If Obamacare not overturned, GOP should embrace the individual mandate concept

[glenn1]

Let's say the Supreme Court leaves Obamacare intact, leaving in place the individual mandate. It's completely naive to believe that such a new power will be used one time only for health insurance and won't be commonly used in the future by politicians; if you don't believe me then check the history of the income tax which was to be temporary and only a percent or two for the very rich. Why then should the GOP not "weaponize" the mandate concept to achieve their desired policy goals? With a handful of carefully crafted mandates and penalties to enforce them, you could essentially gut the transfer payment system in the U.S. For instance, a nice simple mandate that everyone open and put money into a private individual retirement savings account, or we'll hit you with a hefty penalty (or is it a tax?). Or maybe just make it easier and take away your social security payments. Either way, it's a huge win - either people change their behavior to meet your desired policy outcome, or you save lots of money by garnishing wages, earned income tax credits, and the such of those who refuse.

 

[Infohawk]

The bigger issues with privatizing social security will be political. Especially after this recession I don't think there's a lot of demand for it.

 

[sactoking]

The bigger issues with privatizing social security will be political. Especially after this recession I don't think there's a lot of demand for it.

Agreed. The main reason "Obamacare" passed was that so many people were sick and tired of the GWB era that they elected a Democratic House, Senate, and President and the discontent went so far as to not really question what came from their representatives.

In order to "weaponize" the individual mandate a party would need to control both houses of Congress and the White House and have general sentiment about the outgoing administration to be in the toilet. If you have both houses but not the presidency a bill would be vetoed and having one house and the presidency would lead to a filibuster or no vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. The individual mandate is a Republican idea, first advanced by the Heritage Foundation over 20 years ago. It was proposed as an alternative to Hillarycare.

Repubs were for it before they were against it...

Whatever Obama does, they're against it.

 

[FoBoT]

and ideologues wonder why some people don't vote

 

[momeNt]

Mandates would control markets so much better tbh. Dropping my libertarianism now.

 

[xBiffx]

Heh. The individual mandate is a Republican idea, first advanced by the Heritage Foundation over 20 years ago. It was proposed as an alternative to Hillarycare.

Repubs were for it before they were against it...

Whatever Obama does, they're against it.

What's wrong with change, was ok during the last election.

And democrats of yesteryear were for donning white robes and hoods and burning crosses.

Dems were for it before they were against it...

Change you can believe in.

 

[theeedude]

The OP seems to just now be catching on to why it was a Republican idea in the first place.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Xbiff - Straw man.

The point being, the Republican party has not changed their political position/stance/mandate since the time the Heritage foundation drafted this particular piece of legislation, but yet now when it is included in something they are against it because they were not the ones to present it.

I believe if positions were reversed, they would be endorsing a similar plan to this that was presented my McCain & Co.

 

[Ausm]

The bigger issues with privatizing social security will be political. Especially after this recession I don't think there's a lot of demand for it.

That's a GOP wet dream and a sloppy wet kiss w/tongue to Wall Street might I add.

 

[Ausm]

What's wrong with change, was ok during the last election.

And democrats of yesteryear were for donning white robes and hoods and burning crosses.

Dems were for it before they were against it...

Change you can believe in.

OMG...Like playing both sides of the fence much?? LMFAO

 

[JockoJohnson]

That's a GOP wet dream and a sloppy wet kiss w/tongue to Wall Street might I add.

You're not so naive to believe that the Democrats don't have their tongues up Wall's Street ass either, right?

 

[xBiffx]

Xbiff - Straw man.

The point being, the Republican party has not changed their political position/stance/mandate since the time the Heritage foundation drafted this particular piece of legislation, but yet now when it is included in something they are against it because they were not the ones to present it.

I believe if positions were reversed, they would be endorsing a similar plan to this that was presented my McCain & Co.

The republican party hasn't changed in twenty years?!? Oh please. And sorry to burst your bubble but that was hardly a straw man. It was simple an example of how both sides have changed over the years.

 

[QuantumPion]

Xbiff - Straw man.

The point being, the Republican party has not changed their political position/stance/mandate since the time the Heritage foundation drafted this particular piece of legislation, but yet now when it is included in something they are against it because they were not the ones to present it.

What is ironic is that Obama himself directly campaigned against an individual mandate in the Primary election against Hillary just 3 years ago. So I guess he was just against it because he was not the one to present it too, lol.

So - a conservative organization argued 20 years ago that if we are going to have socialized medicine than it at least needs to be paid for. That means republicans are disingenuous about opposing socialized medicine today. But Obama in his own words flat-out oppose an individual mandate just 3 years ago, but that's totally fine because...?

 

[Jaskalas]

Each time a shock happens to the system, those in power grab hold of more and seize it for themselves.

Sep 11th, Patriot Act. Housing bubble, financial / health 'reform'. Note neither crisis was 'solved' to prevent a repeat performance. Merely more layers of government expansion and mandates. More repealing of rights and liberties.

That such a mandate could pass Congress tells you all you need to know. Supreme Court as a last line of defense will not be enough, even if they hold out this time they cannot stop a corrupt government alone.

 

[xBiffx]

What is ironic is that Obama himself directly campaigned against an individual mandate in the Primary election against Hillary just 3 years ago. So I guess he was just against it because he was not the one to present it too, lol.

So - a conservative organization argued 20 years ago that if we are going to have socialized medicine than it at least needs to be paid for. That means republicans are disingenuous about opposing socialized medicine today. But Obama in his own words flat-out oppose an individual mandate just 3 years ago, but that's totally fine because...?

Being for it before you were against it - evil.

Being against it before you were for it - fine.

Keep up. There is still the vault, floor exercises, and uneven bars left.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The republican party hasn't changed in twenty years?!? Oh please. And sorry to burst your bubble but that was hardly a straw man. It was simple an example of how both sides have changed over the years.

No, it hasn't. Look at their statements. We are talking CHANGE Biff. Look at Lincoln and look at the Reagan and you see change.

Now who do the current Repubs keep calling up as their example for many policy proposals? Reagan, not Lincoln. The IRONY being the hypocracy in calling forth someone like Reagan at the drop of a hat, but then decrying things that were brought forth in his time (That whole mandate thing in the other thread) just because it is the other parties great white elephant.

the Republican party is NOT for "change" and has not "changed" much more than a narrowing of its own scope and a reluctance to accept any alternate policy direction.

 

[Ninjahedge]

What is ironic is that Obama himself directly campaigned against an individual mandate in the Primary election against Hillary just 3 years ago. So I guess he was just against it because he was not the one to present it too, lol.

So - a conservative organization argued 20 years ago that if we are going to have socialized medicine than it at least needs to be paid for. That means republicans are disingenuous about opposing socialized medicine today. But Obama in his own words flat-out oppose an individual mandate just 3 years ago, but that's totally fine because...?

When that is the compromise you are forced to deal with, yes.

That was NOT the original plan that was submitted to congress. Remember?

 

[xBiffx]

No, it hasn't. Look at their statements. We are talking CHANGE Biff. Look at Lincoln and look at the Reagan and you see change.

Now who do the current Repubs keep calling up as their example for many policy proposals? Reagan, not Lincoln. The IRONY being the hypocracy in calling forth someone like Reagan at the drop of a hat, but then decrying things that were brought forth in his time (That whole mandate thing in the other thread) just because it is the other parties great white elephant.

the Republican party is NOT for "change" and has not "changed" much more than a narrowing of its own scope and a reluctance to accept any alternate policy direction.

So then you admit you only acknowledge change that you agree with. They have changed, perhaps for the worse. But I am willing to say on this particular issue, they have changed for the better and wised up and discovered it wasn't going to happen, then or now.

 

[xBiffx]

When that is the compromise you are forced to deal with, yes.

That was NOT the original plan that was submitted to congress. Remember?

Good performance, I hope you do better on floor exercises though. The vault really wasn't your best event.

 

[QuantumPion]

When that is the compromise you are forced to deal with, yes.

That was NOT the original plan that was submitted to congress. Remember?

lol classic doublethink.

 

[Ausm]

You're not so naive to believe that the Democrats don't have their tongues up Wall's Street ass either, right?

Yes, but not blatantly transparent like the Republicants.

 

[Ninjahedge]

lol classic doublethink.

Um, no.

Go back and re-read 1984 TYVM.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Good performance, I hope you do better on floor exercises though. The vault really wasn't your best event.

You still do not get it.

If he did not vote for this, or approve of this, we would have had NOTHING. this was not an all-or-nothing affair.

He does NOT want this, and when presented with it directly, he did not approve of it in hopes for something better. Now he drafts something better, it gets carved up in the partisan houses, and comes out resembling something that the Repubs were trying to force through years ago.

"OK, fine, if this is what you want, it is better than what we got. Here it is, vote for it". The Repubs GET WHAT THEY WANTED and not only refuse it, but point their fingers at it like it was the plague and try to remove themselves from it.

BS-cubed.

 

[Matt1970]

You just have to think about who the mandate will effect. It centainly isn't the poor, they already have Medicaid. Just stickin it to the middle class once again. Obama has to claim the $5000 penalty is a tax for it to be constitutional but he promised if you made less than $250,000 your taxes won't go up. Hmmmm