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.
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
I’m 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.
Santorum needs to put aside his ego, put his country before himself and drop out.
______________________________
.
OT:
We need to all forward the following information to TLC
All American Muslim” Imam Openly Supporting Terror and Genocide on US Arabic TV Network
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KqYPa0jMcU
.
This is the email address for viewer relations:
http://corporate.discovery.com/contact/viewer-relations/
.
It’s time this stealth jihad atrocity was removed from
TV
.
Erickson Was Wrong On Santorum And An Individual Health Care Mandate
I’ve been posting about this for days, while I’ve been watching Santorum lecture others about this, and its been pissing me off.
And neither does Newt's suggestion force life of death decisions.
You miss the point.
Santorum's attack on Newt about this, is hypocritical and using your word, a "hit".
Then you've been pi$$ed of about nothing for days. See post #52 just above yours.
Here's what Santorum actually said in 1994:
" ... instead of mandating that employers provide insurance, they should be required to join an insurance network, which would enable their employees to obtain coverage at group rates ..."
Santorum was speaking about "requiring" employers, not "requiring" individuals, to purchase health insurance. The Morning Call then misquoted this.
Bingo!
I'll speak for myself - I'm not voting for the lying backstabbing POS no matter what he does. The only reason for a win would be because of his evil tactics endorsed by the media. I spit on that, I don't vote for it.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Erickson Was Wrong On Santorum And An Individual Health Care Mandate
Following up on this from The Right Scoop, actually Erickson’s Tweet is false.
Erickson Tweet: Santorum too was once an individual mandate supporter.
Problem is that there is no link to the source for us to validate and the quote is in third person which means it’s not even Santorum’s own words.
There is a link. Follow this to the original article.
Watkins would allow a tax increase on cigarettes, alcohol and firearms; Santorum would not. Also, Watkins supports a national cap on spending, provided it doesn’t force rationing. Santorum says no to board-set limits. Santorum introduced the idea of a medical savings account, called Medisave, which has become part of the Gramm bill. Under it, workers would buy major medical insurance and could make tax-free contributions to a Medisave account, from which they would pay for preventive services. Watkins said he believes the country can save as much as $76 billion by eliminating duplication of services and government bureaucracy. He also would require individuals to pay part of their health care bills. In the state governor’s race, the Republicans oppose mandates on employers providing health insurance, including abortions in basic benefits packages and setting national spending limits.
Here’s Santorum’s actual position back then, in opposition to HillaryCare. He was also pushing good legal reform on lawsuits for pain and suffering. Still more here, there doesn’t appear to have been any mandate, as Erickson stated.
Wofford campaigned successfully on the health care issue in 1991, and yesterday Santorum took aim at Democratic ideas for health care reform, particularly the plan proposed by President Clinton.
Under the Clinton plan, all employers would be required to provide health insurance for their workers and to pick up most of the cost. That plan would also place caps on how much could be spent on health care each year.
Santorum charged that Clinton’s proposal to administer its system through regionalized health alliances essentially shuts medical professionals out of the process and puts it in the hands of political appointees.
The policy of placing caps on spending could create a horror scene similar to that which has occurred in Canada, where hospitals were shut down for periods of time for everything except emergencies because the money ran out, he said.
He suggested that instead of mandating that employers provide insurance, they should be required to join an insurance network, which would enable their employees to obtain coverage at group rates.
Access is also important in a good health care system, he said. Access could be improved by eliminating restrictions placed on coverage because of pre-existing conditions, by ensuring the right of renewal and through tax credits and vouchers, he said.
On responsibility, he said a Medisave plan will encourage employees to become more responsible health-care consumers.
Medisave calls for lower premiums from employers and higher deductibles from employees, with the savings on the premiums transferred into an interest-bearing, tax-free account that would be used by employees for routine health care. If an employee sought to use the money for anything other than health, the money would become taxable and a penalty would be charged, he said.
With such a plan, people would be motivated to shop for the best deal in an attempt to keep as much money in the account as they can, he said.
Santorum also proposed reforming malpractice suits by putting a cap on money given for pain and suffering.
Email this
Rush was just saying this is a lying hit piece. Santorum supported private healthcare accounts.
One more Romney camp hit piece on Santorum.
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.