Daniels endorsed a form of an individual mandate in 2003, according to local newspaper report

Washington Examiner ^ | 5/19/2011 | Philip Klein

[RINOs suck]

During his 2003 run for governor, an Indiana newspaper reported that Mitch Daniels supported a form of an individual health insurance mandate.

An item in the South Bend Tribune from October, 23, 2003, on a campaign stop Daniels made to a health clinic, reported:

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

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

"We really have to have universal coverage," Daniels said.

Under his plan, Daniels said, the nation could get away from the inefficient and unfair way in which health care is provided to those who are uninsured, many of whom end up in emergency rooms or "at clinics like this one."

This was first noted by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post, and then I located the Tribune article to confirm.

Earlier today, I defended Daniels from what I thought was an unfair attack. But this apparent past support for a form of a federal mandate is legitimately alarming and warrants greater scrutiny.

UPDATE:

NRO reports:

“Governor Daniels favors giving every American a tax credit individually so they can purchase insurance that is right for them,” Jankowski told National Review Online. “He believes nearly all would use it, so coverage would be nearly universal. He does not support a mandate.”

Jankowski added that opposition to an individual mandate “has always has been the governor’s position.”

“I don’t believe in mandates,” Daniels said in a radio interview with Michael Smerconish earlier today. “We took a very, very different approach here in Indiana, more or less health saving accounts for low income people.”

Daniels added that he didn’t agree that “as a matter of either good health care policy or, frankly, our constitutional liberties, that government at any level should be ordering Americans to buy a given product.”

The fact that the newspaper story's reference to mandatory health insurance is a paraphrase, rather than a direct quote, provides Daniels with some wiggle room here. But if similar stories emerge -- or video clips of him speaking of mandatory health insurance during his 2003 campaign -- it will spell deeper trouble for him.

[Rudder]

Romney-Daniels in 2012.

[Mariner]

Now Daniels is out too.

Not qualified.

[muawiyah]

Here's some wiggle room. The year is 2003 and the Bush administration was highlighting the war against the terrorists and also doing something about making medical insurance payments fully tax deductible ~ with a tax credit. This was wrapped up in minor proposals for Social Security privatization.

By January 2007, after LOSING the mandate of heaven (Democrats running Congress) Bush proposed a total tax deductible medical insurance deal ~ (up to $15,000 for a family) ~ which didn't make first base with the Democrats.

I would suppose Mitch Daniels in that earlier period (2003) made sure that whatever he said was consistent with the Bush position.

[muawiyah]

Daniels hasn't said he's running. You should go back and review the Bush administration proposals for health care reform from 2001 to 2009.

Nothing Daniels has said is inconsistent with earlier Republican positions.

[JimWayne]

Nothing Daniels has said is inconsistent with earlier Republican positions.

We do not care if his positions were consistent or inconsistent with the RINO positions. All we care is whether he was in line with the positions of the Tea Party. If not, he is O-U-T. He should get out before he makes a bigger fool of himself.

[Mr. Lucky]

Daniel’s actual positions and record are not important. What counts is the perception that others create about him.

[Mariner]

"Nothing Daniels has said is inconsistent with earlier Republican positions. "

I am only aware of McCain taking a mandate position.

Can you cite a reference for the Bush admin advocating national healthcare with an individual mandate?

[muawiyah]

That 2003 statement by Daniels is in line with the then Bush Administration positions (internally or externally). The article is a paraphrase ~ you did read that, right?

The writer of the piece has no document detailing a Republican proposal for an individual mandate.

Why would the Republicans do that anyway? We are not Fascist Pigs like the anti-semitic Democrats who are preparing to kill the Jews.

I mean, your President today sold Israel down the river and somebody is worrying about who said what about individual mandate?

[newzjunkey]

Did you read beyond the headline or do you make all pronouncements on as little information as possible?

[newzjunkey]

Daniel’s actual positions and record are not important. What counts is the perception that others create about him.

That's crystal clear around these parts. The hypocrisy runs deep.

If the national press inaccurately smears their sacred cow candidate they cry foul, if they can use it on another Republican it's just outing RINO.

[jnsun]

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

That's what we favor. Get employers out of the health insurance business. Insure individuals face their own responsibilities.

Mitch Daniels is not a "RINO" here, he is saying that each of us must face the responsibility for our own healthcare. It does not necessarily have to be insurance plan, but YOU better be ready to pay for your own health care. If nothing else, let the "insurance" be the legal ability (of the provider) to garnish wages, access property, access accounts, etc. no different than say, paternity suits, or the failure to pay taxes (IRS), unpaid utility bills, etc. Personal responsibility IS what Conservatism is, is it not? If one wants freedom then one must accept the responsibilities, No?

Johnny Suntrade

[Siena Dreaming]

This was first noted by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post

LOL. Of course it was.

The left wing is trying to scrounge up EVERY little tidbit they can find to turn conservatives against Daniels.

Daniels may have said he favored universal coverage; he did NOT say that that would come from Government.

Daniels has a great HSA program going in IN. I wish I couldd avail myself of that; my state does not allow HSA's.

[SoConPubbie]

Nothing Daniels has said is inconsistent with earlier Republican positions.

You're on a CONSERVATIVE site, not a GOP site.

Whether his positions are consistent with the GOP position of the day on a certain issue means squat!

Are your principles so fungible?

[SoConPubbie]

That's what we favor. Get employers out of the health insurance business. Insure individuals face their own responsibilities.

That is nothing more than a form of socialism and statism.

You, or the Government, does not have the right as outlined in the constitution to force anyone to purchase health insurance.

You need to re-think your position if you think you are a conservative.

[SoConPubbie]

Daniel’s actual positions and record are not important. What counts is the perception that others create about him.

Well, it is clear what he states publicly doesn't matter to you.

So I guess the standard has now been lowered to the extant that we can ignore what a politician says and just pay attention to what he does, right?

[SoConPubbie]

Daniels may have said he favored universal coverage; he did NOT say that that would come from Government.

Talk about spinning....

Where else would Universal Coverage come from?

Who else would enforce it except the Government?

Are you serious?

[r9etb]

Well, it is clear what he states publicly doesn't matter to you. So I guess the standard has now been lowered to the extant that we can ignore what a politician says and just pay attention to what he does, right?

Actions speak louder than words. Look at his record since 2003.

[muawiyah]

He was a Republican official in a Republican administration. Of course his comments at the time conformed to the declared standard.

Now, regarding Conservative administrations, officials in Conservative administrations ALSO conform to the declared standard.

There's only ONE PRESIDENT at a time.

So, what is your point? Are you saying that any discussion of the "truthfulness" of a news report is offlimits if it doesn't conform to YOUR ideology?

BTW, I've caught you more than once being "soft on Socialism". Before you toss accusations come in with clean hands.

[muawiyah]

Look here, you people are new to the world ~ for all your pompous braggadocio about the Power of TEAParty you weren't on the scene in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, ........ right up until last year.

I've defended you johnny come latelys and was the VERY FIRST Freeper to track down that staff assistant to a Congresscritter who engineered the Congressional black caucus deal on Capitol Hill. Found NEWS RELEASES he'd sent out before it occurs.

So, keep your persnickity snicks stuffed in your piehole. You can't do without my support, and if you leave me POd, I'll find some real Conservatives to get behind.