***UPDATED – Santorum supported the individual mandate?

***UPDATED: More context shows no support for individual mandate***

As the primary drags on, the Conservative purity tests get more and more ridiculous.  Truth is, none of the candidates are Conservative, they’re simply Republican (and one lonely little Libertarian). Sure they may have engaged in Conservative behavior on occasion, but what Conservative would ever support  the individual mandate? Apparently, every single candidate (save Ron Paul) has touted their support for the anathema of government controlled health care, even Rick Santorum. The Washington Examiner reports:

Rick Santorum supported the idea of “requir[ing] individuals to buy health insurance” when he ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, according to a local feature article comparing the candidates during that election cycle.

“Santorum and [his opponent] would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits,” The Morning Call (Pa.) reported in 1994. The Morning Call noted that Santorum had also called for a MediSave account and had opposed so-called “sin” taxes.

If true, the distinction between requiring people to buy health insurance and an individual mandate might be lost on the voters who have heard Santorum excoriate Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for their support of the individual mandate — which, in Gingrich’s case, dates back to the early 90s.

The Morning Call does not quote Santorum making comments supportive of an individual mandate, or quote any other candidates in the piece, which attempts to summarize several candidates’ positions on health care.

So which Republican (or Libertarian) will you choose?



***

UPDATE (TRS): I added a question mark to the title primarily because I don’t believe that Santorum supported the individual mandate at all. In regards to the merits of the article that has been quoted by the Washington Examiner, it is only one source and it doesn’t even quote Santorum as supporting the individual mandate. It is just a third party characterization of his policy and one that is in direct conflict with his own words that he has never supported the individual mandate. I just don’t find it to be all that credible.

Dan Riehl dug into this about a month ago and posted a more full summary of Santorum’s policy that was in opposition to HillaryCare, and it mentions no individual mandate. It’s from the same source, but has much more detail:

Wofford campaigned successfully on the health care issue in 1991, and yesterday Santorum took aim at Democratic ideas for health care reform, particularly the plan proposed by President Clinton.

Under the Clinton plan, all employers would be required to provide health insurance for their workers and to pick up most of the cost. That plan would also place caps on how much could be spent on health care each year.
Santorum charged that Clinton’s proposal to administer its system through regionalized health alliances essentially shuts medical professionals out of the process and puts it in the hands of political appointees.

The policy of placing caps on spending could create a horror scene similar to that which has occurred in Canada, where hospitals were shut down for periods of time for everything except emergencies because the money ran out, he said.
He suggested that instead of mandating that employers provide insurance, they should be required to join an insurance network, which would enable their employees to obtain coverage at group rates.

Access is also important in a good health care system, he said. Access could be improved by eliminating restrictions placed on coverage because of pre-existing conditions, by ensuring the right of renewal and through tax credits and vouchers, he said.

On responsibility, he said a Medisave plan will encourage employees to become more responsible health-care consumers.

Medisave calls for lower premiums from employers and higher deductibles from employees, with the savings on the premiums transferred into an interest-bearing, tax-free account that would be used by employees for routine health care. If an employee sought to use the money for anything other than health, the money would become taxable and a penalty would be charged, he said.

With such a plan, people would be motivated to shop for the best deal in an attempt to keep as much money in the account as they can, he said.

Santorum also proposed reforming malpractice suits by putting a cap on money given for pain and suffering.

Bottom line is this: If Santorum really did support the individual mandate, then there should be more than one original source claiming it and if we find this to be true, we’ll post it here. But for now, I find no credible evidence proving that he supported it.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

85 thoughts on “***UPDATED – Santorum supported the individual mandate?

  1. If I can get out from under the seemingly endless repair bills that keep burying me, hopefully early this spring, I will buy at least an emergency-room insurance policy, for the first time in my life.

    Why? Because I support requiring people to buy at least emergency medical insurance. Why? For the same reason we require people to buy auto insurance: there is a high probability that we’ll need it at some time in our lives, and if we don’t have it, other people will be required to pay for us. That’s not acceptable to me, if I can possibly avoid it.

    I’d never given this any thought until it came up in relation to obamacare. The objection has been raised that if you can force people to buy “a product”, then you can force them to buy, say, GM autos.

    That’s apples and oranges, folks, assuming that the free market is allowed to operate in the field of insurance. Requiring people to buy “government issue” health care is a different story, but just requiring insurance is something we’ve done for a long, long time – for autos. Do conservatives want to repeal that insurance requirement?

    The rationalization has been made that if people choose not to buy health care insurance, they can “accept the consequences of their own actions.”

    Oh, sure. Right. Who’s going to:

    1) suffer injuries in a self-caused auto accident and tell the paramedics and hospital, “My auto insurance will cover only $___. After that amount is reached, stop treating me.” (If you’re conscious. If you know what the limit is. If your insurance company agrees to pay.)

    2) wake up in the night with severe abdominal pain (for example) and refuse to go to an emergency room because you chose not to buy insurance?

    3) experience strong chest pains for no apparent reason and not call 911?

    4) suffer a 2nd-degree burn and just put some aloe on it?

    There is a very big problem with health care insurance: the cost is extremely high. I can’t afford a good policy. I wish someone would fix that, because right now, if I suffer a catastrophic medical emergency, the rest of you are going to have to pay my bills. That’s not right. You know it, I know it, but we’re all stuck (at the moment) with this system that enriches Big Pharma (and others? hospital owners? stockholders? doctors? I don’t know) while condemning Joe and Jane Citizen to a life of “economic slavery”.

    We need altruistic people at **all levels** in health care. Capitalism has given us a terrific standard of health care, but health care has been taken over by capitalists without a conscience. That’s the problem, IMO. The capitalists running health care have no conscience, no morals, no heart … they’re obsessed with getting all the money in the world. Greedy doesn’t even come close to describing it.

    I don’t want you to have to pay my bills, so as soon as I can, I’ll buy what I can afford. But the system has been gamed by the fat cat New Slave Owners and we’d better fix that, or none of us will be able to avoid the consequences.

    1. So we need to have mandates, because we have mandates. Seems like a perpetual cycle of force that only diminishes our liberty and prosperity.

      1. Your reply is a straw man argument. We need to have mandates to prevent some from taking advantage of others, either deliberately or through carelessness, and here (auto insurance) is another situation where we realized that only a “mandate” will meet the need.

        1. So government mandates auto insurance, and the insurance companies get guaranteed business and rates go up. Meanwhile mandated health insurance coverage causes rates to go up, which causes auto insurance rates to go up as well. Seems to me that the insurance companies are the ones who really benefit. Meanwhile, the insured is just the sucker going to work every day to keep up all of his mandated insurances. Heaven forbid that you get a traffic ticket, or have health issues, because insurance companies don’t have to cover you, but you have to get the insurance or be fined in one way or the other. If government mandates the insurance companies to cover anyone, rates will go so high that we will literally work to pay insurances.

          Why doesn’t government just take over all housing, transportation, municipalities, health care, etc, and just take all of our money? Then instead of mandating us to buy everything on our own, they can just provide it, and we can simply live in our little government communes.

          Why do we even pretend that we really have any choice in this country. What it is coming down to is that you are either operating within the system, or you are living illegally somehow. There is no live and let live anymore. There is no place that anyone can go to opt-out. When this became the case, America was finished. Unless your definition of the American dream is simply the ability to acquire as much stuff as you can. For those of us who see it as the ability to opt-out and be free, there is no American dream any longer.

          Enjoy your growing tyranny. You are asking for it, and you will get it.

          1. “Why doesn’t government just take over all housing, transportation, municipalities, health care, etc, and just take all of our money? Then instead of mandating us to buy everything on our own, they can just provide it, and we can simply live in our little government communes.”

            Aristotelian two-value fallacy. Logical fallacies seem to be your specialty. You understand, in a debate you lose points for logical fallacies. If you build your life on logical fallacies, you can lose a lot more.

            It’s not all or nothing. Almost nothing in life is all or nothing. And there never was any live and let live. Google “Whiskey Rebellion of 1794”. The taxes the whiskey distillers refused to pay were for the purpose of paying off the war debts of the newly minted nation. Even the process of writing the Constitution was an ongoing argument about **how much** control there would be, not whether there would be control.

            Any time you are part of any civilization, or even of most groups of more than two people, there is no opt-out. There will be greater or lesser degrees of government control, but never an opt-out within the civilization, unless your definition of the American Dream is to be a hermit.

            BTW, why should insurance companies “cover” you if you get a traffic ticket? Who was driving, you or the insurance company?

            You’ve griped about the individual mandate, but you haven’t offered an alternative. If you’re serious and not just venting, now it’s your turn to put your beliefs up where we can see them. What’s your alternative to the individual mandate?

            1. The alternative to individual mandates is personal risk acceptance by individuals. It is a desire by the people to have someone else take care of their problems, and the desire of politicians to take care of people’s problems, that creates the nanny state, and the social welfare state.

              Though we live in a more technologically advanced world, risk is still risk. As risks become greater, the answer inevitably becomes legalized, or made illegal. Either that, or liability is simply transferred to another party. In a welfare state, anyone with more wealth ends up being targeted. Thereby creating class warfare.

              If all people accept personal responsibility for risk, then it is just a matter of the courts working out who caused harm to another person or their property, and what the penalty or fine would be to pay back the other party. If a person has a highly valued item, they would purchase insurance to cover damage by others, due to the fact that many wouldn’t be able to pay. This would be the price of having high valued items.

              Every time a person entered the roadway, they would be accepting that someone out there may not have insurance, and may do them harm. Thus, they would take greater care. Traffic laws would still exist, therefor a person could be fined for driving recklessly as a deterrent. Those who wished to, could have their own insurance to cover themselves. If they chose not to, they would be taking a higher level of risk to their life, or their property.

              Many states didn’t have compulsory auto insurance laws until the sixties and seventies. Prior to this, it was worked out through the courts as it had been, concerning property, for a long time prior.

              The biggest problem with compulsory insurance laws is that they create a monster. Anything that is mandated, has to be viewed as a right. Otherwise, your rights are taken if you do not comply. This is a distortion of the principles of rights. This is largely why we have many people who believe that health insurance is a right. No goods or services should ever be considered a “right”.

              Government controls these mandates. They are usually put in place at the request of the insurance lobby. These are the people who wrote Obamacare. Obamacare was written years before he took office. Since government controls the mandates, they create the necessity for the mandated item to be a right. Government does, and should, not give us our rights. Rights need to be respected, and insurance being a right is diminishing to our real rights. Such as the right to own property, life, and liberty.

              If government is supposed to protect our liberty, then how is mandating insurance, and penalizing someone by taking their property, considered protecting our rights? Nobody can logically conclude that government has the right to mandate auto insurance, but not health insurance. They either have the authority under the constitution to mandate insurance, or they do not.

              Many people in this country still think that they can own property. They do not understand the premise behind taxation, or our monetary system that negates this right. We would say that we have a right to own real property. The owner of anything is the last person who has control. Government requires a tax for us to keep our real property. Therefor, they own it, and we just pay them to keep it. Anyone who has to pay to keep something, doesn’t own it. This was the biggest hit to the American dream.

              It used to be that our currency was owned by individual citizens. Not so any longer. When the dollar could be exchanged for gold or silver, it had real value, and was something that could be owned. As it is now, we do not have a US dollar, but a Federal Reserve Note. These notes are all owned by the Federal Reserve Bank. They are all based on debt, and therefor do not belong to the holder, but are only give for use by the holder in exchange for goods and labor. Gold and silver can still be owned, as long as government does not make it illegal, as they have before. Yet all property can be confiscated by government if taxes on income are not paid to the government.

              Our income belongs to government first. When income was considered a taxable item, the income itself was transferred to the government, and they give back what they will allow us to keep. Failing to pay the tax can result in property confiscation, and or imprisonment.

              You can’t own property. Your money does not belong to you, and how you spend what money you are allowed to keep is largely mandated by government.

              You can say that this is an extreme view of our society. You can say that this is reverse logic. Saying that only shows how well we have been trained to believe that we have freedom. The freedoms that we started out with have been diminished severely, and unless we draw a line in the sand, we are going to continue losing them. This will probably be the case. We will either start thinking differently, or we will succumb to the pressures of society to be more communistic.

              As for “all or nothing”, there are many things that should be considered all or nothing. Inalienable rights is one of those things. You either have them, or you do not. The first time that government infringes on those rights, and gets away with it, the rest of those rights are lost due to the nature of government. (to grow and become tyrannical) This is a truth that I hold to be self evident, whether society does or not. Yet, I am condemned to live in a society that has lost its understanding of individual liberty, and personal responsibility. At very least, it has lost the definition as it relates to conviction. A society without conviction is lost. A lost society will fall prey to those who would devour it.

              You can choose to be happy with the limited freedom that you have. You can choose to make compromises to get along in society. What many do not realize is that tyranny come on slowly, and inevitably come to a peak. The peak of tyranny is much like Hitler’s Germany. Hitler’s Germany was not the only nation to succumb to tyranny.

              This is a good example of what I’m talking about.

              1. “The alternative to individual mandates is personal risk acceptance by individuals.”

                That’s your alternative? In light of the cost of medical care, that’s your alternative? “Just accept it”? In other words, you do not have an alternative. A decision to “accept it” does not magically create the vast amount of money to pay medical bills. What would the hospitals and doctors do when they can’t pay their employees or buy / repair / improve their equipment? When they can’t buy medicines?

                They’re already doing it: they close down or they cut back on hours of service, or they choose another career. One of the problems caused by illegal aliens is that they have no insurance, and in some places they have so burdened hospitals that these things have happened. Your “alternative” doesn’t work.

                “It is a desire by the people to have someone else take care of their problems, and the desire of politicians to take care of people’s problems, that creates the nanny state, and the social welfare state.”

                But your non-functional “alternative” would lead to little or no medical care. Since you don’t have a functional alternative, spare us the pious pseudo-patriotic posturing.

                “… or liability is simply transferred to another party. In a welfare state, anyone with more wealth ends up being targeted. Thereby creating class warfare.”

                Sharing the burden of a predictable event is not creating a welfare state. It is preventing a welfare state. People without insurance can be driven into bankruptcy and welfare by the massive costs of medical care. A welfare state is where people are paid for not working and paid to have children whose expenses they can’t or won’t pay for.

                “If all people accept personal responsibility for risk, then it is just a matter of the courts working out who caused harm to another person or their property, and what the penalty or fine would be to pay back the other party.”

                You have to be a democrat, you’re so blissfully dismissive of reality. First, medical costs are not a crime. **No one owes you** because you have appendicitis, or a stroke, or a parent with Alzheimer’s. No one caused you harm.

                Second, if you’re talking only about auto insurance here, the police usually assess blame. There is not necessarily a court appearance. The persons involved and their insurance companies decide whether to go to court. Automatically referring all cases to a court would shut the court system down by sheer volume. **More importantly**, what do the courts do when there is no money to pay, as in a personal injury case? They could order someone’s paycheck seized. The uninsured and underfunded party might well be driven into bankruptcy if personal injury was involved. Then perhaps welfare ….

                “If a person has a highly valued item, they would purchase insurance to cover damage by others, due to the fact that many wouldn’t be able to pay [to replace the item, I assume you mean]. This would be the price of having high valued items.”

                They do this now. Welcome to Planet Earth.

                “Every time a person entered the roadway, they would be accepting that someone out there may not have insurance, and may do them harm. Thus, they would take greater care.”

                They do this now. Duh. Do you really think people are being careless now, thinking, “Oh well, if I get hit there’ll be insurance”? Wrong. People don’t want to have accidents. People do want to avoid accidents. Also, there is another consideration: getting HURT! Or KILLED! No one wants to have an accident, but somehow they keep happening. This part of your alternative also turns out to be non-functional.

                “Traffic laws would still exist, therefor a person could be fined for driving recklessly as a deterrent. Those who wished to, could have their own insurance to cover themselves. If they chose not to, they would be taking a higher level of risk to their life, or their property.”

                Traffic laws exist now, therefore they’re not much of a deterrent to reckless driving, so why would you pretend they’d be a deterrent under your emperor’s-new’-clothes non-existent mythical “alternative”?

                And how would they be “taking a higher level of risk to their life” by not having insurance?

                “Many states didn’t have compulsory auto insurance laws until the sixties and seventies. Prior to this, it was worked out through the courts as it had been, concerning property, for a long time prior.” (I’ll give you a freebie here: at one time, NO states had auto insurance.)

                Is that another way of saying, “What was good enough for granddad is good enough for me”? Yes it is. Do you drive an 8mpg gas guzzler? Ride a horse everywhere? Use a typewriter instead of a computer and printer? And notice please, your phrase “concerning property”. That means this argument, even if it were valid, does not apply to medical insurance.

                “Government controls these mandates. They are usually put in place at the request of the insurance lobby.”

                If you try really, really, hard, you might be able to see the fatal flaw in this statement. You just finished saying, “Prior to this, it was worked out through the courts as it had been, concerning property, for a long time prior.”

                At one time, there was no insurance lobby to request these mandates. Clearly, the insurance lobby that did not exist did not request the mandates. Oops, you blew that argument too.

                “Since government controls the mandates, they create the necessity for the mandated item to be a right.”

                If it’s mandated, it doesn’t need to be “a right”.

                “Government does, and should, not give us our rights. Rights need to be respected, and insurance being [“regarded as a”, I assume you meant to include here?] a right is diminishing to our real rights. Such as the right to own property, life, and liberty.”

                Because of insurance, your right to life is diminished? Oh, of course! That’s why we have all those abortions! Right to life has been diminished by the insurance companies! All those foolish pro-lifers have been picketing abortion mills when they should have been picketing Allstate and Metlife offices! I see it all now. Thanks for the revelation! I’ll tell the pro-lifers right away!

                Give me a break.

                ***”Nobody can logically conclude that government has the right to mandate auto insurance, but not health insurance.”***

                Thank you. That’s what I said. I’m glad you finally realized that I was right.

                “The first time that government infringes on those [inalienable] rights, and gets away with it, the rest of those rights are lost due to the nature of government.”

                By that definition, there have never been any rights in all of history. All governments have infringed on human rights to some degree. Congratulating yourself on your singular and beautiful philosophical purity may make you feel good, but it leaves you unable to offer anything useful in the real world.

                1. It is clear that your “real world” includes forced-shared risk as the only option. This shared risk expands throughout a society in such a way that it consumes the lives and freedoms of the citizens. This is communism. We may use socialism with a financial base afforded by quasi capitalism, but it is still a communist idea that everyone is responsible for everyone else, and all should be on equal ground.

                  You don’t consider the financial system that is supposed to support this socialist/communist network of services. Wealth is finite, and a society which attempts what you suggest has to produce wealth in order to maintain it. This wealth can be generated within the nation, but this would require the nation to be isolated for the currency to not matter. All resources would have to come from within, or be traded by government controlled industry with other nations. Capitalism and socialism do not work well together.

                  The US does not produce much anymore. Our currency is a fiat currency controlled by a private central bank that puts us, and our government, in debt to it for the money we spend. This currency will fail, and the services will not be continued on a level that would be satisfactory to you. This system will self destruct.

                  What you are failing to recognize is the costs associated with medical care that is created by government. I don’t know if you realize that nothing happens in a hospital that is not approved within the regulatory bounds of government mandates. The administrative costs to a hospital can consume as much as 40% of there budgets. This is due to government. Government creates the laws that cause the need for massive legal expenses, and huge amounts of insurance. These requirement have to be met, just to do business.

                  Alternative medicine is stomped out by government, and doctors are not allowed to use them. Look up the Gerson Therapy. It is totally harmless, but is illegal for a doctor to prescribe in the US. Government is the enforcement arm for a monopoly of the drug companies, and the medical supply and equipment companies. GE is one of their best buddies.

                  If people have to assume their own risk, they will either choose healthier lifestyles, or they will die younger. If medicine was a free market industry, competition alone would cut prices of medical equipment in half. Not to mention drugs.

                  How much would insurance cost then? Much, much less. It might even get so low that a person could afford to pay their own way much of the time.

                  You talk about me being a democrat. It is amazing to me that the person who is for personal freedom and responsibility is labeled democrat now. How the wind has changed direction.

                  If government forces a person to buy something, then they have to force its availability to make up for the initial force. Otherwise it is an immoral act of greater consequence. Therefor it has become a right under the law. I don’t know why this is hard to comprehend.

                  If you believe that it is right for government to force auto insurance, then you must believe that it is right to force health insurance, as you clearly stated. I do not believe that it is right. Conservative republicans generally don’t believe so either. Are you a democrat? They are, historically, the ones forcing government on people.

                  In a capitalist society, some make more money than others. In our socialist/communist society, the ones who make more pay for those who make less. Example: The Tax Code. Low income people get more back than they paid, while the middle class carries the burden. This is what takes place when medical services are provided for all of society. Forced health insurance is just one more way of making those who have, give to those who do not. Those who earn a living pay the insurance, or the fines, while those who don’t get free government coverage. Eventually government puts everyone on the same income level, or equalizes the wealth through redistribution. If you are an advocate for this, then you do not stand for the basic principles that this country was founded on.

                  To you, it is more important that everyone in society gets what you consider is owed to them, or rightfully theirs. Therefor you make it a “right” to have insurance. So much so that you would force others to pay for it rather than accepting an alternative means toward more affordable health care.

                  People get sick and die. They always will. I may get sick tomorrow and need a heart transplant. Would you have all of my neighbors forced to pay for me? I would not. I would consider it my problem.

                  Part of the problem is a lack of faith. People say they have faith in their fellow man. Huge mistake. My eternity is not in this life. My life does not end here. Why would I burden the rest of society for a little more life on earth? God controls life and death, not us. If we ever had God given inalienable rights, then taking those rights from others is wrong.

                  A person who chooses not to be insured can assume a higher risk to their life by possibly not being able to afford medical care. Just to answer you on that.

                  When someone enters the roadway now, they do not consider that they might lose everything if they are negligent. If they knew that they might have to sell off their property to pay someone back, they would be more careful. Mandated insurance causes more carelessness, and costs everyone else to have higher premiums.

                  Before the insurance lobby took hold of government, the courts worked out damages and losses, and assessed reimbursements. This requires that a citizen file a civil suit for damages if the other person does not agree. This happened much more prior to mandated insurance. The courts would be backlogged, which would cause many to settle, rather than going to court. This is a biblical principle. If the courts weren’t back logged with petty drug cases and divorce proceedings, due to the government being out of both of those issues, the courts would have a lot more time on their hands.

                  Government creates most of our problems. This is leading us straight to totalitarianism.

                2. “It is clear that your ‘real world’ includes forced-shared risk as the only option.”

                  It is clear that you don’t have an alternative.

                  “This shared risk expands throughout a society in such a way that it consumes the lives and freedoms of the citizens.”

                  Only if you let it. In the meantime, what’s your REALISTIC alternative?

                  “This is communism.”

                  What is your alternative? Instead of calling names.

                  “…it is still a communist idea that everyone is responsible for everyone else, and all should be on equal ground.”

                  No one said everyone is responsible for everyone else. No one said all should be on equal ground. Sharing risk for a predictable disaster is not even close to “From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.”

                  “You don’t consider the financial system that is supposed to support this socialist/communist network of services. Wealth is finite, and a society which attempts what you suggest has to produce wealth in order to maintain it.”

                  Wealth creation is what capitalist countries excel at. How did we win the Cold War? How did we dismantle the Soviet Union? By wealth creation. We could and they couldn’t.

                  “This wealth can be generated within the nation, but this would require the nation to be isolated for the currency to not matter. All resources would have to come from within, or be traded by government controlled industry with other nations. Capitalism and socialism do not work well together.”

                  Disregarding the nonsense parts of that statement, American history since Day One proves you wrong. And capitalism doesn’t have to and should not “work with” socialism. We trade with socialist countries. That’s all.

                  “The US does not produce much anymore. Our currency is a fiat currency controlled by a private central bank that puts us, and our government, in debt to it for the money we spend. This currency will fail, and the services will not be continued on a level that would be satisfactory to you. This system will self destruct.”

                  Quite true, if we do not remove the marxist from office and return to a capitalist Constitutional government. It is socialism and greed that has ruined America, not insurance premiums.

                  “What you are failing to recognize is the costs associated with medical care that is created by government.”

                  I have no idea where you got that idea. I do recognize the government-caused costs. We need to put healthcare back into the private sector.

                  “I don’t know if you realize that nothing happens in a hospital that is not approved within the regulatory bounds of government mandates.”

                  What are you smoking, librtfirst?

                  “Alternative medicine is stomped out by government, and doctors are not allowed to use them.”

                  Doctors on the whole are and always have been hostile to alternative medicines, because they can’t control them and can’t charge massive fees for them. True, government as it exists is hostile to alternative medicine. So we need to change that. But until medical care becomes fantasy-land cheap, we will still need a way to deal with the massive costs. That would be insurance. You’re still offering only Magic Wand solutions.

                  “If people have to assume their own risk, they will either choose healthier lifestyles, or they will die younger.”

                  You really hang onto those logical fallacies, don’t you? Either / or, the Aristotelian two-value fallacy. “they will either choose healthier lifestyles, or they will die younger”. Or they will get sick more often, and if they have no health insurance, the rest of us will have to pay for their illnesses.

                  “You talk about me being a democrat. It is amazing to me that the person who is for personal freedom and responsibility is labeled democrat now. How the wind has changed direction.”

                  It is your support of a Magic Wand solution in defiance of facts, logic, and demonstrated reality that identifies you as a democrat, regardless of what party you register as.

                  I’m sure you would spar like this forever, but I have determined to my satisfaction that you are only posting to use up conservatives’ time and energy. You’ve had all you’ll get of mine.

                3. I was giving the solution. A free country is the solution. A very small government is the solution. Competition is the solution. Free trade is the solution. A sound currency is the solution.

                  Sorry it took me so long to say it.

            2. There is no alternative if you think that everyone in society should take care of everyone else. Just realize that this is not freedom. It is socialism at best, and communism at worst. Socialism leads to communism or totalitarianism.

  2. I’ve heard this complaint by several posters here… that RS supports the Individual Mandate. This article by Scoop does little if anything to validate those claims. With that being said, I would be stunned that he’s beating up Newt and especially Mittens on this if he was guilty of it himself. He’s innocent until found guilty.

    And even if found guilty (which would be a huge Red Flag), he still (for now) remains the guy who I will place my faith in.

  3. This story is already a day old. It was printed in a no-name paper in Penn. The “journalist” does not offer any direct quotes but what seems to be their opinion which we now call NEWS. Folks, I hear you always complaining how the media paints our candidates so why do you constantly fall for their gimmicks again and again. If you stop falling for it, maybe they will stop printing it….just saying.

    This story has already been debunked. BTW, isn’t the Washington Examiner in Romney’s pocket!!!

  4. Rush just mentioned this “article” and said there’s no direct quote from Santorum, and in fact he supports MSA’s.

    He pretty much poo-pooed it.

  5. The Santorum’s argument rests entrirely on insisting that Romney is completely insincere in his position to repeal ObamaCare. Romney could easily shoot him down completely. But he doesn’t because he wants to keep Santorum in the race. The reality is that RomneyCare will help Romney in the general. Romney knows this. Lots of lunatics on our side don’t. Along these lines, Limbaugh is leading off his program with an extremely useful commentary. It is pumping up Santorum. Way to go Rush. Romney and his team are giggling as I write this. The way things are going, it looks like a fairly convincing Romney victory. Santorum will effectively compete for second. Might even come in second with the way Newt is imploding. Given how things have gone in this thing, anything could happen, but I sure hope it comes out that way.

    1. Romneycare is the albatross that will sink Romney. He has chosen to go down with this thing and it will take him down.

      You should rewatch the debate.

  6. See… Who cares. He is human. Humans have a tendency to “change their mind”. Is this a bad thing? This story means nothing to me. His character and his history is good enough for me as a rebuttal to this post. Rick Santorum is a stand up guy and is Presidential material. Everyone has changed their minds on different subject over the years it is called reason. As humans we are all given the gift of Reason to make decisions. That does not mean that all decisions we make are the right ones.

  7. Until I see an actual quote of Santorum saying what he supposedly said, then I will believe it.

    The Leftist press in PA was on a mission to discredit to Santorum. So, call me skeptical.

  8. Thanks RS, for adding some sanity here. Also, using Leftist sources like Think Progress and various Soros outfits to attack a candidate you may not agree with, do no good. Its plays right into the Alinsky attacks.

    Thanks for the through research. One thing I do not like about this cycle are the attacks from the a Leftist vantage point. Isn’t this what we will see from Obama and company? Why must our side immolate them? I don’t get it.

  9. Rick didn’t support individual mandate but he DID support Medicare Part D which is basically a mafia-styled persuasion to buy in.

    I believe this is how they will get around the individual mandate if the Supremes strike it down.

    Six of one or half dozen of the other. The elites are going to ram this down our throats one way or the other. We see just how responsive the 2010 crowd has been to its constituency. NOT.

  10. Is this surprising to anyone? The idea of the individual mandate originated from a Republican think tank and teaches individual responsibility, or at least that was the slogan that came with it then. Fast forward to now, when signed into law by a democratic president and everyone cries unconstitutional…

  11. As a lifetime PA resident and someone who opposed HillaryCare and Heritage’s call for an individual mandate at the time, I can assure you I would not have supported Santorum if he too supported the individual mandate.

    Since Erick Erickson started this rumor, I have searched for any other corroborating news stories, and I can find none.

    The individual mandate flies in the face of the MediSave accounts that Santorum was advocating. He was pushing for individual’s to become more responsible for their own healthcare….actually becoming consumers who would act like consumers–bringing free market forces to bear on the health care sector. Mandating someone to purchase something is not free market and would have further distorted the market.

  12. Sorry to disappoint most of you, but in all honesty, my impression is that Dr. Paul has remained the most composed (of the remaining batch of candidates) when it comes to character. He is known as “Dr No” in congress for his stand in favor of ONLY voting for constitutionally permitted legislation.

    After watching every debate so far, and after swinging back and forth in my mind in support of other so called “viable” candidates, I have decided I will cast my ballot for Ron Paul in Florida. I can’t stand the mudslinging between candidates anymore! I was surprised to hear other friends, neighbors and family say the exact same thing.

    I know one thing for sure, Ron Paul is a doctor first and he knows first hand the dangers of “Obamacare” and the loss of freedoms not only of medicine in that centralized bill, but also all of the other hidden usurpations of our liberty in said bill. If this “Obamination” is not halted, be prepared to experience a third world medical system. Most physicians I know are ready to hang up their stethoscopes.

  13. This is why I’m diggin TRS these days , discerning fact from fiction, luv it!
    I stop here every day , thank you .
    Big ups to The Right Scoop!

  14. There is a flaw in this article.

    I’m not entirely sure about Newt, but the problem with Romney is he STILL supports what he’s done, mandate and all. Heck, he told us it’s “nothing to be angry about”. To suggest this only goes back to the 90’s for him is dishonest. Santorum completely disavows the mandate now. Cmon, Right Scoop.

  15. I don’t believe it. If there was a quote, where is the video? Where is the actual quote? Sorry Morning Call, aren’t you the ones who call the Tea Party Terrorists? Aren’t you the guys who in the Kill the Bill rally SPREAD THE LIE that the Tea Party hurled racial epithats at Georgia’s Rep John Lewis?

    Come on everyone, do you actually believe these jokers? Where’s the beef?

  16. But… but… he’s the only REAL conservative in the race! At least everyone keeps telling me that! So I guess Santorum’s supporters are now backing Ron Paul, because he’ll be the next only REAL conservative in the race.

    The funny thing is they all go after each other for being just like Obama, we go after them for being just like Obama, and the reality is none of them are even remotely close to Obama.

    I don’t think Newt caused the housing crisis, I don’t think Romneycare and Obamacare are the same thing OR come from the same ideology, the race should be between them and Obama.

    But I do think the guys who don’t have a realistic chance of winning should get out.

    1. No, we’re still backing Santorum.

      They all have warts… I still believe that any of the main three in this race, has a chance to win this thing. And frankly, though I don’t support him, Ron Paul is making sense on a few of his conservative points – especially with regard to government size and the economy. He’s unlikely to win the GOP nomination, but in a sense, he’s already won because everyone is listening to and understanding his economic points.

  17. Just further proves my point on Santorum – if we would just explore his record, Santorum is Conservative socially but has some real warts on spending & such while he was in Office. We can’t be a single-issue voter. All these candidates are flawed & we’ll have to drag whoever it is across the finish line. I think we Conservatives are going to have to suck it up again and get our Tea Parties reorganized & reenergized & hope for the best. We really are a nation of Davids against some elite Goliaths (the media & the political class). I just don’t see the massive Conservative movement winning like it did in 2010. We’re gonna be stuck with mediocrity – again.

    1. Often social conservatism is what people mean when they say “conservative” and they support any and all government intervention and growth and regulation in order to ensure their “conservatism” is the law of the land.

      Being a social conservative is not an issue for me, I’ll vote for one because we can agree on other things. I’m not a one issue voter. But just being religious and socially conservative, in my opinion, is not the be all and end all. It’s about size and scope of government.

  18. There were conservative candidates who did not support the mandates. Unfortunately, none of them are in the race any more. The GOP went with the least conservative candidates.

    Isn’t this an old story? I remember we on RS found that Morning Call article many weeks ago. Santorum supporters refused to believe it and questioned its authenticity.

    1. The good one’s were pushed out by various dirty tactics. It’s kinda sad, really, that a principled person gets the shaft.

    2. This kind Dirty dealing and underhanded maneuvers by “The Elites”. is why I’ll never just “hold my nose” and vote their way again, from now on it’s “STICK IT TO THE MAN”,(THE ELITES) and anybody they support and I’m for who they hate!

  19. There was seating for approximately 1,200 people at the debate last night. 900 of the tickets were given to Romney supporters.

    Does that seem proper? Does it seem fair? 900 out of 1,200?
    I want the GOP to explain this. This I’ve got to hear!

    Perhaps GOP should be changed to SOB. I got this information, this morning, from the chair of the Republican party in our county.

    (The statewide chair of the Republican party in Florida should change their name to Goebbels Jr.)

      1. In our area, (North Michigan) I saw anti-Newt ads on Fox News alone at least 6 times yesterday! I guess some of the Romney ad buys, go National, automatically.
        It must be insane down there in Florida right now 🙁

        1. Ask my son if I kept my word when I finally yelled “If I hear one more of these ads, I’m gonna scream!” 😉 Yesterday was horrible for nothing but mittens and Newt ads back and forth- but mittens were worse.

          1. What’s your sense of how the election will go down there AbC? The way the media reports it, Mittens is packing for the White House, but I never believe that they have any idea what the heck people really think.

    1. Seen this before.

      When I was in Iowa, a political consultant told me about how Romney is using millions to shape the nomination. One example is during the debates. This was particularly true at the Las Vegas debate. The sponsors of the debates sell tickets for the audience. These tickets are fairly expensive. Romney’s campaign, or PAC, or whoever, bought a majority of the tickets and packed the house with hecklers for Romney. Do you remember the crowd’s reaction, its fawning applause, to everything Romney said in Vegas? The audience was stacked against Perry and all of the others. The debate’s results were shaped by inaccurate reporting on the part of the media as to what really transpired. News media outlets reported that Perry’s attack against Romney about Romney’s hiring of illegal immigrants to perform his yard work was ineffective, because no one clapped. They didn’t clap because they were the guests and surrogates for Romney!
      http://rickperryreport.com/article/2012-01-10/evil-ways-mitt-romney-vulture-capitalist

      The deck is stacked.

      1. People need to realize this and fling the proverbial deck, into a tornado.
        I want to yell and curse, but it wouldn’t help.

        Ok, I have one mystery curse: &$%#!

      2. I’d love to see this sort of rotten debate tactic brought to light in a national debate.

        Americans should know they are being played…

    2. Well. That’s interesting. That would explain a lot of things.

      That is a leftist tactic if I ever heard one.

      1. Yes it is a leftist tactic, right out of the 0bama playbook,not surprising he and 0bama get along so well.

      1. I don’t believe a single syllable of what Soros says sir. Nothing. If he said it was daytime, and my watch confirmed it, I would have my watch checked.

        1. “‘Tis the moon.” LOL
          I agree with him on this particular subject. Romney is Maobama’s long lost twin.

        2. “‘Tis the moon.” LOL
          I agree with him on this particular subject. Romney is Maobama’s long lost twin.

    3. The cheering and clapping last night backs that up for sure.

      We are being screwed by the political class. Makes no difference if they wear a donkey suit or an elephant suit.

    4. Newt is under fire, no doubt about it. But that’s what happens when you are a front-runner, and you’ve gone dirty yourself. Half of Newt’s attacks on Romney are completely leftist. (‘no humanity for illegals, Bain capital attacks, tax-brackets, etc…)

      Newt seems to be squealing a lot about his treatment. Sure, it is dirty that the audience is biased. Sure the MSM isn’t giving you fair treatment, and Sure you’ve been trying to make out with the MSM while they attack you.

      Do you think any of that is going to change in a general? Newt, stop squealing and put up, or shut up and get out of the kitchen if it is too hot. I am not for Newt, but if he is going to be a candidate, all the complaining will completely disenfranchise the conservative base, (even more than it already is), and make him look unqualified and immature. He’s got to rise above, not wallow.

  20. As far as I’m concerned any Republican who espoused the individual mandate in opposition to HillaryCare gets a pass. Anything they could say or do to shoot down the Clinton version of socialized medicine worked and they stopped it. More importantly, none of them did anything about it once they had control so it’s all a moot point.

    You know, one of the things that annoys the hell out of me about conservatives is that they refuse to play the liberal game of lying thru their teeth to get elected. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. But that’s why liberals always win in the end. They lie. Their supporters know they’re lying, and they love them for it. That’s why we have a radical leftist in the White House who says he’s against gay marriage, is all for oil drilling, and loves capitalism.

    So what if Rick and Newt said they were for something to stop something worse? They never acted on it like Romney did.

    1. Also note, the mantra to get rid of Obamacare is “repeal and replace”, not just repeal. B/c in this day and age, the government always has to “do something.” Not just get out of the way … its really a major PR challenge when anyone of substance is trying to tackle a DC created problem.

      Another example, you just can’t say “get rid of Dept. of Ed.” then it means you are against children and their schools.

  21. Yes, they are all big gov Republicans. It’s a personality contest now.

    If the Executive branch goes (R), we still have to stay focused on weeding out those in the legislative branch that just want the power. If we don’t get the Executive branch back, we have to stay focused on weeding out those in all branches that just want the power. Either way, it’s not over and our fight is just starting.

    1. In this case, the most important thing is to defeat Obama. So, who is most likely to do this? I’m not sure yet, but it kind of looks like Romney right now.

      1. wow. Someone who actually pays attention to polls and data. Of the four candidates, Paul and Newt are statistically the least likely to be elected, with a near-certainty that they cannot be. Romney is the only candidate that has polled ahead of Obama. The only one. Santorum simply doesn’t have enough name recognition reliably poll high or low; no one knows where he would really land, but that is not good for a Presidential race. (Name recognition is NOT Newt’s or Paul’s problem, however.)

        I don’t know if that is because the establishment is behind Romney, and is ‘fixing’ the polls or not… I just don’t know. But I don’t like the choices at this point.

        1. If you are talking about national polls, Romney and Paul are ahead of the others in beating Obama. I believe that logic dictates that Gingrich and Santorum cannot compete for swing voters, such as independents. Paul has many dems coming over to vote for him now.

    2. Completely agree!

      Not to nag, but read Schweizer’s “Throw Them All Out” if you want to get the “right scoop” (and get fired up at the same time). De Mint’s “Now Or Never” and, of course, Levin’s “Ameritopia” are both must reads.

      Knowledge IS power.

    3. All Federal power originates with Congress, so that is where the focus needs to be. Everyone is so focused on the White House and who’s going to be occupying the Oval Office that they lose track of the fact that Congress is always going to be leaps and bounds more important, especially the Senate with their advice and consent power.

      1. Congress has been giving up its power for a long time. Primarily to the executive branch, but also to the central bank since 1913. Congress will be insignificant before too long, if they don’t get their act together. I don’t expect that they will.

    4. So, all I have to do is get a newspaper to make a headline, throw in a few 3rd party descriptions and you will buy it hook, line and sinker. Wow!! we are definitely in trouble with such gullibility within the conserv. movement

    1. Bad all they around.

      Warpmine 2012! I’ll turn America around and set conditions allowing her to prosper once again.

    1. That’s a pretty good video. I noticed it was recorded 10/31. The newspaper article is 5/2. What happened between May and October? If the height of Hillycare resistance was in those months, I can see Santorum swinging back right on this.

  22. So Santorum’s understanding is of the Constitution is the same as Maobama’s. That the constitution means nothing.

Comments are closed.