How the Parties Switched Stances on the Indvidual Mandate

Interesting article in today’s New York Times of the way Republicans and Democrats completely reversed their positions on the individual mandate since the concept was formulated by conservative economists in the early 1990s. Republicans in Congress, including Newt Gingrich, supported the idea and the Democrats were opposed. Subsequently, there’s been a 180 degree change in the parties’ positions. This is emblematic of Washington’s culture- if one party favors an idea, the other one will reject it. Doesn’t this behavior meet Einstein’s definition of insanity- doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or that just the perception of the vast majority of Americans


  1. Rcoutme says:

    Back in the 1990’s Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole supported an individual mandate as a way of saying, “If you want health insurance, we have a plan. Go buy it.” They did NOT support the idea of taxpayer subsidized insurance (at least they didn’t advertise it that way).

    Now the Republican plan for health insurance is, “If you can’t afford health insurance, don’t get sick.”

  2. dduck says:

    RL, excellent, too many people in their partisan zeal forget that both parties flip flop and change basic principals from time to time. Dems used to be the more war like party, now the reps are.
    Nixon proposed a health care plan and the Dems led by Teddy K., scotched it (he also killed Carter’s attempt at HCR).

    The mandate, which I favor, is a good example of party silliness.

  3. Quelcrist Falconer says:

    No they haven’t…

    Let me explain the process to you…

    A) Dems id a problem, let’s say pollution, and offer a solution: let’s tax pollution.
    B) Repugs scream bloody murder, but the public doesn’t buy it, so they come up with their solution: cap and trade.
    C) Dems scream bloody murder, but after a few years come to the conclusion that if the problem is to be solved they will have to do it the Repugs way, and come up with a workable cap and trade system.
    D) The Repugs realize that their supporters are going to have to pay for the pollution that they emit, so they now reject Cap and Trade and accuse the Dems of being commies.
    E) The dems are now in a position in which they have to defend what was originally a repug policy, and the repugs do what they do best: stall and hope that the dems get their asses handed to them at the next election.

  4. zephyr says:

    No doubt about it, many examples of democrat fail exist, whether from ineptness, hypocrisy, neglect, or spine deficit. And all wannabe tail wagging dog equivalence mythology aside, we still end up with a govt too divided to accomplish anything. Now, that division and immoblization has been characterized by some as “compromise” and portrayed as a good thing, but I think most of us know better than to buy into such nonsense. Strip the wheat from the chaff; on average we have two parties – one of which seems to be at least bumbling along and trying to find solutions, and another party which spends it’s time and energy exacerbating problems and advocating for additional fail. Voters need to be asking themselves what the real motives are here and what is at stake. The issues are obvious enough, why can’t intelligent people honesty cooperate toward finding solutions?

  5. dduck says:

    Z, I think it may the fluoride in the water, or perhaps the extra carbon monoxide in the air.

    Either way, there is discord in the sand box.

  6. zephyr says:

    Dd, it’s more like a litterbox than a sandbox no?

  7. dduck says:

    No, my cat is very nice…………

Speak Your Mind