ObamaCare: Is the GOP finally turning on the mandate?
posted at 8:36 am on September 23, 2009 by Karl
Sen. Chuck Grassley had already shifted his position to oppose forcing Americans to buy health insurance. Now it seems that Sen. GOP Whip Jon Kyl is calling the individual mandate a “stunning assault on liberty,” which suggests it may become a party position:
The attacks have confounded Democrats in and out of government, who noted quickly that mandating coverage was, until recently, a relative given when it came to health care reform.
“It’s f–ing ludicrous,” said one health care reform activist, who noted that when Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) asked committee members to air their disagreements with an individual mandate during a meeting on May 5, no one chimed in.
May was months ago. Talk Left’s Big Tent Democrat and AMERICAblog’s John Avarosis are much less surprised, though mostly out of cynicism. The fact is that the GOP followed the same pattern in 1993-94 — initially backing mandates, then backing off as big government healthcare schemes proved unpopular with voters.
A new Zogby poll has more bad news for mandates:
Less popular with 2010 voters is a key provision in Sen. Max Baucus’, D-Mont., recently unveiled health care bill that would require all Americans to purchase health insurance or face a hefty fine. A clear majority of voters in competitive Senate races (68 percent) oppose such a provision, as do 70 percent of voters in competitive House races.
Also unpopular is the so-called “employer mandate,” which would require large and small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees or face a fine. Fifty-nine percent of voters in competitive Senate races oppose the “employer mandate,” as do 60 percent of voters in competitive House races.
I generally take a Zogby poll with a grain of salt. However, the new NBC/WSJ poll has 59% of adults against the individual mandate, and there are currently more McCainocrat districts than Obamacan districts, so the Zogby numbers have a certain logic.
And while the mandate is an assault on liberty, the GOP would be well advised to start telling the public that a mandate-based system will likely result in soaring premiums and soaring healthcare costs, and from there to rationing. Sometimes, voters in the middle need to be reminded what the blessings of liberty are in practical terms.
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: 1 2 Next »
It shouldn’t be too hard to make mandates as toxic as a public option.
jhffmn on September 23, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Attack the mandate on all fronts!
A) it is very unpopular, and becomes more unpopular the more that people know about it.
B) taking down the mandate destroys the financial viability of the entire reform program, therefore if the mandate dies the program dies.
WWS on September 23, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Better late than never, I guess, to be attacking this horrible aspect of “the plan.”
Ex-Dem on September 23, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Nope Karl
The liberty and freedom line is the best. I could care less if my premiums were double if I had the freedom to choose. The moment the gov tells me what i need to do. Is the day i rebel against it. The people in gov are uneducated hacks that thing through a miracle of birth they are destined to rule
unseen on September 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Now this is a telling number.
I’m not interested how the voters in areas that will go Dem or Rep, no matter what happens feel.
It’s the voters in competitive areas that will determine whether this program is eventually passed or defeated.
MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Didn’t Teh Mittens include Mandates as Part of Mittcare?
Just asking….
victor82 on September 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I ignore all Zogby polls even when they agree with my point of view. The guy is the worst of all the pollsters.
Warner Todd Huston on September 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM
This is why I have so much trouble supporting the GOP.
They should have been raising Hell about this lunacy from the very beginning.
Dave R. on September 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Could someone just acknowledge, even in passing, that the U.S. Congress doesn’t appear to be authorized to command “insurance coverage” under Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution?
Kralizec on September 23, 2009 at 2:00 PM
WOW! The ABC News affiliate sponsoring my KAOK Cumulus Internet Radio feed out of Lake Charles, LA Broadcast just had their commercial News feed say that “the government will slow it’s purchasing of mortgage backed loans now that the recession is over…” AND that “Pres. Obama seeks to put the “UNITED” back in the United Nations…” then aired a clip of Pres. Obama saying that it’s “no longer a zero sum game”. So it’s now the job of the Pres. of the United States to give up our sovereignty and ‘unite’ with the UN unilaterally? ABC in Louisiana sure does have an interesting take on things.
Sultry Beauty on September 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM
squish
do the RHINO dance
squish
pseudonominus on September 23, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Calm yourself, Dave. Patience. There were a lot of things to be upset about, and the mandates are just the latest. The bill(s) are larded up with problems…it’s the worst bill(s) ever written. It’s enraging the Dems, particularly when it’s Dem infighting that’s the real problem.
Think: moving target, moving goalposts. Makes the Dems crazier. Serves them right, trying to create a ‘crisis.’
All the bills need to be scrapped. No need for such a drastic course. You don’t tear down the house because the front door is broken.
marybel on September 23, 2009 at 2:10 PM
They insinuate that the GOP uses recycled tactics from the 1990′s!!! Well, the democrats are like a broken record – they’ve dominated our government for 80+ years and they’re still up to their same corrupt tricks with more of the same socialist ideas. If it worked for the GOP in the ’90s then we need it again now with the putz we’ve got in the White House.
mozalf on September 23, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Thank you. That should be the first and loudest objection to this travesty. Once that line is crossed, where would it end? I know that the “slippery slope” argument has been “done to death”, but in this case it is most appropriate.
hillbillyjim on September 23, 2009 at 2:14 PM
unseen wrote:
Of course, what I wrote was:
Based on my observations of the site over time, I think I’m on pretty firm ground that the overwhelming number of commenters here — and unseen in particular — are not “voters in the middle.” I am fairly sure that the GOP does not need to make the case against ObamaCare to unseen and the vast majority of the rest of us here at HotAir. People in the middle, not paying much attention to politics, are more likely to pay attention if you tell them the IRS is going to take $3,800 annually out of their pocket.
Karl on September 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Constitution?!? I think we have more important things to deal with here than the Constitution! What about the children?!? /sarc.
Seriously, to recognize the limits of the Constitution would be to recognize that Congress has done many, many things over the years that it didn’t have authority to do. But it’s about time the American people recognize that and put a stop to it. Period.
I no longer question the education, wisdom or intent of the current administration and liberals in Congress. The only answer is that they must be intent on destroying our nation. That is the simplest explanation for the current situation.
j_galt on September 23, 2009 at 2:17 PM
I was a little less blunt about it, but I did explain why this particular Zogby poll seems more or less in line with other polling. Also, Zogby Interactive is about the worst, but regular Zogby is far from the worst.
Karl on September 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Yes indeed. And the final link in the post addresses that in part.
Karl on September 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I don’t understand why this mandate is always a part of these bills in the beginning, and then the GOP comes out against it when they see voters fighting it. To me, it makes no sense. It’s not like car insurance, which is there 1) to protect the other drivers from you and vice versa, and 2) NOT REQUIRED IF YOU DON’T OWN A CAR.
I guess if we stop breathing, we won’t be required to carry health insurance.
bilups on September 23, 2009 at 2:27 PM
We face a horrible choice:
1. Start letting the sick and injured die at the hospital door if they can’t produce proof of insurance; or
2. Force responsible people to pay for the medical care of people who chose to forgo insurance (aka “the status quo”); or
3. Force people to buy insurance whether they want it or not.
The first is the ideal free-market choice, but it is inhumane. If my wife gets mugged, and the mugger takes her purse with her insurance card, she couldn’t get insurance. No, it may be unfair, but we shouldn’t turn anyone away at the ER.
The second is the status quo. Yeah, everyone has a choice whether or not to get insurance; but that means that those of us who are responsible wind up paying for medical care for those who are irresponsible, which is a violation of personal liberty.
The third is also a violation of personal liberty; but it is at least FAIR, in that each person (who can at all afford to) provides for himself.
This should be done in conjunction with HSAs, and should permit purchase of inexpensive catastrophic care policies that will limit the burden that any one individual will place on the rest of society.
RegularJoe on September 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM
correction
…If my wife gets mugged, and the mugger takes her purse with her insurance card, she couldn’t get
insuranceemergency treatment….RegularJoe on September 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Drudge headlining Dems block GOP amendment that would give them 72 hrs to read the bill!
Tom
marinetbryant on September 23, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I think the echo boomers figured out they were getting roped in to pay for the boomers!
Queen0fCups on September 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM
I am against mandates but would bend a little if they took the form of high deductible, catastrophic policies.
I mean I have car insurance but it only covers liability, not oil changes.
Laurence on September 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM
How about a mandate that voters need to take an exam on the constitution and identifying the issues at hand. Better yet, how about a mandate that forces all legislation to be read aloud and to which part of the constitution it that authorizes it.
larvcom on September 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Oh, sorry, that’s racism thru and thru!
larvcom on September 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM
The Individual Mandate.
I don’t believe it is Constitutional or could survive a Constitutional Challenge.
If you can force Americans aka Free People to “Buy” private coverage, from a private company. What would the Government make Free People, Buy next?
Dr Evil on September 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM
How about “Dreams From My Father” or Mein Kampf
larvcom on September 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Forget the liberty and freedom argument…mandates fly in the face of one of the main purposes of reform, which is to make coverage available to those who can’t afford it. Mandating coverage, the purpose being that if everyone is covered than it helps further reign in the costs – a legitimate argument – nevertheless forces those on the fringe to have to pay for coverage they may or may not be able to afford month to month or yearly despite lower premium costs. Sorry to say it, but that’s the reason why there should be a public option in the plan.
Halli Casser-Jayne http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
The CJ Political Report on September 23, 2009 at 2:49 PM
HOWS THAT HOPE AND CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU YOUNG OBAMA VOTERS? Give up that ipod and send that money to big government! LMAO
marklmail on September 23, 2009 at 2:51 PM
They won’t have to pay. They’ll be subsidized. At least that’s what I expect to hear next. Charge everyone, but subsidize those who can’t afford it. I kid you not; look for it as a ‘compromise’.
ROCnPhilly on September 23, 2009 at 3:10 PM
So, to hell with the Constitution?
hillbillyjim on September 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Regular Joe, your three options create an erectilely disfunctional strawman. These are not the only options available.
We could start with expansion of insurance company competition in all states.
Next we could include tort reform, with sanctions for lawyers and plaintiffs who engage in spurious law suits. Said tort reform could also include a “loser pays” provision to discourage speculative law suits.
The Democrat leadership does not want to talk about these options. Do YOU?
BillyGoatGruff on September 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Another pet peeve related to the “reform” of health care is the spread of lawyers trolling for clients. At one time in the US it was considered unethical and illegal for lawyers to advertise for clients. It was called barratry.(another, less compementary term is “ambulance chaser”). I wish we could revive this prohibition.
BillyGoatGruff on September 23, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Insurance at it’s core is socialist (IMO). The masses pay in hoping to never have to use it, the few that do use it are getting taken care of by the many, and the frauds that cheat the system corrupt the whole process. It just adds another layer of folks that need to get a paycheck, and a bigger target for the lawyers to go after.
aceinstall on September 23, 2009 at 3:28 PM
How about “Dreams From My Father” or Mein Kampf
larvcom on September 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Good one, maybe closer to reality than I’d like.
aceinstall on September 23, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Time to put in a mandatory order for reading the bills on the floor.
The bill can still be read in congress: that step is skipped only because everyone agrees to it.
If one congressman and one senator revokes universal consent (by demanding the bill be read) then according to the rules of both house and senate the bill must be read on the floor.
And whoever does that will always have my gratitude and my vote.
Chaz706 on September 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Insurance –for the time being, at least– is voluntary, not mandatory. It is a calculated risk for both parties, and up to each individual to decide whether or not the cost is worth the reduction of risk of possible future costs. Participation in this risk-dilution scheme should not be made mandatory, and in fact, for the government to do so flies in the face of the Constitution.
hillbillyjim on September 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM
The subsidies are already in the Baucus bill. Where’s the money coming from? Taxes? So the ‘reform’ has the uninsured now insured but we pay for it. WOW that’s like today. The uninsured go to the ER and the hospital management firm eats it. Other than forcing me to pay a new $3,800 TAX where’s the reform?
As an aside, has anyone noticed the third party payer liability in the Baucus bill?
Legally Medicaid is the third party payer for claims. HR3200 had trial lawyers NEWLY allowed to sue Medicaid. But… isn’t that coverage provided by private insurers?
Why yes it is.
My point is when 85% of the people are happy with the status quo, LEAVE IT ALONE!
Handing out $4,000 per year to 10 Million uninsured is $4 Billion. Look everyone! I just reformed healthcare and saved $1.296 Trillion dollars. (That’s the Baucus method for those who are asking)
Blacksmith8 on September 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM
The GOP, and even many so called conservatives, are very quick to believe that they have a right, even obligation, to tell other people how to run their lives.
MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM
In this mythical world of yours, there is no place for charity, it doesn’t even exist?
Either govt pay for people’s health care, or they die?
MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Dude, a mandate is a mandate. What were you thinking? If they only mandate that I have to buy one postage stamp every year to support the USPS, it’s a mandate. Next year, next month, tomorrow, doesn’t matter, very soon,… well we’re gonna make that four stamps. Then it’s open season, you conservatives will have to provide 1,000 stamps for your family and subsidize stamps for indigent, immigrant, illegal, and ignorant liberals.
Oh wait, that’s exactly how we got here isn’t it?
Come on Laurence say it with me.
Mandates are bad.
Freedom is good.
See, I knew you could do it.
Now, doesn’t that feel better?
Nancy Reagan had it right – Just say NO to mandates.
Blacksmith8 on September 23, 2009 at 3:49 PM
You think charity will cover the billions of dollars in care for the uninsured, and you think I’m living in a mythical world?
Someone pays for it. In some cases it’s the government (i.e. “me”); in other cases, it’s (indirectly but inevitably) the people who are responsible enough to insure themselves (i.e. “me”).
I feel charitable enough, thanks all the same.
RegularJoe on September 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM
You accuse me of a strawman (I think you actually meant “false choice”, but logic isn’t everyone’s cup of tea). Ironically, in the process YOU offer a strawman. You cast my argument as though I’m opposed to tort reform (I’m not) and interstate insurance competition (all for it!)
Tort reform will cut overall costs, and it’s definitely good (although I might add that IT is not ‘free market’, in the sense that the government mandates a maximum civil penalty). And by all means, expanded choices of available coverage are GREAT!!
In case I was anything less than clear, I’m not tooting the horn for Obamacare AT ALL. Mandates are the ONLY thing in the steaming pile of crap that I think worth keeping.
RegularJoe on September 23, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Your statement is blatantly false. She would still get emergency treatment, and her insurance would still pay for it, whether she could produce an insurance card or not. Billing the insurance company is done after the fact, and your wife would be able to produce insurance documentation at that time.
Try again.
Dominion on September 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Health care is a complicated issue because no two people have the same needs, preferences, or desires. And because healthcare is a life or death matter, it needs to be of the highest quality that most people can afford.
Healthcare, without question, is scarce however. This is what causes the costs we have today.
What’s a system that’s good at dealing with scarcity, while at the same time serving the needs of individuals at reasonable costs to those individuals…
C’mon… say it with me now…
Capitalism.
That’s right, free markets, free individuals making decisions.
So many have said the system is broken because of it…
…yet it’s the only thing that can save the healthcare industry.
Sadly, so few understand this. Granted, many on this board sees this and it makes sense to them, but what about everyone else?
Chaz706 on September 23, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Of course not. I’m not a constitutional scholar, and to me it is not 100% certain whether this can be accomplished under the constitution. If not, I remind you that our Constitution provides a mechanism for its own amendment.
RegularJoe on September 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Here’s a good example of an unisured American. I have a Nephew that is married with two chidren, a three and one year old. They are uninsured because he cannot afford said insurance. He is an avid fisherman and fishes every podunk fishing tournament that he possibly can, at the cost of at least 120 dollars a tournament. I suspect his story is simular to many that “cannot afford insurance”. It pisses me off.
Sorry, had to vent.
SubVet735 on September 23, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Please take note that “status quo” (which you describe) is my option 2. Under the status quo she WOULD receive care, and (in our case) our insurance would pay the bill; but many of the other people coming through the ER that day would NOT be insured, and the bill wouldn’t get paid, so their care would be subsidized by the hospital charging a higher rate for my care, and my insurance company passing that cost along to me.
Option 1 would be the true free-market approach: you either pay, or prove you have insurance to pay, before you see a doctor. No proof of insurance (as my example posits)? Hit the bricks. THAT is what I refer to as inhumane.
RegularJoe on September 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »