Governor Daniels, writing in the WSJ:
The default option if any state declines to participate is for the federal government to operate an exchange directly. Which got me thinking: If the new law is not repealed by 2013, what could be done to reshape it in the direction of freedom and genuine cost control?
I have written to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Services (HHS), saying that if her department wants Indiana to run its program for it, we will do so under the following conditions:
• We are given the flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products.
• All the law’s expensive benefit mandates are waived, so that our citizens aren’t forced to buy benefits they don’t need and have a range of choice that includes more affordable plans.
• The law’s provisions discriminating against consumer-driven plans, such as health savings accounts, are waived.
• We are given the freedom to move Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange, or to utilize new approaches to the traditional program, instead of herding hundreds of thousands more people into today’s broken Medicaid system.
• Our state is reimbursed the true, full cost of the administrative burden to be imposed upon us, based on the estimate of an auditor independent of HHS.
• A trustworthy projection is commissioned, by a research organization independent of the department, of how many people are likely to wind up in the exchange, given the large incentives for employers to save money by off-loading their workers.
Obviously, this is a very different system than the one the legislation intends. Health care would be much more affordable, minus all the mandates, and plus the consumer consciousness that comes with health savings accounts and their kin. Customer choice would be dramatically enhanced by the state’s ability to allow more insurers to participate and offer consumer-driven plans. Through greater flexibility in the management of Medicaid, the state might be able to reduce substantially the hidden tax increase that forced expansion of the program will impose.
Most fundamentally, the system we are proposing requires Washington to abandon most of the command-and-control aspects of the law as written. It steers away from nanny-state paternalism by assuming, recognizing and reinforcing the dignity of all our citizens and their right to make health care’s highly personal decisions for themselves.
— all under the control of the government, which Daniels evidently feels has a legitimate interest — and perhaps even the constitutional authority — to oversee.
Is this the GOP trial balloon for “principled” compromise?
And if so, is this the kind of conservative-friendly usurpation of liberties that the Republicans believe they can sell to country at large?
Discuss. Me, I’ll be in my bedroom, high on Nyquil and tearing the wings off of every angel I can fit on the head of a pin.
(thanks to Bob Reed)
He asked, rhetorically…
Mitch just lost me.
Unless the answer is “not a damn thing.”
O’Reilly: What will you do if the Supreme Court strikes down Obama Care?
O’Bama: Well, I’ll tell you what I won’t do. I won’t go back to….etc…..etc……..
Critic: That’s not an answer.
alppuccino: It’s a very clear answer. It’s Obama’s only answer.
Another example:
What will you do if they make stealing food illegal? Well, I’ll tell you what I won’t do. I won’t go back to paying for food.
My first impression was that he was proposing we eat Irish children or summat.
Enjoy your pseudoephedrine-free Nyquil! It’s almost as if its wings have been torn off by an overly-interested government.
Hey, I don’t particularly care that someone has discovered you can make meth out of Nyquil. Just don’t sell it by the case, or the pallet.
Brandy or schnapps works better than Nyquil anyways.
Newt GringrichTim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Mitch Daniels
alp – he’s not going to spend the next two years re-litigating the last two years. I guess he’s gonna shrug and walk away from it.
It says 21 states have signed his letter. I wonder what the overlap is between these states and the ones who are suing to overturn Obamacare.
To me, it makes little sense to get too down on a Governor who is currently suing (successfully) to overturn a law by saying he doesn’t want to overturn it.
The fact that Texas signed off on this hints to me that this is another attempt to kill Obamacare, not take it over for themselves.
that’s entirely staunch I think. He’s trying to look out for Indiana’s interests, which is something he’s duty-bound to do unless he chooses to bail on his job for to do a reality show.
Could be, bh. Or it could be the GOP attempting to “keep the good parts.”
We’ll see, I guess. I’m no zero sleep, and I’m not thinking too clearly. So you all are free to tell me I’m misreading the situation entirely.
this hints to me that this is another attempt to kill Obamacare, not take it over for themselves.
Better then to say “this shit can’t work” instead of “what could we do together to make this sandwich not taste like shit?” wouldn’t you agree bh.
Unless you like the helpful tone [grin].
Until he gets to the part about how he and the states can make government control of healthcare doable and conservative-friendly…
I’m not sure I understand the grief with Daniels on this account: he proposes to gut the ObamaCare regime and in return, he’s written off as a potential candidate?
Sure, I’d prefer that any editorial involving Obamacare just says, “Fuck that noise.” But… I assume they’re strategically attacking the implementation plan here.
Sure, Kathy, we’ll implement it for you… if you’ll first agree to drop everything you want and agree to the adoption of market driven plans and health savings accounts.
She’ll say no. Then they’ll say, you go ahead and implement without our cooperation then.
Again, remember, this are the same states that are suing to overturn the entire thing.
these are the same states
If we are unable to repeal, and the courts are not willing to kick them in the teeth, would this not be a significantly better alternative than what they are trying to foist on us?
I think it’s more that he’s accepting of the premise that the federal government has a legitimate role in running health care.
YMMV.
The message shouldn’t be Obama did it wrong — grossly overreaching; the message should be that the entire premise is anathema to a free-market country built on the idea of individual liberty and certain unalienable rights, with a limited federal government.
Obama to the States: You will enslave your people for me.
The States to Obama: No. We won’t.
I think these two bullets:
• Our state is reimbursed the true, full cost of the administrative burden to be imposed upon us, based on the estimate of an auditor independent of HHS.
• A trustworthy projection is commissioned, by a research organization independent of the department, of how many people are likely to wind up in the exchange, given the large incentives for employers to save money by off-loading their workers.
Are the key, since #1 would never, ever happen and the answer to #2 is “all of them.” Boy’s being sarcastic, he just needs to be a lot less subtle.
Shouldn’t we make them beat us in Congress and in court before we begin giving them ideas for compromises?
Again: the message should be that the federal government’s attempt to take over health care is illegal. A federal court said so and ruled the entire thing unconstitutional. Therefore, the Democrats are implementing a program in defiance of a court order. This is a Constitutional crisis — and conservatives and the TEA Party are on the side of the Constitution. Democrats are refusing to repeal an unconstitutional law.
I’m no marketing expert, but that seems a better message to be sending at this point than “well, here’s a way we could find to compromise should we eventually lose in court.”
bh, my problem is that by appearing to take ObamaCare seriously, and appearing to look for ways to implement it, we’re conceding that healthcare is within the legitimate purview of gov’t. i.e. the problem isn’t that gov’t is taking over yet another interest outside the scope of a gov’t constrained by limited, enumerated Powers, the problem is that it’s going about it the wrong way.
I bet the hoochie cumslut could explain in plain language why D.C. bureaucrats inserting themselves into your healthcare decisions is bad for freedom, but she’d probably have to quote Reagan and Madison, maybe Thomas Sowell.
Which just goes to show you what a stupid uninformed bitch she is.
“Better then to say “this shit can’t work” instead of “what could we do together to make this sandwich not taste like shit?” wouldn’t you agree bh.”
He does do that, Ernst. He opens with it, in fact:
“Unless you’re in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, the president’s health-care reform law is a massive mistake. It will amplify all the big drivers of overconsumption and excessive pricing: “Why not, it’s free?” reimbursement; “The more I do, the more I get” provider payment; and all the defensive medicine the trial bar’s ingenuity can generate.
All claims made for it were false. It will add trillions to the federal deficit. It will lead to a de facto government takeover of health care faster than most people realize, and as millions of Americans are added to the Medicaid rolls and millions more employees (including, watch for this, workers of bankrupt state governments) are dumped into the new exchanges.
Many of us governors are hoping for either a judicial or legislative rescue from this impending disaster, and recent court decisions suggest there’s a chance of that. But we can’t count on a miracle—that’s only permitted in Washington policy making. We have no choice but to prepare for the very real possibility that the law takes effect in 2014.”
It’s hard to see the compromise. I mean, calling a capitulation on the part of the Federal government to the utter defeat of its power-grabbing proposal a compromise is to put it frankly, deceptive. Ach, Daniels is as much a liar as Obama!
I’ll add that I don’t have a problem with a multi-prong strategy for rolling back ObamaCare. I just don’t think putting the letter to Sibelius in the WSJ is the best use of this particular tactic.
Anyway, have fun. I’m about to pass out in a puddle of my own drool.
Why is Daniels already calling for a unilateral truce?
A big part of the GOP’s success over the past 2 years can be attributed to their refusal to collaborate with the Dems. They’ve forced the Democrats to own their own messes 100%. Now is not the time to change that strategy with unrealistic expectations of voluntary concessions from the Obama administration.
Has Daniels taken note of the direction of the momentum over the past 2 years? You don’t call a truce when your winning.
Richard Epstein’s praise of Reagan might fit with the general tenor of opposition to Daniels’s proposal I guess. Keep it simple (fundamental), stupid, says Epstein. Don’t get down in the weeds. Leave that action to me and my fellow detail-men.
Perhaps I sounded too dismissive when I said that I’d prefer all Obamacare pieces say “Fuck that noise.”
I would actually prefer that. Stated firmly and often. The fact that people are reacting this way tells me they didn’t hear nearly enough “Fuck that noise”.
It does read like a “Fuck your hopes for an easy implementation, Sebelius. You’re job is going to be almost impossible without our help. Good luck with that.”
That’s my take anyways. YMMV, obviously.
Mitch Daniels’ oped is a huge setback for FREEDOM and Sarah Palin would not propose any changes to obamacare if it can’t be repealed by the time it’s implemented in 2014 cause she is not a dirty socialist COLLABORATOR like Mitch who loves socialism and plus he’s SHORT.
Yes. I’m being, to put it frankly, deceptive. A liar! A Mitch Daniels hater!
The “defeat” here is of a particular plan. While giving the premise for the plan cover.
Why? A federal court has ruled the thing unconstitutional. So why write this now?
— Aside from drawing out deceptive liars and haters like me, I mean?
And bald.
Hope you and the kid feel better, Jeff.
I’m a bit hungover myself.
Unless your real goal is to advertise:
helpful pragmatic conservatives seeking bipartisan compromise with like minded moderates to liberals. Must be discrete.
Better that than a puddle of someone else’s drool.
Or so I’ve heard.
What, you didn’t see the strike line OTT put through Daniels’s name?
“Why is Daniels already calling for a unilateral truce?”
See?
I think it’s fair to say that people have been bullshitting about Daniels for a long, long time.
This post isn’t about Palin, happyfeet. Other than the fact that you’re participating in the comments, and everything you say and do is “about” Sarah Palin.
Evidently, though, criticizing Mitch Daniels for what I believe to be either a feint toward compromise, or else a bad strategic blunder, marks me as a deceptive lying liar what lies and hates — a fringe character who refuses to see the good in finding pleasing candidates who will handle the rollback of our freedoms more gently, and with a bi-partisan smile.
But Mitch Daniels rides a Harley? On dry days and on the weekends. Don’t you just put your trust in any middle aged man who rides a Harley?
I hoped that Daniels was a serious fiscal conservative small government guy who intended to put on the back burner some of the more devisive social issues. But given a series of either gaffes or tells, I think he may not be that sort of guy I hoped for.
Jesus Fred, why the fuck did you not run to win in 2008.
Politics are hugely asymmetrical, perpetually adding burdens and limitations and calling them progress when they’re brazen theft. It’s only legal because government does it.
It really hurts when helpful Republicans help politics stay that helpful way.
Thank you mindless, soul-less, concrete block government schools for for decades you have taught us how not to think and be responsible, and now that we’re there, there shall we be.
I’m not encouraged by Daniels’ use of the word “miracle” to describe repeal of Obamacare. Does Daniels think that repeal of Obamacare would be a miracle because he thinks a Republican is unlikley to win the White House in 2012? Does he think Republicans would somehow fail to repeal Obamacare if Americans entrust the GOP with opportunity to do so?
I understand there’s a need for a “Plan B,” but I see no reason to suggest that a repeal of Obamacare would be miraculous, even if the courts don’t make it especially easy for us. And speaking of miracles, I see no reason to think that Obama and the Democrats would ever agree to the truce that Daniels has proposed.
There’s no doubt that defeating Obamacare will be an uphill battle. But would it require a miracle?
Daniels already ticked off social conservatives with his unnecessary proposal for a unilateral truce on social issues, now he’s an Obamacare “trucer.”
Is this the only strategy Daniels knows?
I commend Daniels for his success in Indiana, but success in Indiana doesn’t necessarily portend success in the big league.
I do not see how he is conceding the argument. He is saying if we are forced to do so, can my State do it our way, far more efficiently without all of your BS.
People like rightklik and Joe above have been pulling that stuff out on Daniels since his name was first mentioned.
Calling it a truce is as dishonest as the prior kerfluffle over the Daniels truce, rightklik.
“And speaking of miracles, I see no reason to think that Obama and the Democrats would ever agree to the truce that Daniels has proposed.”
Exactly! It’s called a “fuck you” offer. Which is the exact opposite of a truce or compromise.
“Daniels already ticked off social conservatives with his unnecessary proposal for a unilateral truce on social issues, now he’s an Obamacare “trucer.””
I think I’ll call you a unilateral trucer with bullshit.
I’m uncertain who exactly Daniels expected to take him up on the offer, but I seriously doubt it was either Obama or the run of the mill progressive Democrat. More likely, I suspect, are Democrats (the few remaining) like Heath Schuler and the defeated Blue Dogs, along with the muddling middle of “independent” voters eager to see something done about the crushing debt. But as I say, I haven’t seen the conditionals spelled out and so I’m left to guess.
Why was this written? Why now? At a time when the Administration is acting in defiance of a federal court ruling — and the majority of Americans want this repealed?
Shouldn’t that be the topic, that the Democrats are acting against the will of the people and in defiance of the courts (essentially, that they are behaving lawlessly) — not how the states can make nationalized health care more free-market friendly?
I haven’t commented much (if at all) on Daniels. So perhaps the bias with respect to Daniels isn’t on my end.
I call ’em like I see ’em.
I am not accusing you of bias. I simply don’t agree. I just don’t understand the issue with why a Gov would not be preparing for this, regardless of where it is in the legal system.
I am accusing rightklik and joe of bias, for spitting out those tire canards.
Aside from the fact he’s my governor, I haven’t really paid attention to Mitch, but I don’t think he’s playing the great compromiser here. I think he’s feeding Sebilious (and by extension, Obama) a shit sandwich.
By my reading, if the law isn’t repealed (and I think he thinks it should and will be based on the list following), then it should be changed to be exactly the opposite of what it is now, for example:
We are given the flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products.
Means, “all of them”.
All the law’s expensive benefit mandates are waived, so that our citizens aren’t forced to buy benefits they don’t need and have a range of choice that includes more affordable plans.
Means just what it says, exactly the opposite of Obama and Romney care.
The law’s provisions discriminating against consumer-driven plans, such as health savings accounts, are waived.
Please.
• We are given the freedom to move Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange, or to utilize new approaches to the traditional program, instead of herding hundreds of thousands more people into today’s broken Medicaid system.
Reduce the number of people on Medicaid by putting them back into the market for private health insurance.
• Our state is reimbursed the true, full cost of the administrative burden to be imposed upon us, based on the estimate of an auditor independent of HHS.
• A trustworthy projection is commissioned, by a research organization independent of the department, of how many people are likely to wind up in the exchange, given the large incentives for employers to save money by off-loading their workers.
I already said what I think this is, basically a “You can suck my balls”.
Obviously, this is a very different system than the one the legislation intends. Health care would be much more affordable, minus all the mandates, and plus the consumer consciousness that comes with health savings accounts and their kin. Customer choice would be dramatically enhanced by the state’s ability to allow more insurers to participate and offer consumer-driven plans. Through greater flexibility in the management of Medicaid, the state might be able to reduce substantially the hidden tax increase that forced expansion of the program will impose.
Most fundamentally, the system we are proposing requires Washington to abandon most of the command-and-control aspects of the law as written. It steers away from nanny-state paternalism by assuming, recognizing and reinforcing the dignity of all our citizens and their right to make health care’s highly personal decisions for themselves.
So the idea is to let consumers buy less expensive plans from whomever they want to, not force people into medicaid if they don’t want to participate, and allow people with HSA’s to keep them as they are, or even expand that program.
It’s a too cute way of getting the ideas that the Republicans “didn’t have” during the health care “debate” some air time, makes itself out to be a compromise, when it would be an almost direct reversal and puts the little guy in the spotlight for a couple of days. It certainly sounds better than “Repeal and Replace!” Since the noisy half of the country doesn’t want Repeal and the rest of us don’t want Replace.
I guess I think he’s OK. If he fixes the potholes on my street I might vote for him. Otherwise, my vote’s for sale.
Why was this written now, JD?
The law in unconstitutional. A governor should be saying we won’t be implementing anything that a court has struck down.
I’m glad that the Governor predicated his article by calling O!-care a mistake and underscoring the fallacy that it somehow reduces government expenditures in any way.
Having noted that, what bothers me is proceeding from the same rhetorical departure point of folks like Obama, Ezra Klein, and the offical Democrat position that while the law can be “tweaked” to make it more palatable, and that they will deign to consider such “tweakage”, any discussion of it’s over-reach or illegitimacy is off the table; that “responsible adults” should be concerning themselves with how we can make it work.
I personally think this cedes the battle, a priori, and reduces the discussion to how we can make government health care more palatable instead.
So instead of it leading to a larger discussion of the mistaken notion of entitlements as a whole, the discussion dissolves into budgetary wonkery about making the entitlement sting our pockets the least.
just my two cents.
It might be useful to consider what Reagan himself said about socialized medecine ( http://tiny.cc/x74ag )
Remind folks of that and, despite the left’s recent attempts at clothing Obama as Reagan and using him as a strawman to bash modern conservatives as “extremists”, I’m sure that once again hating Reagan will come back into vogue…
The court ruling ObamaCare unconstitutional is a topic, though currently only one among many, fighting its way along to prominence (and it may get there sooner than later). But that isn’t unusual in itself, being the general condition of pluralism anyhow.
Why now? Who knows. I could guess that he knows it will not be resolved until the SC rules on it, as there are some conflicting rulings, but that would just be a guess.
Bob – I do not see how what he described would be a tweak. It was a refutation of their base notions. LMC did a very good job above laying that out.
Some one ask Mitch what his position is on amnesty/immigration.
Hmmm.
They ought not break the law. Horrible position.
I am accusing rightklik and joe of bias, for spitting out those tire canards.
What tired canards? What bias? I am not particularly fired up about any of the potential candidates out there. While I like what Herman Cain can say in the speech (he appears to be a principled conservative)–I am not putting all my hopes on his candiacy at this point. While I like things Palin says, I know that there are legions of gremlinlike Happyfeet out there waiting to tear her down. I hope Mitch really is the guy you think he is. I guess we are all a bit skeptical of all the names out there running. Pawlenty? Gingrich? Huckabee? Fuck me. Even with doubts, Mitch is better than those three.
The fact that Jindal and Perry signed off on this as well, leads me to see this differently than others.
And, as stated before, saying that you’ll only implement something if it’s the complete opposite of the actual statute doesn’t put the words truce or compromise or helpful on my lips.
As to the timing? I really have no idea.
Would I prefer a harder line that doesn’t even countenance the possibility of implementation? Yeah, actually I would. In a poker playing sort of way. But, it seems the governors (again, another twenty of them, not just Daniels) feel the need to take a few shots at the notion of an easy Federal implementation without their cooperation. Cooperation that they clearly signal isn’t forthcoming.
But Mitch Daniels rides a Harley? On dry days and on the weekends. Don’t you just put your trust in any middle aged man who rides a Harley?
Joe posted on 2/7 @ 11:37 am
I hoped that Daniels was a serious fiscal conservative small government guy who intended to put on the back burner some of the more devisive social issues. But given a series of either gaffes or tells, I think he may not be that sort of guy I hoped for.
Jesus Fred, why the fuck did you not run to win in 2008.
Clearly, an open mind.
JD, I think we would all like to hear what all the GOP candiates really think should happen on immigration. BTW, I think Mitch is better than Mitt too at this point.
I get what you’re saying JD, and I the angle that LMC pointed out, that this is a way of allowing the “ideas that the Republican’s didn’t have” to see the light of day, is an angle that I hadn’t consider.
I suppose though that I agree with JeffG here, and question whether the timing of this op-ed is strategically prudent, given the most recent court ruling. In the wake of the law being ruled unconstitutional, I might instead have kept this powder dry and not seemingly ceded the legitimacy of the notion of socialized medicine any legitimacy at all. It seems like this discussion might have been better broached if and when Vinson’s ruling had been overturned by SCOTUS, and in the meantime refuse to implement a law that has been ruled to be unconstitutional.
Regardless of how cleverly he undercuts many of the basic mechanisms of Obamacare, it still works from the premise that socialized medecine is a reasonable proposition.
Hast a la tarde or vista or whatever. A treadmill and a fitness Nazi GODWIN are calling my name.
I don’t see how it legitimizes socialized medicine. It strikes me as though he is saying that we will implement this program foisted upon us, so long as we are allowed to do the exact opposite of what socialized medicine calls for. YMMV, apparently. Gotta run.
Bob, would you draw the lines of this argument explicitly?
I hope
dthat Danielswasis a serious fiscal conservative small government guy who intendeds to put on the back burner some of the more devisive social issues.He is your governor. You like and know the guy. Persuade us. I am skeptical about the entire field right now.
Gotta bail for a bit to finish installing a replacement hotwater heater. Back soon.
The post isn’t about Sarah Palin but the analogy is inescapable I think When Sarah Palin said omg death panels and they removed that particular part… she was just trying to make a horrific dirty socialist health care scheme more palatable.
I didn’t see it at the time.
Wishing Fred Thompson won in 2008 is not a sign of a closed mind, but of sanity.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that it might be a tactical mistake to broach this issue rather than sticking with a pure hardline, “It’s unconstitutional and a terrible idea. We’ll beat it in court or take the Senate and White House in ’12.”
Yet, I don’t think he’s guilty of this, Bob: “Regardless of how cleverly he undercuts many of the basic mechanisms of Obamacare, it still works from the premise that socialized medecine is a reasonable proposition.”
He opens by saying it’s not a reasonable proposition and then he lists a series proposals that opens healthcare to greater market forces than were available pre-Obamacare.
I’m noticing a lot of “timing” peculiarities lately: Jeb Bush is showing up a lot; Toomey at the SuperBowl party; Christie at the China dinner…
Bachmann and Palin? More of a hit with the TEA Party than with the Republican party.
Maybe I’m just jaded, but I think the timing here is purposeful. And pragmatic. The “Reaganesque” play here is to keep hitting on the fact that the Administration is acting in defiance of a court ruling. We’re hearing very little about that in the MSM.
But Daniels takes the opportunity not to point that out, but instead to evince what a conservative-friendly approach to federalized health care might look like?
I’m just cynical, I guess. And exhausted. And worried about my kid. And disgusted with politicians. And certain commentators.
Except they didn’t remove-remove it, did they Sullyfeet?
“Death panels” was the spark that led to the current repeal movement. And yeah, it’s eating you up alive, isn’t it?
If the Establicans embraced the Tea Party seemingly wholeheartedly just because of the 2010 election results, I’d be more suspicious. When that kind of pol takes you by the hand, always watch his other hand.
I think the standoffishness is almost refreshingly honest. After 2012, now — that’s going to be the time to watch both hands.
I think it honest, too, McGehee. And also worth pointing out, so we can get an idea who the players are…
I also saw that many other Governors have signed onto the letter, and I personally disagree with them in their decision to do so as well. I’m not singling out or vilifying Daniels here, to be sure, I’m just a bit bothered by the tenor the public discussion has been taking; that socialized medecine, the right to healthcare, is somehow a reasonable point of departure for the debate.
That probably indicates that my position is far more partisan or unyielding; it’s a sure bet that I could ever stand for election successfully.
Yes, personally I would have sdferr, and I think Reagan would have as well.
But I surely could not have even a scintilla as well. I’m horrible at politicking.
As a tactic to delay implementation until Obamacare can be repealed, it makes sense. As a public relations gambit to wrong-foot the administration while appearing conciliatory, concensus-minded, bi-partisan and all that other silly shit the muddled middle thinks it wants because the leftist MBM tells them so, it fails.
That probably indicates that my position is far more partisan or unyielding
ain’t principle a bitch?
The argument should always be framed around challenging and demolishing the fundamental premise of the dirty socialisms. Daniels just gave bi-partisam cover to that by talking about implementation. No matter what his intent, as is probably quite accurately described by those here – you know that the skanks on the left will run with the impression that its all about the implementation. Its what they do
The lede will be “Conservative Governor and potential 2012 Republican Nominee …”
freedom and genuine cost control
Oxymoronic imbecile.
I think as a governor you want to be able to point to having done everything possible before obamacare starts raping your state in earnest.
I’m noticing a lot of “timing” peculiarities lately: Jeb Bush is showing up a lot; Toomey at the SuperBowl party; Christie at the China dinner…
Christie, while great for NJ, would be a squish on the federal level. He’s certainly support whoever’s the conventional establishment pick.
Jeb – yeah, some morons are talking up him running and that would be worse still.
Toomey? He’s a good guy, no?
I can see that bh, I said as much myself.
I can’t shake though the idea that, even bringing those pre-Obamacare mechanisms to bear, that it doesn’t macroscopically lend credibility to the idea of socialized medecine. For me, at least, it’s because the government will be involved in the process at some level.
I personally am a big fan of HSAs, and was willing to compromise to the extent that HSAs should have been tax exempt/deductable; the compromise being that if they were, via other mechanisms I admittdly loathe, low income folks would get access to the decided upon levels of yearly funding through EITCs and what-not. I always thought that something like that, coupled with the ability to purchase policies from insurers outside one’s state, would be a more meaningful way to encourage folks to be responsible for their own healthcare situations. Heck, that might even be a way to privatize medicare/medicaid! But I’m getting into the weeds on systems, etc.
In my own humble opinion, the idea of whether to provide socialized medecine, like so many others, needs to be left to the individual states. That way people can “vote with their feet”, so to speak, and the feds don’t get to intrude even moreso into our individual lives.
mitchy should be taking this attitude toward barackycare:
link
The flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products?
It’s only oxymoronic if you don’t credit the possibility that he’s contrasting the free market with an overly regulated system.
Yes, freedom means the freedom to get a bunch of worthless tests done. Freedom also means the ability to buy cheaper scaled down insurance plans where you have to pay for the worthless tests out of pocket.
True enough. That the Establicans are self-incriminating like this is one favor I wasn’t expecting them to do for us, but I’ll take it.
Well, I don’t really know much about my governor, but my local Tea Party guy just told me over email that he thinks Daniels is going to run and that he hopes he does.
Of course, 6 months ago my local TP guy was balls deep in the ass of a four time loser who was getting primaried by the TP and fighting tooth and nail to lose to Baron Hill for a fifth time. I guess he saw the light.
I think the timing thing is simple, the guys with the money want to get out of the gate as soon after the 2 year mark as they can. Daniels has money. I guess. Seriously, I don’t know.
My proposal for what to do with most issues, including healthcare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcW2SUuAq3I
Pour the gas, light the match, burn.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/24063/page/espntexas/xlv-packers-move-woodson-to-tears
There may be a lesson in all of this.
The flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products
States do this now.
Like I said, I think he was being too cute, but I don’t think he was saying, “Here’s how you can get me to back a Gov’t takeover of health care.” I think he should have said, “If I was in charge, I’d scrap everything and do A..B..C..” Instead of, “Let me implement it and I’ll do A..B..C”. But he didn’t. What he did talk about was replacing regulation with de-regulation and that is what makes me think that he’s not advocating an implementation of the gov’t takeover of healthcare.
Could be wrong.
Maybe.
All the same, I’m watching both of his hands.
I really don’t mind a good bit of cynicism. Think it’s called for and healthy.
Just not sure that I’d place my focus on a dude who actually decertified his states’ public unions. There are a few people less staunch who I’d put my jaundiced eye upon first. Like almost all of them.
I think you misunderstood my request Bob. My bad, I guess. I’m asking if you will explicitly draw the argument you are attributing “in seeming” to Gov. Daniels. Cause I don’t see it, is why I ask. But I think that if you do, you can show me how it works.
Sorry to drop in and drop out again, but I’ve got to run to the hardware for a 20 amp plug. Just now got electrocuted by the old one and well, it’s curtains for that one.
That’s why the choice of timing on this op-ed is baffling to me bh, because in terms of what he’s done for Indiana, in many ways Daniels’ has provided some pretty good examples of reforms that need to occur on the federal level too.
I guess I’m like the much cliched toy robot stuck in a corner; whose sensors have it endlessly gyrating to either side instead of simply backing up, but I can’t get past that by saying, “OK, let’s figure out how we can implement the federal mandate to the states from Obamacare”(paraphrase), that regardles of the mechanisms illustrated it still interposes the state into the construct in a fundamental way.
I see what LMC said about cleverly reprising the supposed “non-existent Republican ideas” and re-injecting them into the discussion; in essence merely re-opening a discussion that may have to go on again anyway-politically speaking.
I think, though, that the timing was ill-chosen, and his arguments better employed later.
You have electric curtains?
Sorry sdferr, the misunderstanding was on my part, I’m sure.
What I was getting at was that simply by acquiescing that there was a role for government, via the Obamacare exchange, that Daniels was perhaps implicitly recognizing Obamacare as a fait accompli, and in doing so ceded that government has a central role to play in the provision of healthcare to it’s citizens.
In a similar fashion, I suppose, to the reservations you’ve mentioned in the past regarding government’s central involvement in education.
I hope that you didn’t get bit too badly by the faulty plug, I’ve been left with an “afro” a few times in my life fiddling with circuits I thought had been taken off line.
If some of the comments here are any indication today, the battlefield is lost. Y’all are arguing over which scraps (which are on the wrong field) should become prizes in the fight.
The battlefield is the designated notion about whether healthcare is something the federal government should be involved in AT ALL. The response by Mitch moves the argument right onto the field that says “yes” and starts worrying over how to divide the spoils.
Mitch’s letter advances unde the context that confirms that the federal government does have say over healthcare. This renders the arguments against the expansion of the commerce clause moot and states rights are completely subsumed to the altar of federal supremacy. And the feds can feel free to just legislate right on down that slippery slope.
Every compromise beginning with the premise of Obamacare and its intended subrosa demolition of the constitution as it was conceived as a compact between strong individuals and states and weak a weak federal government should be fought and vigorously. The proper battlefield for health INSURANCE reform is between the states insurance laws and the people, not at the federal level AT ALL. The solutions will be found there – 50 times.
I look at this situation as two sides playing tug of war with fed involvement on one side and no fed involvement on the other. Daniels just loosened his grip on the rope and the hankie in the middle just moved farther into the fed involvement side of the field. That battle also involves and is muddied by conflating healthcare and insurance. Don’t cede that distiction with a huge difference.
Until that rope is cut (SC) and they decide on which side of the mud pit the hankie lands, the republicans should cede no ground. And they should continue fighting on the battlefield that says no to federal involvement. Period. Load the cannons.
Arguing that you will accept ANY conditions for Obamacare gives legitimacy to the notion that the constitution is just an old document – quaint and under glass.
If the SC rules that the hankie is on our side, the constitution wins. If not, I hope they just send that quaint old document to Mapplethorpe. I’m sure it would be make a fetching art exhibit when he’s done.
I prefer the classic “Fuck you, try and collect!”
It’s the romantic in me.
To put this delicately: BS. Quote the comments that are “scrap arguing”.
Rubin:
Geraghty:
Gateway:
Does this mean that they’re right and others are wrong? Nope. I think it does mean that it’s not a slam dunk that this was the greatest bit of capitulation since Chamberlain. I certainly didn’t read it that way. Neither did others.
The guy said the law is a piece of shit. He’s party to a currently successful lawsuit to repeal it. He listed a series of demands that run exactly counter to the statute that will assuredly be turned down because there was zero compromise involved.
That’s just more of you saying Daniels does such and such Bob, as opposed say, to citing Daniels contextually saying or doing the such and such you claim, which such and such, as I said before, I don’t see. In short, not Daniels, but your interpretation free of citation regarding Daniels.
“If you want to devise an effective strategy for defanging Obamacare this approach sounds right.”
how about an effective strategy to repeal this pos. we got a 2012 election with 23 senate rats and bumblefuck up for election. this is their pos let them own it.
I can’t believe Michael Corleone was willing to discuss compromise with that bastard.
What a squish.
I like that. I like defunding it in the House. I like the 26 state lawsuit. I like governors telling the Feds they’ll have to implement this shit themselves if it stands. I like civil disobedience.
Mark me down for all of the above.
I went and read this again, and simply do not see what others apparently see. I do not see how Daniels outed himself as some establicrat, RINO, squish, etc … I see him giving the finger to Sebelius, Barcky, and ObarckyCqre in general. I do not see what others see in the timing. I certainly do not see concession, or unilateral truce, or a sign of his unwillingness to question the constitutionality of BarckyCare. Quite the opposite.
I think that the whole “truce” meme pushed by many a while back seems to have taken root.
BH: But… I assume they’re strategically attacking the implementation plan here.
Sure, Kathy, we’ll implement it for you… if you’ll first agree to drop everything you want and agree to the adoption of market driven plans and health savings accounts.
She’ll say no. Then they’ll say, you go ahead and implement without our cooperation then.
Again, remember, this are the same states that are suing to overturn the entire thing.
Assumes healthcare is the right argument. It’s not.
JD: I do not see how he is conceding the argument. He is saying if we are forced to do so, can my State do it our way, far more efficiently without all of your BS.
Assumes healthcare is the right argument. It’s not.
LMC: So the idea is to let consumers buy less expensive plans from whomever they want to, not force people into medicaid if they don’t want to participate, and allow people with HSA’s to keep them as they are, or even expand that program.
It’s a too cute way of getting the ideas that the Republicans “didn’t have” during the health care “debate” some air time, makes itself out to be a compromise, when it would be an almost direct reversal and puts the little guy in the spotlight for a couple of days. It certainly sounds better than “Repeal and Replace!” Since the noisy half of the country doesn’t want Repeal and the rest of us don’t want Replace.
Implementation of any part of any act be it republican or democrat that furthers the notion that healthcare is under the purview of the government is fundamentally altering the constitution.
Bob Reed: I personally am a big fan of HSAs, and was willing to compromise to the extent that HSAs should have been tax exempt/deductable; the compromise being that if they were, via other mechanisms I admittdly loathe, low income folks would get access to the decided upon levels of yearly funding through EITCs and what-not. I always thought that something like that, coupled with the ability to purchase policies from insurers outside one’s state, would be a more meaningful way to encourage folks to be responsible for their own healthcare situations. Heck, that might even be a way to privatize medicare/medicaid! But I’m getting into the weeds on systems, etc.
In my own humble opinion, the idea of whether to provide socialized medecine, like so many others, needs to be left to the individual states. That way people can “vote with their feet”, so to speak, and the feds don’t get to intrude even moreso into our individual lives.
Concedes that some dithering around the edges is acceptable at the federal level in the first para and nails it in the second.
Rubin Gerahty and Gateway are evidently all down with the process of healthcare run by the feds as long as the repubs are doing the implementing (look a cookie for us kinda reportage) totally missing the point that Obamacare is a bridge to far – whoever writes the implementing laws. As far as the constitution is concerned, Obamacare, enacted by either party with their own color of yoke, guts it.
“I do not see what others see in the timing.”
why give the baracky any bipartisan ground to stand on this “accomplishment” of his heading into 2012?
This concedes what now? Other than that the consequences of ObamaCare are tantamount to disaster?
negotiating after the law is enacted is kinda stupid.
Assumes healthcare is the right argument. It’s not.
No, it doesn’t.
Assumes healthcare is the right argument. It’s not.
No, it doesn’t.
Implementation of any part of any act be it republican or democrat that furthers the notion that healthcare is under the purview of the government is fundamentally altering the constitution.
Huh?
Concedes that some dithering around the edges is acceptable at the federal level in the first para and nails it in the second.
Huh?
To believe any of this, I’d have to ignore the fact that these states are also suing to overturn the law on constitutional grounds.
They are! We can’t ignore this.
Rubin Gerahty and Gateway are evidently all down with the process of healthcare run by the feds as long as the repubs are doing the implementing[…]
No, no, no!
Just because they disagree with you on this piece?
I have a feeling that they are all strongly supportive of the 26 state lawsuit!
You’re just asserting all kinds of things that simply aren’t true.
People are just pretending Daniels, some commentors here and other bloggers are saying things they simply aren’t.
It makes it impossible to have a discussion.
Can the Federal govern’t draw limits around the tort bar’s access to healthcare dollars?
I think asking the question of what happens if Obamacare isn’t repealed is very clarifying especially since America’s failshit Congress did very little asking of questions before they passed it.
Just not sure that I’d place my focus on a dude who actually decertified his states’ public unions.
My cynicism is just piqued by a speech that talks of offering us both ‘freedom AND control’ and speaks of who’s “permitted to offer their product”.
I didn’t make it much further. That’s pretty much where Jeff starts the excerpt and by that point, I’m already ready to string the guy up (metaphorically, of course… provided he’s not actually black, as that would be metaphorically racist).
Perhaps I judge too hastily but the man should be smacked upside the head for writing that as such.
“If the new law is not repealed by 2013, what could be done to reshape it in the direction of freedom and genuine cost control?” So Hayek is just full of shit? Is that the gist?
I can’t imagine Reagan making such a statement under such circumstances.
As I said, allowing people to buy bare bones insurance plans would increase freedom and act as a cost control. It’s only oxymoronic if you assume he meant it in a nonsensical Obama-ish way. Further, who do you think Daniels wants to permit to offer insurance products? All of them.
If you want to give him an extremely unfriendly read, you can come up with all sorts of dumb shit he supposedly said. Because you’ll be creating it yourself.
Sounds like Danials is hoping for success, and planning for failure. Which is fine, the question is, why make public the strategy for failure?
On it’s face, it seems like a bad tactical move. Like the whole unconstitutional thing is a long shot with questionable odds for success. By even looking at it that way, the hand for Obamacare is strengthened. It will be said; “see, even they aren’t sure it’s unconstitutional, they are just throwing mud hoping it sticks”.
On the other hand, given the way politicians and judges are becoming more ideological and less principled these days, obviously a contingency plan is wise and necessary, and perhaps the sooner a alternitive plan is fleshed out for the public, the better.
I don’t know. But it’s not the known unknowns that you really have to worry about, it’s the unknowns you don’t know that will get you.
Sorry, I heard something about a new Rumsfeld book out…
By even entertaining a disussion of implementing the national healthcare law, regardless of whether I agree with the conditions he puts forth, which is the premise of his letter to Sebelius, is where I see legitimacy being implied in that law.
Regardless of whether I agree with the way he would run the federal program, or even the clever way of confronting the shortcomings of the law contained in the text that proceeds and follows the sentance I quoted, it seems to me that agreeing to run the program at all implies that the existence of the program is credible.
So much blah, blah, and my opinion? Certainly. A thousand pardons for the lack of rigor.
I’m not saying Daniels is an establican, a RINO, or any of the such. It just appears to me to be a bad rhetorical strategy to start by assuming that a state would even enforce an unconstitutional law.
What can I say? Most here, and certainly Mitch Daniels, are more skilled at debate and politics than I.
If “under the following conditions” amounts in practice to gutting the damn thing entire, I can’t see how that can be read to acquiesce in its legitimacy.
I take it all back: if Jen Rubin and Gateway and Geraghty are down with it, it is the bestest strategy ever, and only a fringe player would argue otherwise.
Besides, why listen to me? What have I ever been right about?
Yes you can. You’re choosing not to.
He is gutting the particulars. He isn’t disavowing the legitimacy of the framework. And I find that odd and troubling at a time when the court has ruled the thing unconstitutional. I’d have attacked using that angle. But then, I’m not going for electability.
So.
plus like 20 other governors too
As a meta sort of thing, again, I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying this strategy might not be as strong as sticking with references to constitutionality or the ’12 elections.
What I find disturbing is the continuation of a pattern. Namely: define self-evident truth and then find evidence of that truth.
1. Palin is dumb. 2. With that understood as unquestionably true, here’s why everything she says is dumb.
1. Daniels is a squish. 2. With that understood as unquestionably true, here’s why everything he says is squishy.
This dynamic doesn’t work out so well for us. I reject it.
The court? Or a court?
I quite explicitly said that wasn’t the case.
No, I can’t by the way. I’m still waiting for Bob to make good his assertions.
I too saw/see this as a contingency plan if the lawsuit and the attempts to repeal Obamacare fail. KS will reject it out of hand if she even deigns to acknowledge that the letter exists. Which then adds another log of Republican reasonableness to the fire the passage of the Healthcare law started.
My only quibble is that it can seem to be read as assuming that there is a Federal power to have Obamacare in the first place. That they, the 26 States, are also suing to have it declared unconstitutional argues against that reading but the new Arianna-On-Line will push that formulation I would guess.
I TOLD you!
A bunch of children.
How could ANYONE not know how much money this ObamaCare fiasco is going to cost?
Only liars and people who are too stupid to tie their own shoes are on board for this crap.
Indiana is party to the lawsuit disavowing the legitimacy of the framework. Further, he references it at the beginning:
I like Mitch Daniels. Just not for President.
If Daniels acquiesced in the legitimacy of ObamaCare as it stands, why would he propose implementing it with a host of conditions he then characterizes as “Obviously, this is a very different system than the one the legislation intends.”? There would be no need, right? Heck, the thing passed is legitimate and wholesome, so why bother to gut it?
I am having a crisis of faith of justice in the world when Ariana Huffington is geting $300+ million for Huff Puff. Apparently it generated $30 million in gross revenue last year. What Huff Puff gets net? Who knows. All I know is AOL is friggin retarded and I am glad I am not a shareholder.
Why doesn’t Ariana pick up the health insurance tab on the uninsured? I guess she is glad about capital gains not going up this year. Hey Ariana, why don’t you voluntarily pay your “fair share.”
There has to be an “it” he wants gutted; the problem is, he’s proposing a way to refill “it,” and “it” is still under federal purview.
All the more reason he should be pointing out that it was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, and asking the Dems to join with him, 27 other states, a federal court ruling, and the wishes of the vast majority of Americans, and vote to repeal. Not floating ideas that are intended to signal that a compromise is possible, provided federally-controlled health care has a lot of free market trappings.
I agree with this bh, and shy away from such generalizations and argument constructs.
I’m not passing judgement on any pol until primary day approaches; heck, until the primaries start. Well, with the exception of Romney, Pawlenty, and Huckabee…
“Heck, the thing passed is legitimate and wholesome, so why bother to gut it?”
If the whole thing is unconstitutional, why bother discussing implementation of any version of it?
Except I’ve already pointed out I haven’t called Daniels a squish. If what he wrote here is squishy, that’s because it’s squishy — not because it was necessarily written by a squish.
I agree with the first part of that. I characterized it as “Fuck that noise” above and I think it makes sense to say that loudly and often. If Daniels could get this message (and on ethanol, etc), excellent. I hope someone on his staff reads blogs.
Towards the second part, I guess I just don’t think that he intended to signal a willingness to compromise. I read it as a “fuck you” offer, like the Michael Corleone quote. I honestly did.
Btw, I really wasn’t looking to give you shit by referencing those other bloggers. Tried to make that clear. Hope you understand that. There’s a reason I comment and occasionally argue here rather than anywhere else.
Whatever.
Sorry, that wasn’t directed at you.
I sometimes try to avoid blog fighting by speaking to the group rather than an individual. Probably works the exact opposite way and instead pisses off everyone rather than not pissing off one or two people.
That was a general whatever. Not a response to anyone in particular.
It’s silly to bring up the starting point for compromise — even if that point it seems pointedly dismissive — when the momentum is for “unconstitutional,” “behaving lawlessly,” and “repeal.”
Maybe I’m just missing the genius nuance.
I don’t think so, though. I think this is Daniels signaling where he is vis-a-vis the battle going on within the conservative movement.
I’m going to take a nap.
If we might view the commerce clause as an attempt to set up the world’s most massive free trade zone between sovereign states, then we have already gone some distance to granting Daniels’s view (and Hayek’s) that government has some marginal role in the conduct of our economy. It isn’t as though there’s simply no place at all for the government in our economic affairs, but where we draw the lines around its proper role in maintaining a system of property rights and contractual conduct (or enforcement of same), what Boudreaux points to as the system of laws in which economics takes place. Maybe Daniels ought to spell his view out along with his goofing on Sebelius? Yep, it wouldn’t hurt. But as Epstein’s line points out, maybe Daniels is already too far down in the weeds.
Just cause it’s unconstitutional doesn’t mean it will be ruled unconstitutional. This is America. Our house-stealing Supreme Court monkeys are unreliable to say the least.
If it’s upheld – or if just the part where the failshit federal government forces its punk-ass bitch citizenry to buy health cares whether they want to or not is stricken – it will be a good thing not a bad thing for peoples to have had the conversation Mr. Mitch is proposing.
Hope for the best plan for the worst is what my friend P’s Nazi-loving Belgian grandma used to say.
Well, I didn’t think I’d made any assertions regarding what Daniels’ intent was. I’m thought I’d made it clear that I was voicing my opinion on his rhetorical strategy. But sometimes I guess I’m as clear as muddy water.
I cited what led me to think what I did, and apologized for any previous lack of rigor, in my comment at #121.
I suppose a meta lesson here involves trust.
Republican politicians — Daniels here but also the House GOP involving budget cuts — are speaking with an implied presumption that we trust them.
We don’t. So… spell it all out. Speak plainly.
I don’t know. The meta lesson here could also be that I’m too trusting.
Bob, the fragment I had trouble with, and still do, is this: “…the legitimacy of the notion of socialized medicine…”.
This is what I want to see shown, that Daniels concedes the legitimacy of socialized medicine. That’s the part I don’t see as yet. Not that government has some role as I’d pointed out above at 145, but that socialized medicine is the aim Daniels takes. Not so, says I. Because Daniels asserts that “this is a very different system than the one the legislation intends.”
(and on ethanol, etc),
If Mitch Daniels of IN comes out against ethanol I will shoot bricks out of my ass. Enough to build a brick outhouse. Rather than crap in outhouses, I will just crap outhouses, fully constructed.
Out of pure shock.
#121
Obamacare is government run healthcare-socialized medicine. By agreeing to implement Obamacare in any form, regardless of the chosen mechanism-mechanisms that I may or may not approve of, is still implemeting Obamacare. I don’t know how I can say it more plainly.
You obviously disagree. That’s your prerogative.
I’ll check back later after my RCIA meeting.
Until then…
I just really do not see what others apparently do. Prolly cuz I aint really all that bright. I readily admit that I am prone to give him the benefit of the doubt, but to see some of these messages you have to ignore what he actually said, or read it in a light most unfavorable to him. The timing thing I understand, but at the same time, aren’t there always “why aren’t they talking about this” points that could be made?
I think there’s an important context here that folks might be reading around:
That “if” seems to imagine two things. One, SCOTUS upholds ObamaCare. Two, America reelects Obama and does not elect a veto-proof GOP majority. If those things happen, and that’s a mighty big if, Daniels seems to be wondering about the lubricants that might be used to ease the penetration we’ll all be experiencing.
I think that if I had Presidential aspirations, I’d not be musing about such things in the WSJ, but I don’t see it as necessarily looking to compromise. It isn’t compromising when you’re hogtied, bareassed and buns up. You’ve already been compromised, whether you like it or not.
so Fox seems to think that Mr. Daniels’ piece is squarely anti-Obamacare
but I hadn;t fully appreciated this part
so this isn’t solely about framing it’s a for reals head’s up that these states are going to resist implementing the most ruinous aspects of obamarape, which, that’s part of what’s cool about being a governor I guess
Yes, that. Talk about winning, not how you’re going to deal with losing would be my advice.
But as a Gov, planning for the contingency of winning or losing should be something one should do, no?
Yes. But such planning is not done on the Op Ed page of the WSJ. If you’ve got higher political aspirations it seems less than optimal.
“But as a Gov, planning for the contingency of winning or losing should be something one should do, no?”
of course just don’t publish your plan in the wsj to which baracky can point and say: “mr. mitchy just thinks my plan needs some tweaking:.
Barcky can say that, newrouter, but it won’t make it so.
I am biased, as I stated. I just don’t see what is so bad about this. If he did it 2 weeks ago, or 2 weeks from now, I don’t see how that would make a difference. To my reading, it seems like he is flipping them the bird, in a very public manner, while continuing his efforts in the judiciary to have it thrown out.
That gets to who precisely is Daniel’s client? As Governor he is charged with the protection of the people of Indiana. This is aimed at doing that. He is doing well for his clients.
The problem some foresee, I believe, is that this may set the scene for the Federal government to play a game of “prisoner’s dilemma” with the States as the multiple prisoners.
It can also be analogized as if we are charged with a murder that we didn’t commit and in fact were a thousand miles away from when it happened and our defense attorney opens his remarks in court, because he doubts the impartiality of the court, with this defense.
“My client wasn’t in the same State when the murder happened. And even if he was he was never in the same city. And even if he was in the same city he was never in the same room when the murder took place. And even if he was in that room he never had a gun. And even if he did have a gun he never shot it at the deceased. And even if he did shoot it at the deceased it was never with the intent to kill him. And even if he did intend to kill him it was in self defense. And even if it wasn’t self defense it was during an overwhelming momentary flash of emotion.”
“Barcky can say that, newrouter, but it won’t make it so.”
true but the mbm will pound out his message of bipartisanship unicorns with mitchy in trying to tweak the “good man’s” plan
Ok, haven’t read all the comments yets so I may be repeating what someone else has pointed out —
Why should I consider anything Daniels says after that as legit? Who the f**k does he think he is that the state should be in the position of dictating what business is PERMITTED to work in his state and WHAT their offers should be?
That’s how we have come to this situation in the first place!
for darleen
84 newrouter posted on 2/7 @ 12:51 pm
mitchy should be taking this attitude toward barackycare:
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
link
We are given the flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products.
that part’s key to being able to offer tailored plans what don’t force Americans to buy coverage for things they don’t want or need … Daniels wants to open the market to high deductible plans and plans that don’t cover certain things and other such offerings
he expounds on the point about flexibility here:
I guess he doesn’t really expound so much as he elaborates on
So “regardless of the chosen mechanism” means that market mechanisms such as proposed by Daniels are socialist mechanisms? Bully for the socialists then.
Of course, I think nothing of the sort. Socialists are by definition unwilling to trust market mechanisms. And of course it matters what the chosen mechanisms are.
Darleen – the context seems pretty damn clear that he is talking about expanding choices and options, the exact opposite of what is being mandated.
New router – how do you propose keeping the MFM from distorting your points? You going to run it past them first, to see if it is acceptable?
Geoffb – excellent point.
“Daniels wants to open the market to high deductible plans and plans that don’t cover certain things and other such offerings”
mr. mitchy could make that happen in his state now by allowing anyone to sell health insurance in his state without regulation. mr. mitchy could have libertarian nirvana in his state just like mittens had his commie health care in his state.
“New router – how do you propose keeping the MFM from distorting your points? ”
there is a reason they are called make believe media and they are dying.
Now, maybe we can loop back to the unilateral truce again. Daniels drives people to distraction.
Fuck that, newrouter. They say whatever they want about conservatives anyway. Rarely does what they say about them match up to their actual words and positions. Are you going to run your words past the MFM first in hopes that they are not distorted? Racist.
Geoffb – good point. I guess my underlying point is that he has to consider these contingencies. It is what he was elected to do. To do otherwise would be negligent.
“Are you going to run your words past the MFM first in hopes that they are not distorted? ”
at this time just point to the mbm and mock and ridicule like mr. alinsky taught.
who the fuck does Mr. Daniels think he is Jared Padelecki? You are so not Jared Padalecki Mr. Daniels. Also you are not Leighton Meester or twitter sensation Chef Fabulous who already has four followers.
the state’s ability to allow more insurers to participate and offer consumer-driven plans.
I’m sorry, but anything less than “This state will no longer pick who is or isn’t allowed to do business in it; nor will we micromanage the product line” is still a non-starter.
I want an end to the cozy relationship between a state that pretends it is helping its citizens by picking one or two companies to offer a product (and forbidding its citizens froms buying it outside of state lines) and those one or two companies sitting on a state-enforced monopoly.
I suppose oyu can show us where he is going to give, or even suggesting that he would only give a select few access.
I’m sorry, but anything less than “This state will no longer pick who is or isn’t allowed to do business in it; nor will we micromanage the product line” is still a non-starter.
yes which is why it gladdens my heart that wholly unregulated health insurance is what Sarah Palin stands for
vote for Sarah vote for freedom!
Sometimes these discussions are like they come from the twilight zone.
hey Mitch Daniels that’s my bagel I toasted it myself and everything you go get your own bagel just cause it says free continental breakfast it doesn’t mean you don’t have to toast your own bagel, dickhead
ok brb
someone watch my bagel ok?
hf
you might like to learn the difference between regulated and managed.
ok I’m on it
just cause it says free continental breakfast it doesn’t mean you don’t have to toast your own bagel
FUHF
“wholly unregulated health insurance is what Sarah Palin stands for”
regulated markets are where we are at or going. unregulated markets are the future cupcake.
I know.
would it were
“that wholly unregulated health insurance is what Sarah Palin stands for
vote for Sarah vote for freedom!”
yo sullivan the fed. gov’t doesn’t need to be in every section of society. g-d idiot.
free markets = free people: regulate this
My possibly (hell, probably) inapt movie analogy would be to Braveheart. All us raggedy-assed opponents of a Federal takeoever of health care are lined up looking at Obama’s heavy horse, and what I’m wondering is this: Is Mitch Daniels one of the scary looking guys in the anachronistic blue face paint screaming about freedom, or is he one of the baronial types begging us not to run away because the more of us there are, the better deal they can negotiate on our behalf?
There’s plenty of good points in the op-ed on why ObamaCare is an unworkable piece of shit. It’s too bad Daniels undermined that message by framing those points up in a lets find a way to make it work show of helpful pragmatism.
mr. ernst mitchy is being a bipartisan dc guy. go mitchy 2012 limp dick.
That “helpful pragmatism” was a gibe. I don’t think Daniels is one of those (not yet).
mitchy is a bona fide belt way faggot. you want a better health care regime in indiana? do it like mittens did loser. fu mitchy do something better than barackycare now on the state level.
Here’s a link to the Governor’s letter to Sebelius, printed in full down the page.
“[…]is he one of the baronial types begging us not to run away because the more of us there are, the better deal they can negotiate on our behalf?”
If that was true, I don’t know why he (and the other 20 of them) would have joined the lawsuit. Overturning the law doesn’t put them in charge. It kills it.
Towards the perceived helpful pragmatism (I get that you’re half joking), I’m not sure how to bridge our divide here. I just don’t see it. Others do. Impasse.
Yes, good question Gov., why would she?
why aren’t they saying fu to baracky?
“All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.”
Follow that question with this line, sdferr: “While we hope for your endorsement, if you do not agree, we will move forward with our own efforts regardless and HHS should begin making plans to run exchanges under its own auspices.”
That just sounds like a pure and simple FU to me. They make numerous demands she can not possibly agree to. They know this. She knows this. Then they say if she doesn’t agree, they’re not cooperating and HHS will have to attempt implementation without their help.
Where is the compromise? There is none. What’s their negotiating stance? Take it or leave it.
Yes. Despite it being premised on some REALLY BIG IFS, it’s a bit unseemly. Is he going to run? Are there any serious indications that he’s planning on it?
Saying FU to Sebelius is saying FU to Barack, newrouter.
mitchy needs some viagra. nevertheless he is still a COCKtail party dick.
party on with the idiot billy k.
I don’t disagree bh. 20 says what I think they think.
“O’Reilly: What will you do if the Supreme Court strikes down Obama Care?”
Simple Al,
Just ignore it; he’s already tested the model on the Federal judge that is holding him in contempt over the oil drilling permits.
No idea, Pablo. I’d say he’s gonna have some problems if he does.
To a degree, who cares, though? I like him because I think some of his ideas on spending reductions are properly radical. Starting with the need to get radical because the problem is so large. I mean, who else talks about bringing back impoundment?
If he gets a few other people talking about some of that, good. And I’m starting to think that might be his goal regardless. He certainly isn’t particularly cautious about pissing people off.
“Saying FU to Sebelius is saying FU to Barack, newrouter.”
yea so what? me i want to DEFEAT these evil assholes you? no i want to put the proggs in Zimbabwe where they can kill poor black people like margret sanger wanted to(/sarc off). fu proggs.
Sorry to have posted and run earlier, but HS golf parents meeting was set to go off without one of the speakers… me. That would have been embarrassing.
I’m not critiquing Mitch as a contender, I think that publicly airing an alternative plan under which the auspices of the notion that healthcare reform is needed and not health insurance reform is what is needed is just inane. The bill as passed offends the constitution and as such, no plans in the public sphere put forth by a conservative should give room for that notion to gain ground.
Anything under the auspices of federalism should be given short shift if it is done under the color of Obamacare or healthcare. The healthcare system we have runs fine IF it is run as health insurance administered by doctors, insurance (if you choose that route to pay for your care) and enterd into by the consumer with the state taking limited interest except to verify that the insurance company isn’t insolvent or that the insurance company isn’t abiding by its contract with the consumer..
If it is to be a cradle to grave socialist plan to mandate how healthcare should be enacted by doctors, patients and the government as the third party in the examining room, it is not insurance. If it is to be a vehicle enacted at the state level for allowing citizens to pool their risk and get insurance against whatever level of risk they feel comfortable assuming, great. The trouble with doing anything under the auspices of healthcare is that they are all starting with the assumption that the federal govt will control…whatever. Not that the state will be empowered to provide guidelines (won’t license insurance companies with insufficient reserves to cover their claims type stuff) and provide choices to insurance consumers.
Daniels in this instance is espousing ideas to reform health insurance on a state level, but still acquiescing to the watchful eyes and slight of hand of the federal government.
Any meaningful insurance reforms such as those enumerated by him (portability, more choices etc) are stuff that I previously voiced on this blog as ideas that should be looked at, and which most here agreed with, and which I, of course, agree would work. However, enacting these insurance reforms based on the notion that the feds have any business decreeing what those 50 states (other than some bills possibly ironing out procedures for interstate conflicts in health insurance law) do is where I have issues. And as I see his editorial, he is ceding to the feds that which he shouldn’t.
And I might note that his objections are primarily due to the monetary burden it would place on the states due to the feds mandating they pay for this or that -not because of his objection that the feds have no business being involved in the first place. And that is where my disappointment comes in. It cedes too much to the single payer/universal healthcare/free skittles for all slight of hand that Obamacare represents.
I also plead negligent in only now going to the WSJ link which says that 21 governors signed the letter which weakens what I thought but not entirely. This use of the word “most” does trouble me though. I would prefer the use of “all”.
“Obama to the States: You will enslave your people for me.
The States to Obama: No. We won’t.”
Yeah, that’s my take as well.
Fuck me.
i used to be fun. I thought this stuff was a riot.
It ain’t a joke anymore.
I’ll just read while you guys do the “what a funny kinda silly bummer this thing is”.
oh almost forgot this step,
first he’ll demagogue the decision at a state of the union speech
See, it doesn’t do anything of the kind. The letter frankly proposes gutting the ObamaCare scheme entirely and taking off on another track — a market track — altogether. Otherwise, they are saying, we and our states will not be participating in your evil scheme.
“He certainly isn’t particularly cautious about pissing people off.”
he’s an arsehole ok. many people see him as a squishy billy kristol dude.
“HEY LET’S PUT OUR PLAN IN THE WSJ SO WE CAN TALK TO THE BARACKY” sounds like a faggot billy k faggot gig.
You know who else seems properly radical lately? Rand Paul.
If he says $500 billion in cuts one more time, I might start talking him up constantly.
Newrouter, I’m quite aware of your feelings about Daniels.
“1. Daniels is a squish. 2. With that understood as unquestionably true, here’s why everything he says is squishy.”
I’m simply trying not to be a dick because I have no desire to flame you over it.
I find that arguments are strengthened by the “liberal” sprinkling of words like “hoochie”, “cum slut”, and “faggot” almost as much as using “racist”.
And that’s premised on the notion that ObamaCare survives both SCOTUS and the 2012 elections. Again, this doesn’t have me voting Daniels off the island. I’m just not sure it’s helpful, especially to him if he’s got aspirations.
I think the lesson is you have to talk to the American people like they were retards. You need to say unchallenging things that are comprised of the sort of easily-digested commonsense conservative pablum that people like.
They will call you Reaganesque!
But not Mitch. Mitch Daniels’ letter is basically an extended hypothetical. That’s practically the same as communism. It’s definitely not America by heart.
“The letter frankly proposes gutting the ObamaCare scheme entirely”
get on the repeal movement and shut up then mitchy. “HEY I’VE GOT A BRILLIANT IDEA I’LL GO ON WSJ AND PLAY FOOTSIE WITH BARCKY” mitchy asshole!!11!!
zino3,
Humor is the diversion we use before flanking the enemy and if newrouter is involved; rest assured, you will find an ally dropping some nuclear warheads on foreheads.
Don’ let our snarky side fool ya, we’re an all weather, all aspect, look down-shoot down, fire and forget force; my man so:
KEEP FIRING!!!
I keep linking to the Rand Paul budget pdf because I like it. It’s a good start.
Oh,
And as for the rest of you: Back on the line.
POINTY END DOWN RANGE PEOPLE!!!
The Virginia Gov. didn’t sign the letter. How come? Anyone know or have ideas how come? Which of the remaining states (26 – 21 = 5, excluding Va. as one among those 5) that signed on to the Florida case didn’t participate in the letter to Sebelius, and again, how come?
“I’m simply trying not to be a dick because I have no desire to flame you over it.”
nah mitchy owns a state in the baracky plantation. the dude could say to baracky fu but no gotta work with our progg overlords. i ain’t doing your squishes thing no more. they lob a bomb at liberty with this one. time to get serious. the idiot daniels ain’t that. if he can’t fight for this he is useless:
“All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.”
Newrouter’s fundamentally right.
To even talk about how you plan to compromise should you need to is projecting weakness, let alone publishing some weepy, concilatory screed in the WSJ. You compromise when you’re losing, and not before.
To Daniels’ defenders, I know, I can appreciate why you might think this is some kind of mind-fake to seem more appealing to the undecided, but by the time Daniels needs support in an election run (which I’m starting to not relish), there won’t be any undecideds left – or at least – those that are left will be influenced by stuff like the color of his car and whether his ass looks fat in that suit.
But today, it should be “This is Plan A. We don’t need no stinkin’ Plans B thru’ Z because we will not compromise, because we know we are right, and so does the public!”. That’s the message for the people. It’s certainly the message for the media.
The letter frankly proposes gutting the ObamaCare scheme entirely and taking off on another track — a market track — altogether. Otherwise, they are saying, we and our states will not be participating in your evil scheme.
Then submit the letter under cover of repeal not tweaking. Tweaking leaves the meta narrative in place (it’s Obamacare ain’t it awesome) that grants legitimacy to the notion of the socialist trappings of the idea of universal healthcare for all. It should be its own narrative of health insurance reform enacted under the proper limitations of what our constitution means. We should not be in the business of granting legitimacy to socialist narratives even if we gut them and replace with non socialist trappings. It’s still dressed as a socialist whore. We need it dressed as a free market lady beckoning freedoms.
this helps a little Mr. sdferr
so Alaska’s new governor didn’t sign the letter I guess he likes his obamarape undiluted
hey lopez and lowry are into jeb at nr. FREEDOM for the wetbacks!!11!!
Ok newrouter,
Since you insist on taking the point, Where is your John Wayne?
Time to ante up mister!
This just proves that Daniels is a socialist, a secprogg at the very least.
The 26: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Wyoming, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida.
The 21: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin
There is no fucking plan to compromise.
damn right he’s a socialist Daniels should be thrown in a cell with Bradley Manning, the zhu zhu pets princess castle, and a rutabaga
“so Alaska’s new governor didn’t sign the letter I guess he likes his obamarape undiluted”
no sullivan:
“JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell is asking his attorney general to advise him on whether implementing the federal health care overhaul would put Parnell in violation of his oath of office.
A federal judge in Florida this week struck down the law as unconstitutional in a case joined by 26 states, including Alaska. A major point of contention is a provision requiring citizens to buy health insurance.
Parnell says he took an oath to support and defend the constitutions of the United States and Alaska. While the Republican governor concedes the issue is expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, he says he has a duty to uphold the law and wants the attorney general to advise him on what the duty is after the Florida ruling.”
find on your own
Stephanie, I don’t know what to say to you. Not that I have before.
if Sean Parnell has to ask then he’s obviously a socialist
“Time to ante up mister!”
Ok,
I’ll bite; PAUL RYAN! That’s my dadgum John Wayne, How bout we sponsor someone certain to lay “Baracky” out cold.
Anyone think America could use somma dat?
“Obama to the States: You will enslave your people for me.
The States to Obama: No. We won’t.”
Yeah, that’s my take as well.
What’s he gonna do when the feds defund his medicare and medicaid dollars as payback while the courts are playing footsie?
This just proves that Daniels is a socialist, a secprogg at the very least.
Oh, bullshit. It just indicates he’s not an extremely good general to have in a pitched battle unless you like ceding ground to your opponent. He’s a middling general who needs to improve his battle tactics. Which he might do, but who knows – a middling general may be the best we have.
They did that. And then some.
i’m glad the gerald ford contingent are out and about.
BOLD COLORS NO PALE PASTELS
How can it be socialist if it’s entirely market based with no individual mandate or single payer?
What does “socialist” even mean then?
And… it simply doesn’t matter. I will pay everyone on this blog 10 trillion dollars each if Obama says, “Yeah, taking my law and turning it into the complete opposite is a good trade. You’ve got yourselves a deal.”
Stephanie, I don’t know what to say to you. Not that I have before.
Expand, please.
I just think Daniels ideas are mostly the right ones, espoused under the wrong cover is all. And cover is what shouldn’t be given to socialist ideas. He doesn’t realize he’s doing so – so I don’t fault him for that, but tactically the final thing that is implemented needs to be seen as reform of insurance not universal healthcare lite with all the bureaucratic/constitutional underminings intact. That camel is persistent.
Crikey, I could use the $10T. I’mma write Obama a stern letter.
Damn straight he doesn’t. Because he isn’t.
That’s not what I was saying sdferr.
What I was saying is that Obamacare, government run healthcare, is socialized medicine. And that putting aside any of the specifics of the mechanisms Daniels’ stipulated to Sebelius, that entertaining the idea of implementing Obamacare treated that act as a fait accompli.
No, the market mechanisms he suggested were not socialist; of course not. I personally agree with some of those ideas!
Talking about it in a hypothetical “foregone conclusion” kind of way necessarily proceeeds from an assumption that it will have to be implemented at all, either by the state or the Feds. If it’s illegitimate or unlawful then it shouldn’t need implementing.
I don’t understand how my discomfort with his thought experiment’s point of departure has turned into me saying he’s down with socialism-putting words in his mouth, or somehow broadly disapproving, deligitimizing, or just plain hating on Mitch! I’m really baffled by that.
I’ve said zillions of times that I like what he’s done in Indiana, his track record is good, and he’s a bright guy with a lot of great ideas on how to change the spendthrift ways of the government.
did you know this I did not know this nobody tells me anything
Ok, that’s so. And when all the crap that makes it a socialist scheme is removed from it retaining only the name together with an empty shell, is it still socialized medicine when it runs in market economic scheme, the innards being put back utterly un-socialist in nature? This doesn’t seem hard to me.
I’m a bit frustrated and it’s just silly for me to get frustrated in comment discussions with friends.
Gonna watch some TV. Have a good one, folks.
It’s like the flipped reversal of the efforts the proggs have been conducting willy-nilly on the constitutional scheme the nation began with. Removing all the free market mechanisms the founders were sanguine with and replacing them one by one with FDR instituted “positive rights” we end up with something still called the Constitution of the United States but operating like nothing at all in accord with the original conception. Ju-jitsu back on ’em, is what this amounts to.
Daniels was the first governor to tell are little southeast region of Chicago to clean up their act or no new money. Imagine that – Having to provide paperwork to show where the money went. Racist. Oh – one of our mayors has tried to file for bankruptcy. How did a mayor stack up millions of dollars on a civil service salary?
I still don’t think Mitch wants the job of President. It would be nice though.
sdferr, I suspect the Virginia governor didn’t sign because the Virginia AG has filed his own separate lawsuit against Ocare.
bh,
Perhaps the problem is one of timing my man. Why give the court even a small rationalization for not killing this outright? (Well specifically Anthony Kennedy, we know the Court’s mental midget wing is a lost cause)
As a tool in the box it might be a good strategy to keep it behind glass next to the cudgels and squidco riot gear.
Break the glass in case of emergency.
Confucius say: He who bickers over the morning droppings from bird not see bird will future drop many and establish pattern. Then no debate.
That is all.
“Egrets, I’ve had a few…”
Well said Bob,
Better and faster than I as usual.
Shoulda known you were in the pattern. Musta been my all weather remark that drew you in (#218 ;^)
riddle me this if there were anything unstaunchy about Mr. Daniels’ letter than why doesn’t Hot Air have six posts in it?
Hmmmm?
Yeah that’s what I thought.
*then* why I mean…
How can it be socialist if it’s entirely market based with no individual mandate or single payer?
What does “socialist” even mean then?
I’m probably splitting hairs (I’ve been diagramming databases all day – which is ODD on steroids), but to continue to allow the aroma of Obamacare to be associated with the results that the states want is not good. Next time the proggs take a stab at it, it will be with the caveat “but we have Obamacare now and the republicans designed it.” Working within the existing framework of the argument as Daniels did (we need healthcare for all), and failing to provide an answer under the auspices of that framework (market based insurance reform isn’t free healthcare for all therefore it fails to solve that problem) leaves an opening for another parlay by the govmt run healthcare mob. The proper framework to design your responses is in the realm of health insurance reform. There free market reforms can work and produce deliverables.
Until you define your objective and design implementations for it, working to design a horse on an assembly line designed to produce asses won’t solve your problem.
“And when all the crap that makes it a socialist scheme is removed from it retaining only the name together with an empty shell”
um medicaid/medicare. YEA ME AND MITCHY ARE DOING IT!!11!!
dude we got it and you want to expand it?? you be happyfeet
“riddle me this if there were anything unstaunchy about Mr. Daniels’ letter than why doesn’t Hot Air have six posts in it?”
there are stupid peeps there?
Feets,
Outlaw rule 1a:
Hot Air is not a good barometer for staunchiness.
but they hate Daniels like he was an aborted gay marriage in the military
hi i’m capt’n ed and i suck pawlenty nose. hi i’m allah and i try to be a “conservative” in nyc but it is tough. i bash sarah half term alot.
“but they hate Daniels ”
nah idiots are ok. i hate islam and the pedophile mo.
hi cap’n ed I’m happyfeet and keep your cotton pickin’ hands off my bagel
what’s wrong with you people?
“I’m a bit frustrated and it’s just silly for me to get frustrated in comment discussions with friends.”
Happens to all of us occasionally my man.
Enjoy the tee vee. Just please not the Glee club again ;^).
Medicare/ Medicaid have been on the books since the ’60s, helped along by Nixon in the ’70s. I’d be happy to entertain efforts to repeal those too, but that’s not what the question is at present. So once we manage to crush the life out of ObamaCare we can take those up in turn.
Currently the States are facing an entirely new entitlement scheme many of them want no part in; some, while mouthing the right words as far as Obama himself is concerned, probably are soon to realize they too don’t really want to be mixed up in, as the thing begins to fall apart at the seams. You know, States like New York, Illinois and California for instance. None of the States signing on to the letter to Sebelius are suggesting this new entitlement be expanded. What are you smoking?
“is it still socialized medicine when it runs in market economic scheme”
no that’s fascism a variation of statism. you also got your communism if you get rid of the market thing.
Who hates Mitch Daniels?
Is this discussion about supporting Mitch Daniels or is it a discussion of whether his tactics make sense in the debate? I thought it was the latter and hadn’t chosen a side.
My issue:
He’s allowing for implementation of a socialist concept to proceed on a free market assembly line. How is this helpful to free market assembly line makers who will get complaints when the product is not as advertised?
Won’t these complaints add fuel to the fire for abandoning free market assembly line makers in favor of socialists assembly line makers who don’t have the added burden of marketing their product as something it’s not?
Is that a win for free market assembly line makers?
It’s definitely not a win for intentionalism.
Danger,
I was drawn by the all-weather operations, but stayed for the nuclear weapons exchange :)
Nukes, now with new and improved targeting…
“Dial 1-800-GPS-PGMs, when it absolutely, positively, has to be there on-target, every time”
“Currently the States are facing an entirely new entitlement scheme many of them want no part in”
i’m glad mitchy is spouting his ideas today in the wsj about telling baracky that we are going to take his “signature ” achievement and stuff it up his communist asshole.
“Who hates Mitch Daniels? ”
who luvs the stupid party? lowry and lopez pushing jeb today. eff them.
It’s definitely not a win for intentionalism.
Ding ding ding! The pikachu gets a cupcake.
Coming at the health insurance problems in this country with solutions devised under cover of healthcare reform leads no where good. Not if you are a classical liberal. And shouldn’t be if you agree with Jeff’s intentionalism matters posts.
Mitch does support corn based ethanol, but I don’t know if it is for political reasons or if he truly is stupid enough to think it will save the Earth.
“Nukes, now with new and improved targeting…”
Unfortuntely Bob, we seem to be forgetting the whole mensurated coordinates requirement.
The collateral damage with nukes tends to be pretty high when you neglect the (discussion) elevation factor.
cupcakes fuck yeah!
Second look at teh FRED?
Fred is like a thousand
He’s a classic!!!!
“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.”
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/04/excerpts_from_ronald_reagans_1.php
Fred owes me a refund after he endorsed Meghan’s daddy
Did everyone skip over the part where he said that he wishes it to be repealed by the legislature, or thrown out by the Courts? I just do not see where he is trying to offer a reform of BarckyCare. It reads as a big fuck you to me, but I am generally an idiot. There is not a snowballs chance in he’ll that Sebelius will agree to them, so calling it a compromise seems silly, since they are the antithesis of the command and control monstrosity.
My take is that Mitch Daniels has set a sly trap for BHO and Sebelius. There’s no way they would agree to Daniel’s modest proposal (given their interest is, in the end, a single-payer provider). Mitch and the 21 governors realize this. With a proffered ‘reasonable’ approach, Daniels &c. seeks to expose the federales’ reluctance to compromise.
Remember, the various states are already required to administer Medicaid, the costs of which are significant. Daniels proposes herding those in with whatever others are forced on the states. A somewhat similar idea was tried (TennCare) and failed, miserably (granted, that was single payer; Mitch proposes opening (“to decide what providers”) to many different insurers…maybe some from out-of-state?
It’s a feint within a feint, one BHO can’t afford to either ignore or accept.
I see what you are saying about turning the tables on the proggs and using their own brand of ju-jitsu on them sdferr; the idea of doing so is appealing.
Ric Locke often makes a point about not making legislation that you wouldn’t want to be used against you in the future (paraphrase). In the same vein, why implement Obamacare, regardless of how much it’s changed in content or function. It might be able to be subverted at a later time in ways we mightn’t approve of.
I get that many folks here see this as Mitch giving Obama/Sebelius the bird and saying, “Here’s the only way we’re going to do this, and if you don’t like it-do it yourself”.
The problem comes when they reply, “OK, we’re going to do it ourself”…
If that “name” still refers to a Federal program, even though administered by the states under federal mandate, then it is a national government provided healthcare program.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one…
My take is pretty much the same as Stephanie’s. The letter works as an open letter to the U.S. Senate calling on them to do their office (i.e. represent their States) and repeal the damn thing for the reasons given. As an open-letter to the Sec HHS it concedes the point that if the feds want to go down the socialist economy/socialized medicine instead of the free market route, they can do that (even though it won’t work!). That’s not a smart hypothetical to be contemplating if you’re trying to keep the pressure on.
There’s no guiding this train onto the right track. The boiler’s gonna blow.
Newrouter,
I enjoy the Reagan reminders as much as anybody and if Zombie Reagan is on the ballot, I’m with ya but do ya have a fallback plan?
I mean other than armagedden.
‘Fred owes me a refund after he endorsed Meghan’s daddy’
So what does Mitch owe you then?
it doesn’t concede anything you’re willfully asserting the text means something it simply doesn’t and it’s not just you it’s being misconstrued by the same people what would go freaking ballistic if anyone ever willfully misconstrued one of the tundra bunny’s speeches half as badly
This, however, is precisely what they are saying they will not do. Preferring, as Daniels puts it, to be spectators to the trainwreck rather than conductors.
“JD posted on 2/7 @ 10:06 pm
Did everyone skip over the part where he said that he wishes it to be repealed by the legislature, or thrown out by the Courts?”
as the governor he could of said fu to the feds. did he? nice letter that. yes let’s elect a squish as pres. we got that dude. fat ass idiots not included.
“Preferring, as Daniels puts it, to be spectators to the trainwreck rather than conductors.”
oh “LEADERSHIP” go ride your harley to hell mitten’s restupid party person
Mitch owes me a freshly toasted bagel still warm from the toaster as well as his able assistance in repealing the obamarape menace.
chop chop
sdferr,
Doesn’t this part of the letter trouble you?
“All the law’s expensive benefit mandates are waived, so that our citizens aren’t forced to buy benefits they don’t need and have a range of choice that includes more affordable plans.”
That needs to say ALL MANDATES are waved. Doesn’t it?
“it doesn’t concede anything you’re willfully asserting the text means ”
you are stupid la dude. i’m just reading the text.
I was talking to Ernst but you’re very misconstruey too
“That needs to say ALL MANDATES are waved. Doesn’t it?”
yes let us have the lawyers/idiots decide!!11!!. mr. kennedy needs a blow job yes/no.
Just as I thought: the little attempted “intentionalism” dig was aimed my way.
Not surprisingly, you’re wrong.
But do expect a congratulatory email from somebody!
Wishing isn’t a plan. Wasn’t it the WI attorney general who said, in light of the Vinson ruling, that his state will stop implementation?
I liked that. And I liked that he didn’t offer an alternative plan, or even suggest one that which keeps the federal government in charge of health care was possible, in light of that ruling.
“oh “LEADERSHIP” go ride your harley to hell mitten’s restupid party person”
Then Walk the Walk Newrouter, Get off the fence and pick a team!
“one of the tundra bunny’s speeches half as badly”
how’s the beagle doing andy?
it doesn’t concede anything….
It concedes that the appointed Sec HHS can tell the elected governors of sovereign states to operate insurance exchanges that they would not otherwise be inclined to operate under an understanding of the commerce clause that makes a mock of the reserved powers guaranteed by the X Amendment (albeit “with conditions”).
It’s a strong argument weakened by the author’s evident unease with appearing strenuous.
there is simply no way the text supports Mitch’s oped as a trial balloon for obamarape appeasement
In my case, yes, I saw that JD.
I thought he clearly stated his disapproval with Obamacare as constructed. And I personally agree with many of the alternative methods he stipulated to Sebelius as being the only way he’d agree to cooperate on implementing the healthcare law. My whole objection was even discussing a need, even hypothetically, to implement Obamacare, in the wake of the recent court ruling and the momentum gathering behind repealing the bill; it will be an issue in the 2012 election to be sure.
I hope that this op-ed isn’t seized by the opposition upon as representing some form of Rethug! “compromise”. I hope that serr8d is right, and this is a very cagey move that I’m far to dense to pick up on.
My only objection is to the rhetorical strategy of assuming the law needed to be implemented at all; at least until Vinson’s decision is overturned or SCOTUS rules in the administration’s favor.
Who said appeasement? I think I said a GOP compromise — or rather, a sign that the GOP isn’t ALL so, well, let’s just say, doctrinaire, as the TEA Party’s “Appeal or Bust” crowd.
And that signal, as I pointed out, is in the opening Daniels leaves by suggesting that there is a way to put the federal government in control of health care. If you can’t see it, it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Doesn’t mean it IS, but then, my reading is that this was a political piece put out to set Daniels up as a third way conservative — not a McCain, but then, not a Bachmann, either.
“Just as I thought: the little attempted “intentionalism” dig was aimed my way.”
Jeff,
I took it as an irony laded bit of self-depreciation. But I may have misinterpreted it. Or maybe it was subliminal.
Does happyfeet have a dog ;^)
“I hope that this op-ed isn’t seized by the opposition upon as representing some form of Rethug! “compromise””
no the mitchy done made sure the make believe media says this be unicorn bipartisanship. fucking dopes. it is the MAKE BELIEVE MEDIA idiots fight it!
Danger: “All the law’s expensive benefit mandates are waived, so that our citizens aren’t forced to buy benefits they don’t need and have a range of choice that includes more affordable plans.”
That needs to say ALL MANDATES are waved. Doesn’t it?
If all mandates are waived, why have the feds involved at all? Which, by the way, I’m all for. Just cause it doesn’t cost any money doesn’t mean it isn’t restrictive to freedom. A bureaucrat can still fuck you with his keyboard and MS Word.
sdferr: This, however, is precisely what they are saying they will not do. Preferring, as Daniels puts it, to be spectators to the trainwreck rather than conductors.
And if Baracky withholds all federal money due to the state for education, roads, and all that shit? How long til they jump aboard the train that’s already left the station?
Daniels: Which got me thinking: If the new law is not repealed by 2013, what could be done to reshape it in the direction of freedom and genuine cost control?
Kinda like giving Al Quaida a drop dead date that our troops will vacate the field of battle in Afghanistan, no? Now the feds know how long the republican governors are planning to stay the course of repeal.
His plan, Jeff, appears to be outlined above, since he already joined the lawsuit in question, and advocates repeal. As a Governor, he has to plan for what happens if the above referenced are not successful. Tomato tomahto, apparently.
The WI attorney general very well may be looking at that. Yet at the same time, I guarantee that the WI Governor is looking at what they may have to do if the Constitution and repeal are not successful.
there is simply no way the text supports Mitch’s oped as a trial balloon for GOP compromise … it is quintessentially uncompromising in its intent. The government is already quite happily in control of health cares. Mr. Daniels’ proposals would strip the government of power such that it had less control would than even the status quo obamarape ante. This part in particular is huge and of extraordinary value as precedent if enacted I think:
Our state is reimbursed the true, full cost of the administrative burden to be imposed upon us, based on the estimate of an auditor independent of HHS.
But that’s neither here nor there. Mr. Daniels’ predicate is as clear as something what you can see through real easily: If we can’t repeal Obamarape, what are the contours of implementation to be?
Damn good question. Damn timely question. It is a question a leader would ask.
No. Nothing like it at all.
ok pretend I put all the words where they were opposed to be I got up super early
But they would be administrating the healthcare law if, as you said, they had replaced all of the “crap” with the measures Mitch stipulated. So regardless of how they got there, it would still be a national health care law funded by the federal government.
Oh for fucks sake.
Like giving AQ a droo dead date? Really? He did not pull that date out of his ass, that is when the bulk of the super expensive portions of that obamanation go into effect.
“If all mandates are waived, why have the feds involved at all”
That’s phase one of the battleplan Stephanie;^) Mitch seems to be arguing that some mandates are ok just not expensive ones and a better choice of plans run by better officials is all we need.
Admittedly though, I could be reading it too literally but I have to ask this question:
What about the choice not to have an insurance plan?
“As a Governor, he has to plan for what happens if the above referenced are not successful. Tomato tomahto, apparently. ”
yes mitchy tell everyone about your plan in the newspaper. the dude is um something but intelligent not so much.
the colts made it where? dumb ethanol people.
No, Danger. It’s the kind of off-handed swipe he’s learned to take at me from a certain public servant. It’s in the interest of those who argue based on emotion to make sure meaning is what they want it to be — that in the world of politics, image and perception are the most important things.
Anyway, my son’s temp just spiked to 104.6 again — we took him to urgent care today and they prescribed ibuprofen, but he’s throwing that up — so I have to go. Take whatever shots at me you have to while I’m away. I’m a big boy.
Newrouter is hitting the crack pipe again.
Goodnight, folks.
Since we’re going to play along with Daniels’s hypo (“If the new law is not repealed [or ruled unconstitutional, I suppose] by 2013, what could be done to reshape it in the direction of freedom and genuine cost control?”) instead of doing something really useful, like tearing the wings off’n all the angels we can fits onna pinhead.
What if Sibelius shoots back:
–You can choose as many or as few insurers you want from the list we provide you.
–You’re citizens can choose between the basic cadillac package, the basic plus package and the ultra premium luxury package.
–Savings accounts are in, but we’re gonna tax the shit out of ’em in a non-discriminatory way.
–We’re very interest in “New Approaches” Why don’t you Republicans help us pass ObamaCare II?
–Auditing will be done and reimbursement rates will be set by independent appointees of the HHS –call ’em Inspector Generals if it makes you feel better about it.
it’s not a swipe it’s simply the case that Mr. Daniels’ intent is being egregiously slighted in my opinion by many what have taken positions in this argument including yourself.
“Damn good question. Damn timely question. It is a question a leader would ask.”
idiots are clueless sarah palin asks:
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Are they willing to toe the line past that date? I know that date and the significance in the law, the problem with the structure of the statement is that it need not be there. Either they are willing to fight this on principles all the way to whatever outcome including some very unsavory ones or they will succumb to it. What is the end? The dates for the implementations (some are well underway, you know – are they stopping those) or the date the SC gets off its ass and rules? Or the 2012 elections? Or the date that the feds withhold all the funding for all mandates across all programs? Or none of the above – we will not implement this period? Leaving the date there implies that at the point the fight is over. Kind of a slumpy shouldered toe dragging fuckitol taking date.
And on January 1, 2014 Obama rested and the dawn of a new age was born…
And publishing it preemptively in the WSJ?
What’s say neither side wants to take this all the way to the Supremes. What if the compromise is a hybrid plan that uses free market solutions, but allows that the feds can run the thing? Think maybe both sides could save some face, potentially, if such a solution is reached?
Concentrate, people. This is Washington. These are politicians.
Unless its intent is to signal that a compromise is in fact possible, one in which the government can run health care at the federal level, only using the preferred free-market tactics of the right.
You can keep saying “there’s no way blah blah blah.” But then, you’ve also accused people here of being racist, homophobic, and xenophobic because you are willing to see all sort of things in their words that aren’t there.
In other words, here’s where it matters that you’ve lost your credibility.
“Mr. Daniels’ intent is being egregiously slighted in my opinion by many what have taken positions in this argument including yourself.”
cheer leading for a guy named mitch?? how gay.
I don’t need no stinking credibility
“It’s the kind of off-handed swipe…”
I’d hope he had a little more class that that but whether he intended or not I saw a great deal of irony in the comment
“Anyway, my son’s temp just spiked to 104.6 again”
Urgent CASREQ enroute Jeff
Unless its intent is to signal that a compromise is in fact possible, one in which the government can run health care at the federal level, only using the preferred free-market tactics of the right.
Exactly. And again I ask: Why feed the notion that the feds should be involved at all except to the extent of smoothing out any differences regarding portability from state to state and other stuff that is contract law related under the good and proper clause? Why allow the building blocs of socialism to be built on the free market assembly line?
The product is gonna work like shit.
“Why allow the building blocs of socialism to be built on the free market assembly line?”
why is mitchy pedaling this now? hey jebs over here. or maybe newt and mittens. fu cain 2012!!
“I don’t need no stinking credibility”
sarah thinks you’re hot, you’re answer?
104.9
“you’re answer”
http://www.answercoalition.org/national/index.html
Ya know what’s cool?
This time last year I was following these discussions on a juraisic era server in Iraq. By the time I could reply I was three essays behind.
Now I’m rocking fiberoptics baby and stayin up with the cool kids (well except Bob of course but he types at 1K WPM ;^).
I’ve been lurking.
What are you supposed to do for a kid’s fever that high? Take him to doctor? Icebath? Liquid Tylenol?
Sounds like you’re not going to get much sleep tonight.
I’ll keep him in my prayers Jeff.
Maybe you should consider a cold bath, or in lieu of that, the steady application of cold towels.
Okay, back to TV… and lurking. Good luck with your son.
He couldn’t keep the liquid acetaminophen down. My wife’s out getting the strip kind that melts on the tongue. We’re alternating ibuprofen and acetaminophen. And using wet washcloths. He’s been down as low as normal today. But he spiked to close to 105 last night around this time, as well.
We already took him to urgent care today. They checked for strep, didn’t find any, told us it was viral, and sent us home. Evidently the treatment is to guess at what it might be, wait it out, and hope it’s nothing too terribly serious.
“Okay, back to TV… and lurking. Good luck with your son.”
weak really weak,
Okay gang, I have to hit the rack myself. I hope that the contentious discussion leaves no residual hard feelings.
I realize that it was frustrating for many of the long time members of the commentariat.
Hopefully those strips work and you can all get some sleep.
“104.9”
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/fever_in_children/page6_em.htm
I’d try the warm water bath and lots of sprite, if his temp continues to rise, the hospital
Not at all, Bob. It’s all good. The frustration is born from having a certain opinion on something and not being able to convey it very convincingly… as evidenced quite clearly by not convincing anyone of anything.
No biggie.
Jeff, at 104.9 the body is near heat exhaustion. Not to alarm, but treat him like he has that for the fever. As to its cause, was the strep test positive?
Ice at the close-to-the-surface blood circulation points.
Cold water. Drink lots.
And call the doctor. The rash you mentioned earlier could indicate that the strep (if that is what it is) is a virulent strain that may require a penicillin shot as opposed to oral meds.
Been there on this one. I feel the little guy’s pain.
“I’ve been lurking.”
That’s brevity for patrolling.
No need to worry about using the code words bh, we’re among friends here ;^)
Rapid strep test was negative. He’s already been to the doctor today. Same symptoms as when we took him in and they sent us home. Were able to get his temp down to 102 with wash cloths. The ibuprofen is probably kicking in now. He’s dozed off.
But my wife is out in a blizzard (I didn’t even realize it was snowing until I went to let the dog out).
Patrolling. Yes. That sounds much more official.
The only time my kids spike a temp like that is when they’re down with an ear infection.
You’re not overdoing either the acetiminophin or the ibuprofin –giving him some multi-symptom cocktail and a straight shot of fever reducer?
I always assume parents are smart enough to read the damn labels, but the talking heads on the moving picture box tell me that the gubmint told them they actually aren’t. We need to lock the Tylenol and Advil away –right next to the Sudafed.
bastards
G’nite all,
bh has the watch tonight, so try to keep newrouter occupied with something constructive, will ya?
No, we’re alternating every three hours as the doctor instructed. And he’s drinking Sprite and some Gatorade. Can’t find the Pedialite, though I was sure we had some.
For the most part, I’d say the
blameresponsibility for that lies with Daniels; too much deliberate ambiguity in the WSJ piece, too political, too polite.Be well little moneygrubber.
The children of my family frequently broke the 105 mark on the thermometer and were mostly fine. I did get iced down in the Hospital once as a precaution. Children are very resilient in these matters, though the parents are always nervous wrecks. Hope everything goes well. I pray for everything to turn out well.
Call it Lurrping.
Long Range Reconnaisance Patrol! I heard a joke about a LRRP on his first mission, a deadly snake and a very discomfitted tiger once!
Jeff, with a fever, watch to see if he’s sweating cause gatorade has lots of sodium, so be aware. Too much sodium and too little sweating is bad. That can induce the vomiting and is hard on the kidneys to process. Pedialyte can roil a finicky stomach, too. It’s heavier than pure water.
Straight iced water is the best and if he doesn’t like it straight, try mixing in a little crystal light flavoring (they have some vitamin fortified ones). Koolaid works, too, but the stains in the carpet will not come out if he doesn’t make the bathroom.
[…] isn’t Daniels’ first time calling for a unilateral truce.Update: Good questions from Protein Wisdom…Is this the GOP trial balloon for “principled” compromise?And if so, is this the kind of […]
Wow Jeff, Im really sorry.
I’m not going to lie–Im waaaay more worried about your son than some careerist money re-routers and their plan to save healthcare by co-opting it.
How is your son? Did he stabilize? Is the fever retreating?
The pediatrician in my family always recommends the heavy syrup from canned fruit cocktail. For everything. It works wonders, and I’m serious. Other than that, any liquid that you can see through that has no bubbles or caffeine. Alternate Tylenol and Motrin, and sleep. I’ve got two home today, I thought it was strep, but it wasn’t. They just sick. I feel your pain, hope the boy’s better.
Man, I hope the little guy is OK….
#51 – the folks that do all that stuff are now called the LRSD (“Lurs Dee”) Long Range Surveillance Detachment. I only ran into one of them in Afghanistan. They looked rather frazzled, and glad to be back out of the southern parts of the country.
er, #351 that is.
Oh, and I would have been good with Daniels simply pointing out the failures and problems, rather than offering to “fix” them.
that’s how they do it in Illinois
LTC John,
It’s a Viet Nam War era joke I heard in 1988 or ’89.
Hope the lil’ guy is feeling better this morning Jeff.
Definitely something going around. Our youngest started barfing around the time of my last post, and was still barfing this morning. No fever though –so lucky us.
Paul Ryan is due for a good hatefest, since he’s well on his way to an attempt to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid through reform, the bastard. Ryan’s plan means to reorganize and revive all these liberty grabbing social welfare programs. Socialist! Get him, revile him, before it’s too late. C’mon newrouter, you’re falling down on the job man! There’s a communist in the seat of the House Budget Committee chair.
he has to wait his turn until closet-statist Daniels repents
why is sawed-off media whore daniels publishing his surrenderings in the wsj? doesn’t the hick whitebread town he comes from have its own paper?
Did a federal judge just rule social security, medicare and medicaid unconstitutional while I was asleep? i sometimes miss big news events thinking up clever ways to piss on politicians i don’t like. it’s part of my staunchness.
Heck that’s an easy one, since Daniels is a DC COCKtail circuit dick who needs viagra and that’s their establishment paper.
Jeff, Pedialite tastes like salty Gatorade. It sucks (although kid palates are inscrutable to many). My kids hated it, anyway. Gatorade/Powerade and the like should be just fine, why pay more for the kid-specific stuff. Mine is going through something similar but without the upchucking, hope it works out. Sounds like you’re doing all you can. Sucks when the kidlets are feeling bad.
i think its cause he has dreams of leaving his little backwoods hamlet and becoming a star star star what gets a reality show for short white people who are good at compromise. working title: “Goodwill Hunting”
That’s much better. He’s just another media sellout, working his way toward a tiny fiefdom of power with his buddy billy k.
he should be concentrating on fixing his state not putting his silly hoochie face into the national conversation because he has beverly hillbilly aspirations is all.
as if. There’s no way blah blah blah I think.