A Conservative Stands Up For Danielscare, But Obsession With ACA Repeal Stands In The Way of Progress

I wondered if any conservatives writers were going to stand up for Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' record of constructive right-of-center reform against Michael Cannon's slightly insane viewpoint that any measure whatsoever to offer health care services to people in need is a betrayal. Grace-Marie Turner steps up to the plate on The Corner with an admirable item.

However, we once again see the difficulty conservatives with decent ideas about health care have in dealing with the Affordable Care Act. Health care policy is a controversial topic, and people tend to disagree about it. Liberals disagree with other liberals. Conservatives disagree with other conservatives. But what all conservatives agree on is that the Affordable Care Act must be repealed. Indeed, this is essentially the definition of what constitutes a conservative health care policy these days. So any writing on health care policy that wants a conservative label needs to gin up some reason that the ideas in question logically imply ACA repeal. Turner, for example, concludes an otherwise sober description of what Indiana's done with a federal Medicaid waiver with this:

A final note of caution: If Obamacare isn't repealed, HIP will likely have a tombstone saying "R.I.P.," since it provides far too much consumer choice and individual authority to satisfy Washington regulators.

The Affordable Care Act contains a provision boosting federal funding for community health centers; is repealing that necessary to keep HIP going?

The Affordable Care Act contains a provision cutting out the middleman on federally subsidized student loans, reducing outlays and bank profits; is repealing that necessary to keep HIP going?

The Affordable Care Act contains a provision funding comparative effectiveness research so doctors can have more scientifically valid evidence about which treatments are best; is repealing that necessary to keep HIP going?

The Affordable Care Act contains a provision mandating calorie labeling on menus at chain restaurants; is repealing that necessary to keep HIP going?

I don't think so. It's very possible that the ACA would require HIP to be modified in some respects. Alternatively, it's possible that keeping HIP in place would require the ACA to be modified in some respects. As a third alternative, since HIP currently exists under a Medicaid waiver, it's possible that the existing waiver framework is basically sufficient. It's also possible to raise objections to the many, many, many, many ACA provisions that plainly have nothing to do with Indiana's Medicaid program. Any of these arguments would be constructive contributions to future discussion. The Affordable Care Act is an immense piece of legislation and I don't think anyone wants or expects it to go un-modified indefinitely. But as long as conservatives insist that all future health care policy discussions need to begin with repeal then it's not possible to do anything.