Will BaucusCare Drop Mandates Now That GOP Is Attacking Them?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 07:54:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Want a "bipartisan" bill, Max Baucus? Well those mandates will have to go:

On Tuesday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) described the health care legislation being considered by the Senate Finance Committee as a "stunning assault on liberty" due to a provision that would require individuals to buy insurance. The attacks have confounded Democrats in and out of government, who noted quickly that mandating coverage was, until recently, a relative given when it came to health care reform.

Demonstrating the sheer political stupidity of Democrats, here was their reaction:

The attacks have confounded Democrats in and out of government, who noted quickly that mandating coverage was, until recently, a relative given when it came to health care reform.

Idiots. What? They thought the GOP would stop bullying them once they gave them their lunch money (a robust public option)? If there is a more incompetent political bargaining organization than the Democratic Party, it would be hard to find.

Speaking for me only

< Tom DeLay Unplugged | Najibullah Zazi's Terror Case May Be Moved to New York >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Will BaucusCare Drop Mandates Now That GOP Is Attacking Them? | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:16:13 PM EST

Maybe this is part of an 11-dimensional strategy where Obama will boldly announce that there has to be a public option because of the mandates, and everyone will live happily ever after.

: Indeed (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:18:18 PM EST

: judging by that article (none / 0) (#20)
by lilburro on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 08:24:28 AM EST

if the conversation moves to mandates, we will be in a good position.

LAT editorial: medicare for all (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by oculus on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:29:57 PM EST

LAT Roszak

: I am interested to see (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:33:55 PM EST

how the CBO scores a healthcare plan that doesn't include a bribe of the insurance industry.

The primaries are so over for the Dems (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:02:18 PM EST

they forgot the primary debates over Hillary Clinton's support of mandates.

Mandates and autoenrollment (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:12:36 PM EST

and a robust public option was the Clinton position.

Obama was for a robust public option and NO mandates.

So ObamaCare will be - no public option and mandates?

What's wrong with that picture?


Geez (5.00 / 8) (#4)
by Emma on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:16:52 PM EST

You're what's wrong with the picture since you couldn't be bothered to give a d*mn about this very relevant difference when it could have mattered -- that is during the primaries. Now, all of a sudden, it matters? NOW it matters? NOW there's a dime's worth of difference? NOW??


Touche (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:17:58 PM EST

And yet (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:19:28 PM EST

in my defense, since such a result will prove that what was said did not matter.

But still, you got me.


: I give you credit (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:30:56 PM EST

for manning up.

: It really is (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Spamlet on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 09:33:34 PM EST

infuriating and disheartening--not just the disaster that appears to be unfolding now but also the fact that we can't even say voters in the Democratic primaries preferred Obama. When they could cast a ballot, they usually preferred Hillary Clinton, sometimes by margins that, in another year, would have meant humiliating defeat for all other challenger(s) for the nomination. But the superdelegates, often in opposition to their constituents' express wishes, bet the future on an "emerging Democratic majority" of younger voters. We'll see who shows up to vote, and how, in the 2010 midterms.

Did (none / 0) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:23:51 PM EST

these people think that it was just Goerge Bush and once he got out of office that things would change? I've been screaming it from the roof tops for a couple of years now but no one seems to want to listen.

Obamacare= mandates + no public options.
Obamacare is the worst possible option out there.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the party has decided that since we have Milquetoast Goodspeech for a President that they should continue to wimp out on everything too.

Still hoping! (none / 0) (#12)
by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:47:18 PM EST

I still can't believe Obama or the Democrat's seriously thought that there was any HCR bill that could get Republican support.

I'm still hoping that all this phoney bipartisan junk was just staged to show how Obama "really" tried to reach out.

Now maybe we can forget about appeasing the enemy and put a bill together that Democrat's can look back on and be proud of.

Hoping is good.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Lora on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:51:17 PM EST

Only trouble is, we have to look at their past record to predict future behavior, no?

See you at the funeral...


: True (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 10:07:07 PM EST

I know but I have to hope that this entire election cycle wasn't for nothing! We had such a chance to really have a positive impact on the direction of the country. People were more than ready. I just hate to think that this once in a lifetime chance is going to be squandered away.

Mandates are a terrible approach (none / 0) (#16)
by NealB on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 11:16:39 PM EST

Maybe after all, we're better off the health care debate is headed toward this dead end. The success of the plans that have been written thus far, all of them, succeed in controlling costs only because of the individual mandates. What a shameful way to solve the problem. Forcing citizens that don't want to buy a crappy product from a corrupt industry is bad any way you look at it.

If these plans are the best Obama and Congress can do, then I hope they fail. They won't stop the needless suffering and death; hidden costs will make it worse for those already at a disadvantage. These bills perpetuate enrichment of the powerful at the expense of the weak. Neither Congress nor the White House gives a sh!t about Americans that most need better health care. You're an immigrant? Too bad. You make less than $50,000 a year? Suck it up. Unemployed? Loser! Over 50? Good luck.

65 years this debate has been going on in America. Meanwhile the rest of the civilized world has managed to socialize their health care systems because it was the decent thing to do, and the economically sane thing to do. 65 years and the best Obama and Congress can come up with is this?

If the mandates aren't dropped the whole plan should be scrapped.

: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 09:17:16 AM EST

If the debate thus far has shown anything, it is that the socialized single player plan is the only one that really makes sense. All the rest are trying to serve (at best) conflicting goals of affordable insurance for all plus a rich private insurance industry. At worst, the plans only serve the insurance industry.

I can't wait to hear the speech in which (none / 0) (#17)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 11:58:38 PM EST

mandates become only "one sliver" of the health care plan. Erza's column on how mandates were a bad idea to begin with should also be amusing.

Meanwhile (none / 0) (#18)
by s5 on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 12:57:41 AM EST

The public option is looking like a given. Replace "mandate" with "auto enrollment" and we have a plan that's both good politics and good policy.

I've come around to favoring mandates, but auto enrollment in a public option would be better.

I'm no fan of mandates (none / 0) (#19)
by Chuck0 on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 08:13:11 AM EST

but Republicans have never done much shrieking about auto insurance mandates, seat belt mandates, motorcycle helmet laws (kind of shoots their "less government" shrieks in the foot).

: Another Republican Allusion (none / 0) (#21)
by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 09:03:12 AM EST

Republican's only endorse "less government" when it comes to regulating business or handing out payback contracts through privatization!
They have no problem with the government tapping your phone, veiwing your bank statements or even who you should be allowed to marry.