The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein highlighted today a passage from a 2003 news story which indicated that Mitch Daniels supported an individual health care mandate at the time. From the South Bend Tribune:
The candidate [Mitch Daniels] 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.”
Jane Jankowski, a spokeswoman for Daniels, said that the governor does not support an individual mandate.
“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.”
I don't understand this obsession over Republicans' past positions on the individual mandate. Who cares what their position was 10 years ago? The ACA is an incredibly complex and opaque 2000 page law. I don't see how this got boiled down to the mandate. Further, is there any difference between a universal reversible tax credit (aka a government handout) and a mandate? Like Daniels says, one would have to be irrational not to use this free money to buy insurance. Further, isn't it irresponsible for anyone not to have catastrophic coverage? I know this is different than the mandate in the ACA, but mandates can mean very different things depending on the context.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I don't understand this obsession over Republicans' past positions on the individual mandate."
It tells you who is a Big Government republican when no one is looking. And how he is flip-flopping when it becomes a problem for him/her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, do we get to learn the answer after weather and sports, or is this the story itself? When this kind of question is asked, it leaves the impression that the answer is, "Yes, he does (or did) support an individual mandate," but I do not see evidence of that in this article. There are tax credits for a lot of things that are not mandated. Unless I overlooked its repeal, people can still receive a tax credit for each child that they have, but people are not thereby required to have children. The answer appears to be, "No, Mitch Daniels did not and does not support an individual mandate."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Dellis--I think the concern over someone's previous position is because of the worry that they might revert to that position under pressure, if that position (in this case, a mandate to purchase insurance) really reflects their true beliefs. You are right to point out that someone's position can change. However, many conservatives are uneasy in supporting someone who at ANY previous time did not understand that this kind of mandate is unconstitutional.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRather than speculating on what Daniels 'might' do, why don't you write an article and speculate on what he 'did' do, NRO.
"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."[37][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."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no problem with Daniels' position on health care, but I hope NRO gives Daniels as much scrutiny on the issue as they have Mitt Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am in South Bend and I was the conservative talk show host in this town. I have been quoted in the South Bend Tribune by their reporters several times. EVERY time I was misquoted or what I said was spun into something that could be straw-manned, every time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse