Durbin: Mandate? What mandates?
posted at 1:38 pm on September 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Senator Dick Durbin appeared on local Chicago television last night for a town-hall forum on health care — and wound up looking completely ignorant of the debate. Two constituents wanted to know whether Durbin supported the individual mandates contained in HR3200, and Durbin pleaded ignorance. Worse, when asked whether he would oppose individual mandates in a Senate bill, Durbin refused to provide an answer:
It’s a darned good thing this didn’t get rushed through Congress, like Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in both chambers of Congress wanted, isn’t it? After six months, Durbin can’t even declare his position on one of the biggest issues within the debate. He’s the #2 person in the Senate Democratic caucus, and he acts as though he’s never heard of an individual mandate.
In a way, though, Durbin did give his answer. He has no problem with them. Durbin just needs to see how they’re written into the bill to give his approval. If he had a problem with mandates, he would reject the idea out of hand — which is exactly what he should have done here.
The questioner, by the way, does an excellent job of shooting down the car-insurance argument. Mandates for car insurance are linked to car registration and licensing drivers by the states, both of which are voluntary choices by citizens to use public roads. A federal mandate for health insurance is something else entirely, and the constituent does a good job of explaining that.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Loss of employment does trigger bankruptcy but it’s the loss of income rather than the loss of health insurance.
Not having health insurance and then having a pile of medical bills is obviously a serious problem, but Durbin is deliberately confusing foreclosures with bankruptcy–which often do not go together.
The key to avoiding either disaster ( like Ulysses did in that Old Greek Story that Homer Simpson wrote ) is to have little or no debt and a lotta savings. Duh–oooh
Janos Hunyadi on September 2, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Exactly, I don’t get the pleasure of interacting with the DMV enough, so health care provided by DC turds would help. Hope fully the public option will maintain prices like the US Post Office.
Wade on September 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM
emphasis on the ration part…
Fighton03 on September 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM
BleedsBlue is gone from this thread. Back to some lefty blog to tell of its exploits and how it shreaded our arguments and counter-arguments. That part about anything can be done if it is a tax is dang convincing.
WashJeff on September 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM
One of the big problems with self-insuring is that the system is set up to deal with government declarations of fee schedules. “Retail prices” for medical procedures are intentionally over-inflated to take into account government refusals to pay full price. Individuals get screwed in this system, since an operation that is billed at, say, $10,000 takes less than that from the federal government (and all insurance, to compensate for the government intrusion and warping of retail pricing) but the individual would be the only one charged the actual retail price. Federal government involvement in health care has warped the system so much that it has become a system totally unfair to the individual.
progressoverpeace on September 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM
If you’re coming to MA for government health-care, you’ll have to hurry: it’s going broke and they’ve just begun to ration it.
Rod on September 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM
What I was told by Unreliable Sources was that Ryan was shopping his wife on what passes for the Swingers’ Scene in Chi-town. Wife-swapping, Roman debauchery, etc
But I could be wrong……..( nice goods, though )
Janos Hunyadi on September 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Though we should probably push for privatizing them where possible. The best highways I have seen are toll roads.
Count to 10 on September 2, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Everyone will be able to have any color and size car that they want, just as long as it is black and no bigger than a golf cart.
MB4 on September 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Which is why the libs are in such a push to expand the system nationwide. That’s the only way they will be able to save the Mass system, and reinstitute the other state attempts to do the same sorts of things that were cancelled due to financial disaster – as with Kiki-Care in Hawaii, that had a long distinguished life of something like 8 months before its budget ran out of space.
progressoverpeace on September 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I can’t imagine how quickly I would go out of business if I never reviewed the machine designs coming out from my company.
jukin on September 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Though we should probably push for privatizing them where possible. The best highways I have seen are toll roads.
(Is something funky happening with comments? I tried posting, but it didn’t show up, and, when I tried again, it told me it was a duplicate.)
Count to 10 on September 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I’ve never understood how liberals can completely fail to see that the failure of their policies is not a problem of scale, it’s a problem of spending more than you can bring in.
Whether you’re spending $10 and bringing in $2, or spending $10,000 billion and bringing in $2,000 billion, it’s not going to be sustainable.
hawksruleva on September 2, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Taxation, as approved in Article 1 Section 8 is only to support the duly delegated powers that are listed. Those powers represent the only powers granted to federal government to promote the “general welfare”. Your roads argument is spurious from at least two directions of argument in the enumerated powers (post roads and interstate commerce). It is also empty in that the states maintain there portions of the highway system using federal funds, not the federal government itself.
Fighton03 on September 2, 2009 at 2:37 PM
If that is true, he was not fit to govern in the Senate. If you are willing to trade her for others, I SERIOUSLY have to question his decision making abilities.
WashJeff on September 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM
While mostly true, those that want to self-insure can negotiate with providers. Many providers are more than happy to negotiate for cash-paying customers. Individuals do get charged higher rates to make up for not only lower government reimbursements, but indigent care as well. Many hospitals are now requiring payments prior to admission.
My statement was general in nature as regards the concept of insurance. It is usually easier to self-insure for property damage, providng there are no out-standing liens, and you would be able to finance a reconstruction or repairs.
ICBM on September 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Durbin would like to see how it is written…what courage!
d1carter on September 2, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Massachuttes is a great place for liberty:
Wade on September 2, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Don’t put me in poopsblue’s corner, but isn’t the problem that these invincibles don’t, in fact, self-insure? They have a catastrophic accident in which they’re at fault and can’t resort to the tort system, so the public ends up picking up their tab.
I don’t like the imposition of mandates, but how do we deal with these ineffective self-insurers who, in effect, become charges on the state. And to convince insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and to convince them not to drop insureds, aren’t mandates the bone that must be thrown to them?
I’m not for Obamacare, but I think we’ll end up with requiring insurers to cover all who apply. Will we subsidize the premiums for chronically ill people with tax dollars?
I’m not advocating a position so much as I’m looking for a solution. Oh, and I don’t buy the 45 million uninsured nonsense. I heard again last night that one-quarter are illegal aliens (law-enforcement, not healthcare, issue), one-quarter are eligible for existing programs (Medicaid, S-chip–both enrollment issues), one-quarter are the “self-insureds” (mandate or what?), and one-quarter are chronically ill (those who should be some of the focus of reform).
Anyone? Anyone?
BuckeyeSam on September 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Because liberals don’t care about sustainability, in the least. All they want is to implement their ideas for as long as they last. They know that all of their ideas will come crashing down, eventually, but they just want to live under them for as long as possible and leave the problems with the crash to those who (they hope) come after them. Liberals are the most selfish people on the planet. Everything they do is intended to do nothing but satisfy their petty emotional desires in the short run. They don’t care about the long run.
Added to this is the sad fact that liberals tend to be “staticists” – people who don’t understand the dynamics of the world and like to think that everything just stays as it is. That’s the only reason that they believe that power can be concentrated, since they look around society, think that they know the answers for everything right now, and assume that an individual, or presidio of sorts, will always be able to rule over a situation that remains essentially the same. Staticists are even more dangerous than statists, since growth and dynamics are what the world is all about.
I get a kick out the fact that liberals scream bloody murder that evolution must be taught as LAW in high schools, but you’ll never find a liberal who has ever met an evolutionary pressure he didn’t think he knew better than. Liberals can tell us which species must live and which must die. Liberals know which businesses need to stay and which need to go. Liberals know everything, and their world never really changes (in their minds) so it is without question that power should be concentrated in the hands of such all-knowing figures.
progressoverpeace on September 2, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I know it’s a similar sounding one but the correct word you were looking for is rationed.
anuts on September 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I agree with your point on insurance and people choosing to bear the financial risk, themselves, and I’m all for self-insuring. I just wanted to point out that government interference (specifically federal government interference) has biased the system against individuals.
progressoverpeace on September 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
In Virginia they built several roads and bridges with tolls and when they were paid for, they removed the tolls. It was like a miracle or something.
Cindy Munford on September 2, 2009 at 2:52 PM
You should not get so upset with
commentortormentor “Bleeds Blue”. His mother did not have any children who lived.jarhead0311 on September 2, 2009 at 2:52 PM
ROFL! Sir, the Constitution lays out what the Federal Government is ALLOWED to do. And of course there’s that pesky little thing called the Tenth Amendment…
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Well, let’s see. We have…
Article I Section 8 Clause 7: To establish post offices and post roads;
…and especially…
Article I Section 8 Clause 3: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
The above clause is called the “Commerce Clause”, and allows Congress to set rules of commerce among THE STATES (not the businesses in those states). Thus, Congress DOES have the power to provide and regulate highways that connect the states, upon which commerce travels.
Uhmmmm… I’m kind of at a loss for words. Taxes do not equate to healthcare… unless you’re talking about taxing people to death so that you don’t have to worry about keeping them alive with “healthcare”…
dominigan on September 2, 2009 at 2:54 PM
It comes down to the point that people have a right to refuse to buy health insurance, but they must be held responsible for their decision and are not entitled to health care that they cannot afford.
The whole health care debate seems to revolve, silently – as if about a black hole – around the idea that people must be treated if they just show up at a hospital. Few are willing to say that, if you aren’t covered and can’t pay, you don’t deserve care. People are loathe to apply personal responsibility and want us all to pay for their emotional handicap – their runaway empathy.
This is not much different from authorities trying to arrest people who want to go surf in a storm. There is some odd notion that if the state tells people not to go to a beach, since rescues will not be forthcoming, but people go anyway, that we are still responsible to rescue them. People have a right to take personal risks and no one is bound to save them from their own decisions.
progressoverpeace on September 2, 2009 at 2:58 PM
According to a certain attorney, AMericas healthcare problem can be traced to greedy doctors and greedy insurance companies.
I think if you dig a little deeper, you will find that greey attorneys are in fact the root of the problem. The seed that sprouts into inflated healthcare costs that drive up insurance premiums that cause rationing and an unecessary burden on the us treasury can all be traced to greedy attorneys. It all starts right there.
ANd we have too many attorneys in government and the media for that matter, so the sheep will not get that message from them, they will have to figure that out for themselves.
They use language, traps, things like race, to divide us, while they take us for every penny they can while were fighting each other.
Greedy doctors my a$$.
CriticalUpdate on September 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM
No worries, I have seen enough of your posts to know where you basically stand. My statement had more to do with the overall concept of insurance. In all fairness, those who can realistically self-insure, are quite selective in what they choose to self-insure. One of the biggest threats to people of means is liability, and they are invariably well-insured against liability. Specifically, in regards to health insurance, there is a group who choose not to because they are young and infallible, and/or would rather spend their money on other things.
ICBM on September 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM
But, then you don’t give Uncle Sam the right to bully you because he gave you money.
hawksruleva on September 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Oh, and by the way…
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 US Constitution:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 US Constitution:
To establish post offices and post roads;
anuts on September 2, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Well said. Now if only we coudl teach the American people this lesson, so they’d never fall for the “I’ll take away your worries” strategy again.
hawksruleva on September 2, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Thanks for catching that!
Just for review on the uses of tax monies…
Article I Section 8 Clause 1: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Keep in mind that Clause 1 is a summary clause, with the enumerations laid out in the clauses following.
dominigan on September 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Dumba$$ Durbin was the first Senator to support Barry Obama for president, so what does anyone expect? He became a congressman in 1982 and a senator in 1996. He has obviously forgotten his blue collar roots, coming from East St. Louis, working his way through high school in a meat packing plant. Someone needs to remind him that the people in the Senate ain’t the aristocrasy.
labwriter on September 2, 2009 at 3:06 PM
And Durbin the Clown does not even know what Hussein is proposing. This does not suprise me. I am not really sure that Hussein even knows what is in his plan. What about the Congress option! Would they be covered under the same program….?
LMAO
BigMike252 on September 2, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Don’t forget that Medicare payments for procedures are set by government. To “contain costs”, they pay less than private insurance for those same procedures, because the government forces them to accept those payments.
The loss that the provider would experience with a Medicare patient is passed along to the private-insurance patients.
Private insurance healthcare is more expensive BECAUSE of Government meddling… not in spite of it!
dominigan on September 2, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Indeed. If we weren’t throwing so much money into the giant pot of welfare, we could all afford better health care. That’s why I maintain that if health care is a right, then government health care for others is a violation of my right to care. It diminishes my ability to get my own insurance.
But of course, health care is NOT a right. Despite what Mike Steele may say.
hawksruleva on September 2, 2009 at 3:08 PM
I agree with everything you say in your post, but highlighted what I want to focus on. People of means invariably insure themselves. So, I think, the category is largely populated by young people or people of modest means who decide to “wing it.” For example, I think of my nephew who graduated from college in May, declined to get a catastrohic bridge policy, but luckily landed a decent job.
Again, mandates for these people may not be the answer, but I’d love for those clowns making these policy decisions to determine how much our paying for their infrequent (catastrophic or otherwise) care weighs us down.
BuckeyeSam on September 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM
It’s dangerous to give libs even the benefit of the hypothetical for the sake of argument, but you put it well within that context, hawks.
progressoverpeace on September 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Do you know how much this actually costs, though? I mean, if 99% of the people who don’t have insurance because they consider themselves “invincible” don’t incur medical costs that they can’t pay, either out of pocket or over time, then how much of the bill is there to actually pick up?
I see this argument thrown around, but what are the numbers? I’m not saying you know, but my hunch is that they aren’t that large because these people really are generally healthy, otherwise they’d be willing to buy insurance.
venividivici on September 2, 2009 at 3:21 PM
What the health care system needs to do is get a clue. STOP charging outrageous fees. There’s no way a 6 hour surgery should cost more than a brand new Lexus. And what is more obscene? They don’t give the person paying for it on their own a discount, yet to an insurance company or to medicare/medicaid they don’t close to the whole fee they charge.
And the government needs to take away as many things as it can that are causing the sky-rocketing health care costs. Lets start with torte reform. Lets look at government regulations, keep the ones needed and streamline them as much as possible, then TOSS all the other red tape garbage that’s weighing heavy on the health care system.
I absolutely don’t want government health care, but if something isn’t done about the sky-rocketing costs of health care, then were all going to get saddled with sucky government health care. Wise up doctors, take one less fancy vacation, make your fees as low as you can and still have a decent lifestyle, but quite trying to pay for half of your new house with one day’s work. Yes, yes, yes….we all know how much your education costs, and how long it too. Teachers spend at least 5 years in school, and then are required to do continuing education, they don’t come close to your fees, should you really make 5 or 6 times more for only twice the time in school?
Look at countries like India, where they have TONS of doctors, and not so many lawyers. Because the health care profession there isn’t treated like a guarantee of living like royalty, they can’t get away like charging so much. Wise up doctors, hospitals, drug companies, don’t price yourselves into the hands of big government. It’s really not in any of our interests.
flyfishingdad on September 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Don’t know what’s in the bill, but let’s pass that sonabitch now. We can’t delay. Whatever is wrong with the bill we’ll fix later.
Ya, Right.
PappaMac on September 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM
argh! I have got to spell check my posts!
flyfishingdad on September 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Love how the douche with the microphone gets schooled by the questioner. That was sweet.
Sugar Land on September 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Well, those two gentleman (not anyone on the panel) MUST be examples of astroturfing, Big Pharma, TEA-bagging, redneck, illspoken morons Nancy Pelosi and others keep warning us about…
catmman on September 2, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Go LANDOFDAFREE and HOMEOFDABRAVE!
He will know what I mean.
YOU are so welcome.
HOTAIR IS THE BOMB!
Nocensorhipyouknowwho.
Conservaboomer on September 2, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Be patient, that will change.
Wade on September 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Another blight on America from Illinois. I’d ask you to feel sorry for us in Illinois, but our mistakes are now the Country’s. I guess we owe the Country an apology for these crooks: Durbin, Burris, Foster, Kirk, the Emanuel boys, Axelrod, etc… and, of course, Obama. The list does not appear to end. I didn’t vote for any of them, but I am from Illinois and… I’m sorry.
Hobbes on September 2, 2009 at 4:23 PM
+2 (me and husband)
momof2 on September 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM
LOL…. sounds like one of those Radio broadcasts they used to do to the Undergrounds in WWII.
“The Horse, is in, the pen… I repeat, the Horse, is in, the Pen…”
Romeo13 on September 2, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I’m personally thinking of becoming a Democrat. The fact that I need not work appeals to me now, along with getting my lifestyle paid for by working dopes.Then there’s the not having to think that is a really nice benefit.
Jeff from WI on September 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM
It is frightening just how stupid some of these people really are.
Terrye on September 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Bleeds Blue is Exhibit “A” in the case for not sending your child, or any child, to a government school.
Dave R. on September 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM
The host, Phil Ponce is a putz; laughing at that educated citizen when he totally had no idea what the difference is btw FEDERAL and STATE. I live in the viewing area and I see his face when I channel-surf, now I’m going to always remember this exchange.
On to a happier note, I’m so heartened as an Illinoisan to see such educated citizens! Both made sense, but I esp. liked hearing the second man speak. I loved that he had an answer for that sneering, ignorant host.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on September 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Durbin-DUMBER than DIRT!!!!!!!
mobydutch on September 2, 2009 at 8:15 PM
You can CHOOSE to not drive. The car insurance argument doesn’t work.
roasted7 on September 2, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I don’t know what Dick thinks bankruptcy is for — maybe taking lavish vacations and getting really fancy cars and houses — rather then for the uncontrolled tragedies it was really intended for. That is the point — be responsible and you have an out. This drives me crazy every time it is brought up. It is a last resort tool for when you have been responsible not an easy out when you were an idiot!
LifeTrek on September 2, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2