 19, 2011 at 8:41 PM

pseudoforce on May 19, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Maybe when he runs. Right now I’m fine letting the pigs masturbate, like this 77 character is doing.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:42 PM

* Spendthrift George W. Bush’s OMB director would have an awesome fundraising “letterhead”

Have deficits lost their political sting? This Administration apparently thinks so. The budget proposal released by President Bush last week projects a deficit of more than $300 billion for each of the next few years. That’s a far cry from Bush’s election-year pledge to avoid red ink — though he now insists he made an exception for times of war, recession or national emergency. “A balanced budget is a high priority for this Administration,” says Mitch Daniels, Bush’s budget director. “It is not the top or the only priority.”

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:44 PM

* Spendthrift George W. Bush’s OMB director would have an awesome fundraising “letterhead”

“If I were to decide to do this, we would have an unbelievable letterhead,” Daniels predicted in a POLITICO interview Wednesday, lighting up as the hour-long conversation turned to why he could win.

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:45 PM

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:42 PM

In other words you don’t have a defense. You spend hours arguing for the destruction of the Fourth Amendment in Indiana (by a Daniels appointed judge) but couldn’t care less if your guy is a socialist or not.

sharrukin on May 19, 2011 at 8:46 PM

* It is incumbent upon Republicans to only pursue issues that won’t piss the Democrats off too much.

When Daniels says the GOP should avoid “wedge” issues, that means the entire debate must conform to what the Democrats will tolerate: “The whole concept of a wedge issue should be foreign to us if we really want to come back.” That is not what the party’s base wants to hear. They want to set the agenda, not capitulate before beginning the bargaining. More than any single issue, it is this attitude that will be an anathema to the Republican primary electorate.

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Herman Cain is going to wind up taking it…he’s the only guy so far that doesn’t end up sounding like a RINO squish.

AUINSC on May 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM

you must have missed is Afgan note

unseen on May 19, 2011 at 8:48 PM

* Social issues matter not.

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved.

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:48 PM

* Right-to-work laws aren’t all that important.

Gov. Mitch Daniels signaled this afternoon that Republicans should drop the right-to-work bill that has brought the Indiana House to a standstill for two days and imperiled other measures.
Daniels told reporters this afternoon that he expected House Democrats will return to work if the bill dies. It would be unfortunate if other bills are caught up in the turmoil, he said.

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Maybe when he runs. Right now I’m fine letting the pigs masturbate, like this 77 character is doing.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Classy as always.

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM

* It is incumbent upon Republicans to only pursue issues that won’t piss the Democrats off too much.
steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM

This might as well serve as the credo of the timorous and self-loathing establishment Republican. RINO or not RINO matters not.

rrpjr on May 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM

you must have missed is Afgan note

unseen on May 19, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Um, no I didn’t…it made sense to me. Did you miss it?

AUINSC on May 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Gee, isn’t that why everybody is writing off Romney? When you think about the problem, it should be no surprise that a lot of conservatives supported a health insurance mandate in the past. There are three alternatives to the status quo I can think of: 1. Allow doctors and hospitals to require proof of ability to pay (i.e. insurance); 2. Mandate that everyone have health insurance; 3. Make it a criminal offense to obtain medical care when you can’t pay for it. Or we can just keep making everybody else, including health insurance companies, pick up the tab.

It might help to register a lien against the patient/responsible person’s property and income, but then somebody has to enforce the lien or wait until the person tries to sell his property.

Nobody really likes the choices. Several times a year, I see jars at the local stores asking for donations for some child who needs an organ transplant or cancer treatment, etc. I try to chip in, but I don’t really believe that this approach will really meet the expenses.

flataffect on May 19, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Gee, isn’t that why everybody is writing off Romney? When you think about the problem, it should be no surprise that a lot of conservatives supported a health insurance mandate in the past. There are three alternatives to the status quo I can think of: 1. Allow doctors and hospitals to require proof of ability to pay (i.e. insurance); 2. Mandate that everyone have health insurance; 3. Make it a criminal offense to obtain medical care when you can’t pay for it. Or we can just keep making everybody else, including health insurance companies, pick up the tab.

flataffect on May 19, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Or we could do something really really radical, which is going to happen somewhere down the line anyway, and begin to decrease the government’s disfiguring role in the health care “market” and influencing health care costs. How has the mandate in Massachusetts affected health care costs there? And please don’t tell me that it’s all the fault of the legislature.

pseudoforce on May 19, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I’m sorry JetBoy, you know I’m just trying to figure things out… but I’m going to rip your boy a bit now… I haven’t commit yet I’m looking at everyone. I just realized this today.

No it isn’t Romneycare, but it is a negative. Healthcare is just one issue.

However, the economy is the issue.

How can we properly pin the economy on Obama if we pick Bush’s budget director to run against him?

Obama can just point to him and say, “He started it!”

Obama could make the case that blame for the economy is shared by Obama and Daniels/Bush.

It really undermines our whole case against Obama on the economy. I brushed over that little fact, then it hit me… hey, this isn’t a harmless fact!

So far Daniels has said, “pay attention to my record as governor”… and that is a point.

But Obama isn’t going to do that. Blaming Bush gets him off the hook to some extent, he will love sharing the blame.

Daniels is going to be left defending Bush’s monetary polices for his whole term not just Daniel’s few years.

petunia on May 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Thank you for posting this thought. It’s a perspective that I may have over looked. I am just beginning to gather data and info on Daniels.

P. Monk on May 19, 2011 at 10:36 PM

* It is incumbent upon Republicans to only pursue issues that won’t piss the Democrats off too much.
steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM

This might as well serve as the credo of the timorous and self-loathing establishment Republican. RINO or not RINO matters not.

rrpjr on May 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Well said. Thank you.

P. Monk on May 19, 2011 at 10:45 PM

steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:11 PM

First off because this thread is about hating on Mitch for something he said 8 years ago on the campaign trail. Second, because no matter how thoroughly I debunk it, like Patton there you’ll just reflexively paste it again the next his name is mentioned and demand we go through the same useless cycle again. Third, I don’t like you and have no desire to waste time arguing with someone I have so little respect for.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:16 PM

In other words, you can’t.

kim roy on May 19, 2011 at 10:49 PM

This isn’t even newsworthy, at this point. We get it: If a Republican proposes it, it’s a cutting edge, personal-responsibility-oriented solution to our health care problems. If a Dem passes it, it’s FASCISM.

crr6

The queen of ignorance steps up to the plate and shows why she’s queen.

Well guys it’s becoming clear if you want Obamacare repealed vote for Palin.

unseen

How will Palin losing in a landslide get Obamacare repealed?

xblade on May 19, 2011 at 11:42 PM

How will Palin losing in a landslide get Obamacare repealed?

xblade on May 19, 2011 at 11:42 PM

How will Romney or Daniels losing in a landslide make it any better?

pseudoforce on May 19, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Squishier than boiled okra.

SouthernGent on May 19, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Except I’m not crying about it. I’m happy to let Mitch speak up for himself when and if he runs. I’m following Twain’s advice regarding pig wrestling.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:29 PM

No, you aren’t crying about it, you’re just calling everyone who criticizes your boy a “hater.” You don’t cry. You whine. Then you accuse people of posting distortions and do nothing to even try to debunk same. You’re a real big talker from behind your keyboard, but nothing you said here on this thread has an ounce of substance or credibility. For the icing on the cake, you used the term, “masturbation” in an effort to appear clever, and you just made yourself look like a classless, immature jackass. Way to go!

Now you can piss and moan about that.

JannyMae on May 20, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Well guys it’s becoming clear if you want Obamacare repealed vote for Palin.

unseen

Like that isn’t your answer to everything :)

petunia on May 20, 2011 at 1:43 AM

petunia on May 20, 2011 at 1:43 AM

BNo, only for a little problem called Obama.

promachus on May 20, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Uh, no one stops me.

HornetSting on May 19, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Only one man can survive the Hornet’s sting…

Gohawgs on May 20, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Old quotes on health care policy won’t kill Daniels. His establishment roots might hurt him, and he’s not the sort of guy who can take a lot of hits because he just isn’t Mr. Excitement behind a microphone.

Adjoran on May 20, 2011 at 2:25 AM

“Did Mitch Daniels support a health-care mandate in 2003?”

At this point, the question seems to be, Who didn’t?

J.E. Dyer on May 20, 2011 at 2:29 AM

In other words you don’t have a defense. You spend hours arguing for the destruction of the Fourth Amendment in Indiana (by a Daniels appointed judge) but couldn’t care less if your guy is a socialist or not.

sharrukin on May 19, 2011 at 8:46 PM

I give Daniels a pass on judicial nominations. He had little in the way of choice given that he cannot make his own selections but must choose from a very short list provided by a “nonpartisan” judicial council made up in fact of hard-left progressive overlords-in-waiting.

I find much to dislike from Milquetoast Mitch, but I cant fault his past judicial choices because he hasn’t really had a choice.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on May 20, 2011 at 2:46 AM

At this point, the question seems to be, Who didn’t?

J.E. Dyer on May 20, 2011 at 2:29 AM

Palin

promachus on May 20, 2011 at 2:56 AM

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on May 20, 2011 at 2:46 AM

If I understood it correctly, the fault of Daniels is not nominating this judge but not chucking the Missouri plan when he had the means to do so.

promachus on May 20, 2011 at 2:58 AM

JannyMae on May 20, 2011 at 12:41 AM

LOL! I see what you did there. You think that by taunting me from behind your own keyboard you can make me dance for you. But role reversal won’t work. Only idiots dance on command in response to impotent provocation like that. Nice try, monkey.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 8:41 AM

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Quoting Monty Python doesn’t change the fact that Mitch doesn’t have a chance.

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 8:52 AM

There is no way that anyone who has paid attention to the way Daniels has governed here in Indiana could honestly thinks he supports mandates. It is just so far from how he does things. It is like saying that Sarah Palin supports amnesty because she supports a path to citizenship for some people under some circumstances. Not the same thing.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Quoting Monty Python doesn’t change the fact that Mitch doesn’t have a chance.

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 8:52 AM

He may not have a chance, but that does not make it okay to deliberately misrepresent him and his record…for years I have listened to Palin’s most ardent fans complain about how media took things she said out of context and tried to make her look stupid or something..and yet a lot of these same people do not mind using the same tactics on other people.

I say let the primary voters decide who will and will not win. It is their decision after all.

Terrye on May 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Terrye on May 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM

In the GOP primary poll, Romney was followed by Sarah Palin (12 percent), Newt Gingrich (9 percent), Rudy Giuliani (7 percent), Rep. Ron Paul (5 percent), Rep. Michele Bachmann (4 percent), Herman Cain (4 percent), Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (4 percent), Tim Pawlenty (3 percent), and Rick Santorum (3 percent), with 20 percent undecided. Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, and Buddy Roemer all received less than 1 percent. [See a slide show of GOP 2012 contenders.]

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 9:11 AM

He may not have a chance, but that does not make it okay to deliberately misrepresent him and his record…

Terrye on May 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM

What from his record has been misrepresented? Care to cite anything specific or attempt to refute anything? Or are you a graduate of the MJBrutus school of debating?

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Maybe when he runs. Right now I’m fine letting the pigs masturbate, like this 77 character is doing.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 8:42 PM

We know this is your favorite activity, but don’t project it on those you disagree with…Those of us who have the real thing have no need for your fantasies…

lovingmyUSA on May 20, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Every point on that list is a gross distortion of the record. Sorry, but I’m not about to spend the rest of my evening debunking all of this.
MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 7:56 PM
Then how about debunking one or two?
steebo77 on May 19, 2011 at 8:11 PM

I confess, I know little about Daniels.
But from the things I have seen, I’m not very convinced he’s a good idea.
Instead of taking his word for things & refusing to debate these things said about him with some proof, it is more useful to actually guide some of us who know little of him to WHY he is a good idea.
If you have to the time to post here, you have the time to give us some real proof & direction.
That’ is what steebo’s doing.

Or we could do something really really radical, which is going to happen somewhere down the line anyway, and begin to decrease the government’s disfiguring role in the health care “market” and influencing health care costs. How has the mandate in Massachusetts affected health care costs there? And please don’t tell me that it’s all the fault of the legislature.
pseudoforce on May 19, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Feds set the price for healthcare services.
That’s why insurance is so high.
I’m not saying insurance companies don’t have some blame, but they are just businesses operating in a hostile climate.
The fed needs to stop reaching for powers it should not have.
Something radical needs to happen, but no one will step forward.
It’s just more of the same squishy crap.

I say let the primary voters decide who will and will not win. It is their decision after all.
Terrye on May 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Um..yeah that is going to happen.
And in the meantime, we should all be debating & thinking about WHY we will support someone.
That is the whole point here.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 9:46 AM

It appears Mitch is a walking, talking “unforced error.” Imagine how well he will hold up if he were to win the GOP nomination and MSM started giving him the “Palin Treatment.”

bw222 on May 20, 2011 at 9:47 AM

I say let the primary voters decide who will and will not win. It is their decision after all.

Terrye on May 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Agree 100%. Let the voters decide. Not the media. Not the elites.

bw222 on May 20, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Agree 100%. Let the voters decide. Not the media. Not the elites.

bw222 on May 20, 2011 at 9:51 AM

That is why it’s important for us to debate what the record is of these hopefuls really is.
I want places to go where I can find out info on him.
See I have researched people like Palin, Gingrich, Romney.
I want to know just why I should support Daniels.
And so far, I would not.
Once I supported Romney.
When I later found out much more about him, I withdrew my support.
So why is Daniels so great?
VAT taxes disgust me.
That right there is a no no in my book.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 9:56 AM

bw222 on May 20, 2011 at 9:47 AM

It is indicative of Daniels being a grown up. To the children around here, every issue that comes up is the most important thing evah and the only right, just and proper answer is to be found in the locker where all the red meat is stored.

Daniels makes it clear what his priorities are. He is willing to at least explore and consider alternatives to resolve them, even if it seems unlikely that he would adopt such alternatives. So that process of actually reflective on the alternatives gets the H/A crowd all wee weed up and garbage such as what we see here is the result.

When he says that we need to defer dealing with religious issues to concentrate on national survival it gets spun as, “he supports baby killing.” Well that passes for wisdom at H/A, but fortunately most people, including primary voters, are a little more rational than that.

Instead of taking his word for things & refusing to debate these things said about him with some proof, it is more useful to actually guide some of us who know little of him to WHY he is a good idea.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 9:46 AM

He’ll do that for himself if he decides to run. I won’t mind setting the record straight on the things he says. I’ll let him say it, though, before I start correcting malicious, mendacious juveniles in advance of the fact.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM

…malicious, mendacious juveniles
MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM

You mean like posting about pigs pleasuring themselves?

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 10:10 AM

“We really have to have universal coverage,” Daniels said.

Baked, right there.

dogsoldier on May 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Baked, right there.

dogsoldier on May 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Yep. The elite don’t seem to get it. We don’t want mandates of any kind! That’s what the November election was all about.

And where does Newt plan to spend his Sunday morning apologizing for his remarks last Sunday? You’d think Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, so as to reach conservative voters, wouldn’t you? No, he’s spending Sunday morning with Bob Schieffer.

He’s triangulating. He’s done, too.

ladyingray on May 20, 2011 at 10:33 AM

“…actually reflective on the alternatives…”

That is code for “Look out! RINOs preparing to sell out conservatives.” It is a history lesson conservatives have learned the hard way, and repeatedly, going back to 1988 at least.

JimP on May 20, 2011 at 10:36 AM

LOL! I see what you did there. You think that by taunting me from behind your own keyboard you can make me dance for you. But role reversal won’t work. Only idiots dance on command in response to impotent provocation like that. Nice try, monkey.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 8:41 AM

And yet you danced… ROFL

pseudoforce on May 20, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Daniels is a stale joke. The punchline is always the same, and always at our expense. No more.

rrpjr on May 20, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I’m more than a little disappointed at Allah, Ed and the readers here for their failure to distinguish between mandates and incentives.

First, let’s look at the dictionary.com definition of “mandate”:

1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.
2. a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
3. an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

Obamacare includes a mandate. It requires people to buy insurance. That is why it is unconstitutional.

Neither Romneycare nor the Daniels plan includes a mandate. Neither requires people to act. Instead, both provide a tax incentive to act. People don’t have to buy their own insurance but, if they don’t, they will not receive a tax deduction/credit. That’s fair because the people without insurance free-load off the state when they use emergency rooms, and should pay more taxes to compensate for it.

I’m sure some idiot — or perhaps many — will say that it’s the same thing. It isn’t. In one case you have a choice, in one case you don’t. In one case, there is no constitutional authority to coerce action, in the other there is a clear constitutional authority to levy taxes. In one case the action is federal, in the other it is state.

Perhaps some idiot who thinks he’s clever will say, “But if you tax people enough, it effectively because a mandate.” Perhaps in theory. If people were to lose $50,000 in tax deductions/credits for not buying a $15,000 insurance policy, I suppose almost every one would buy insurance. But that’s theory.

In fact, in the case of Romneycare, the tax incentive is far too small. Therefore, many more people jumped into the government plan than expected, and they are bankrupting the state. To fix Romneycare, you need to make the government plan less attractive (by not covering many drugs, procedures and devices — yes, “death panels”) and you need to make private plans more attractive (less regulation and a bigger tax incentive).

I haven’t seen Daniels’ plan, but I would wager that the tax incentive was less than or equal to the amount necessary to reimburse the state for the care provided to the uninsured. I am not aware that it included a government plan, as in Romneycare (but I would be grateful if anyone could point me to more information).

There is nothing wrong with having universal coverage as a goal. Only an idiot wouldn’t want that, because the uninsured sponge off the insured. A universal government plan will achieve that but will put healthcare in the hands of inefficient and foolish bureaucrats and politicians. A mandate will achieve that, but is unconstitutional. And, although tax incentives won’t quite achieve that (because some people will choose not to take the tax incentive out of ignorance or incompetence, or because the government will set the incentives too low), it will get close.

But let’s stop falling into leftwing traps set by HuffPo and others by calling tax incentives mandates, and blurring the distinction between Obama’s unconstitutional power grab and a smart use of tax policy to stop free-loaders.

SwampYankee on May 20, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Looks like Mark Levin found another reason not to like Daniels.

mizflame98 on May 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM

“There is nothing wrong with having universal coverage as a goal. Only an idiot wouldn’t want that,…”

Call me an idiot then. Any politician calling for universal health coverage is ultimately calling for more government regulation/interference/involvement with personal healthcare: and in all likelyhood is talking about some kind of freedom/money robbing scheme. Back in 1994 the gov came up with HMO’s and various regs to “solve” the healthcare coverage & cost crisis we faced then. It only made things worse and lead directly to the high costs and other problems we have now, which were the excuse used to pass Obamacare for the Dems. The politicians that can be trusted on the subject of healthcare- if there are any- are the ones calling for turning back the clock to about 1960 insofar as government involvement with healthcare or ones who propose a Ryan type plan to ween people off of government assisted plans etc. Healthcare insurance is a kind of ponzi scheme. Healthy people pay premiums at the same rate as people who are sick and use the insurance alot. This lowers the monthly premiums (cost) to the sick because the healthy people’s payments assist in covering the sick’s costs to get well. Healthy people never, ever get their money’s worth from health insurance. Calling for universal coverage is just more code for something bad for consumers and tax payers, but good for bureaucrats.

JimP on May 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Mitch “VAT Taxin’, Social Issue Cease Firein’, Universal Health Coverin’ ” Daniels …

Does this guy have ANY Conservative opinions?

I mean – what’s funny is … this guy can never be attacked appropriately by the left – because too many of his ideas seem to agree with them. Conversely – he’s appearing more and more like a complete alien to the real Republican base.

He’s thinking of running for the nomination of which party?

HondaV65 on May 20, 2011 at 11:14 AM

I haven’t seen Daniels’ plan, but I would wager that the tax incentive was less than or equal to the amount necessary to reimburse the state for the care provided to the uninsured.

SwampYankee on May 20, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Well then you would be wrong:

For one thing, Healthy Indiana applies cost-sharing with discretion. The monthly contributions into the Power Accounts vary between 2 percent and 5 percent of income, with the poorer recipients paying a smaller share than the richer ones. And that’s only for people who have incomes. About one-third of the program’s beneficiaries pay nothing at all. The state also regulates the insurers that participate in Healthy Indiana, requiring that they cover preventative care free of charge.

For what it offers, it’s expensive. Partly that’s because it pays providers better than Medicaid, which is a good thing; and partly that’s because it’s not attracting enough healthy people into the program, which is not such a good thing.

Daniels, to his credit, has dealt with the program’s higher costs by securing a new tobacco tax to supplement the program’s funds.

Also like Obamacare, HIP is fiscally unsound and pushes states’ Medicaid costs onto federal taxpayers. Every $1 Indiana spends on HIP triggers at least $2 of spending by the federal government; no matter what state you call home, you’re paying for Mitch Daniels’s government-run health-care plan. Even so, an independent review found that Daniels’s cigarette-tax hike hasn’t kept pace with Indiana’s share of the spending, and further cost overruns may be on the horizon. If Obamacare remains on the books, Daniels wants to put all new Medicaid enrollees into HIP, with the feds paying 100 percent of the cost.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Judge Steven David was nominated to the Indiana State Supreme Court by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

The same Indiana judge who, peaking for the majority, sh!t on the 4th Amendment.

That is enough to make Mitch Daniels a nonstarter.

Roy Rogers on May 20, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Mitt, Newt, and Mitch are making T-Paw look REALLY conservative – meh.

Right now, looks like Cain is the only reasonable conservative in the running.

MeatHeadinCA on May 20, 2011 at 11:57 AM

The base is already suspicious of him, I think, especially given his ostentatious support among the dreaded Republican elite, so any bombshell revelations in his past …

The root problem is that politicians don’t speak openly or truthfully. No many have true convictions on principles, and way too many minefields out there (people want the Gotcha! moment).

So we are reduced to guess at what words they utter really stand for.

Sir Napsalot on May 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM

White Male RINO-CON running for GOP Nom flips on an issue?

White Male RINO-CON running for GOP Nom tells us we didn’t hear what we hear?

SHOCKed that this could happen!!!!

PappyD61 on May 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Would we rather have the milquetoast candidates or someone with “fire in the belly” that is ready to go toe-to-toe with the Muslim Sympathizer in the White House?

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/governor-palin-on-greta-i-do-have-the-fire-in-my-belly.html

LET’S HAVE THE FIRE!!!!

PappyD61 on May 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Sir Napsalot on May 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Oh, so that’s it. Except that when somebody does talk to you like a grown up and says that we need to put social issues on the back burner and concentrate on fiscal matters, you cry. When somebody says that we can fight over right to work laws tomorrow, but first we need to get a whole agenda full of reforms passed this year, you cry. You don’t want the truth. You can’t handle the truth. You’re like Pappy over there, slavering for red meat 24×7 and as long as he gets to hear the sweet lies that make him happy he’ll vote for you.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I still LOVE Levin’s comments here …

Now he may be good for Indiana the way [New Jersey Gov.] Christie may be good for New Jersey but that’s not good enough,” he said. “Good enough is an articulate, confident, conservative voice that whenever confronted with tyranny, speaks of liberty. That whenever confronted with lawlessness, speaks of the Constitution. He doesn’t compartmentalize issues because that tells me that he’s not a Reaganite. That he’s not a conservative

Mr. Daniels, you get a little ‘x,’” he said. “You’re too weak. You don’t see the full horizon. You’re ready to battle on some turf, but on way too much you’re ready to surrender the turf. You should be speaking out in defense of your fellow governor from Wisconsin and you’re not. You should be encouraging exactly what the legislature is doing in — Indiana, to attract more and more enterprise and create more jobs but you’re not. That’s why you’re not presidential. Like I say, you may be a great governor. I don’t know. I don’t live in Indiana but I do live in the United States and you get a little ‘x’ next to your name

HondaV65 on May 20, 2011 at 1:50 PM

You don’t want the truth. You can’t handle the truth …

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I love when RINO’s have to resort to Jack Nicolson to sound “tuff”.

LOL

Hey – you can get even more material from Al Pacino from “SCARFACE” …

Cuz – Mitch Daniels is “tuff” like those guys! LOL

HondaV65 on May 20, 2011 at 1:52 PM

He’ll do that for himself if he decides to run. I won’t mind setting the record straight on the things he says. I’ll let him say it, though, before I start correcting malicious, mendacious juveniles in advance of the fact.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Please excuse me for not just wanting to take this guy’s word for things right now.
Not that I won’t listen to what he has to say. But seriously, I want the track record exposed.
The real facts of what he actually did & what it really meant after the fact, no an iced over candy a$$ version of things.
I really don’t understand why you’re not touting your man’s accomplishments & the ins & outs of them & what they mean to the citizens of the state of IN.
Waiting for him to tell us?
Why wait if he’s so great?

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I used to listen to what Romney had to say. And it sounded good. So I voted for him in the primaries.
Then I really looked into him a lot more.
And realized I made a mistake.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM

“Good enough is an articulate, confident, conservative voice that whenever confronted with tyranny, speaks of liberty. That whenever confronted with lawlessness, speaks of the Constitution. He doesn’t compartmentalize issues because that tells me that he’s not a Reaganite. That he’s not a conservative

I.LOVE.MARK.LEVIN

tencole on May 20, 2011 at 3:06 PM

I haven’t seen Daniels’ plan, but I would wager that the tax incentive was less than or equal to the amount necessary to reimburse the state for the care provided to the uninsured.

SwampYankee on May 20, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Well then you would be wrong

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Steebo77′s “reply” is completely off-point. The Healthy Indiana Plan does not include either a mandate to purchase insurance or provide a tax deduction/credit for those who purchase private insurance. It is a plan limited to about 132,000 workers that are not covered by an employee-sponsored plan, and is unrelated to the comments from 2003 paraphrased in the blockquote in Allah’s post.

SwampYankee on May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

SwampYankee on May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Does this plan rely upon Federal Funds to keep it afloat?

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Steebo77′s “reply” is completely off-point. The Healthy Indiana Plan does not include either a mandate to purchase insurance or provide a tax deduction/credit for those who purchase private insurance. It is a plan limited to about 132,000 workers that are not covered by an employee-sponsored plan, and is unrelated to the comments from 2003 paraphrased in the blockquote in Allah’s post.

SwampYankee on May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

I never asserted that HIP contained a mandate to purchase insurance. Also, HIP does use taxpayer resources to subsidize healthcare for beneficiaries. Whether it is in the form of a tax deduction or credit makes little difference. The overarching point that I was responding to was whether or not HIP is structured in a way such that it is paid for. The bottom line is that Indiana resources do not cover its expenses, even after a second tobacco tax hike. The program remains dependent of federal tax dollars for its continued existence. That is neither sustainable nor fiscally conservative.

Furthermore, just because the central focus of AP’s post was the 2003 remarks on insurance mandates made by Daniels, that does not mean a fuller discussion of his record on healthcare policy issues as Governor of Indiana is irrelevant.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Does this plan rely upon Federal Funds to keep it afloat?

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

You betcha…..

“Daniels and his conservative fans make much of the fact that this “Healthy Indiana Plan” (HIP) offers high-deductible coverage combined with a taxpayer-funded health savings account, whereas Obamacare simply expands traditional Medicaid with its notoriously lousy access to care. But that’s just another way of saying Daniels made Medicaid more attractive: Under his plan, the government hands out coverage plus something a lot like cash.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261285/mitch-daniels-s-obamacare-problem-michael-f-cannon?page=1

tencole on May 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM

I find much to dislike from Milquetoast Mitch, but I cant fault his past judicial choices because he hasn’t really had a choice.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on May 20, 2011 at 2:46 AM

Mitch Daniels vetoed the bill that would have given him that choice, so yeah it does get laid at his doorstep.

sharrukin on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM

See if this is true, then it is not a success. It is terrible.
I am disappointed in GOP leaders who do things like this.
Our former Gov John Hoeven, now Senator, accepted TARP funds, even though ND has a robust booming economy with $$$ in the bank.
I felt this was VERY wrong.
We should all be paying our own way whenever we possibly can.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 1:59 PM

OK, I’ll assume you’re being sincere in claiming that you really do come here to learn about the candidate. I would say that I could not think of a worse place to go for an education. You will mostly find lies and distortions from cheerleading know-nothings. You won’t be able to tell good info from bad unless you do your own homework. If you are sincere in wanting to learn about Daniels or any other candidate, my advice is for you to do your own research and don’t rely on anonymous posters at H/A.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

The overarching point that I was responding to was whether or not HIP is structured in a way such that it is paid for.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM

To whom were you responding? Surely not me, as I never made such a point.

My point was, and remains, that there is a difference between a mandate and a tax incentive, and that those who blur the ditinction are doing a disservice to the debate.

SwampYankee on May 20, 2011 at 3:37 PM

my advice is for you to do your own research and don’t rely on anonymous posters at H/A.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

I am not taking posters’ word for truths here.
Despite your vocal assumption of sincerity, I still feel your dripping disdain for my questions & ideas here.
If that is not the case, you could certainly start worknig on the tone of your conversations here. Bcs that is what I am always getting as far as ‘vibes’ go, from you.
I am asking for some intelligent anaylsis with LINKS of PROOF as to these assertions.
That is all I am asking for.
And MJ-I only have time for so much ‘research’.
I am half running a ranch here. Yes. I actually do sometimes reply upon the opinions of others I judge to be intelligent & reasonable-like all humans do.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM

You will mostly find lies and distortions from cheerleading know-nothings.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

You insist that everything I have posted is lies and distortions and that I am a cheerleading know-nothing, yet you do nothing to counter the supposed lies and distortions while others attempt to engage in a serious debate based on history and governing records. You refuse to debate the facts or provide any sources of your own. You dismiss out-of-hand all information others share, whether it comes from conservative, moderate, or liberal sources. You insist that others do their homework, yet you seem to have very little interest in following your own advice.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

My point was, and remains, that there is a difference between a mandate and a tax incentive, and that those who blur the ditinction are doing a disservice to the debate.

SwampYankee on May 20, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Yet no one on this thread ever asserted that there wasn’t a difference between mandates and tax incentives.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM

You say that, but then I see you react to the most insubstantial and scurrilous of claims. Take the “Mitch wants a VAT” thing. It’s genesis was that last October when asked about a VAT Daniels gave an extemporaneous reply about under certain conditions (including, for example, a flat income tax) a tax on consumption was worthy of consideration. That’s as far as it goes. Did he ever propose such a plan? No. Did he mention it again? No. But, hook, line and sinker you take the bait. That’s fine, but don’t expect me to believe that you’re interested in “proof” of anything.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM

You insist that others do their homework, yet you seem to have very little interest in following your own advice.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

This is the impression that I get of everything you say most of the time MJB.
Sorry if that pi$$e$ you off.
But that is my take on things regarding you.
I’m not a heavy link kinda gal.
But I do try & point folks in certain directions with links that help them make their own decisions when I can.
Folding your arms haughtily & saying you’d just let him speak for himself when we have genuine questions is irresponsible. Especially when you say steebo’s wrong, but won’t give real reasons why.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM

So why is Daniels so great?
VAT taxes disgust me.
That right there is a no no in my book.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 9:56 AM

That is what I said on the matter.
Is it true that he has proposed VAT taxes?
Even if he was musing about it, I personally do not agree with such things.
So what is the truth of the matter here?

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 3:49 PM

I told you the truth as I see it. I also told you not to believe what you read here, but to go look it up yourself.

As for me getting pissed off, I’m ROFL! I don’t take anything or anyone here seriously enough to affect my attitude or my day.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Take the “Mitch wants a VAT” thing. It’s genesis was that last October when asked about a VAT Daniels gave an extemporaneous reply about under certain conditions (including, for example, a flat income tax) a tax on consumption was worthy of consideration.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Actually, it wasn’t extemporaneous at all. Daniels was a guest at a Hudson Institute dinner where he received an award named for Herman Kahn, the Institute’s founder. In prepared remarks, Daniels quoted from one of Kahn’s books, saying

It would be most useful to redesign the tax system to discourage consumption and encourage savings and investment. One obvious possibility is a value added tax and flat income tax, with the only exception being a lower standard deduction.

After sharing that quote, Daniels added

That might suit our current situation pretty well. It also might fit Bill Simon’s line in the late ‘70s that the nation should have a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose.

So the VAT suggestion was neither in response to a question, nor was it extemporaneous.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:52 PM

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Oh well thank you so much for that valuable correction. It changes everything, NOT. Bottom line, is that it was nothing more than some out-gassing at a dinner. Now please hop back on your hysterical, “Mitch wants a VAT” hobby horse. It will amuse me.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 3:52 PM

That is what the gist I got was over all the sites I perused on the matter.

As for me getting pissed off, I’m ROFL! I don’t take anything or anyone here seriously enough to affect my attitude or my day.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:52 PM

And that is why when you say things, it is hard to believe anything you say.
Bcs clearly, if you do not care, then your motivation for being here is only for crude entertainment & therefore I cannot really take anything you say seriously myself.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 4:01 PM

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Are you here pushing Daniels because he’s your candidate of choice or are you here because you want to re-elect Obama?

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM

MJBrutus debating technique.

sharrukin on May 20, 2011 at 4:04 PM

From Politico:

In a brief interview after his speech, Daniels downplayed the significance of his comments. He stressed that he would support a VAT “under only the right circumstances,” reiterating his desire for it to be paired with a flat income tax.

I understand things are complicated.
But I do not personally believe, or trust, that any circumstances are right for introducing a VAT tax in conjunction with a flat tax.
I’m not willing to hang Daniels on this.
But it is one thing so far I do not like about him.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 4:06 PM

I cannot really take anything you say seriously myself.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Who said you should? I’ve been sitting here telling you how foolish you would be take anything that’s said here seriously.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Oh well thank you so much for that valuable correction. It changes everything, NOT.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM

It doesn’t change anything because most commenters here already saw you for what you are — a disingenous, dishonest hack who loves to play fast and loose with the facts, hurl insults, and eschew any serious debate.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Who said you should? I’ve been sitting here telling you how foolish you would be take anything that’s said here seriously.

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 4:06 PM

So you are here just to f#$% with people & not really to engage in any serious exchange of ideas & information.
Perhaps you consider me foolish to think that HA, like the taverns of era 1770s America where Patriots hung out to do the very same thing you think foolish, is a similar venue.
But I come here actually for a purpose. To help myself get educated about the issues.
To help foster questions & get maybe some answers on occassion.
You coming here to get your kicks by being obtuse is useless.
And I would wager folks like Patrick Henry would have thrown you out of said taverns on your arse for your attitude.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

If you have such a low opinion of the posters on this blog, why do you spend so much time here?

bw222 on May 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

a disingenous, dishonest hack who loves to play fast and loose with the facts, hurl insults, and eschew any serious debate.

steebo77 on May 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM

First gut instinct.
But dealing with children everyday in the classroom, I still lean toward giving a assumed fool the benefit of the doubt for a while.

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 4:11 PM

If you have such a low opinion of the posters on this blog, why do you spend so much time here?

bw222 on May 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Yes.
Why?

Badger40 on May 20, 2011 at 4:12 PM

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Fine. Then go hang out at Daily Kos.

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM

bw222 on May 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Entertainment. You?

MJBrutus on May 20, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3