iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Republicans Were For Obama's Health Insurance Rule Before They Were Against It

John Boehner

RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR   03/27/10 09:51 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans – the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits – two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received – by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Romney's success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

"Hillary Clinton believed strongly in universal coverage," said Neera Tanden, her top health care adviser in the 2008 Democratic campaign. "I said to her, 'You are not going to be able to say it's universal coverage unless you have a mandate.' She said, 'I don't want to run unless it's universal coverage.'"

Obama was not prepared to go that far. His health care proposal in the campaign required coverage for children, not adults. Clinton hammered him because his plan didn't guarantee coverage for all. He shot back that health insurance is too expensive to force people to buy it.

Obama remained cool to an individual requirement even once in office. But Tanden, who went on to serve in the Obama administration, said the first sign of a shift came in a letter to congressional leaders last summer in which Obama said he'd be open to the idea if it included a hardship waiver. Obama openly endorsed a mandate in his speech to a joint session of Congress in September.

It remains one of the most unpopular parts of his plan. Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products – and providing subsidies worth billions – insurers don't think the penalties are high enough.

Tanden, now at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says she's confident the mandate will work. In Massachusetts, coverage has gone up and only a tiny fraction of residents have been hit with fines.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama's plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal overreach on a matter that should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker.

"In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care," Brown said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it. The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican...
WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it. The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,321
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (74 total)
10:10 PM on 04/15/2010
This bill is supposed to help the citizens of America. Instead, it rewards the people who don't deserve it and hurts the rest.
08:31 PM on 04/15/2010
People! We are intelligent human beings. Why can't we work this out rationally? This is a time in our history when we need to come together, not be pulled apart from within.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
msbeal
Let no neo-con lie go unchallenged
10:41 AM on 03/30/2010
The scary part for me is that after all this 'liberal' success at the polls the best we got was last year's Republican plan for health care reform.
09:08 AM on 03/30/2010
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3590:

Effective September 23, 2010
-Unmarried dependent children will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.
-Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments or deductibles for preventive care on all new plans
-Indoor tanning services are subjected to a 10% service tax

Effective by January 1, 2011
-Insurers will be required to spend 85% of large-group and 80% of small-group plan premiums (with certain adjustments) on health care or to improve health-care quality, or return the difference to the customer as a rebate
-Impose a $2000 per employee tax penalty on employers with over 50 employees who do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers
-Impose an annual penalty of $95 on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695 by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085.
-Spending and coverage cuts in Medicare Advantage
-Chain restaurants and food vendors with 20 or more locations are required to display the caloric content of their foods on menus
-Medicare Payroll withholding increases from 2.9% to 3.8% on all earned income
-Most medical devices become subject to a 2.9% excise tax collected at the time of purchase
Effective by 2018
-All existing health insurance plans must cover preventive care without co-payment.
-A new 40% excise tax on high cost ("Cadillac") insurance plans is introduced.
photo
Daphydd
Lets play some music
07:32 PM on 03/29/2010
The mandate is as Republican as a tax cut for the Rich.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sandals
05:56 PM on 03/29/2010
I just came back from DC and I saw no Protesters against this health care bill.
However it was Cherry Blossom Festival and the National Kite Festival.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sandals
05:54 PM on 03/29/2010
Good campaign ad
Shows their hypocrisy!
I just watched Hardball and this teabagger was on and very rude, she interrupted the other guest well she was speaking. She still didn't explain what they stood for.

So the latest polls according to the teabagger is all of Americans are against the bill, Chris said they were when the civil rights passed and when medicare passed.
04:06 PM on 03/29/2010
Well, "Republican hypocrisy" is one way to spin it. Haw haw, those GOPers, they won't even admit that the Democrats did exactly what they wanted them to do. Wait a minute.

Let's turn it around: we are supposed to be all thrilled that Republican ideas have been turned into reality by Democrats? Whoopee!!! Who cares whether it makes sense? We win!!! Partisan circle jerk!!!!

As for all the people here defending the mandate....none of you seem to want to admit that insurance companies exist to make a profit, that our mandated payments are going to be feeding that....it's charitable of you to repeat industry talking points without a fee....
02:47 PM on 03/29/2010
You all loved the mandates when reps pointed out that they were mean and unconstitutional
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GarysDiscardedCaps
Without deviation progress is not possible.
06:23 PM on 03/29/2010
Do Facts get blogged up in your gray matter or are you just spewing far reaching generalizations to get your ya-ya's out?
02:45 PM on 03/29/2010
Last week dems loved this bill....Now it's a rep idea... ? scary
02:44 PM on 03/29/2010
no republican voted for the bill or the mandate... taxing the poor is all the dems idea..
02:30 PM on 03/29/2010
The GOP is for it again. Just after the president signed it into law, they started saying things like having a "more responsible" healthcare plan and "replace". That flies in the face of their claims that healthcare reform has been "rejected by the vast majority of Americans".
photo
dmsdzinr
Progression wit a twist of sarcasm.
11:41 AM on 03/29/2010
Gee, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!! Who would have thought?!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
10:57 AM on 03/29/2010
With the number of postings on this subject, probably don't need to add mine but I get a little ticked when what I post is accepted for two or three days and then eliminated by ??But I resent more that Obama and his minions have come out telling us how brave and far-reaching this health care bill is. Yesterday, it was pretty nauseous. After 14 months, during which the health care reform measures were being written by Congressional staff and legislators, all Obama was filling the airwaves with was his determination to get Republicans on board and his lack of insistence that the public option be included in any bill. We know he wasn't ever on board for universal, single-payer health care, in spite of the campaign speeches. This bill will do some good things right away, like no previous medical condition can deny children health care. For the rest of us, it won't happen until 4 years from now. Keeping children on parents benefit is another. REQUIRING health care insurance seems like a good thing, but it is not the kind of mandate that it would be if it were single payer benefit. Some people are going to have a tough time paying for it. And paying for the bill SEEMS to be consistent with moving/taking? some of the Medicare and Medicaid funds to pay for SOME of it. This may be a Trojan horse for seniors...and the very poor.
09:29 PM on 03/29/2010
I agree with your comments! I wrote to my congressman to support the single payer bill. As long as the insurance companies are involved in health care, the cost will continue to climb. Hospital administrative costs are in the billions of dollars per year just in processing insurance claims which the insurance companies pick and choose what they will pay. Unfortunately, the politics of Washington has diluted what this country needs. Obama has received a lot of criticism and name calling for his conviction to get a health care package passed which is watered down. Otherwise there would be no health care reform at all. I hope that it isn't too little, too late!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
09:15 AM on 03/30/2010
For my two cents, I have never believed that Obama wanted a single-payer or public option in a health care bill. He's pretty much into the pockets of big pharma. And he gave the drug and health care business a big boost by having a mandate for Americans to buy health insurance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
epcraig
After a couple of strokes...
09:32 AM on 03/29/2010
When I visited my daughter in Massachusetts soon after Brown won his seat. Good Democrats I spoke to had not bothered to vote because they like Martha Coakley as Attorney General and they resent the Romney health care bill so why vote for it again? Didn't seem sensible to me, but I was a bit late and they do get to keep their AG.
And losing the Kennedy seat did not cost us Health Care Reform even if its effect was to expand the Romney plan across the nation (for which Obama gets credit).