Individual Mandate Foe Inadvertently Refutes Self

Political Junky

Gold Member
May 27, 2009
25,793
3,990
280
It seems a number of republicans were for the individual mandate before.

Individual Mandate Foe Inadvertently Refutes Self | The New Republic

Jonathan ChaitFebruary 2, 2011 | 3:52 pm 5 comments

National Review's Iain Murray argues, "Now that the individual mandate has been found unconstitutional, some on the left are starting to claim it was a conservative idea originally." (Actually, some on the left have been pointing this out for a couple years, but never mind.) Nonsense, writes Murray, citing this 1994 paper from the Cato Institute:

It’s worth noting, though, that most of us in the free market movement have never embraced the health insurance purchase mandate. And I’m proud to dig out of the archives an old Cato Institute paper (pdf) written by my former CEI colleague Tom Miller(now at the American Enterprise Institute), which roundly criticizes the 1993-94 Republican compromise legislation. Tom found a lot of faults in those bills, and he singled out the individual purchase mandate as being especially egregious. While acknowledging that, from a political perspective, “any legislative alternative to the Clinton plan must guarantee universal coverage,” he wrote:
"The most troubling aspect of the Nickles-Stearns legislation, as introduced on November 20 [1993], is the mandate that it imposes on all Americans to purchase a standard package of health insurance benefits. By endorsing the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage, Nickles-Stearns undermines the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against all-intrusive governmental control of health care."
Wait. He's citing a paper criticizing the Republican health care plan, co-sponsored by arch-conservative Don Nickles, for including an individual mandate. Murray seems to think this refutes the fact that Republicans used to support the individual mandate.

Now, clearly, there were some fringe elements on the right who opposed an individual mandate (though not until until the entire GOP had abandoned the idea for political reasons did any of them think to argue it was actually unconstitutional .) The point is that Republicans, even very conservative Republicans, both created and supported the individual mandate for years before deciding en masse it was not only undesirable but an affront to liberty and the Constitution.
 
Old news and the republitards were wrong.

Stealing a stupid idea and making it part of their "plan" simply shows to go ya that, even though the republitards are the party of stupid ideas, the demotards are the party of no ideas.
 
Old news and the republitards were wrong.

Stealing a stupid idea and making it part of their "plan" simply shows to go ya that, even though the republitards are the party of stupid ideas, the demotards are the party of no ideas.

To be fair, the health care bill as it came through was an attempted compromise, since the original idea was a government funded system of universal health care.
 
Compromise with whom?

The only people the demotards seemed interested in placating and "compromising" with (read: bribing) were members of their own damned caucus.

Hell, they couldn't even peel off well known pushovers like Susan Collins and/or Olympia Snowe.
 
Well, this will come up again, and eventually we will join the sane nations and have a universal system that is for the benefit and health of the citizens of this nation, rather than the benefit of the wallets of the Health Care Insurance Companies.
 
Some people's opinions flipped even faster than that...

CNN.com - Transcripts

... the POTUS in Feb. 2008...
OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.
 
It's hard to make sense of the article except to determine that the intent is to try to make some sort of case about hypocrisy. Even when the left has a socialist president and still has a left wing majority in the senate they still can't tell us what a great vision they have for the Country. The small minds on the left have to concern themselves with attacking republicans.
 
It seems a number of republicans were for the individual mandate before.
Individual Mandate Foe Inadvertently Refutes Self | The New Republic

Jonathan ChaitFebruary 2, 2011 | 3:52 pm 5 comments

National Review's Iain Murray argues, "Now that the individual mandate has been found unconstitutional, some on the left are starting to claim it was a conservative idea originally." (Actually, some on the left have been pointing this out for a couple years, but never mind.) Nonsense, writes Murray, citing this 1994 paper from the Cato Institute:

It’s worth noting, though, that most of us in the free market movement have never embraced the health insurance purchase mandate. And I’m proud to dig out of the archives an old Cato Institute paper (pdf) written by my former CEI colleague Tom Miller(now at the American Enterprise Institute), which roundly criticizes the 1993-94 Republican compromise legislation. Tom found a lot of faults in those bills, and he singled out the individual purchase mandate as being especially egregious. While acknowledging that, from a political perspective, “any legislative alternative to the Clinton plan must guarantee universal coverage,” he wrote:
"The most troubling aspect of the Nickles-Stearns legislation, as introduced on November 20 [1993], is the mandate that it imposes on all Americans to purchase a standard package of health insurance benefits. By endorsing the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage, Nickles-Stearns undermines the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against all-intrusive governmental control of health care."
Wait. He's citing a paper criticizing the Republican health care plan, co-sponsored by arch-conservative Don Nickles, for including an individual mandate. Murray seems to think this refutes the fact that Republicans used to support the individual mandate.

Now, clearly, there were some fringe elements on the right who opposed an individual mandate (though not until until the entire GOP had abandoned the idea for political reasons did any of them think to argue it was actually unconstitutional .) The point is that Republicans, even very conservative Republicans, both created and supported the individual mandate for years before deciding en masse it was not only undesirable but an affront to liberty and the Constitution.
Republicans are legendary for their short-memories.....

Wankin.gif
March 23, 2010

"But at least two other Republicans in states whose attorneys general say that an individual mandate is unconstitutional went on the record as supporting the Wyden-Bennett version. They are therefore by the transitive property not supporters of the constitutional case, unless they've changed their minds.

They are Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho. Other Republican cosponsors included Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

Incidentally, Mitt Romney was a fan of the Wyden-Bennett approach, speaking of it favorably and noting in June of 2009 that many Republicans liked what they saw in it.

To paraphrase: politics is like fashion. One day you're in, and the next day, you're out."

HERE

*

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old news and the republitards were wrong.

Stealing a stupid idea and making it part of their "plan" simply shows to go ya that, even though the republitards are the party of stupid ideas, the demotards are the party of no ideas.

To be fair, the health care bill as it came through was an attempted compromise, since the original idea was a government funded system of universal health care.

That..should have been the outcome.
 
Old news and the republitards were wrong.

Stealing a stupid idea and making it part of their "plan" simply shows to go ya that, even though the republitards are the party of stupid ideas, the demotards are the party of no ideas.
....But, RECORD-BREAKING

SUCCESSES!!!!


*


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHK7zsz7xU&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWpBWP8krs&feature=related[/ame]


827.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
even though the republitards are the party of stupid ideas, the demotards are the party of no ideas.


I thought it was the other way around? :confused:

But maybe that's a distinction without a difference.
 
Old news and the republitards were wrong.

Stealing a stupid idea and making it part of their "plan" simply shows to go ya that, even though the republitards are the party of stupid ideas, the demotards are the party of no ideas.

To be fair, the health care bill as it came through was an attempted compromise, since the original idea was a government funded system of universal health care.
Let's see your proof it was government funded.

:eusa_eh:

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>​
 
Well, this will come up again, and eventually we will join the sane nations and have a universal system that is for the benefit and health of the citizens of this nation, rather than the benefit of the wallets of the Health Care Insurance Companies.

Look at all the insurance and drug companies that line the pockets of your democratic heros, you can rest assured Obamacare or any other healthcare related bill won't be passed unless it's a virtual guarantee to increase the profits of the biggest and most powerful companies in this area.
 
Compromise with whom?

The only people the demotards seemed interested in placating and "compromising" with (read: bribing) were members of their own damned caucus.

Hell, they couldn't even peel off well known pushovers like Susan Collins and/or Olympia Snowe.
....And, The only people the "conservatives" seem interested in placating and "compromising" with, are privately-owned health-in$urance hu$tler$!!!!





827.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, this will come up again, and eventually we will join the sane nations and have a universal system that is for the benefit and health of the citizens of this nation, rather than the benefit of the wallets of the Health Care Insurance Companies.
....And, a Dark Day it would BE!!!!!

HERE!!!!

woman_screaming1.png
 
Some people's opinions flipped even faster than that...

CNN.com - Transcripts

... the POTUS in Feb. 2008...
OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

303.gif


That was a cave to for-profit health-insurance companies, who said....If everyone bought health-insurance, they could provide it less-expensively!!

Now.....if you want to ELIMINATE all for-profit health-insurance (and, risk being called an anti-capitalist).....CLIMB ABOARD!!!!!!!
 
It's hard to make sense of the article except to determine that the intent is to try to make some sort of case about hypocrisy. Even when the left has a socialist president and still has a left wing majority in the senate they still can't tell us what a great vision they have for the Country. The small minds on the left have to concern themselves with attacking republicans.
Lemme guess....ya' got that from Bill O'Lielly, right??
Wankin.gif


HERE

* * * *

You're not gonna start WHIIIIIIIINING, like him....

HERE

.......are you????

:eusa_eh:
 

Forum List

Back
Top