June 21, 2012
Unpopular Mandate
Ezra Klein, via the The New Yorker:
What is notable about the conservative response to the individual mandate is not only the speed with which a legal argument that was considered fringe in 2010 had become mainstream by 2012; it’s the implication that the Republicans spent two decades pushing legislation that was in clear violation of the nation’s founding document. Political parties do go through occasional, painful cleansings, in which they emerge with different leaders who hold different positions. This was true of Democrats in the nineteen-nineties, when Bill Clinton passed free trade, deficit reduction, and welfare reform, despite the furious objections of liberals. But in this case the mandate’s supporters simply became its opponents.
In February, 2012, Stuart Butler, the author of the Heritage Foundation brief that first proposed the mandate, wrote an op-ed for USA Today in which he recanted that support. “I’ve altered my views on many things,” he wrote. “The individual mandate in health care is one of them.” Senator Orrin Hatch, who had been a co-sponsor of the Chafee bill, emerged as one of the mandate’s most implacable opponents in 2010, writing in The Hill that to come to “any other conclusion” than that the mandate is unconstitutional “requires treating the Constitution as the servant, rather than the master, of Congress.” Mitt Romney, who had both passed an individual mandate as governor and supported Wyden-Bennett, now calls Obama’s law an “unconstitutional power grab from the states,” and has promised, if elected, to begin repealing the law “on Day One.”
More here.
Posted by Henry Molofsky at 01:19 PM | Permalink






















Comments
If you go read the constitution, it is a remarkably clear and brief document. It simply states what is the authority of the congress, what is the authority of the president, what is the authority of the judiciary. Then it confirms that any authority not given to the federal government remains with the individual citizens. That's it.
Where in the constitution is there anything that gives the government authority to order citizens to buy products or services from a private, for-profit business? Nowhere. This is unrelated to the commerce clause. The commerce clause gives the government the authority to regulate commerce. Citizens, people, are not "commerce" -- we're people.
The right-wing loved the idea of the individual mandate before Obama adopted (this right-wing policy) because it transfers enormous amounts of money from working people to the Medical Industry: insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, and drug companies. Just the mandate part by itself orders 50 million uninsured Americans to buy insurance, say $300/month, $3600/year: $180 Billion per year the democrats have ordered (already broke) American working people to give to the richest sector in our country, the Medical Industry, for them to divvy up and use presumably to line their own pockets and pay enormous bribes and kick-backs to the democrats.
That is the same reason Obama met secretly with the leaders of the Medical Industry at the outset and asked what they wanted. He didn't meet with us, the normal people, and he ignored what we wanted: affordable healthcare.
The position Republicans take on anything is irrelevant. This is a right-wing healthcare "reform" that enriches the few and further impoverishes the majority. I hope the court strikes down the individual mandate.
http://nabnyc.blogspot.com/2012/06/we-need-national-healthcare-and-dental.html
Posted by: NABNYC | Jun 21, 2012 4:37:22 PM
Nabnyc:
You're forgetting about all those penumbras that have grown like black mold over the past 200 years.
Posted by: DAS | Jun 21, 2012 5:12:40 PM
It can apply for eligibility and qualification in the future. Try to find Newmarket Dentist.
Posted by: Frank J. Jenkins | Jun 25, 2012 2:40:27 AM
Post a comment