• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP and the Health Care Mandate: They were for it before they were against it!

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
While discussing the partisanship over the health care law, a coworker told me that back when Clinton was trying to reform health care measures the Republicans were for the individual mandate. I didn't believe him, so I did an online search and low and behold...

For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."
Read the complete article here: Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandateby Julie Rovner

Or you can listen to the audio interview at the top of the linked article.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:shrug: so some Republicans used to support a bad idea?

gosh gee wiz, what an astonishment :roll:

you know, we knew that they were going to spend alot of time trying to blame George Bush for their failures; it's kind of hilarious that now they are going to start trying to blame Republicans for their "accomplishments" too :D :lol:
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Where do you see people in the article or in this thread blaming GWB where the mandate is concerned? His administration didn't even attempt a referendum on health care during his tenure. So, why bring his name up now?

As for the Reps, it's clear that where health care reform is concerned it's politics as usual. Take Sen. Grassley for example. Until just last year he supported the mandate. But suddenly when the health care bill came to the Senate floor he turns against it. From the article on Grassley:

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
The GOP's 1993 measure included some features Republicans still want Democrats to consider, including damage award caps for medical malpractice lawsuits.

But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.

Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments
— something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.
I bring this up because it's BS what the Reps are trying to do. I think the mandate is a good idea. However, I think the authority to enforce it is at the wrong level of government.
 
Last edited:

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think you just hit the nail on the head. A lot of people come up with bad ideas...that doesn't mean they support them. My neighbor thinks it'd be a good idea to have a restaurant/tattoo parlor. He won't do it though, because he realized it was a dumb idea. Without an actual attempt at a bill that would have required on a national level, people to carry health insurance, your original thesis is without support.
 

FederalRepublic

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,942
Reaction score
711
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't know who this Pauly guy is, but his plan is/was idiotic.

"Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."
Problem--too many people are without health insurance.
Solution--make them buy health insurance.

It's all so simple if you live in an authoritarian society...
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,170
Reaction score
32,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
:shrug: so some Republicans used to support a bad idea?

gosh gee wiz, what an astonishment :roll:

you know, we knew that they were going to spend alot of time trying to blame George Bush for their failures; it's kind of hilarious that now they are going to start trying to blame Republicans for their "accomplishments" too :D :lol:
So why is it socialism now but before it was just a "bad idea?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
the mandate itself isn't the socialism; it's the desire to replace this system with a single-payer that is socialist in nature; what we have in place under Obamacare is Corporatism; and plenty of Republicans are corporatists.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,170
Reaction score
32,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the mandate itself isn't the socialism; it's the desire to replace this system with a single-payer that is socialist in nature; what we have in place under Obamacare is Corporatism; and plenty of Republicans are corporatists.
That's weird, because many of your conservative buddies are repeatedly calling this bill socialism. Are you saying when I repeatedly hear "Obamacare" referred to as socialist, what they really mean is some nonexistant bill that an unknown quantity of Democratic senators really wanted?

How many, do you think? Because they couldn't even get 60 votes for a public option, let alone single payer.
 

FederalRepublic

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,942
Reaction score
711
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's weird, because many of your conservative buddies are repeatedly calling this bill socialism. Are you saying when I repeatedly hear "Obamacare" referred to as socialist, what they really mean is some nonexistant bill that an unknown quantity of Democratic senators really wanted?

How many, do you think? Because they couldn't even get 60 votes for a public option, let alone single payer.
This latest bill isn't socialism. It's a hodge-podge of garbage that's designed to fail. It's purpose is to increase the cost of private health insurance and decrease competition so that more of the public will no longer be able to afford their own insurance.
 

KeeKee

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
123
Reaction score
58
Location
Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
This latest bill isn't socialism. It's a hodge-podge of garbage that's designed to fail. It's purpose is to increase the cost of private health insurance and decrease competition so that more of the public will no longer be able to afford their own insurance.
All they had to do was leave things alone to accomplish that.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
the mandate itself isn't the socialism; it's the desire to replace this system with a single-payer that is socialist in nature; what we have in place under Obamacare is Corporatism; and plenty of Republicans are corporatists.
That's weird, because many of your conservative buddies are repeatedly calling this bill socialism. Are you saying when I repeatedly hear "Obamacare" referred to as socialist, what they really mean is some nonexistant bill that an unknown quantity of Democratic senators really wanted?

How many, do you think? Because they couldn't even get 60 votes for a public option, let alone single payer.
This latest bill isn't socialism. It's a hodge-podge of garbage that's designed to fail. It's purpose is to increase the cost of private health insurance and decrease competition so that more of the public will no longer be able to afford their own insurance.
All they had to do was leave things alone to accomplish that.
Exactly! That's why the Republican's argument against this legislation in general let alone the insurance mandate are BS! It's the old classic, "We were for it until we were against it," political bait and switch tactics.

Look, I can support the mandate being at the State level. I can even understand the arguments for tort reform or the fact that reforms don't do much to reduces cost, but don't lie to the public about the bill being this terrible piece of legislation when it's very evident that most of the ideas the bill contains were Republican ideas but suddently they're no longer popular because your party no longer held power. So, you cry foul, decry to repeal the law knowing full well you really can't do it, but suddenly you're gonna hold all these investigative panels to determine where the gaps are in the legislation when the truth is you really want to come off looking like the heros by fixing those gaps.

It's all BS! You had your chance to fix those gaps when the legislation was being draw up in committee, on the House/Senate floors and the national debate was ongoing. Talk about wasting taxpayer money!!

I've said since the health care debates started last year that most of the ideas the were signed into law were actually in health care reform proposals submitted by Republicans, including the exchanges (at the state level). So, the Dems remove the more controversial aspects Reps didn't like (public option/single-payer), retain many of the things Reps had agreed to since 1993 and as recent as 2009 but the final bill gets only 2 Republican votes? Unreal!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know, we knew that they were going to spend alot of time trying to blame George Bush for their failures; it's kind of hilarious that now they are going to start trying to blame Republicans for their "accomplishments" too :D :lol:
Post of the week! :lamo
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Look, I can support the mandate being at the State level. I can even understand the arguments for tort reform or the fact that reforms don't do much to reduces cost, but don't lie to the public about the bill being this terrible piece of legislation when it's very evident that most of the ideas the bill contains were Republican ideas but suddently they're no longer popular because your party no longer held power.
wait. most? of the main pieces of this 'plan' (if its' intended to fail, is it still a plan?) you've got one idea - the individual mandate - that was originally developed as a slightly better Republican alternative to present as a compromise position to a Democrat position (the employer mandate).

out of a 2,000 page bill.



and it's STILL a dumb idea, and unConstitutional as well. Republicans have plenty of dumb ideas, and conservatives have no problem calling them on it; remember the outcry over Bush's push for immigration amnestreform?





i foresee this getting bigger as time goes on, it's going to be hilarious to watch democrats increasingly try to blame Obamacare on Republicans to a dubious public watching their healthcare system get trashed.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,170
Reaction score
32,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
wait. most? of the main pieces of this 'plan' (if its' intended to fail, is it still a plan?) you've got one idea - the individual mandate - that was originally developed as a slightly better Republican alternative to present as a compromise position to a Democrat position (the employer mandate).

out of a 2,000 page bill.



and it's STILL a dumb idea, and unConstitutional as well. Republicans have plenty of dumb ideas, and conservatives have no problem calling them on it; remember the outcry over Bush's push for immigration amnestreform?





i foresee this getting bigger as time goes on, it's going to be hilarious to watch democrats increasingly try to blame Obamacare on Republicans to a dubious public watching their healthcare system get trashed.
So, are you still going with the "it's a secret plot to get single-payer" theory? I can't tell.

If you think it's just "one idea" from the GOP that made the bill, you haven't been paying attention. To people other than Hannity et. al., anyway.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, are you still going with the "it's a secret plot to get single-payer" theory? I can't tell.
there's no secret about it. Democrat leaders were quite clear that this was A) only the first step and that B) the end of that particular journey was single-payer.

If you think it's just "one idea" from the GOP that made the bill, you haven't been paying attention
:D i don't think this idea was even from the GOP; so far you've named a couple of individual Republican; I fail to see where the whole party lined up behind it, say, the way that the Democrats did in 2009.




but here's a question: if the individual mandate was a Republican Idea that the Democrats took; is it that individual mandate is a good idea - and thus the Republicans were smarter than the Democrats, and thought of it first, or is it that the individual mandate is a bad idea - and thus Republicans were smart enough to discard it while Democrats were dumb enough to leap on it?
 

Big

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
8
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cpwill
why would you even care if it was mandated....chances are you already have Insurance....I do......Are you actually saying that you are sticking up for people 'other' than yourself and fighting for those who cannot afford insurance but will have insurance in the future..if so, that is so un-conservative of you to think of anyone but yourself....You know they can opt out for many reasons and not be required to have insurance....

Where 'exactly' in the bill does it say the end games is 'single payer'....I have watched and re-watched many committee hearings and have not heard that claim made....if you cannot respond....i will take it that it is typical republican mis information and rhetoric...
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Big,

That's EXACTLY what it is...typical Republican mis-information and rhetoric. But the good news is People are beginning to see some of the benefits to the health care reform law. For example, I had a woman and her daughter visit my office just today. The daughter has a brain tumor and a rare neuralogical disorder brought on from years of exploritory surgery. The last round of long-term medical treatment and hospitalization she received placed her at the lifetime cap for medical care. When I informed her mom that the lifetime cap was removed under the new health care law, the mother replied, "So, that's why the hospital (in Texas) told me to add her back to my BC/BS insurance this month while they still had open enrollments." See, she didn't understand that as long as her child was under 26, she could remain on her mother's insurance and that (atleast for Alabama state residents) the young adult benefits will kick in beginning January 1, 2011. So, any treatments she received now would likely be grandfathered as long as the child is re-enrolled this month. But people don't know this 'cause they're being told of "dealth panels" and "government getting between your doctor and health care" and other BS like that.

True, this mother is poor, but she's still trying to do everything she can to get her daughter the medical care she needs. Per the mother, she took on a 2nd job, maxed out her credit cards (X2), extended her care not just to ensure she had funds to get her daughter to her next two out-of-state doctor's visits (she sees a specialist @ St. Jude Hospital and another one in TX). Her medical bills are such that she's about to loss her home, yet she's still fighting for her daughter's life! This is the kind of stuff our health care system brings down on people who may not be financially well off but they do try to do for themselves. Yet, if Republicans had their way this mother would likely have to stand by and watch her daughter die. All because her daughter's medical bills reached the lifetime cap for medical treatments.
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cpwill
why would you even care if it was mandated....chances are you already have Insurance....I do......Are you actually saying that you are sticking up for people 'other' than yourself and fighting for those who cannot afford insurance but will have insurance in the future..if so, that is so un-conservative of you to think of anyone but yourself....You know they can opt out for many reasons and not be required to have insurance....
well.... to get..... to ..... what i think..... was the..... genera...l.... thrust of your..... post.....


as a conservative i believe that liberty is preserved when the state is constrained. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution where we the People gave to Congress the authority to determine for us whether or not our arrangements for our own healthcare met with their approval.

as a conservative, i recognize the economic futility of the stated intentions of this bill. i recognize that when you interfere with the operation of free individuals, as it seeks to do, that you will distort the result in ways wildly beyond your imagination and in manners which you never wished to see come to light

as a conservative, i don't think that it is up to the state to say what i must or must not do with my money insofar as purchasing of products is concerned. if i want to buy an HSA, that is my business.

Where 'exactly' in the bill does it say the end games is 'single payer'....I have watched and re-watched many committee hearings and have not heard that claim made...
Barney Frank made it quite clear that this was how you get to single payer, in particular that the Single Payer was the best route for that end. every Democrat leader got up on stage upon Obamacares' passing and talked about how it was only laying a 'foundation' upon which they could later build greater, more nationalized public healthcare. President Obama as well spoke multiple times about how he preferred single-payer but didn't think it was politically possible in America 'yet'.

it's not because it's not what they want; it's because they can't get it...... yet....


 
Last edited:

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
cpwill,

Barney Frank and Pres. Obama are correct. It's what I've been saying throughout this and the "Health Care Right...Mandate" thread. If the People decided as a majority that it was in the nation's best interest to allow an increase in the income tax to pay for government-sponsored health care, we'd have it cheaply. Effeciency is another matter.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cpwill,

Barney Frank and Pres. Obama are correct. It's what I've been saying throughout this and the "Health Care Right...Mandate" thread. If the People decided as a majority that it was in the nation's best interest to allow an increase in the income tax to pay for government-sponsored health care, we'd have it cheaply. Effeciency is another matter.
it would be as cheap as the 70+ trillion dollar unfunded medicare liability. when government takes over healthcare, two things happen; cost explodes the budget and quality of care goes down.

nor would raising income tax rates help. people tend to shield their compensationfrom taxation, and the higher the rates, the more they do so. the result is a fairly consistent revenue level of 18-19% of GDP.



furthermore, even if you discount the tax-sheltering factor, an ruthlessly maximized every major tax we have, we still couldn't even cover CURRENT levels of spending; much less with a massively expensive, economy-distorting entitlement added on.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
but here's a question: if the individual mandate was a Republican Idea that the Democrats took; is it that individual mandate is a good idea - and thus the Republicans were smarter than the Democrats, and thought of it first, or is it that the individual mandate is a bad idea - and thus Republicans were smart enough to discard it while Democrats were dumb enough to leap on it?
and i'm still waiting on an answer from this.
 

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
2,010
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
:shrug: so some Republicans used to support a bad idea?

gosh gee wiz, what an astonishment :roll:

you know, we knew that they were going to spend alot of time trying to blame George Bush for their failures; it's kind of hilarious that now they are going to start trying to blame Republicans for their "accomplishments" too :D :lol:
Are you EVER going to understand that the Republicans are VERRRRY similar to the Democrats? They just have different marketing. Either way Its up to YOU to see what is REALLY around you and tell their marketing assclowns to take a hike.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,582
Reaction score
27,836
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So why is it socialism now but before it was just a "bad idea?"
I thought HillaryCare failed. Didn't it fail? I thought it did. :confused:
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
But here's a question: if the individual mandate was a Republican Idea that the Democrats took; is it that individual mandate is a good idea - and thus the Republicans were smarter than the Democrats, and thought of it first, or is it that the individual mandate is a bad idea - and thus Republicans were smart enough to discard it while Democrats were dumb enough to leap on it?
I think the Republicans knew the mandate was a good idea for all the reasons "they" originally came up with it. Ensuring that everyone has health insurance regardless of their health condition would place far more people within health insurance group pools thereby spreading the risk around and reducing the cost as long as everyone pays into the system. Now, initially the cost to the States would likely be expensive because they'd have to expand their reach within their health care systems, i.e., HIEs, but with support from the fed those cost should come down once the HIEs become self-sufficient which the health reform law requires.

Everyone quotes the CBO report on the cost of health care over the first 10-years of its implimentation, but what they don't quote is how the cost will start to come down afterwards. Republicans also knew that if health insurance were allowed to be sold across state lines, it would clear the hurdle of "inter-state commerce" and, as such, the argument of "unconstitutionality" would be toally moot. As it stands, their own argument of "forcing" everyone to pay for their own health care or pay a penalty" is no more unreasonable than having individuals have auto insurance or pay a penalty. The only difference is that the auto insurance requirement is enforced at the state level -vs- federal level, but considering we are a representative government and atleast half of our elected officials voted in favor of the mandate (doesn't matter if the majority were Democrats), I seriously doubt the mandate will be rendered unconstitutional mainly because the HIEs will be run by the states, not the fed, and the fed will certainly present evidence to show how health care costs, specifically Medicare and Medicaid, have continued to increase over the years and how such has a negative impact not only on our national debt but how the unsustainable increases could affect our national security interests domestically (re: an unhealthy nation, extreme federal health care cost, just to name two viable reasons for the mandate). We won't even discuss how costs have been increasing in the private sector for years.

Now, granted, the health care legislation isn't perfect. IMO, it still doesn't do enough to reduce cost further than the CBO estimates project, but it's a good first start. Still, Republicans were for it long before they were against it. I seriously doubt they woke up and had this big revelation of conscience and suddenly realized how wrong the mandate was. They just thought that if they argued against the mandate loud enough with their bogus claimis that Congress would never garner enough votes to support it. They were wrong. The interesting thing about how the mandate would be enforced is that the health care law still allows the States to opt-out and form their own HIEs similar to what the fed proposes if they choose to do so. In a twisted sort of way, the mandate could be lifted by the states themselves by simply opting out. This is likely going to be the main reason why all of these law suits will be thrown out; the States can opt out of federally proposed health care any time they choose before the new law goes into effect.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom