by Goldy, 03/30/2010, 5:13 PM

Um… could somebody on the Republican side of the aisle — you know, those breathlessly opposing, on both policy and legal grounds, the health insurance mandate within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — please explain to me the difference between this mandate, and that within their own Social Security privatization proposals that would require Americans to invest a portion of their paychecks with private financial firms?

And don’t tell me that under Social Security privatization, you still have the option to stick with old government run system, because you have the same exact option with the so-called health insurance “mandate”: don’t purchase private insurance, and the federal government will just take the cost of the premium out of your paycheck in the form of a tax. You know, just like Social Security.

Honestly, how is it constitutional to require economic participation on the one hand, but not on the other? Or are Republicans just a bunch of grandstanding, unprincipled hypocrites?

24 Responses to “Republican hypocrisy on the health insurance mandate”

1. Lee spews:

Republicans are just a bunch of grandstanding, unprincipled hypocrites.

2. Major —— de Coverley spews:

Republicans are so full of it, they wipe themselves with a Q-tip.

3. manoftruth spews:

we’re sick of YOU people, goldbergstein

4. DavidD spews:

I’m with Lee.

Republicans are just a bunch of hypocrites.

5. nolaguy spews:

I’m not a republican, but you could say I lean conservative, so here it goes:

There is little difference between the health-care mandate and the privatization of social security. Both ideas suck as they force the funneling of tax payer money to for-profit entities.

6. proud leftist spews:

There is, of course, no principled distinction between the mandates involved in the healthcare bill and the Republican proposals for privatizing Social Security. We’ll probably hear, “well, you don’t have to work, so not everyone has to pay into Social Security, but everyone has to have health insurance under this new bill or get fined.” I’ve heard that argument. Really.

7. Goldy spews:

nolaguy @5,

I appreciate and respect ideological consistency.

8. Goldy spews:

leftist @6,

Actually, no, that argument doesn’t hold up. The alternative to purchasing private health insurance is a tax penalty, up to 2.5% of income up to the average national cost of a bronze premium. So if you don’t work, and thus don’t earn any income, then you don’t pay the tax.

9. puddyklynicallostatsea spews:

the answer is for social security…you aren’t compelled…because you don’t have to work.

That’s right, you have a choice and anyone with a trust fund or willingness to starbe doesn’t have to work, so they won’t be compelled to do that mandate.

hcr totally different, you’re compelled whether you choose to access the hc system or not.

a flip side of the irony is had we done a public system like medicare for all, they’d have no legal case at all…well, even less than they have now….because we have power to tax for the general welfare, a key provision intended to ensure big national gummint in fact a key problem under articles of confed. was the absence of big powerful national gummint

contrary to the right wing idjits who tell us the founders were against government.

I mean, taxing for the general welfare? that’s a huge gummint right there, before we even get to the commerce clause.

On a braoder note, the whole right wing view that gummint must be small is belied by their inability to explain why, if it must be small, we let it:
-intrude on the first 12 years of your life, making you get educated!
–intrude on you by making you pay to feed your kids. That’s forcing you to buy products from private companies, which to the right wing idjits isn’t allowed
–intrude on your freedom to marry your sister, or a goat. that’s a pretty big regulation if it regulates who you can marry or have sex with.
–makesyou dump your shit into a sewer system. i mean come on, that’s pretty intrusive, you have a big gummint reaching up into your house and bathrooms, practically right up your you know what!
–and what’s this communist plan for ….a fire dept.? That’s literally TAKING MY MONEY AND GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE.

PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN FIRE RISKS. WE MUST STOP HANDING OUT FREE FIRE PROTECTION TO FOLKS WHO ARE NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO CARE FOR THEIR OWN HOME IN THIS WAY…THIS IS GUMMINT RUN AMOK! OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD NEVER ALLOW A COMMUNIST TYPE FIRE DEPT……OR COMMUNIST LIBRARY SYSTEMS…WHERE ANYONE CAN JUST WALK UP AND TAKE A BOOK! THAT’S LITERALLY TAKING MY MONEY, AND GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!

10. Roger Rabbit spews:

“Or are Republicans just a bunch of grandstanding, unprincipled hypocrites?”

Agree on both counts. For sheer chutzpah, you have to look at Russia or Zimbabwe to find anything comparable to Republican Party USA.

11. Roger Rabbit spews:

@3 “we’re sick of YOU people, goldbergstein”

Do you really think anybody cares what you’re sick of? I hope you choke on it.

12. proud leftist spews:

Goldy,
My point was simply that in the real world where 99% of us must work, there is no principled distinction between the two mandates. Your point is well-taken–there is really no distinction at all, except that one piece of legislation involves health care and the other retirement and disability. The bills have different citations in the United States Code. Our wingnuts will likely count that as a meaningful distinction.

13. Zotz spews:

Thurston GOP Chair says he’s “sure” Rossi IS running against Murray.

http://www.theolympian.com/2010/03/30/1190120/thurston-gop-leader-rossi-to-run.html

14. Roger Rabbit spews:

@9 You completely forgot to mention taking money from me and giving it to corporate farmers — and host of other communistic things that benefit the rich at the expense of taxpayers (such as using the military to defend their access to foreign resources).

In this, as in all things, Republicans are selective. Socialist for rich = good, health care for poor kids = bad. The only thing they’re consistent about is they’re consistently hypocritical.

15. Ekim spews:

Where are the death panels? I have to say I’m really disappointed. I was promised death panels by our wing nuts.

16. Lee spews:

@15
Yeah, exactly. I was wondering if it going to be like jury duty. You get a notice to show up to be on a death panel and then get to decide who lives and who dies. That’s the kind of socialized medicine I could get behind.

17. Roger Rabbit spews:

I don’t mind not being selected to be on a death panel if I get to pull the lever. heh just kidding! Michelle Malkin humor.

18. manoftruth spews:

@15
Where are the death panels? I have to say I’m really disappointed. I was promised death panels by our wing nuts

even though the implentation of healthcare is 4 years away, you choose to ridicule and hope to sway us. fool

19. Ekim spews:

OH, NO! Please MOT, say it isn’t true! We have to wait 4 years for the death panels?

My bad, I forgot about the health insurance industry death panels. Will the gov’t ones be anything like theirs?

20. Naked Goddess spews:

“…and hope to sway us.”

Silly man. Some things are even beyond my powers.

21. proud leftist spews:

Naked Goddess,
Oooh, I like that concept . . . But, exactly. Swaying manoftruth? Ain’t gonna happen. No point in trying. Besides, who the hell would want such detritus on the same team?

It is curious, yet predictable, that none of our usual trolls (mot doesn’t count as he is only about spitting up bile) will address Goldy’s topic. Where are you Cynical, Puddy, lost, markie, etc.? Why can’t you answer this question about reconciling your belief in privatizing Social Security with the mandates of the new health care legislation?

22. FricknFrack spews:

I thought a poster on another board (whom has been living with Medicare many years) made a very good point:

Responding to the comment: “The Constitutional argument is that the gov’t can’t force people to pay *private* companies for insurance.”

Poster said:
If the Healthcare bill is is unconstitutional for that reason, then Medicare Part D drug coverage is, too. Part D was mandatory for those on Medicare who had no other drug coverage. Part D put drug coverage for Medicare recipients in the hands of *private* insurance companies. For those with low incomes, the premiums are subsidized by the government.

Sounds familiar, huh? The health care bill seems to be using the same model as the Part D drug plan that the republicans in congress loved so much.

If they want to raise a constitutional issue to overturn the healthcare bill based on forcing people to pay *private* insurance companies for prescription coverage, they had better be prepared to overturn Medicare Part D drug plan legislation as well!

23. Puddybud is Sad my friend died spews:

Golly@22 you shock and amaze Puddy at your “commentary”. Yeah, Puddy remembers you “like” THE DUMB BUNNY commentary. Since most of my siblings are of advanced age here’s the story.

Two are diabetic so Medicare Part D comes into play. One of the two is retired Navy so her coverage is lifetime. Six are in great health so they don’t participate in Part D. One is retired PA govmint employee so she covered. The Since Puddy is getting close to retirement age AARP, sends Puddy monthly info. Read and weep over your Part D ignorance. Sure it is a crap shoot on your health but part D isn’t mandatory.

24. MikeBoyScout spews:

UW panelists say lawsuits challenging health bill lack merit

Moderator Hugh Spitzer noted the lack of a vigorous dissenting voice.

“I will say that we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional,” he said. “But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand.”

h/t Steve Benen