Posted on 06/06/2011 1:19:55 AM PDT by fabrizio
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said in a 2006 speech that mandated health insurance was a "potentially helpful" -- but incomplete -- solution to the problem of the uninsured.
Pawlenty described a Massachusetts-style mandate in his speech as "a worthy goal and one that we're intrigued by and I think at least open to," but suggested that the central health care problem was not forcing people to buy insurance but helping them afford it.
Mandatory insurance has become the central legal and philosophical target for conservative critics of President Obama's health care overhaul, putting Mitt Romney -- whose MassCare, passed earlier that year, was long viewed by both parties as a model -- in a particularly difficult position. But Romney wasn't the only presidential contender open to a mandate. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, according to a top former aide, was "supportive" of the mandate as part of his own health care plan, which was rejected by the state legislature. (Huntsman now denies he favored a mandate, and the former aide walked the assertion back.)
Pawlenty does not appear ever to have advanced a mandate as part of his own health policy initiatives, and actually shelved the recommendations of two commissions that backed it. But he expressed openness in the 2006 speech to a mandate as part of a "holistic" health care package, and certainly never suggested that state mandates are illegal or immoral -- only ineffective. (There's no discussion in the speech of a national mandate, the subject of current litigation.)
Pawlenty began with a critique of the notion of fixing the health care system with a mandate alone.
"If you simply go to the marketplace and mandate coverage, that is an incomplete solution," he said, hastening to add: "And Massachusetts didn't do that and neither would I."
Pawlenty laid out two problems with the "mandate by itself."
First, he said, people will ignore it, as a substantial minority ignore the car insurance mandate.
"Do you know what percent of our population looks at that and says, 'Too bad, so sad, I don't feel like or can't afford it or whatever reason? Seventeen percent. And so here we have a mandate on auto insurance with the threat of a criminal penalty and the non compliance rate for auto insurance is more than double the lack of insured percent in health care," he said. "So a mandate by itself does not much."
The second objection echoes a line candidate Barack Obama used to attack Hillary Clinton's push for a mandate during their 2008 campaign, but later abandoned.
"If you are poor and don't have the resources or don't have the ability to access insurance because there are barriers to that, a mandate by itself is not much of a solution," Pawlenty said.
"And so, the question then becomes - if you're going to require insurance -- and I think that is a worthy goal and one that we're intrigued by and I think at least open to, how then do you enable people to access the insurance?" Pawlenty said.
The answer, he suggested, was a combination of new efficiencies in health care and new subsidies, starting with a program to insure children -- a move welcomed by Minnesota Democrats at the time. He also suggested both market-based solutions aimed at enhancing competition and transparency, as well as new regulations on, particularly, drug ads.
"Some limitation, if not moratorium on prescription drug advertising would be helpful," he said.
Check this audio clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E01OCQcvrHc
Fail.
Twenty health insurance providers recently went bankrupt, the most in Germany.
State covered providers that is.
“Some explaining is in order here...”
I really don’t see why this is a big deal. Mandating that everyone buy insurance has been a big part of this discussion for a long time, because it is seen as the way to balance mandating that insurance companies cover all comers without regard to pre-existing conditions and/or without charging different rates based on the customer’s health situation. It’s not illogical, but of course that doesn’t make it a good idea.
So, it was an idea, he was open to thinking about it, in the quotes in this article he makes good points against it, and ultimately he rejected it, twice.
“It’s not illogical, but of course that doesn’t make it a good idea”
Well, it’s COMPLETELY illogical AND a VERY bad idea, and for two reasons: it doesn’t work economically and it’s against the constitution and natural law (see the Declaration of Independence for that).
If he’s going to be the president, is he going to cave in to pressure for mandatory health insurance after all the talking agaisnt Obamacare? That would inevitably lead to a single payer system and to full fledged EU-style socialism. A mandatory health insurance is against the Commerce Clause and is against economic common sense.
He was for Cap&Trade, he was for mandatory health insurance. Two strikes too many. These are the pillars of statism, not minor blunders. After 4 years of Obama and many more of RINO/Dem-made disasters, the US needs a quick U-turn back to constitutional sanity. And you won’t beat Obama by accepting the foundational premises of his policies (read=institutionalized control ver the individual, the family and the enterprise)
He never said he was FOR mandatory health insurance, he said he was OPEN to thinking about it. Then he vetoed it TWICE.
And, he has admitted he was wrong on cap & trade.
Good luck finding a person who has never made a mistake or never done something you disagree with.
And I don’t see why you say mandatory ins. doesn’t work economically, which is perhaps a moot point since we are both oppose to it, but I still don’t say why you say it doesn’t, or I should say wouldn’t make fiscal sense.
I believe FR beat politico to the punch...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2730442/posts
A few hours too late. Do they check out forums for news?
Sorry, I was wrong, they posted it on May 27th...
Mod: the top of this thread falsely insinuates the article is from June 6, 2011. But the story came out on May 27, 2011—it is already the subject of a thread.
Additionally, it appears to be a hit piece on Pawlenty, since MANY conservative institutions, including the Heritage Foundation, were “open” to a mandate.
It’s not a hit piece...listen to the audio first:-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2730442/posts
Still, at least he had a record TO lose on. Unlike You-Know-Who.
I’ve been wondering about that e-coli story and how many of the victims deaths will be caused by socialized health care but covered up.
It’s a big deal because mandating that people buy insurance is illegal and just plain stupid to anyone but a dig-a-deeper-hole democrat.
To be fair, he DID veto it. Actions speak louder than words. How can we take back the WH from the Unholy Won if we can’t be honest about the candidates in the field?
“...mandating that people buy insurance is illegal...”
I think it is unconstitutional at the federal level, but based on the Massachusetts experience it does not appear to be illegal at the state level.
I don’t support this idea at all, I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea.
Yeah, wide open.
How many other conservative principles has he not yet thought out?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.