The Washington Monthly

November 22, 2010

MANDATED HYPOCRISY.... A couple of weeks ago, Ezra Klein had a helpful summary, noting the historical trajectory of the debate over health care reform in America. The significance of the evolution in Republicans' thinking still matters.

To briefly summarize, when Truman tried to pass what was, in effect, Medicare for all, Republicans balked and said they preferred a more market-based pay-or-play system. When Clinton endorsed the market-based pay-or-play system, Republicans balked again, saying that they preferred a mandate/subsidies kind of system. When Obama endorsed the mandate/subsidies system crafted by Republicans in the '90s and adopted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Republicans balked again, this time saying they don't want to address the problem at all.

But it's that mandate that continues to be the key area of interest. It was, whether conservatives like it or not, a Republican idea, eventually (grudgingly) incorporated into the Democratic proposal. And yet, it was the central point of a court filing last week filed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional.

The Kentucky Republican filed the brief last week in federal court in Florida, arguing that the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is unconstitutional because it gives Congress too much power to regulate citizens' activities. Thirty-one fellow Senate GOPers joined him. The rest did not.
"Where, as in this case with respect to the PPACA's Individual Mandate, Congress legislates without authority, it damages its institutional legitimacy and precipitates divisive federalism conflicts like the instant litigation," argues the senators in the brief. "The long term harms that the PPACA may do to our governmental institutions and constitutional architecture are at least as important as are the specific consequences of the PPACA."

The Huffington explores an interesting angle to this: the brief was endorsed by 32 Senate Republicans, led by McConnell. But the article explores why the other nine GOP senators decided to withhold their support -- and the fact that some of them don't want to talk about it.

What I find especially noteworthy, though, are double-dippers -- those Republicans who endorsed (and in several cases, co-sponsored) legislation to make an individual health care mandate the law of the land, but nevertheless signed onto McConnell's brief declaring an individual health care mandate unconstitutional.

It's quite a motley crew: Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and John Thune (R-S.D.). All seven supported the individual mandate, right up until Democrats agreed with them, at which point they decided their own idea was unconstitutional. (My personal favorite is Grassley, who proclaimed on Fox News, during the fight over Obama's plan, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandate.")

I realize that congressional Republicans are just lashing out wildly, and aren't concerned about niceties like intellectual consistency, but if you're going to co-sponsor legislation on an individual mandate, it takes a fair amount of chutzpah to turn around and sign McConnell's brief.

—Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Comments

Prime Directive: Obama must fail . They're all like effin' terminators with one mission in life. After you beat the shit out of them and cut them into pieces, there would be one severed hand raising up to vote against anything democratic.

Posted by: John R on November 22, 2010 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Methinks that 'A Fair Amount of Chutzpah' should be the new name of the Republican Party. And it might make a good klezmer band, too.

-Z

Posted by: Zorro on November 22, 2010 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if any current Republican leaders have ever read Hollow Men as they seem to find power in darkness? -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on November 22, 2010 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Kevo,
Their headpieces are sure full of straw...

Posted by: c u n d gulag on November 22, 2010 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Here is a very powerful and long article written by Wendell Potter, a whistleblower on healthcare, as an apology to Michael Moore. This article precedes their appearance on tonight's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Please take time to read it and forward to your congresspeople. If this isn't an indictment of the entire system, then I don't know what is.

POTTER ON HEALTHCARE

Posted by: st john on November 22, 2010 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

No, they are simply sadistic, enjoying others' pain. They don't want anything good for the United States of America: that is the only thing anyone needs to know about each and every Republican.

The few Republicans who seem like they might still be decent human beings should exit this extemely nasty, sordid and very stupid party as soon as possible.

When will people see through these sadists?

Posted by: jjm on November 22, 2010 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Once again, the GOP is able to make political hay out of the individual mandate because of spectacular message fail by the Democrats. The GOP uses the individual mandate to reinforce its core message that the Democrats are redistributing wealth: the Democrats are extracting money from the responsible so they can give it to the irresponsible. The irony is that the individual mandate does just the opposite: it is designed to address the "free riders," those who won't buy insurance at all or until they are sick. Had the Democrats made clear that a core part of reform was stopping the "free riders" or "moochers" who want to take from the system without contributing to it, it would have made it harder for the Republicans to stand as defenders of those who refuse to buy health insurance for themselves. I'm not saying the GOP wouldn't have found another line of attack, but the Democrats allowed the GOP to frame every aspect of the health care debate, and now they are paying for it.

Posted by: ameshall on November 22, 2010 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Medicare for all..."

Gosh, doesn't that bring back memories?

Posted by: Ranger Jay on November 22, 2010 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that Republicans could so quickly flip on an issue just doesn't surprise me. Especially with so many of them, like Grassley, concerned about a primary challenge from the far right. Political expediency matters much more than policy or personal integrity, apparently.

What is most interesting to me about this issue, and the cases challenging the constitutionality of the law in particular, is the various interests lined up on each side of the issue. Republicans are arguing against the constitutionality, but all the insurance industry and health care providers are lined up with the government supporting the law. Republicans are now in a quandry: one of their major benefactors (health care/insurance industry) is directly opposed to what they've pledged to do. Will Republicans continue their position (including efforts to repeal all or parts of health care reform, which will also likely be opposed by industry), or will they soften their stance to accomodate the interests of industry? I'm betting on a softening, as the 2010 election fades into memory.

I also think the corporate support from industry will make a difference in the court cases. Some of the judges may have expressed some sympathy for the conservative viewpoint, but once it is on appeal, especially before the Supremes, I think the industry backing will have some weight with the Justices.

Posted by: jsj on November 22, 2010 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, Steve, Steve!
The mandate they supported was proposed by WHITE people! The one they are opposing was proposed by a NIGGER! Totally different concepts!

Posted by: dcsusie on November 22, 2010 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

While some will read Ezra Klein's retrospective and Steve Benen's summary as proof that the G.O.P. is and has been for half a century a party without any principles, it's also possible to come away with a downhearted feeling that the Democratic party is and has been for half a century incapable of sticking to its principles; instead, Democrats just keep adopting really bad Republican ideas after they've grown stale. So there we have it: one party has no principles and the other party has no spine.

Posted by: John B. on November 22, 2010 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK