We’ve received a few reponses from a quick debate-night item on Rick Santorum and the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. On the blog, we discussed a May 2, 1994 news report unearthed by a writer at BuzzFeed, which appeared to show that Santorum at some point supported an individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
Some other writers, commenters, and readers have taken issue with the item. Since it went up, our item has not been altered, except that I’ve added a link to this post at the top for clarification.
Note what the item says and what it doesn’t say. It attributes Santorum’s alleged support for an individual mandate to a “report” in the Allentown Morning Call, which is true. In fact, it was in at least three such reports in the paper, as we shall see in a moment.
Our item carefully employs phrases like “If true…” Granted, this does not provide blanket immunity, but we’re not just repeating a rumor — this is something that appeared three times in a respected newspaper and is therefore not prima facie ridiculous. This is especially true considering that a few conservatives were enamored of the idea of such a mandate as an alternative HillaryCare at that time.
The important question is obviously whether it is true, though. After the May 2, 1994 report to which we linked, there was this one from May 28, in the same paper, which refers to the single payer system endorsed by Santorum’s Democratic opponent, Harris Wofford:
Before either of those, there was another from the same newspaper, from April 7, 1994:
This April article is more specific about where the charge comes from. It was the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters’ candidate questionnaire, which both Santorum and Joe Watkins (Republicans) filled out before the GOP primary, but which Wofford (at least as of April 7, 1994) failed to respond to. This morning, I reached out to the League and the Santorum campaign to ask for a copy, which we probably should have done righ away. I will report back when I obtain one.
In order to falsify the charge that Santorum backed the mandate, some have pointed to this debate, which occurred almost seven months after the League questionnaire was released. I think it makes a strong case, but not necessarily an airtight one. In the debate, Santorum certainly doesn’t endorse it. He takes a strong position against insurance coverage mandates (rules that require all insurance policies cover specific maladies). He also speaks against mandates in general, and in strong terms. His position there is consistent with total opposition to mandates of any kind, but the question of an individual mandate to purchase insurance is not directly asked or answered — probably because unlike today it was not the burning question of 1994.
From what he says in the debate, I would be very surprised if the League’s questionnaire contains an endorsement of an “individual mandate.” It is also possible that a staffer filled out his 1994 questionnaire incorrectly — such things do happen — or that it was just mischaracterized.
I also went back to the bills that Santorum sponsored during the last Democratic Congress before the 1994 election that swept the GOP to power and put him in the U.S. Senate. None contains an individual mandate the way we understand it today — a legal requirement for the purchase of health insurance. In one of these bills, those who go without insurance are penalized, but only in that they are excluded from participation in government-run high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions. That bill was also sponsored by Newt Gingrich.
One final thought on the three articles cited in the Morning Call. The word “require” is not univocal. All three could be referring to something well short of a legal mandate — namely, a situation in which individualy purchase is the only reasonable alternative. If your employer doesn’t provide health insurance, you could be loosely described as being “required” to purchase it yourself, even if you aren’t legally required to do so. The League’s questionnaire, if we can get it, should clear this up.
Even so, I don’t think this story significantly damages Santorum if it is true. He was arguing against Mitt Romney, who is unapologetic even today about the individual mandate he signed into law in Massachusetts. If Santorum dabbled in and abandoned this position 18 years ago, I really don’t know who would hold it against him.
