John Graham Defends Mitch Daniels
Michael Cannon and Grace-Marie Turner (aided and abetted by Robert Goldberg) have started a real dispute on the effectiveness of Indiana governor Mitch Daniels’s Medicaid reform…I lean more towards Turner’s conclusions than Cannon’s…
Faced with a federal government whose position on consumer-driven health care has veered between lukewarm (mostly rhetorical) support and outright hostility, Governor Daniels has succeeded in introducing a margin of consumer direction into health care in his state. In doing so, he has overcome significant bureaucratic odds and deserves congratulations. Now all he has to do is stop accepting Obamacare grant money!
See full post at Graham’s blog, Free American Health Care.
I think I side with John.
I think Mitch has done as well as he can, considering the circumstances.
Mitch Daniels’ plan is better than Obama Care. But I don’t think it would be acceptable in Galt’s Gulch.
Mitch Daniels would make a great president.
John Graham: Ideally, Indiana state workers should be in the same plan as Medicaid, assuming that higher income individuals in the “exchange” are paying risk-rated premiums. [Note: I would comment at your blog site, but the process is too difficult for me to figure out how to do it.]
Must be a slow news day if Dr.Goodman puts headlines about me on the blog. If HuffPo covered it, the title would have been “Conservatives in turmoil: Graham slams Cannon!”
I’m not sure I follow Mr. Barnett’s point. I’ve always thought politicians should have to buy individual health insurance from the jurisdiction they represent, insteda of being considered government employees. With respect to government workers, I don’t think Medicaid is the answer, because it’s a welfare program. It’d be like giving them food stamps in lieu of wages.
(With respect to my blog: I can barely figure the thing out myself. That’s why I’m grateful Dr. Goodman lets me blog here.)