Don't like the health insurance mandate? Thank the Republicans, it was their idea...

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100324/pl_mcclatchy/3460142

""The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick , president of the South Florida Hospital and Health care Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain , a conservative Republican from Arizona , to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.

McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson , secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush .

Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008 , Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance."

Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney , who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.""

"Still, the concept was gathering a strong momentum. The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of America's largest companies, supported it in the summer of 2008, thinking it much better than a broad requirement to force businesses of all sizes to offer coverage — something that could increase business costs and make them less competitive."


No surprise really. The republicans are all about opposing Obama, rather than supporting even their OWN ideas for healthcare reform. Party over country? You betcha!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The way it was done is the flaw; not that it was done
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.""
That's hilarious. Romney trying to tell Libertarians what is not Libertarian. His argument is that essentially because the government has seen fit to obligate itself to a liability, it is not libertarian to oppose the mandatory payment of that cost. Mitt needs a boot to his statist ass.

Ironically the last sentence in this quote is perfectly true, but in the exact opposite way he intended it to mean.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
The way it was done is the flaw; not that it was done

You mean in that it wasn't done by republicans? Huge flaw!

As in: "Don't take my idea and use it for your political benefit! The idea is only good if I use it and get credit! I will throw a hissy fit now and call it a marxist agenda!"
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
That's hilarious. Romney trying to tell Libertarians what is not Libertarian. His argument is that essentially because the government has seen fit to obligate itself to a liability, it is not libertarian to oppose the mandatory payment of that cost. Mitt needs a boot to his statist ass.

Ironically the last sentence in this quote is perfectly true, but in the exact opposite way he intended it to mean.

To be fair, the following mini paragraph that I cut out for space, followed with

"Romney was referring to the federal law that requires everyone to be treated in emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay."
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
To be fair, the following mini paragraph that I cut out for space, followed with

"Romney was referring to the federal law that requires everyone to be treated in emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay."
I know that's what it was in reference to. That is a liability that the government has seen fit to impose without consent. I misspoke slightly when I said the government obligated itself to that cost. The situation is actually worse: the government has mandated that private citizens and corporations are obligated to pay that cost. The Libertarian claim is that the government's decision to impose a cost on the people can't be used as a moral premise for forcing the people to accept that cost. If Romney's line of reasoning were a legitimate argument then there would be no basis for opposing any government mandate at all!
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Yeah, this is basically a bill that sane Republicans would pass, while Democrats should be pushing for single payer. Of course there are no more sane Republicans and Democrats are passing sane Republican agenda, but hey, at least one party is doing something sane even if it's not their idea.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
No, the government forcing people to buy a product is the flaw. I don't give a shit who's idea it was, fuck the nanny state.

No problem with encouraging/helping people to get health insurance.

Forcing it by penalizing those that have it; those that are providing it; penalizing those that do not have it is WRONG
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
The Supreme Court is going to be in kind of a bind on this one. They've been eroding states rights for so long now, going to be interesting to see how they rule against this. Which I think they will, and rightfully so, as it is unconstitutional.

The car analogy is silly. Don't want car insurance? Don't own a car.

+1 to subby for partisan trolling. You're doing very nicely filling in for Phokus. Keep raising the bar!
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
LOL you sound like my kids trying to defer blame after screwing up. Like them I don't care who's idea it was but that the deeds were done.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
What happens if USSC votes against insurance mandate? No pre-existing condition exclusions without insurance mandate means insurers go out of business. :) Single payer, here we come :D
 

jstern01

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
532
0
71
The Supreme Court is going to be in kind of a bind on this one. They've been eroding states rights for so long now, going to be interesting to see how they rule against this. Which I think they will, and rightfully so, as it is unconstitutional.

It will be hard for the Supremes to rule it unconstitutional based upon the Commerce Clause and its very wide interpretation to enforce restrictions and requirements on individuals, overriding state's rights. Which the Supremes have continually upheld as constitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I just love how Democrats can never own up to their own. It is always somebody elses fault. Now this debacle is the fault of the early 90s Republicans lmao.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
There has never been a federal mandate to make people purchase something or else be punished. That power does not appear in the Constitution, and powers not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved for the States, or the people.

There's a pretty good chance this will be struck down.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
There has never been a federal mandate to make people purchase something or else be punished. That power does not appear in the Constitution, and powers not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved for the States, or the people.

There's a pretty good chance this will be struck down.

General Welfare, dude.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
My biggest problem is not with the insurance mandate, my bigger problem is with the socialist government takeover of healthcare. Forcing people to have insurance is needed as long as hospitals can not turn someone away for not having insurance. If a hospital is free to turn away someone because they don't have insurance, then I'd be fine with people not having insurance.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
No problem with encouraging/helping people to get health insurance.

Forcing it by penalizing those that have it; those that are providing it; penalizing those that do not have it is WRONG

I have no kids in school. Why am I being forced to pay taxes for the school fund? I will be penalized if don't pay that portion.

You don't want to insure your car for theft, fine. If it gets stolen no one will pay you for it - thats your loss.

You don't want to pay for health care coverage and you drop down with a heart attack. Should you be left where you are? If not, who will pay for your treatment? And where will that money come from?

You live in society not isolated on a remote island....


.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
This should be filed under selfpwn of the year nominee for that strong list of "conservatives" pointed at as evidence.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
I have no kids in school. Why am I being forced to pay taxes for the school fund? I will be penalized if don;t pay that portion.

You don't want to insure your car for theft, fine. If it gets stolen no one will pay you for it - thats your loss.

You don't want to pay for health care coverage and you drop down with a heart attack. Should you be left where you are? If not, who will pay for your treatment? And where will that money come from?

You live in society not isolated on a remote island....


.

The school benefits you anyway, even if you send no kids to it. It educates the public for the good of all. (well, it's supposed to educate them...)

Emergencies with the uninsured are already part of the insurance pool. It was not necessary to enact this bill to cover emergencies for the uninsured such as you describe. This was already covered.

If there's no money to cover everyone now, then there will certainly be no money to cover everyone under the new bill.