The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Imaginary Consensus

Text Size

Singling out a 2009 quote from Sen. Chuck Grassley in support of a mandate to purchase health insurance, Talking Point Memo's Brian Beutler tries to push the narrative that requiring the purchase of health insurance was "once a popular, if not consensus, policy framework on the right" -- only to become politically toxic when it came to opposing President Obama.

There's no doubting the fact that the Heritage Foundation supported the idea, as well as some Republicans -- Beutler cites John Chafee, Bob Dole, and Mitt Romney -- but that simply is not indicative of how "the right" broadly thought about health care. Chaffee was known as the ultimate RINO before passing the torch to his son. Dole was viewed by the right as a Washington insider who was too eager to compromise with Democrats, with the early years of the Clinton presidency as a possible exception. None of the Republicans running for president in 2008 included a mandate in their health care proposals -- even Mitt Romney, who defended state-based mandates, was wishy-washy about whether he supported one at the national level. Romney spent most of the 2008 campaign running away from his health care plan in Massachusetts. When he did defend his support for mandates, he was harshly rebuked by his opponents, as in this exchange with Fred Thompson.

For all the talk of the mandate being a consensus position, George W. Bush did not run on it in 2000 or 2004, nor did he push it as president. If this was so popular among the right, why wasn't there an effort to make a mandate law when the GOP controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress? The reality is that while you can find individual examples of Republicans or think tankers who once supported a mandate, it was nothing close to a popular, consensus position among conservatives.

There's no doubt that conservative opposition to the mandate became more passionate in 2009 -- and that Republicans like Sens. Orrin Hatch and Grassley moved away from from their prior positions. But that has more to do with the fact that the mandate migrated from being part of a debate dominated by health care policy wonks to an idea that had a realistic chance of actually becoming law, and thus part of our national conversation. I would remind readers that there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around on this issue, as Obama opposed the mandate during his own campaign.

View all comments (23) | Leave a comment

Wayne | 1.18.11 @ 1:25PM

Don't forget before ObamaCare came CHIP (I believe it was called) which guaranteed health care for all children. This law paved the way for National Healthcare and many Republicans supported it.

PaulB| 1.18.11 @ 2:19PM

Nixon, Bush the elder, and Dole certainly did support the mandate, as did, of course, Romney, who, despite your attempt to rewrite history, got little pushback on that in the 2008 campaign, which one would expect if the Republican Party were so adamantly opposed to this.

And, of course, there's McCain, Hatch, Bennett, Thompson, Alexander, Graham, Thune, Brown, and Gregg, among many others. Hell, during "HillaryCare," the GOP actually supported legislation that would have required a mandate, a bill that bears a striking resemblance to "ObamaCare."

Sorry, but on this one you're dead wrong. The paper trail is too large and too clear. This was a Republican-supported policy before it became a political tool with which to bludgeon Obama.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 1.18.11 @ 2:43PM

Once again, the pharoah has tricked the slaves into fighting each other instead of fighting him...

Can I be the first to ask, Who gives a shit who supported it and when? A bad bill isn't made better bc republicans supported some similar bill from 15 years ago.

But I'm sure the communist = fascist = socialist = progressive = liberals still think its a great idea to have the govt in control of one more aspect in their life. Buffoons..

"Capitalism is the uneven distribution of happiness, Communism is the even distribution of misery."

Al Adab| 1.18.11 @ 3:15PM

Can someone please explain to me why we even have a debate over "Health care"? If it is a fundamental right, then the government must take over the operation of all hospitals and make doctors government employees. Then everyone just walks into the doctor/hospital and gets taken care of. If it is not a fundamental right, then it is a commodity like any other. We pay our own way through whatever means we choose, either through insurance plans, medical savings acounts or simply by paying.

What is the premise gang?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 1.18.11 @ 3:29PM

Very good question for some (Supreme Court Justices Namely) to ponder. It is not a right. It is a LUXURY. Just like Cable TV.

If someone chooses to not protect themselves against a risk, and that risk becomes reality, then they have to pay the price. But to undermine free will, in the name of expanding govt power and payrolls, all the while telling us its for our own best interest isn't misleading, its fraudulent.

Evan| 1.18.11 @ 6:45PM

Health care is a luxury, which means poor people don't deserve it.

Conservative Bob| 1.18.11 @ 4:02PM

Paul
I would suggest that your list looks to contain a fair portion of RINOs and would not be on anyones list of top 10 or even top 100 conservatives. They have possibly changed their position not because they need something 'with which to bludgeon O' but rather they changed their position because conservatives without whom they can not get elected have clearly indicated we want no part of the government telling us we must buy something. It is not constitutional, no matter how much you squint your eyes or how far you twist the commerce clause.
Support for a mandate should be career ending for any politician going forward. A vote for anything other than complete repeal should bring a well funded primary challenger.
Repeal this Obamanation......... defund its implementation until the senate comes around and either the veto is over ridden or a new President is sworn in.

Thinkingitthrough| 1.19.11 @ 10:26AM

This comment states well my own feelings precisely. I share in the hope that other like minded citizens will speak up.

"While I sympathize with many of their causes, they are way off track on the Romneycare issue. Romney followed the Constitution.... He was a Governor of a Blue State that was experiencing some significant Deficit Issues.... One of the primary causes of those issues was people raiding medical care without paying for it, making it the burden of the MA Taxpayers.... He joined with Democratic Law Makers and required people to pay for their own Medical Care via a mandate to acquire Private Health Insurance (aka... the same requirements we find in most states for auto insurance)... In short, he employed the 10th Amendment which provides for states to enact laws to deal with their own specific issues.
Obama's "play" on 60 minutes where he claimed to follow a model set by a Republican Governor is simply a Ploy to ignite Tea Party fires in hopes of taking out the Republican Candidate that he would have the most difficulty beating.... In fact, when you think about it, it's just laughable... If he was so hot on following Romney's lead, don't you think that he would have called him and consulted with him??? Yea, me too...
If Obama truly wanted to federalize the MA healthcare plan, they wouldn't have kicked around the "Public Option", and they would be working with the other states to get them to enact their own programs like MA did.... If the Electorate would have liked the Universal Health Care concept, I guarantee you Romney's name would never have been mentioned for fear of giving the Republican Governor credit. But now that they are looking for blame instead of sharing credit, Romney has now become the father of all Universal Health Care Plans, including their own."

Carl McCann| 1.19.11 @ 3:48PM

Very well put...how quickly people's memories vanish when an issue becomes unpopular. Everyone was harping about health care a few years ago and now it has become anathema to even mention it.

Dr. Morpheus| 1.18.11 @ 5:13PM

Quoting Steve Benen of Washington Monthly: ...the mandate has also been embraced by the likes of John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Scott Brown, and Judd Gregg, among others. Indeed, several of them not only endorsed the policy, they literally co-sponsored legislation that included the mandate. Are they all RINOs?
During the fight over Obama's reform proposal, Grassley told Fox News, of all outlets, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have an individual mandate" -- and there was no pushback from party leaders. This isn't ancient history; it was a year and a half ago.

You're completely wrong on this. It would be nice if we got a little honesty from the Right once.

timb| 1.18.11 @ 5:13PM

Does it bother you, Phil, in the slightest that you are dead wrong about the thesis of Beutler's essay? the thesis isn't that all Republicans support an individual mandate; the thesis was that it used to be true that all politicians agreed we all deserved healthcare.

Granted, the Spectator with its Marie Antoinette attitude toward the poor may not have agreed with that consensus, but outside of a brief interlude in the '90's when has the opinion of the Spectator been relevant?

Still, amongst people who actually care about their fellow man, present company excepted, the idea that it sure would be grand if more people (heck, why not all) could have insurance like every other civilized country on Earth and those people were Republicans and Democrats. The argument was how.

Still, it's always refreshing to know that far Right is out telling the poor and sick to die in damn street and leave them alone already, bunch of grifters from us good people. Less refreshing to know Philip Klein cannot analyze an essay for its thesis, but still, refreshing

Susan73| 1.19.11 @ 10:28AM

Thank you!

J.C.Eaton| 1.18.11 @ 9:22PM

Tim, Two questions: Do we ALL have a right to free Mayo Clinic care? Do I have a moral obligation to pay for it?

timb| 1.18.11 @ 10:59PM

JC, don't know and yes.

But that misses the point. The point of the article was that a consensus amongst politicians existed and apparently no longer does. Whether you are part of that consensus or not is sort of, well, not material to the article or its contentions, unless you are an elected official.

On a personal note, you are free to go Galt at any time and move to Somalia or own your own island if you want a society without communal obligations. But, if you plan to profit from the American society of laws, traditions, regulations, etc, then you have a basic duty to the rest of your fellow citizens. Or, do you pave and police your own streets?

So, yes, you pony up a pittance to help your down and out neighbor get health insurance and, when he's better, he can become a productive member of society. It's sort of a no-brainer every other place on the planet.

Noblesse oblige, JC, find it in your neo-feudal heart to be a member of a 19th century idea

Dandini| 1.19.11 @ 9:20AM

Romney has created more private sector jobs, saved more private sector businesses than any other candidate.

Funny. Half of MA loves what Romney did, the other half hate him, maybe because he left after completing only one term. Maybe he is not a “career” politician, do you always need a “career” politician to get the job done?

Yes, he worked as the MA governor for his entire term for FREE!!! Who else would have done that!?

MA had a huge deficit when he started, and he left MA with a surplus and balanced budget without raising taxes at the end of his term. He can't help it if the government screwed up after he left.

The state Democrat controlled legislature wanted desperately some kind of Universal Health care program. He worked with them to create one that would work, similar to mandated auto insurance. It is estimated that 98% of the residents are now covered. It was within projected budget, except after Romney left, the state government had to make changes to the program and now it is costing them.

He compromised on some things in order to keep the state government working together and moving forward.

He has successfully and profitably managed large businesses, helped turn around large companies that were sinking and helped other companies get started, saving and creating thousands of jobs. What other candidate has done that?

He knows and understands world economics.

He turned around a struggling 2002 Winter Olympics and made it into one of the most profitable Olympics in history. And only took a $1 dollar salary. Who else would have done that!?

He is against federalization and big government.

He lives the example and believes in the importance of family.

He is for a strong military and believes the borders should be better protected.

The list of real positives is far greater than the supposed list of negatives.

Susan73| 1.19.11 @ 10:31AM

WELL PUT!

Jana| 1.19.11 @ 4:03PM

Your points are very well taken. Romney critics fail to mention them - the left because he's the only Republican who can unseat Obama, and the right because of MA health care or perceived lack of social conservatism.

Susan73| 1.19.11 @ 10:11AM

I don't recall who authored this comment but it always struck me as an important piece of information and I hope it enlightens and brings serious thought.
"Romney's plan keeps an open market but attempts to solve the problem of indviduals refusing to buy health insurance then showing up at hospitals demanding care which the state was then forced to fund.
Perhaps what Romney should say is that he would be in favor of repealing his plan if the 1986 law signed by Reagan that requires hospitals to treat people without insurance were repealed.
The Tea Party needs to adopt a more pragmatic stance and oppose the root cause of the problem (the '86 law) rather than opposing a man who tried to fix the problem caused by the law. "

Susan73| 1.19.11 @ 10:17AM

A further comment. It is my understanding that originally Romeny's desire was that the money the Federal Govenment gives each State, to care for those who come to the hospitals (those without insurance), would be used to help those uninsured and unable to buy insurance to purchase an insurance policy. Thus, the money usually used to pay the hospitals for the uninsured would now help purchase insurance for those individuals who did not have means to purchase their own insurance. The moneys would be go towards purchasing insurance rather than paying hospitals to care for the uninsured.

Cris A| 1.19.11 @ 11:20AM

Surprisingly there are very confused comments posted on here. A Fundamental Right? Have you people lost your marbles? For Good sakes! I feel like I'm at a progressive climate change website. Get a grip and remember: THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE, it is all about control! People wake the hell up! Allow me to put it as simple as I can so even the confused among you will understand. Today, RIGHT NOW, everyone gets healthcare. In fact you can be a wanted mass murderer, illegal alien, without a penny in your pocket and the law of the land states that a US hospital must treat you. So cut the nonsense!
Bottom line-Obamacare will cost trillions and the “mean quality” of healthcare will decrease exponentially, end of story! The examples are numerous, inexplicable and without contradiction. Have you ever heard of a person of means, going to England, Canada or South America for his heart surgery, or cancer treatment?
An elected member of the Canadian legislature just came to the US for heart surgery last year, 2010. Oh, what do you know, they have Government healthcare in Canada. This incident is analogous to a member of the US congress going to a foreign country for his heart surgery. Folks, there is a reason that in 2009 87% of all Patents for new drugs and medical devices came from the United States. Once a government takes over a healthcare system, as has been the case almost everywhere else on the planet-Research & Development is a thing of the past, the tax structure for the health industry is permanently changed forever.

Today, RIGHT NOW, everyone gets healthcare. In fact you can be a wanted mass murderer, illegal alien, without a penny in your pocket and the law of the land states that a US hospital must treat you. So cut the nonsense!

Bottom line-Obamacare will cost trillions and the “mean quality” of healthcare will decrease exponentially, end of story! The examples are numerous, inexplicable and without contradiction. Have you ever heard of a person of means, going to England, Canada or South America for his heart surgery, or cancer treatment?

An elected member of the Canadian legislature just came to the US for heart surgery last year, 2010. Oh, what do you know, they have Government healthcare in Canada. This incident is analogous to a member of the US congress going to a foreign country for his heart surgery. Folks, there is a reason that in 2009 87% of all Patents for new drugs and medical devices came from the United States. Once a government takes over a healthcare system, as has been the case almost everywhere else on the planet-Research & Development is a thing of the past, the tax structure for the health industry is permanently changed forever.

Given how the Democrats had to lie, cheat, bribe, cook the books and twist Constitutional precedent on procedure, in order to jam ObamaCare through the Senate by one vote; Do you really think that the Federal Government will allow Pfizer to write let’s say a couple billion dollars when it likes, for the R&D cost accumulated, for a yet to be invented drug, which Pfizer claims will help men maintain an erection? Grow hair on your head? Make wrinkles disappear? If you do, you are probably one of those people who voted for Obama thinking he was conservative.

Quality of life drugs are a thing of the past, enjoy the recently invented acid indigestion medications like Nexium, because if ObamaCare remains law, they will be the last advancement in stomach meds that we will have in our lifetimes. Once a Government takes over a healthcare system, bureaucrats decides where research dollars go and what ailments need to be addressed. It no longer becomes a function of the free market, because in the free market R&D expenditures need to be recouped before profit can be made, in turn, new prescriptions cannot be capped at artificial price points ((IE) $20 per month). By definition, all Government Heath care operations must exercise price controls in one form or another. Am I the only one, whose listened to Obama lambaste insurance companies and force them into agreeing not to charge different people, different premiums for the same health care coverage?
Exactly how would this work in a sustainable fashion? It won’t and is counter intuitive to all logic, common sense and basic business reasoning. Let's say I am an irresponsible 22 year old making $50,000 a year, who has never had a health problem and is willfully refusing to pay for the health insurance offered to me through my employer. For this hypothetical, imagine that this kid’s employer offers its employees full coverage healthcare for the incredible price of $100 per month (far lower than any price I have seen in my part of the country). Now, this comes to $1200 per year extra, pocketed by this kid, which would not be the case if he were responsible. But in Liberal land, one need not be responsible, for the Government takes care of everyone’s problems! Yipee!
So here comes along ObamaCare, dreamed up by a bunch of nitwits who have never had a job outside of a College faculty office, with its mandate requiring everyone to buy healthcare insurance; with the caveat that if you fail to do so and are caught by the new IRS insurance police, you must pay a $625 dollar fine. However, we have another leftist, dream world mandate to remember: even if you were without insurance and had to buy it on the day you needed it, insurance companies must provide you with the exact same coverage, as the coverage given to the people who have been consistently paying their monthly premiums pay on time, for the exact same price that they pay per month.
Umm, so how many of you believe that the 22 year old kid, will suddenly run out and buy insurance, which he made the choice to never buy in the past, knowing that if he doesn't buy it and never gets sick, has an accident, or needs a medical procedure, he can save an annual cost of $1200, pay the $625 penalty and simply buy an insurance policy when he arrives to the hospital, if that day ever arrives?
This isn't rocket science and frankly anyone with common sense can figure out that ObamaCare represents the most reprehensible attack on our freedom since WWII. Here's an excellent link you all must watch from TV last night http://bit.ly/g0822I
Then after you have watched it, revisit what Ronald Reagan said about Government health care 50 years ago. The issue is exactly the same and has not changed one iota.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

timb| 1.19.11 @ 1:48PM

Chris, the only thing you didn't hear on talk radio in your entire....llooonnnnngggg....comment was

"THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE"

And, shockingly, it's also right. The healthcare bill was and is about insurance reform. It has little to do with healthcare.

Funny story, I'm told by people like the esteemed Mr. Klein and the odious Mr. Hannity that I don't want "government bureaucrats" controlling my healthcare and my doctor's decisions. Yet, the other day, when I went to fill a script my doctor had written, I was informed my insurance company won't pay for it and, instead, has over-ruled my doctor.

Now, I'm not one to accept inane Right-wing rhetoric anyway, but it sure occurred to me that there was already a faceless bureaucrat telling me and my doctor what to do and the one I have now would rather profit from me and pay as little as possible to keep me healthy as he could, so his boss can fly a private jet. That ain't better and every nation in the world pretty much agrees.

PS And, Chris, no matter what Levin told you, ER care is not care. It's terrible care AND terribly expensive to those of us WITH insurance. Still, that was a pretty rant you got going.

Oh, and ask yourself, if healthcare is not a right, then why do so many people all over the world from Singapore to Japan to Iraq to France to Canada to America believe it is and the only dissent is heard from the American Right?

timb| 1.19.11 @ 1:50PM

This is also funny:

"So here comes along ObamaCare, dreamed up by a bunch of nitwits who have never had a job outside of a College faculty office, with its mandate requiring everyone to buy healthcare insurance"

the guy who "dreamed it up" worked at the Heritage Foundation and the guy who passed it was mitt Romney. I'll generally agree those are two nitwits, but not in the way Rush told you

Bill| 1.19.11 @ 4:14PM

Romney is anything but a nitwit. I challenge you or anyone else to find a candidate who can match his skills, education, experience, and expertise. There are none in either party at the moment. He is simply gifted at turning garbage into gold.