Tweet
Many conservatives purport to oppose big government and coercive mandates. The centerpiece of the emerging bill is an individual mandate to purchase insurance. Why is the right wing silent on this when they should be screaming bloody murder?
Could it be that they see the IM as their political silver stake for 2010 if the bill were to pass?
Could they really be in support of government coercion for private profit?
To what extent do the Dick Armeys of the right wing differ or agree with the grass roots teabaggers on this?
I really don’t know, discuss amongst yourselves.
25 Comments
Yes, health-insurance mandate is a tax
the requirement to purchase health insurance will start badly and grow even worse.
unprecedented imposition on individual liberty
If you think that the “right wing (is) silent on this”, then you’re not listening.
btw: you do recall that Candidate Obama was flatly against a mandate, right?
Can you please point me to any instances where the right wing is making noise about the individual mandate?
Most of what I see coming from the right wing is against guvmint run health finance.
And, yes, I am a progressive who watches Fox News. I always like it when people who disagree with me lay out their propaganda so readily.
They’ve always slammed it in Taxachusetts, and Obama was accused (by Krugman and probably others) of leaning right when he opposed the mandate during the campaign (another of his lies).
Most of the talk of suing over its constitutionality has emanated from the right.
I imagine their idea right now is that this is a political win-win for them. They want the bill to pass since it is for all intents and purposes a Republican bill, precisely because it does nothing but round up this conscript market for the insurance racket while imposing no cost controls.
At the same time they’ll refuse to vote for it and then run in 2010 on this and similar things, slamming the Dems as the party of big business tyranny and as the enemies of health care freedom. Amazingly, they’ll be telling the truth for once.
For what it’s worth, although the term “Taxachusetts” sounds rhythmic and all, MA is actually in the middle of the pack as far as the levels of taxation are concerned.
When will people start to see the right talks a great storm, but coud give a shit less about this, at least the people in Congress.
Just like everything out of their mouths is about small businesses yet while they were in power they did little to help those same small businesses.
The worst part of this country is that the people in the populus that think they are republicans, can’t see that their elected officials don’t live up to what they preach.
All the problems that they are always pointing out, they did absolutly nothing about while they were in power, but they did give Bush everything He wanted.
marcos: “Can you please point me to any instances where the right wing is making noise about the individual mandate?”
All three links I posted cover the mandate.
iremember54: “their elected officials don’t live up to what they preach.”
Well, there’s a bipartisan problem if ever I heard one.
Oh, I know. In the spirit of the OP question I was channelling the rightists’ way of looking at it. :)
Great, three links. As a percentage of general right wing criticisms of the bill, that is immeasurable.
The Public Option is going to be nothing like a Canadian single payer system or like British National Health, which is the “gold standard” in socialized medicine. However, the right wing is sparing no expense in railing against something that is not going to be in the bill.
I watch Beck, Hannity and O’Reilley, and aside from the last, the rest are universally opposed to something that’s not going to see the light of day, and to an individual, those with the biggest megaphones are silent on the individual mandate.
Can’t stomach listening to Limbaugh, so don’t know what Mr. Oxycontin is up to.
“Great, three links.”
Oh, there are plenty more, but just how much of your research do you expect me to do for you?
You went on record that the right wing “silent” (although apparently Russ heard them) and asked for “any instances.” Fine: I took a few minutes to show you were wrong. If you really want to know how wrong try doing what you should have done to begin with.
This is not a game of gotcha.
Freedomworks is silent on mobilizing people against the Individual Mandate. The GOP congressional leadership is silent on opposing the Individual Mandate. Hannity, O’Reilley and Beck are silent on mobilizing people against the Individual Mandate.
You can find anyone who says anything and post a link to it. But that does not mean that there is any political muscle behind it. The people with power who are spending real money to drive conservative opinion are silent on opposing the Individual Mandate.
Why might this be?
Say Dakine, who IS at the top as far as overall state taxation is concerned? I mean everything. State income tax, property tax, sales tax. Maybe even fees and revenue enhancers like the lottery. Do you know a website? I’d like to know exactly where California ranks. Thanks
You know I ‘m just not sure. It’s tempting to think that The Right is content to sit back and let the Dems weave their own trap. But they usually aren’t that cunning. Their usual MO is to holler and gesticulate and it would seem that the IM is tailor-made for that. Perhaps its been so much fun to fulminate about guv’mint takeovers and whatnot that they just haven’t gotten around to that talking point yet.
Maybe it’s because they resemble a yard full of excitable dogs. You know, when you walk along the fence you can bark at them and they get so worked up barking and leaping that someone could quietly stack up a pile of steaks in another part of the yard and they would’nt notice for quite a while.
Yeah. I think that could be it.
Of course liberals and progressives are never excitable dogs, are we? Most of us have no rings in our noses and are not led around by leashes, no not we!
I was just trying to answer your question. And yes I was certainly treated to some excited liberal “dog-ma” on a recent thread about HCR and foreign nationals. But compare the content and style of Air America to Rush. Or Keith, Rachel and Ed to Beck, Hannity and Savage. Or Kucinich to De mint. There’s a big difference there.
As far as rings in noses and being led around, I think that best describes the great wide swath of the American population that either has no opinion or what little they have is very poorly informed.
Oh. And there is a place for some excitability, Such as a few months ago when there was advice going around to trust in the “vagueries of the political process.” Back when there was something that actually resembled a functioning PO on the table. But, things played out and of course it got neutered as I predicted and now the call goes out to “kill the bill.” In the end we wll get nothing of substance without action of substance.
The difference between MSNBC and FoxNews is that MSNBC has relative autonomy from whatever the Democrat Party line is on an issue, while Fox is much more of an apparatus of the Republican Party.
The line up of guests on Maddow and Olberman is 90% other mainstream journalists, NBC, Time or Newsweek, Democrat electeds and the occasional Republican and the private sector Democrat Party hack parade. The 10% of interesting people like Jeff Sharlet really makes it worth watching.
Our people sound rational to us because they’re sounding tones that resonate with us. We’ve got to deal with the fact that other folks resonate politically in more of a feeling rather than thinking way.
Had Obama wanted to push a bill that did what he promised in the campaign, then he wouldn’t have taken single payer off the table early and would not be expressing his desperation to pass a bill, any bill.
Hey Grumpy, there is one thing different between republicans and democrats. We democrats bitch about our elected offcials, and you republicans defend yours untill they take you to the cleaners.
Never speak bad of a republican must be your moto.
hey, iremember54:
1) I’m not a Republican. Not everyone who thinks Libs are starry eyed dreamers making a bad situation worse is a card-carrying member of the GOP, you know?
2) There is a difference between defending someone and debunking bad info.
3A) George Bush was the worst President in US history, and thank God he didn’t die in office because Cheney would have won the title within a month.
3B) I don’t have a motto, but it’s not a bad idea. How about, “Government is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master”? Or maybe, “There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world”?
Serious question: would you agree with those last two statements?
“This is not a game of gotcha.”
Who are you kidding? The whole point of this diary is a “gotcha” against the GOP: they say this but they’re not screaming (loudly enough) about that. Gotcha!
“Rush Limbaugh has urged that a military coup overthrow the current government in Washington. That is a prosecutable crime called ‘seditious treason’ and there is probable cause to indict Rush Limbaugh and put him on trial.
Sedition refers to any overt conduct deemed by the legal authority as encouraging or supporting an insurrection against the established law and order. Limbaugh has advocated military insurrection, that the United States Military Academy detain and/or other wise ‘arrest’ Barack Obama, the legal and fairly elected President of the United States. Limbaugh is on record supporting a military coup. Given the price of ‘air time’ his support is material! It is an open and shut case of sedition.”
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2009/11/limbaugh-commits-prosecutable-treason.html
Grumpy, I am not saying that conservatives or Republicans ought to complain about the individual mandate. That is their choice, not mine.
I am trying to figure out why conservatives are not raising hell about the individual mandate when their ideology indicates that they should be up in arms in opposition to the jackbooted guvmint thugs requiring them purchase anything, including health insurance.
In so doing, I am trying to figure out if there is a fissure in the ranks of conservatives. With a bill this complex, it is possible to find a vast number of diverse coalitions on all of the aspects in play. That is why the polling question “do you support Obama’s health reform plan?” is so absurd.
Are there powerful forces in the conservative coalition that think that an individual mandate is a good idea because it further empowers the insurers, for instance?
This diary is meant to be analytical, not prescriptive. It is often instructive to examine why people act against their stated political principles.
Perhaps it is easier for some to adopt a 16 color view of politics, and to assume that everyone falls neatly into one category. I’d prefer 24 bit resolution to my political view, thanks.
What’s also interesting here is that many progressives agree with conservatives that the individual mandate is a bad idea, yet there is something that is keeping us from joining forces on this issue where we agree.
Could it be that the same interests which are not making a big deal about the individual mandate also work overtime to make sure that left and right will never cooperate in those instances where we agree?
“Could it be that the same interests which are not making a big deal about the individual mandate also work overtime to make sure that left and right will never cooperate in those instances where we agree?”
Possibly, though since we do such a fine job of not cooperating all on our own, why would they bother?
Let’s follow the money: the big winners with an IM are the insurance companies, and they are also the ones most afraid of a strong PO. It’s important to consider the two together since public opposition to an IM inversely correlates with a strong PO (people are more willing to accept a mandate to purchase if there’s a realistic public option available tahn if they must purchase private insurance). The Bill Congress came up with is the opposite of what the public wants, but probably has insurance company execs dancing in the streets. Insurance companies donate lavishly to both parties, and recently in more equal amounts (they used to heavily favor Reps.).
You say that, “many progressives agree with conservatives that the individual mandate is a bad idea”. I haven’t seen much of it but I do believe you: progressives have a well-deserved reputation for opposing encroachments on the right to privacy, which should apply here. If I recall, Obama said his thinking on the IM had “evolved,” but did he ever say why?
The simplest explanation for the surprisingly muted screaming from both sides is that both sides are being bribed by the same people: the ones who love the IM and hate the PO, and who got just what they wanted on those two points.
We’re getting played coming and going.
“We’re getting played coming and going.”
Yep, but websites like this give me hope for the future. They increase the scrutiny public officials (elected and otherwise) are subject to and disseminate the information far more widely than was ever before possible.
My hope is that elections will start going less to the one with the most corporate bucks to spend on slick media to influence the public and more to the one who’s well-known actions have earned the respect of an informed public.
We all have to live here together, and it is time that our the tenor of our political discourse started to reflect that.
The Citizens United case bodes ill for the constitutionality of regulating the relative volume of political speech by regulating the money that drives it. And with Obama carrying forth the inflamed corporate agenda with a steely decisiveness, I’m not seeing any daylight when I look to a government that is politically responsive to the sovereigns.
To the contrary, if the people remain divided and do nothing to stop it, I see us looking much more like China, where instead of the Communist Party directing business, we’ll see the Chamber of Commerce, or some such corporate analogue, taking on that role.
We’re going to have to contain big business, big labor and the nonprofit sector and subjugate them to the public benefit if we are going to have any hope to clear a space for popular democracy here.
“regulating the relative volume of political speech by regulating the money that drives it”
You’re right: regulating the money is not practical. I take it for granted that they’ll always find a way to accept money, but they also have to have votes. The current paradigm is that the bribe money buys the media that gets the votes. We need to move to a place where voters make decisions based on candidates’ track records, not their media hype. At that point the money is less essential for re-election.
“We all have to live here together, and it is time that our the tenor of our political discourse started to reflect that.”
Yes, I agree. As a start to that, I would suggest the end of name calling and superiority complexes, followed by an emphasis on rationality and full disclosure (even unpalatable truths are still truths and need to be considered dispassionately). We ought to sound more like a carpool discussing the best route to work, and less like a playground of rowdy pre-teens arguing their favorite football team.