Republican Bait-and-Switch On The Individual Mandate
Republican Bait-and-Switch On The Individual Mandate
In recent days, GOP leaders have focused their crosshairs on the individual mandate, a key component of an effective health care reform bill. FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (R-TX) attacked the mandate as a “healthcare industry boondoggle”, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called the mandate a “stunning assault on liberty,” and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) delayed the committee mark-up by questioning the mandate’s constitutionality.
Most notably, Sen. Chuck Grassley has suddenly become an opponent of the mandate:
HEMMER: Now as I understand it, you want stronger language preventing federal funds from going to abortion. You want stronger language to make sure illegal immigrants are not covered. If you got those two big points, would you go for it?
GRASSLEY: No, there are other points as well, but let me mention other points that you didn’t mention. And one would be the individual mandate, which for the first time would have a federal penalty against people who don’t have health insurance. I could do that through re-insurance and risk pools, to make sure we get more people insured in a voluntary way and I’m very reluctant to go along with an individual mandate.
In spite of their current rhetoric, it wasn’t long ago that Grassley and many of his Republican colleagues were strong supporters ofthe individual mandate. Progressive Media compiled a series of GOP endorsements of a mandate. Watch it:
The GOP’s newfound opposition reveals that this is not a matter of policy but yet another political strategy intended to obstruct reform at any cost.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Do Repubs ever – EVER – have anything positive to say about anything? My God, I am so sick of their negativity, anger, & lies. They are a sick group of people who only want the worst for their country.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:49 pmIn spite of their current rhetoric, it wasn’t long ago that Grassley and many of his Republican colleagues were strong supporters ofthe individual mandate.
And now they’re saying the complete opposite?
I’m shocked!
October 6th, 2009 at 8:52 pmThe GOP’s newfound opposition reveals that this is not a matter of policy but yet another political strategy intended to obstruct reform at any cost.
Never forget, all they know and will do is to obstruct.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm“Republican Bait-and-Switch On The Individual Mandate”
Anything that the Party of Neanderthals including the lizard man Assley say and do don’t surprise me. Pass the popcorn please…
October 6th, 2009 at 8:57 pmThis is no surprise. The Republicans just keep cycling through the provisions of the bill, attacking it and hoping people will glom on to it. Public opinion is turning on them and the party of no is going to get shut out when the bill goes to reconciliation.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:58 pmThe individual mandate is a show-stopper for me. That’s just BS. I should be penalized for not being able to afford health insurance? Unlike car insurance, where boneheads cause damage and injury to others, I see no need for mandatory health insurance. I reserve the right to use the “.38 caliber solution” should the pain become intolerable.
Does this make me a libertarian? Getting murky.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:59 pmWe cannot have an individual mandate without a viable public option. The two go hand-in-hand.
Should there be an individual mandate with no public option, or a totally wimpy public option, then I expect to see a lot of civil disobedience over this issue.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:04 pmWhat?!? A flip flop?!? From a Republican?!?
Can he do that?
October 6th, 2009 at 9:15 pmI know I am going against the grain here, but if I lose my employer based health insurance and get fined for it? I am wiping my @ss with the fine and taking my chances either in the penal health care system or in Canada.
Seriously, did they combine everyone’s proposals, and leave out everything but all the combined crap? At least they could have placated us single-payer advocates, but no, all the proposals revolve around hurting the highest earning industries the least, and the people who cant afford it the most.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:27 pmYou’ve got to wonder what has these very visible people making such an about face on this issue. Without insider knowledge, it seems like opposition for sake of opposition.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:49 pmThis is nothing but diversion rhetoric.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:56 pmDick Armey is the GOP’s corporate coach, using the “bait and switch” to manipulate a sweet deal for his clients, or at least stall ethical reform and maintain the profit status quo.
Professional liars using the tactics of psychopaths.
An unhealthy strategy for our country and for their own party.
I’m afraid I have to agree with the Republicans on this one. Sen. Baucas put the mandate in at the orders of the insurance industry. If you don’t get insurance it counts as a felony conviction if you fail to pay. Why would we want such a provision in a health care bill? It’s meant to make sure the insurance industry gets maximum profits.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:03 pmpotato bug @ 9: I agree. I’m for health care reform, and I support a public option, but the mandate is just too many for me.
That being said, I have no illusions that Grassley is protecting anyone but his donor base. This just happened to be (another) handy obstructionist tool for him.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:05 pmYou can’t mandate health care insurance but neither can you allow someone to die because they can’t pay for their health care needs. I don’t think anyone has proposed a good solution for this problem yet.
A few years ago, I was involved in a car accident where an uninsured driver rear ended me, and totaled my vehicle. The uninsured driver had to compensate me for the loss of my vehicle, but only at the blue book value, certainly not the replacement cost of the vehicle.
So much for mandatory automobile insurance. I did nothing wrong, but I got screwed by someone without insurance. Does anyone think mandatory health care insurance will be any different?
October 6th, 2009 at 10:12 pmAs soon as they started this, we should have gone “OK, single payer it is then.”
October 6th, 2009 at 10:15 pmLevi the Oracle says:
I did nothing wrong, but I got screwed by someone without insurance. Does anyone think mandatory health care insurance will be any different?
Wait, you’re saying that you believe that mandated health insurance means your health care would go on someone else’s insurance? Or that you would only get paid a “blue book” value on yourself? That sounds terribly confusing.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:18 pmZooey says:
We cannot have an individual mandate without a viable public option. The two go hand-in-hand.
Should there be an individual mandate with no public option, or a totally wimpy public option, then I expect to see a lot of civil disobedience over this issue.
Count me in for civil disobedience before I acquiesce to a mandate with no public option. The way I see it, the jails will be overflowing with people who won’t or can’t pay insurance companies rip-off rates. They hafta take care of one’s health care in prison, right?
October 6th, 2009 at 10:24 pmWe have mandated insurance for driving, but the fact is that there are drivers out there that are uninsured. The mandate for automobile insurance does not work and the victim ends up footing the bill.
In health care, if we attempt to make insurance mandatory, there will still be those that do not have insurance, and it will have to be paid for by someone. That someone is you and me, the victims of the uninsured.
The only way a mandated health insurance program could work is if your premiums were deducted from every pay check, just like social security.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:27 pmZooey, #7
You are absolutely right. The mandate positively must require a public option. Not one without the other.
I can go along with a carefully planned mandate (not unlike all drivers requiring car insurance) but it has to be balanced with the public option. But a mandate with no P/O is too punitive.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:43 pmThere will be people who will flout such a mandate, but most will comply – if it is fair and reasonable for basic care.
Without having a robust, Day One, open to all Americans, Public Option, the notion of forcing people to buy private health insurance is fascistic dictatorship. Funny, usually Republicans support fascistic dictatorships of all stripes and in all countries, so their new-found opposition the individual mandate seems a little odd, to say the least…
Forcing citizens to purchase health insurance from private corporations is the worst of all possible worlds and is not “reform,” it is just plain wrong.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:51 pmI really have a tough time with this problem. Forcing people to have health care insurance is wrong, but having uninsured people means someone else is going to have to pay for their health care.
We should just eliminate all health care insurance companies and every American gets the same health care coverage, paid for as a percentage of their income.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:01 pmLevi,
October 6th, 2009 at 11:10 pmYou made the argument for universal, single payer – everyone is covered.
Did I? Health care insurance really isn’t something I consider anything I know much about. I specialize more in the prosecution of those that ordered the torture of American prisoners.
My only concern with single payer is who pays for the illegal aliens that need emergency care. Most of them cannot afford to pay for their health care, and single payer won’t cover them either. I don’t think it is appropriate for the health care provide to pick up the tab, nor it is appropriate to deny them care for inability to pay.
I realize the wingnutties like to disrespect illegal immigrants, and that is not what I am trying to do, nor is it why I bring it up. I guess I want to know how we are going to pay for those that aren’t Americans but still will receive health care, whether we get a single payer system or a public option.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:17 pmDr. David Scheiner, Obama’s personal physician for 22 years before he became president,supports medicare for all.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:30 pmThis seems to me the most logical and cost effective option.
Medicare, before it was “improved” by private corporate consessions, functioned efficiently in both cost and service. Running the system through the same system as Social Security with all ages contributing would be the most simple program to implement, also.
The current start-up proposed date for the option, I’ve heard, is 2013.
I don’t think we can, or should, have to wait that long.
Bush included one billion dollars for illegal aliens,according to Front Page Magazine, in his $395 billion Medicare package in 2003.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:59 pmIronically,(or hypocritically) Joe Wilson voted for this bill.
No surprise there. There isn’t any attempt to pass any legislation. This isn’t even a case of “give them an inch, they take a mile.” The Republicans are simply gumming up the works. They don’t want any changes and the way to do that is to keep moving the target and keep the focus off real solutions.
Until the Democrats (and reasonable Republicans) stop chasing a consensus and start debating solutions, nothing is going to happen.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:02 amI don’t understand it.
In the eight years that George W. Bush occupied the White House, he got everything he asked for and more. Obama has a larger Democratic majority in the House and the Senate and he gets nothing.
I just don’t understand it.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:05 amLevi the Oracle says, “I did nothing wrong, but I got screwed by someone without insurance. Does anyone think mandatory health care insurance will be any different?”
Why do we need insurance companies to ruin America’s health care system?
Can’t we have a health care system (like Canada or Germany or France or Switzerland or Italy or Austria or Norway or Sweden) without insurance companies? Insurance companies add nothing of value to your health care. All they do is charge an extra 30% to 40% to your bill for shuffeling paperwork.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:23 amYou can bet the private insurers want a strong private mandate so more people will be forced to buy their product and make the reforms more palatable to them. So the Republican Senators are out of synch even with their corporate paymasters?
October 7th, 2009 at 7:37 amEven though I doubt their motives are especially honorable, I’ll add my voice to those who are with the Republicans on this one. Without a strong public option making insurance affordable, all the individual mandate does is force people who already can’t afford insurance to shell out money they don’t have. The fact that the mandate was a concession to the insurance companies should tell us all we need to know.
I can’t believe how badly the Dems have screwed this up.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:39 amIMO, a legislated ‘mandate’ for the average citizen to purchase health insurance can be complex:
1) employers will have a ‘public option’
2) otherwise they may be required to purchase health care for their employees, or keep a health care, ‘reserve fund’
3) pre-paid taxes will incentivize individuals to: a) seek health care, or b) to purchase health insurance for future illness
4) charity programs for the needy and the elderly, will be expanded, or ‘tailored’, so they ‘fit in’ with a new public health insurance agency
October 7th, 2009 at 8:22 amFreeze. The GOP. Out.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pmlevi im glad im not the only one. last time i voiced displeasure about the mandate, I got a double digit negative vote.
I fear we who believe this is an industry that shouldnt be allowed to mega-profit off something that happens to everyone, are the radical minority.
good to find common ground
October 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pmThank you for your sharing.!
October 11th, 2009 at 5:16 pmOnly allowing a seventy-two posting of a twelve hundred page bill is like reading War and Peace over the week end. meme küçültme ameliyatlari
October 13th, 2009 at 6:23 am