Daines and Obamacare

By Beacon Staff
By Tim Baldwin

In “Daines a Shoe-in?” I stated that Steve Daines “voted to fund Obamacare.” I want to clarify this statement because Daines’ collective actions show he will work to repeal Obamacare.

I based my statement on Daines’ vote for HR 2775, which conservative organizations described as funding ObamaCare.

Daines sees HR 2775 differently, however.

In fact, HR 2775 limits Obamacare by prohibiting financial assistance to individuals who purchase healthcare until an income verification program is active.

Shortly before HR 2775, Daines voted to defund and repeal Obamacare several times and signed a letter urging Speaker John Boehner “to affirmatively de-fund the implementation and enforcement of ObamaCare.” Daines’ position on Obamacare is highlighted too by his political opponents: the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee warned fellow Democrats of Daines’ actions, and a host of liberal organizations have attacked Daines for opposing Obamacare.

When HR 2775 arrived, Daines determined it would do nothing to stop Obamacare, so he voted “aye” to open the government by returning all discretionary spending to sequester levels.

Daines’ strategy differed from other Republicans, but as Thomas Jefferson said, “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

Opponents of Obamacare may not like Daines’ HR 2775 vote, but they should support him because his opponents supports Obamacare and will work against repealing Obamacare.

By Joe Carbonari

Let’s not get lost in the weeds. There is no doubt that Steve Daines is not in favor of Obamacare, otherwise known as the Affordable Health Care Act.

The question really ought to be: Is Steve Daines truly in favor of helping to make affordable health care available to the millions of people in the United States who can’t now afford it? And if so, what is he going to do to help?

We in the U.S. are spending much more on our health care than is the case in other developed nations.

For those who can afford it, the ease and quality of care makes them understandably reluctant to see changes – especially if it means subsidizing a significant portion of the costs for those that don’t currently enjoy an adequate level of coverage.

The alternative, however, is to leave things the way they are and let those who can’t afford the current system go without, or get treated as “charity” cases and societally pay for it through our inefficient and “invisible” system of cost shifting (the $50 aspirin).

For those who feel that most who are in need are in that situation through their own poor choices, or the will of some supernatural power, Daines’ convoluted voting should indeed be considered inconsequential.

For the rest of us, please Steve, show us something better.