So, Chuck Grassley and at least six other Republicans currently in the Senate support — or at least are willing to sign off on – a law forcing Americans to buy health insurance. But that hardly renders it “non-controversial.”
Now, imagine how many “Republicans” would be supporting such mandates if a President McCain were signaling they were okay with him. At one point McCain was saying he wouldn’t impose mandates, but do you honestly think he would have refused to sign a “bipartisan” health care bill that included them?
And consider: If, when there are only forty GOP Senators, seven of them are willing to accept the most onerous aspects of Obama’s socialized medicine agenda, without fear of censure from the party establishment or elites, what the heck is the GOP good for?
Giving in to the Democrats, apparently.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Anybody know for sure who the other six are?
I’d guess Snowe, Collins, McCain, Voinovich, Hatch, Murkowsky and Lugar are among the likely, but they’re just the Usual Suspects.
If McCain has shifted to supporting mandates, that’s pretty big news, given that he campaigned against mandates during his Presidential run. It would also provide further verification for those of us who refused to vote for him then, and who now say his election would have been a greater disaster than Obama’s has turned out to be.
I only included him because he’s a squish who appears likely to vote for anything in the name of “bipartisanship.” But after his back-and-forth on immigration, why should we believe anything he said about mandates?
I agree, Old Grouch. I think I’ll ask Jim who those mystery Six actually are.
Jim graciously responds:
Thanks!
Nope, no McCain.
Heck, Obama campaigned against mandates. He lambasted Hillary in the primaries for supporting them:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23354734/page/2/
Just another way McCain is like Obama, I guess…
This is a very dangerous period because Nationalization will still occur even without an overt government run insurance plan like this “public option” provision everyone keeps fixating on - everything else contained in the plan is just as dangerous and is not being discussed in any kind of a targeted manner.
Here are the core elements what will be contained in the “health care reform compromise” after the so-called “public option” is in all likelihood dropped; both the Bacus and Wyden-Bennett bill contain all of these items:
(a) Federal Regulation aka HEALTH CZAR/DEATH PANELS/RATIONING
(b) Employer/Individual Mandates aka NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
(c) Government Subsidies aka MIDDLE CLASS MEDICAL WELFARE
With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?
And it’s clearly a government take-over of health care – only the names are changed to make us feel better about the arrangement. Since the government will be controlling the market and setting the terms, health insurance companies will essentially quasi-governmental agencies that get to administer the plan. They will be controlled in the same manner as GM or CITIGROUP and will be private in name only.
The common thread in all of the so-called “compromise” or bi-partisan plans is the Individual Mandate to force people to buy government dictated health insurance. This needs to be the focus for conservatives now!
I would strongly advocate to conservatives in the Media/GOP elected officials that they stress three very simple messages:
(1) The Individual Mandates need to be opposed and need to be the center piece of the opposition message - they are the most political unpopular feature of the Obamacare plan and they hold the whole scheme. Simply put, there is no government takeover without Mandates.
(2) Health Insurance Companies need to be called out for receiving Bailout money and a Monopoly Market. Health Insurance execs are politically unpopular and this would put the GOP/Opponents on the side of the people and not the special interests. We conservatives have a responsibility to defend the concept of insurance and free markets but not the current government and special interest distorted market.
(3) Obamacare is a corrupt bargain that benefits big government, powerful Washington politicians, big union, and big companies/industry at the expense (once again) of the taxpayer, small business, the elderly, and the young.
Particularly, Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate need to understand this as many of the “compromise” plans being discussed contain all of these elements. They need to be forced to go on record as not only opposing the “government option” but these Employer/Individual Mandates too before they fall into the trap of thinking they are acceptable and not government run health care.
Individual Mandates to buy private insurance sound like a “free market” solution and “individual responsibility” but in this context they are not – they are simply a front for a government run system. Again, the common thread in every liberal/statist health care bill is the Individual Mandate. To see it in action, look no further then how these Mandates in MA work to give government full control and to skyrocket costs. Many conservatives can be easily fooled by this faux “private” front (Mitt Romney was) – there needs to be united conservative opposition to Mandates now!