Skip to comments.1994 Report: Santorum supported individual mandate [rubbish!]
Posted on 01/27/2012 4:52:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Rick Santorum supported the idea of "requir[ing] individuals to buy health insurance" when he ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, according to a local feature article comparing the candidates during that election cycle.
"Santorum and [his opponent] would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits," The Morning Call (Pa.) reported in 1994. The Morning Call noted that Santorum had also called for a MediSave account and had opposed so-called "sin" taxes.
If true, the distinction between requiring people to buy health insurance and an individual mandate might be lost on the voters who have heard Santorum excoriate Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for their support of the individual mandate -- which, in Gingrich's case, dates back to the early 90s.
The Morning Call does not quote Santorum making comments supportive of an individual mandate, or quote any other candidates in the piece, which attempts to summarize several candidates' positions on health care.
another hit piece
Santorums suggestion does not call for universal forcing on the population of govt insurance whose bureaucrats then control their life or death decisions on treatment with no appeal
“and had opposed so-called “sin” taxes.”
well, that’s good. He’s not that Huckabeeish
I watched Santorum’s 1994 Senate campaign and his fearless and unapologetic destruction of Harris Wofford in the debates, and I do not remember him propsing an indivudual mandate.
I don’t support an individual mandate, but they need to couple that stand with a Federal law that allows healthcare providers to refuse to treat someone if they don’t have the means to pay. Telling hospitals you have to treat anyone and pass the costs on to the rest of us is nuts.
Romney is a snake, masquerading as a conservative. He would do more to destroy conservativism by winning than by losing. As President, he would be impotent, just as he was as governor of Massachusetts. The public will confuse Romney with being a conservative and move away from the idea of conservatism without realizing that Romney is a fraud.
This Newt supporter will not vote for Romney—period.
Mitt Romney supported the idea of “requiring individuals to buy health insurance” while he is running for the GOP nomination in 2011, according to Mitt Romney.
2012. It’s still the first month of the new year, you know.
Willard's opposition research hacks are back at it today.
Tricky word "require". Does it mean by force or by necessity, and no way to tell from this context. I bet the original journalist-idiot didn't care, and just spat their 1500 words out that day. Santorum probably meant by necessity, since he seems to at least be honest about rights. (Yes, I liked his Why and How lesson last night, and prefer him, but I'll happily vote for Newt (and Rubio VP???) if Santorum does not succeed.
Romney will do anything, say anything to get what he wants. It’s all about money and power. Not any different than BO and the American sheeple are following along yet again.
Because he did not
Another hit piece on Santorum
Top of page two on the web page. The Romnbots probably had woodies all night after finding that.
That is why the left adopted the phrase "individual mandate" to describe their plans after that. It was a means to adopt the right's language, but distort it into redistribution.
The concept of an insurance mandate has a conservative pedigree, so its not really surprising that Rick Santorum expressed support for it at some time.
That makes him less likeable in my opinion, if that’s even possible. Of course, the media outlets doing Mitt’s bidding right now are the same ones that will be targeting him once he’s the nominee.
Newt and Rick might have talked support, but they never went as far as signing something into law.
What's sad about this article is two-fold. First, it reports zero quotes from Santorum. It is purely some local reporter's take on what was meant in a debate. It also sounds like the debate really is over "forcing" an employer to pay for benefits. There is no logical reason why an employer should have to do anything for any employee other than give a wage.
And if in 1994 you said, "Let's force employers to buy health insurance.", I can see me saying "Let them buy their own health insurance."
And I can then see a reporter either distorting or misunderstanding that or just being a sloppy writer and saying that Santorum wants to require individuals buying their own health insurance.
The second reason this is sad is that someone stayed up all night searching lexus to come up with this.
I suspect the Romney campaign which was taken to the cleaners yesterday by Rick Santorum.
Romney is evil.
I don't particularly like Santorum, but I'm sick of the cheap shots being taken at all the candidates. And that includes Newt and Mitt.
I’m starting to get a serious case of “Romney derangement syndrome”.
So, there is only one Republican Pres candidate left who has never supported a individual mandate. And he is considered the ‘RINO’? Interesting.
The GOP Establishment and MSM were willing to let Santorum off easy as long as he was not getting much traction. But last night, Santorum bloodied up Mitt pretty well, so now they’re going to make him pay.
I believe that the plan for mandatory insurance included a tax break of some kind. I forget the details, but the plan would have reduced the cost of insurance by allowing policies to be sold across state lines and putting more people into the pool, while maintaining a private system.
It’s not the same thing as Obamneycare, at all.
Rick Santorum will be able to handle this. I think that I will make another donation to the Santorum campaign today. He might have to make an ad to answer this false attack.
Well Rick must have done good last night. The RINOCRATS are well on their way towards nominating yet another liberal.
Let me know if that turns out any differently than it did last time.
The headline does not match the content of the article. Santorum’s remarks in this article have nothing to do with an ‘individual mandate’ - it is a discussion on the employer-based insurance system.
If he did support an individual mandate in 1994, what is in this article is not evidence of that.
Yes, and there’s a more recent video of Newt on a loveseat with Pelosi telling us we need more taxes to stop Global Warming.
What’s your point?
Nice try. /s Sanctimonious Santorum is a hypocrite. This is the position he attacks Newt for having held.
And that my friend is the dirty little secret nobody wants to know. The individual mandate was an idea that came from our side. Everybody, except Ron Paul, in the race was for an individual mandate back in the 90’s. It was their answer to Hillarycare.
I don't think that's ever going to happen. And I suspect that Newt thinks the same, which is why he came up with the "insurance, or post a bond" idea. Which is not a bad idea IMO.
I agree.. i think this originated or was resurrected by a RonPaulBot list on Santorum. No direct quote from Santorum. no dice.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Why don’t we get a reporter to ask each republican candidate if they support an “individual mandate”....so we can be done with this issue?
Reporter: “If you are elected, would you support individual mandate for healthcare?”
...and move on to other issues.
RE: Romney: No
Romney: No ( except for Massachusetts, in which case it is a resounding YES ).
No it is not - at least if all we are going by is this article. A discussion over employer based health insurance is not even the same issue.
You bring up a concern but I’d like to expand on your assertion.
The concept of forcing hospitals to service everyone who comes in their door has been abused and the costs of these services is, as you state, passed on to those of us who pay, either as individuals or via our health insurance.
But we CANNOT have emergencies turned away at the hospital door, we simply can’t. First, we are a decent society. We don’t just shutter doors on those bleeding to death for their lack of ability to pay. Second, I can see the sound and sight bytes now...”Because of the Republican elimination of the requirement for hospitals to treat emergencies, little Johnny died from a severe asthma attack which left him unable to breathe.”
HOWEVER, it’s like anything else with liberals...give ‘em an inch, they take a mile. So you get emergency rooms filled with illegal immigrant families all waiting to get family practitioner care in the hospital emergency room.
THAT’s what happens when there are no limits.
It’s a problem but there’s no elected Repub who’ll ever take it on.
Yes, I recall that the Heritage Foundation proposed a plan that included an individual mandate, as well as reforms that allowed purchases across state lines, but the insurers were still private.
No, i mean have him answer now as part of their policy and as a requirement for being nominee. Put him on the spot. Then he can’t go back.
I think many of these candidates of done things in the past that they probably wouldn’t do now. have them commit to it.
Dude, i just want Obama out. I get a headache thinking about it.
Of course it doesn't. It didn't happen. If no one is familiar with my hometown paper, The Morning Call is a Leftist rag that goes out of its way to try and screw Republicans. The lack of supporting quotes of Santorum pushing mandates is not surprising. In 94' people were upset with Hitlery care and TMC trying to tie Rick to it to muddy the waters and make that loser opponent of his back then Wofford look good is standard operating procedure for them. This whole story coming out today after last nights debate has Mittens fingerprints all over it.
This is the reporter’s interpretation, not a quotation. I trust his interpretation as much as I trust his knowledge of firearms.
as much as I want to stop Mittens
I don’t have the stomach for eviscerating Santorum
he just needs to bow out and let’s drive a stake thru the heart of the GOP establishment machine and the sorry assed psuedoconservative talkies and pundits
were he in Newt’s place and the positions reversed I’d be on his side
he is not a bad man, just in the wrong place
we have got to teach these bastardes who think they are our conservative leaders a lesson
Im not in favor of universal government healthcare, but if we were to do it, why not do it the simple way?”
An individual mandate and universal government healthcare are two different things. But, yes, if you favor the latter then expanding the Medicare program would be the simplest approach. And that would very rapidly either bankrupt us or drive down dramatically the average quality of care.
I do believe there is a difference between an individual mandate at the state and federal levels.
If you don’t like the laws in your state, you can move to always move to another state.
Romney is a liar because he campaigned in 2007/08 on an individual mandate on the federal level. He basically wanted to implement Romneycare nationwide at that time. Now he pretends as if he is a big 10th Amendment guy.
That’s like saying abortion or gun control is fine at the state level, just not at the federal level. You either have principles or you don’t. Note that we’re not talking about whether it’s constitutional or not, but whether it’s right and has more benefits than costs to the people. Not to mention the argument that “you can just move to another state” can be applied on the federal level. “You can just move to another country” if you don’t like it. That argument wouldn’t pass muster on the school playground.
If you think the mandate is good at the state level, make the argument as to why it has more costs and benefits to the people. The discussion needs to go beyond whether it’s constitutional or not, but whether it’s actually good policy.
I am 1000% opposed to a federal mandate. I think it is wrong and oppressive. But I don’t think it is unconstitutional AT THE STATE LEVEL.
Under the Constitution, the states are generally free to conduct their own affairs along Constitutional lines. Gun control is unconstitutional. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, though it is hard to imagine that the Founders would approve of it.
Some states have better laws than others. The beauty of living in the USA is that we are free to live in whichever state we choose and still enjoy the benefits of living in America.
When things are done at the Federal level, we have no such option. The Federal mandate is unconstitutional. The state mandate, while shitty, is Massachusetts problem. The people of that state can vote it out if they don’t like it, or move.
Hope that clarifies my point.
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.