OK in 1993, but not in 2010

National, Politics 1 Minute

The health insurance mandate, that is. And a few other things in the health care bill passed this year. The 1993 bill proposed by Republicans contained many of the same provisions, so what has changed? “The main thing that’s changed is the definition of a Republican,” according to then-Sen. Dave Durenberger, R-Minn, a co-sponsor of the 1993 initiative.

Here’s a chart comparing the two (based on the two bills as introduced).

~

On a related note, Bart Hinkle of The Richmond-Times Dispatch raises the issue of the actions of big-government conservatives laying “the foundation upon which the individual mandate was built.”

So far, many conservatives outraged over Obamacare do not seem to have reconsidered their enthusiasm for national drug prohibition. Whether they do so could provide a good indication as to whether they’re standing up for a principle — or merely against the president.

The Supreme Court case, in this instance, goes back only to 2006. Has the definition of Republican changed in four years as well?

Published

29 thoughts on “OK in 1993, but not in 2010”

  1. The key to most of it, of course, is that the Republicans aren’t interested in governing, but rather in reflexively opposing anything the Democrats support.

  2. Chafee?

    You’re basing your opinion about mainstream Republican thinking by citing a bill by Lincoln Chafee, who endorse Obama for President?

    Some Republican!

  3. Todays gop is not our ancestors republican party. If todays republican party were in control during the 1860’s, black people might still be slaves.

    Socialism was not the party founders cause. In a time when political party affiliation has more to do with wresting control of government than founding ideology, the party brand has been so diluted that it no longer represents the primary cause of the founders who were first and formost wealthy conservative and moderate white anti-slavery expansion activists 150+ years ago. Not calling todays leadership po racists but the republican party is no longer the party standing in opposition to large scale government subsidized corruption. Nationalized healthcare is by default a large part of our nations 3rd New Deal.. it is by definition big government regardless of which party supported it in 93, 09 or now and it is yet another nail in our national coffin. ANY republican who supports it is in my opinion a disgrace.. dare I say corrupt. Hence the word Rino applies here.

    Vivian, I stand by my words.

  4. Did I miss something? We have National Healthcare in America? James do youmind calling blue cross/blue shield and informing them I will no longer be needing their healthcare since we now have National Health Care. That will saveme 50.00 a wek and i wil gladly put it back into the economy for my much needed necessities such as food. All the repugs know there is no national health care or Obamacare in ur nation and they know that because they are paying for their health care. They really ned to quit their foolish lies for political purposes

    1. Gene:

      Republicans just make stuff up and the palaver and nonsense that flows is repeated over and over again in their right wing media and echo chamber until many believe it.

      You can’t debate them honestly because they believe their made up story lines. What is enacting a mechanism to drive 10% of the Americans who are uninsured into the private for profit health insurance industry is like magic… poof…. the government take-over of health care and socialism run amok.

      Of course, they believe the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a failure too, no matter how much undeniable, independent and authoritative analysis proves it worked by adding growth to what was our shrinking GDP and jobs to what was a declining private sector jobs market.

  6. You’ll be happy to know that I also oppose the federal drug laws.

    If the power “To regulate Commerce… among the several States” entails absolute power of everything remotely connected to interstate commerce, then the rest of the Constitution, the rest of the enumerated powers, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, are completely meaningless.

    “To regulate” means to make regular. The thermostat in my house regulates the temperature by controlling the heater or the air conditioner. It does not control the lights, the computers, the TV, the oven, or any of the other things that may have some minuscule effect the temperature of the house.

  7. There is no mandate and no one is forced to buy health insurance under the PPAA.

    You are free to choose to participate or choose to not participate and pay an additional tax.

    It is the same a buying a home as there is no mandate to buy a house. I, who rents, pays a higher tax than those who choose to buy a house and deduct mortgage interest and real estate taxes. I freely made that choice just like the PPAA. As an accountant, Vivian, you know if 2 families each make 50k and one pays $1000 in rant and one $1000 in PITI, who pays more and who less in taxes? I am incentivized to buy a house through the tax code, just like the uninsured are incentivized to buy health insurance in the PPAA.

    Additionally, the PPAA was one of the most incredible consumer protection bills ever passed and reigns in the most egregious practices of screwing consumer by the insurance industry.

    1. “You are free to choose to participate or choose to not participate and pay an additional tax.”

      That’s like saying you are free to commit murder and stay in a nice room with bars for doors.

      1. Yes, paying taxes is just like committing murder. Gosh, why didn’t I think of that cogent analysis.

        But then again, when you pray at the alter of no taxes, it is cogent analysis.

    2. Obama is against mortgage interest deduction, in fact it appears he is for the opposite.. Not calling it a penalty for home buyers… yet. Can’t make this stuff up. BO impresses me with his capacity to bring about change, but, the change will screw the poorest families in so many ways, especially their children. Where is all this money coming from to pay for healthcare? Where is the REAL reform to prevent unreasonable lawsuits? Where are the measures to reduce the cost of meds, not the mandates, the regulatory cost reductions? Where are the incentives for private industry to competitively offer basic services to those who need it without requiring everyone to take the hit? What are you gonna do when you run out of rich people?

  8. http://www.realtor.org/government_affairs/mortgage_interest_deduction/mid_obama_budget_proposal

    http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2009/03/01/removing-mortgage-interest-deduction-dumbest-idea-week/

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/14/business/fi-deduct14

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/ax-may-fall-.html

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/obama-proposes-to-cap-mortgage-interest.html

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/news/economy/fiscal_commission_social_security_mortgage_deduction/index.htm

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/25/deficit-commission-weighs-dropping-mortgage-deduction/

    http://www.brokerforyou.com/brokerforyou/home-mortgage-interest-deductions-to-be-reduced.html

    http://counterpunch.org/hudson11152010.html

    http://msn.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/23/2-huge-misconceptions-about-killing-the-mortgage-i.aspx?logvisit=y&source=eedmsnlnk0010001&published=2010-11-23

    http://thefrontsteps.com/2010/11/17/president-barack-obamas-deficit-reduction-commission-looks-at-homeownership-and-the-mortgage-interest-deduction/

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/news/economy/fiscal_commission_social_security_mortgage_deduction/index.htm?section=money_pf_taxes

    http://www.philly.com/philly/business/personal_finance/20101116_Deficit_cutters_eye_mortgage_tax_deduction__raising_an_outcry.html

    http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2009/03/02/mortgage-interest-deduction-dodo/

    The good news is that the new congress will derail much of this. Every penny of interest should be deductible for everyone if home ownership is to remain a viable privilege. It is not a right to own Vivian, but, it is a privilege. It should also be a national priority. Private home owners cost this country less, they are not living in public housing which often per person or per sq/in costs more overall than private. I can back that up too.. Homeowners pay far more taxes than those in public housing by a landslide. Not dissing those in public housing with all due respects but not wanting to punish those who wish to enjoy the fruits of their labors and to invest in a home for the long term.

    1. I didn’t click through them all but a)some refer to the Debt Commission, which ain’t Obama, and b)the budget proposes to limit the mortgage interest deduction for high income taxpayers.

      Neither of those things support your claim that “Obama is against mortgage interest deduction.”

      And you are obviously not aware that the mortgage interest deduction is already limited.

      1. Vivian, I am not fooled by any of this crap regardless of which party is in power or what the letter is after their name.. that said, even if Obama’s fiscal committee succeeds at ramming through a reduction of the interest deduction for those making over $250K, the result will be a massive increase in the ratio of already massive number of foreclosures and loan defaults.
        The net effect would raise home prices and make them less accesible to the so called rich who report income on their personal returns.. there are a lot of homebuyers remaining in this group unless government greases them too. And guess what, suddenly eliminating current tax incentives will screw up many retirees financial calculations and jeapordize their home mortgage payment profile forcing them to rent from evil guys like moi. More people will question any riskier move to buy and instead rent thereby gaining no equity.

        Reducing deductions is a slippery slope to eliminating them. Anyone who is a student of the real estate market knows why there was little resistance to incorporating this into the tax code 100 years ago.

        We are on the brink of insolvency and our congress and president are spreading fear uncertainty and doubt through the housing market.. what is the upside Vivian?

        1. Bluster may work elsewhere, but not here. Your claim was unsupported, period. How about you start by acknowledging that?

          And how about you discuss the fact that the deduction is already limited?

          Finally, since when can the Debt Commission “ram through” anything? Have they been given legislative powers that I’m unaware of?

          Gotta laugh at this:

          Reducing deductions is a slippery slope to eliminating them.

          Do you have any idea how many deductions have been reduced or eliminated just in the 25+ years that I’ve been in the field? How about we start with the personal interest deduction, which was phased out in the 1980s by none other than Saint Ronald Reagan.

          I know you know more than to simply repeat talking points and engage in fear-mongering.

          Finally, you still haven’t commented on the drugs.

      2. And most low-income home-owners do not take the mortgage interest deduction anyway, or only take a very small portion of it, because their deductions rarely exceed the Standard Deduction.

  9. I’m a Libertarian. Need I say more on where I stand on drug prohibition? Lol.

    Just keep in mind, whatever new powers you give to the executive or congress will eventually be in the hands of the opposing party. You may then find such loose handling of the commerce clause and words like “public good” or “general welfare” used in a different way that you might find oppressive.

    Partisans are always against “big govt” heavy handedness…………….when they are not in power.

  10. I briefly read the link on the drug issue, and want to look again when I get home. Neat stuff to contemplate.

    It did occur to me a big difference is that the mandate is forced commerce where as a prohibition of something illegal on a federal level is not an analogous arguement beyond raising the issue of how dangerous unchecked Federal power can be.

    Also, I usually enjoy reading James’s stuff but I find his assessment on slavery to be ugly and untrue. Perhaps it would be delayed James Cohen, but I am far more optimistic and have a higher opinion than yours of Republicans. And I am a Libertarian quick to criticize Republicans that I would call RINO. RINO does not equal pro-slavery.

Comments are closed.