Okay, what does it reveal about the Republican party that the individual mandate was its idea?

I guess that this question can be rolled into a host of other issues about politics and hypocrisy, but the problem here is still incredibly perplexing. The individual mandate to buy health insurance is an idea that originated from the GOP zeitgeist, was championed by GOP lawmakers for years, and was even implemented by GOP politicians in Massachusetts. Now, the vast majority of challenges to HC reform are coming, ironically enough, from the GOP, whose main argument is that the individual mandate is a horribly unconstitutional federal overreach. :smack: Obviously, the Supreme Court is scheduled to finally weigh in on this issue next week, but I’ll be the first to admit that the conservative slant to the court has me a bit concerned.

The best that I can figure is that the GOP championed the IM to begin with because there was little chance it would ever actually come to fruition, and now that it HAS become law they’re so opposed to it because it was implemented under Obama and not under their leadership.

I mean, what does the individual mandate itself say about the GOP? What does it reveal about their hypocrisy? On the whole, what do situations like this reveal about politics in general, if anything?

They would probably say that Congress does not have the power to institute an individual mandate through the Commerce Clause, but that individual states have that authority. In other words, their argument would be that it’s fine for individual states to create mandates; just not the federal government.

  1. Of course they’re hypocrites. They’re politicians.

  2. To the extent that any individual has changed his/her stance, it’s fair to point out the change and expect an explantion. But if the standard is that if some members of a political party supported something in the past, all other members of said party must support it forever and ever … well, we’re gonna have a hard time ever getting anywhere. If you’re being honest with yourself, you can find plenty of issues that “the democrats” have changed their minds on in the recent past.

Both parties have changed their minds on lots of issues over the years. Sometimes it’s a good thing (unless, for example, you’d like to see both parties hold the same stances on gay rights that they did twenty years ago). In some cases, it’s sheer political maneuvering, in some cases its a genuine change of mind. Usually, it’s both.

It wasn’t like it was a plank in their 1994 platform or anything; it was just something they threw out as an alternative to Hillarycare. It was mostly implemented by Democratic pols in Massachussetts, and states have plenary powers that the federal government doesn’t, so it doesn’t raise a constitutional issue there.

It’s certainly hypocritical of the ones involved in the 1994 plan (and the Heritage Foundation) to pretend it’s some horrifying constitutional overreach, but not hypocritical for the GOP as a whole to do so.

That was 20 years ago. I was a toddler then. Why would you expect 1994’s GOP to be the same as 2012’s GOP?

I wasn’t being sarcastic.

It’s not limited to any one party for politicians to be against an otherwise good idea if it was not introduced by a member of their own party. Ted Kennedy originally opposed the universal health care plan proposed by Nixon because there was no single payer system and it relied on commercial insurance companies (much like the health care plan put forth by the current president.)

Since you seem to be of the opinion that the constitutionally challenge is head-smackingly dumb, can you show where in the U.S. Constitution it allows for such a mandate?

While I won’t be surprised one iota if, in fact, some politician or Republican party member can be shown to be a hypocrite, can you share a cite or two so we know, specifically, what we’re talking about?

There are a number of factors at play here

  1. The primary goal of Republcans today is to make sure that Obama is a one term president. To do that it must be portrayed that he is evil incarnate, and every proposal he makes is bad. Once you’ve depicted your opponent is evil incarnate there is no way can compromise. So even reasonable centrist ideas will be flat out rejected. They opposed Medicare and would glagly do so again if it was politically feasible.

  2. Government style healthcare is an anathema to Republicans. The only reason this idea was put forth in 1994 was that it could be shown that the Republicans had an idea in opposition to Clinton’s proposal, with the idea that it would never pass. When their idea was in danger of passing it was necessary to move the goal posts and come up with alternative never pass idea. If Democrats were to come out in support of the current alternative plans that Republicans favor they would just move the goal posts again.

  3. Romney in Massachusetts was an anomaly. You had a Republican governor of a very liberal state. As such he had to govern as a moderate. Now that he is running in the Republican primary Romney is shifting to a Conservative position. The whole states vs federal thing is just a fig leaf to try to allow him to oppose Obama (evil incarnate) and so appear conservative in the light of governing like a moderate out of necessity. As to what he will do if he were to be elected, it would depend on the politics of the time.

Elastic clause.

Many Republicans also endorsed the Wyden-Bennett plan, which included a federal individual mandate, and that was only a few years ago.

But how can we be sure that you’re not sarcastic then AND now? :eek:

I was 12 in 1994, so I was certainly being sarcastic then.

I’m not sure I agree that the state / federal issue is as you claim. It seems to me a reasonable position that a person could say that something would work in one specific state (given the demographics of that state), but not work for all states. It seems like Romney was consistent on this point from the very beginning. Here is a quote I found from Romney on his Massachusetts plan when it was passed in 2006.

Link

Or the constitution. :cool:

Can you, perhaps, square these comments from Gov. Romney (also from 2006) with his current rhetoric regarding PPACA?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16381

I don’t see where the problem is. All of it can be fairly interpreted to mean “on a state-by-state basis”. No? If not, which portion(s)?

Probably because many of the same people that were pushing this idea in 1994 are still relevant within the 2012 GOP. Newt Gingrich, for example, was a significant backer of the mandated insurance approach to health care in the 90s (and 00s, for that matter) and now he’s on the short list of remaining GOP Presidential candidates. We’re not exactly talking about a party of fresh faces and new ideas, here.

I believe the desire of a mandate on the right was so that people who chose not to get insurance wouldn’t bankrupt those who do. A family policy costs about 12k nowadays, and 1k of that is due to the fact that the uninsured, when they finally do get sick, end up amassing medical bills they can’t pay. So the mandate was designed to prevent people from using the system w/o paying into it.

Plus it was seen as an alternative to mandated government health care, mandating people buy private insurance policies.

FWIW, cap and trade was their idea too.

Well, there are several aspects of this, but let me try an easy one.

Let’s say I ask you “do you want me to shoot you in the head or punch you in the gut” and you believe I will do whichever of those you choose. Then, some years later, I see you again and ask “do you want me to punch you in the gut or do absolutely nothing?” Would it be hypocritical or inconsistent for you to choose that I do nothing? Do you think it would be reasonable to view you as a guy who likes being punched in the gut?