Opinion

[Print]  [Email]        

Obamacare runs counter to GOP principles

Examiner Editorial
September 15, 2009

In this May 22, 2008 file photo, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington. Grassley suggested on Monday March 16, 2009 that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing themselves. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

The six Senate Republicans seeking a "bipartisan compromise" on President Obama's proposal for a government-run health care system are flirting with a provision - an individual mandate to buy government-approved health insurance - that runs counter to everything the GOP stands for. This "gang of six" includes senators Olympia Snowe of Maine, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Snowe has been covertly negotiating with Obama for weeks, while Grassley supports the concept of a health care insurance co-op. The other four are co-sponsors of S. 391, the Healthy Americans Act introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, which includes some attractive features but at its heart is an individual mandate. Individuals and fFamilies would be fined as much as $3,800 annually for not buying approved health insurance.

An individual mandate should be anathema to all GOPers for two reasons. First, the individual mandate is the fulcrum of cooperation between government-run health care advocates and the big health insurance companies that would profit immensely if it's approved. As the Social Security Institute's Larry Hunter trenchantly observed, the big insurers "desperately want an individual mandate passed and will accept anything short of having their CEOs pushed out of an airplane door to get it." Such a "public-private partnership" will work no better for health care than it has in the mortgage industry with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Second, the approach makes a mockery of individual freedom of choice because it forces everybody to buy a government-approved health insurance plan from a government-approved insurer with oversight by government bureaucrats. Finally, because of the intensive government regulation involved, mandated rationing of health care is just as inevitable under this approach as it is under Obamacare. And bureaucrats will be just as likely to make treatment choices that ought to be made by doctors and patients. Supporting such legislation will mark Senate GOPers as Republicans-In-Name-Only (RINO) enablers of the Democrats' long-sought government takeover of health care.

Senate Republicans are fools if they think they can safely get away with sprinkling some "bipartisan compromise" pixie dust on any government-run health care bill. Among the August recess lessons is that people, unlike most members of Congress, are reading the bills as never before and they aren't going to be fooled by flowery rhetoric. That is why surveys appearing this week make clear that Obama's much-ballyhooed address last week to Congress was no game-changer, contrary to predictions from the White House and the liberal media. It is also why the people will know RINOcare is just another way of saying Obamacare.




beltway confidential

In response to the attention we gave him for his old column on how Washington has "anemic winters" because of global warming, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells NRO's Robert...

By a vote of 52 to 33, the Obama administration nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, just failed to get the 60 votes needed for his nomination to proceed...

The highest form of flattery! Robert, declare yourself! (ap photo) Beltway Confidential knows a crush when she sees one. How else to explain the relentless mocking and...

You're beautiful, Chuck Todd. I mean that. (ap photo) On a day when many White House reporters (ahem) stayed away from the White House for snow or early-deadline...






Most Popular Headlines





To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Susan O'Connor

Sep 14, 2009

I just don't understand why everyone does not recognize that this health care reform is a sham. Both sides have their own agenda and it is not the best interest of the public. Why can we not have public forums and discussions as to what the public wants. All we are now getting are deals made with special interest groups. When the President can't stand up and say tort reform will be a part of the plan just shows how one group, trial lawyers, control the dems. The same I'm sure is true of the republicans. I don't trust any plan that is not publicly discussed and debated, but created behind closed doors. Government is failing the public in a huge way.

 

Rick Caird

Sep 15, 2009

The individual mandate is not just contrary to Republican principles, it is contrary to American principles. It is astonishing to see how willing the government is to intrude into our lives. Not only do they want to be certain we have the "right" medical coverage, they want all our medical records too.

I suppose we could couple that with idea of taxing driving by the mile and keeping all the records specific to that effort. Then, we can expect the government to start sending us notices that we have not been to the doctor enough.

Our political class has no qualms and not limitations at all about their intrusiveness. I wonder how Stalin would have like access to this kind of data.

Rick

Rick

 

Rick

Sep 15, 2009

I don't like government mandates. However, you must purchase insurance before you're sick not after you become sick. People complain about pre-existing conditions exclusions; well then to have those exclusions eliminated everyone must be insured.

 

Rick

Sep 15, 2009

Rick Caird: I was the first Rick on this blog so please stop the confusion by signing off as Rick.

 

Hogarth

Sep 15, 2009

It says Rick Caird in a bold font. Get over yourself, Rick Bigdeal.

 

Mike

Sep 15, 2009

The GOP brand is tanking and health care reform enabling legislation simply pushes it over the cliff. Grassey, Graham, Bennett, et al are the weakest links.

There is simply no excuse for these senators to forgo basic American freedoms in the name of bipartisanship.

 

Terry

Sep 15, 2009

There is no Constitutional way for this government to force people to buy health insurance or fine them if they don't. I realize that won't stop them from trying, but there isn't. Conditions pre-existing or otherwise are your own business and your own responsibility regardless of what life throws at you.

 

C

Sep 15, 2009

I'm skeptical. I'm a moderate republican and think health insurance should be like auto insurance.

You have to buy auto insurance cause if you get in an accident, the other person is the one who ends up with the cost.

If you don't buy health insurance, the hospital is the one left stuck with the bill. It's not like they aren't going to treat you. You should be forced to purchase some minimal coverage level, so we don't end up paying for their costs.

I don't however think they should limit out of pocket expenses. If they are going to force it then people should be allowed to purchase high deductible catastrophic plans.

 

GD

Sep 15, 2009

C,

The analogy to auto insurance is a poor one. I may be obligated to buy auto insurance for damage I do to others, but I am not obligated to buy coverage to protect the value of my car (assuming there is no loan).

Another solution would be to remove the ability to stick the hospital with the bill. Make people responsible for medical expenses, with the ability of the hospitals to attach a percentage of an individual's pay functionally forever (think of it as alimony for the hospital). Then, people who can afford it will buy it.

George

 

ggordon

Sep 15, 2009

...and stop rubber stamping bankruptcy - for a lot of reasons. The vast majority of bankruptcies are not because of medical costs. They are due to irresponsible behavior. Last study I saw found 9% of bankruptcies due to medical bills. Another myth of the pro reform (gov plan) supporters.

 

John

Sep 15, 2009

And this is why everyone needs to simply stop voting for Republicans. They will sell you out to Big Government every chance they get.

 

Ddad01

Sep 15, 2009

This type of requirement is flat-out unconstitutional. The federal government cannot "require" me to buy anything. I know, I know, the government requires me to buy auto insurance. But only if I drive a car on public highways, and driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

The major problem is whether the Supreme Court would have the cojones to overturn it if enacted. I remain skeptical.

 

Carl W. Goss

Sep 15, 2009

Unconstitutional huh? Against freedom of choice huh?

Let me see now, would that also apply to state requirements for insurance, before your vehicle can be registered.

Or before you can be licensed to drive. Just wondering.

 

cliff.helfer@gmail.com

Sep 15, 2009

GD,

I don't think it is poor. A catastrophic healthcare plan would only cost $50-80 a month applied universally. It would limit what hospitals could lose.

Forcing people to pay off debts they cannot afford is impractical. Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without Hell.

 

Ed in Texas

Sep 15, 2009

First "insurance" is not required by all states in order to obtain a driver's license or register a car. If you have the money, you can prove financial responsibility and not pay for an insurance policy.

Second, as others have pointed out, insurance is only required to protect anyone you might injure (medical or property) if you have an at fault accident (No-Fault states excluded). And you can still be sued if you don't have enough insurance coverage to buy off the other party (or their lawyers).
Hospitals can sue you for their bills too. In fact, at least in some states, they can obtain a bank loan FOR YOU, without you taking any action to pay your bill. Then you owe the bank, and not the hospital.

Vehicle insurance is only required for vehicles operated on public roads. No insurance is required for other uses. This is because it is a "privilege" to drive on public roads (as others have stated). Living is not a government granted privilege - at least not yet.

 

LeeVee in TX

Sep 15, 2009

In the case of automobile insurance, it is mandated by the individual states. That, is a big difference from being mandated by the federal government. The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means the federal government has no business in the insurance business. They also have no business in education or welfare.

 

wecsg

Sep 15, 2009

, 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 options” but these Employer/Individual Mandates too before they fall into the trap of thinking they are acceptable and not government run health care. 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. To see it in action, look no further then how these Mandates in MA work. Many conservatives can be easily fooled by this faux “private” front (Mitt Romney was) – there needs to be united Republican opposition to Mandates now!

 

Cathyvv

Sep 15, 2009

Rick Caird - One name exemplifies government getting into peoples personal lives: Terry Schiavo.

I also dislike the mandate and prefer that CONGRESS, GOP, DEMs and Independents find a way to manage health care for all citizens/legal residents of the US. Carping about what you don't like isn't productive; we need our elected representatives to be adults and work together to come up with a viable solution. I don't have much hope of that happening. Our politicians are ALL afraid to do anything that is right for the US of A; IT MIGHT COST THEM AN ELECTION. Cowards, all.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




Local

Another snowball fight planned for Dupont Circle

The Official Dupont Circle Snowball Fight facebook fanpage has over 6,000 fans now, and it looks as if snowed in DC'ers will return for another battle. Full story

Politics

GOP winning war over Miranda rights for terrorists

Even as the administration defends its decision to grant accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, the president himself is hinting that things might be done differently in the future. Full story

Local

D.C. region braces for up to 20 more inches of snow

The National Weather Service has the entire D.C. metro area, from Prince William County north, under a winter storm warning for 10 to 20 inches of snow. Forecasters have had their eyes on this storm for days, but the projected snow totals were bumped up late Monday. Full story