GOP Presidential Candidates Stump for…The Individual Mandate?

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


For the past year, Republicans, egged on by tea partiers, have bashed President Obama’s health care reform plan as a huge and unprecedented federal intrusion into people’s lives. They’ve argued in court and in the press that requiring all Americans to buy health insurance—a provision in the law known as the individual mandate—is unconstitutional. If the government can make you buy health insurance, they argue, it’s only a matter of time before it forces you to eat broccoli because it’s good for you. But lately, the individual mandate has won some support from the unlikeliest of people: Republican presidential contenders.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, former House speaker Newt Gingrich stumped for the individual mandate in his first major TV appearance after officially declaring his candidacy for 2012. While Gingrich took issue with Obama’s health-care plan, criticizing it as being top-down federal model, he gave a full-throated endorsement of the individual mandate:

“I am for people, individuals—exactly like automobile insurance—individuals having having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

Later, asked if he agreed with another GOP presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, on the core idea of an individual mandate, Gingrich replied:

“Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay—help pay for healthy care. And, I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.”

That position appears at odds with Gingrich’s support of the various lawsuits at the state level challenging the constitutionality of Obama’s health-care mandate. Gingrich’s ringing endorsement of the individual mandate also comes days after Mitt Romney stumped the mandate as well, in a speech defending the universal health-care reform he instituted during his tenure as Massachusetts governor from 2003 to 2007. Here’s what he told a small crowd in Ann Arbor, Mich.:

I recognize that a lot of pundits around the nation are saying that I should just stand up and say this whole thing was a mistake…and walk away. I presume that a lot of folks think that if I did that it would be good for me politically. There’s only one problem with that: it wouldn’t be honest.”

The reactions, on the right and the left, to Romney’s speech were telling. The Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein wrote that Romney’s speech was “as thoroughgoing a defense of the individual mandate as I’ve heard in months.”  “Mitt Romney just gave a more articulate defense of Obamacare than President Obama ever has,” wrote Avik Roy in the National Review. And Reason magazine associate editor Peter Suderman said Romney offered “a much better case for ObamaCare than against it.”

What’ll be even more telling is how Gingrich and Romney defend themselves in the GOP presidential debates, where they’re sure to get grilled on their support for the mandate. That, of course, won’t compare to the harsh judgment they’ll receive from the red-hot social conservatives of Iowa, who play kingmaker every four years in their crucial curtain-raising caucuses and who believe the individual mandate represents the tyranny of federal government at its very worst.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate