Skip to comments.Santorum in '93: More Government Needed in Health Care (mandate)
Posted on 03/05/2012 7:58:47 PM PST by Fred
Rick Santorum's pitch to Republican voters is simple: He is the "true" and "consistent" conservative in the GOP's presidential nomination fight. He describes himself as "a candidate who, throughout [his] career, has not only checked the box on conservative issues but has fought for conservative issues." And he slams front-runner Mitt Romney for flip-flopping on abortion and the Wall Street bailouts and, most of all, for passing government-mandated health care reform in Massachusetts. If elected president, Santorum vows, he will end the "tyranny" of President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
Yet as an up-and-coming congressman in the early 1990s, Santorum took a much different line. Thenlike nowhealth care was one of the nation's most divisive issues. In 1993
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
I guess if we are to vote for the candidate that has never been for the unconstitutional individual mandate, we’ll have to vote for Paul. :)
The more I learn about RS, the angrier I get.
For pure political profit, he has blown the entire mandate issue out of proportion, and be damned if he isn’t guilty of it too.
The mandate is the technicality that the court will use to throw it out perhaps, but it is NOT THE MAIN problem with Obama Care and no one thought it was until that’s the legal technicality that might defeat it.
There are many many other things worse about Obama Care than the mandate, and Rick has made it so important and BE DAMNED, he is guilty of supporting it too.
What a phony and a fraud.
I don’t understand why people are turning a blind eye to this guys record.
Read the whole article. It`s about health care, but it has much broader implications. It speaks to Santorum`s view of the role of government. When I hear politicians talk about using the government to shape the marketplace it makes me cringe. (and there`s many more quotes that provide insight regarding his thinking)
I really don’t care much what Rick Santorum said 20 years ago. I was 14 in 1993.
Oh I know, but his going on and on and on and on and on about the mandate has been screwing us all into a hole. And he did it just for his own chance to gain against Newt. And it turns out, he was for it too.
I agree with your point, but the mandate stuff is particularly irritating to me. I started a piece for American Thinker called “Mandate Madness” just today on this very subject - so perhaps it’s a raw nerve for me.
Well Snake, that would be a perfectly reasonable position, except that RS himself and most of his supporters have been obsessed with many things Newt said and did many years ago too.
If the vest fits, wear it.
I don’t dislike Newt. I think he has some strengths Santorum doesn’t. He’s a vicious debater. Maybe the best the right has had since Buckley.
But, Newt has some major weaknesses that can’t be overlooked. He’s said some weird stuff fairly recently (a lot more recently than 1993). Nothing deal-breaking ... but still weird. He tends to shoot his mouth off on occasion. And, his family history is a freaking mess.
I’d take either of them over Romney. I’d take Santorum over Gingrich, barely. Mostly because of Gingrich’s cluster of a personal life, which is just embarrassing and indefensible. On policy, I’m mostly fine with both.
Arlen Specter announces for the White House, with endorsee, Rick Santorum at his side.
At Senator Arlen Specters official presidential campaign announcement in March 1995, then-Senator Rick Santorum showed his public support and encouragement of Specter by sitting directly next to him as Specter denounced the GOPs war on abortion. It was at this event that Specter proclaimed his total opposition to social conservatism and declared he is in fact running to make the GOP pro-choice.
Santorum is seen nodding and applauding at Specters side:
3:46 mark: In 1996, I intend to win the other house the White House with ten commitments to America including a womans right to choose
13:22 mark: Even though we have this historic opportunity for these achievements, there are those in our party who would lead us down a different path and squander this unique moment in our nations history by using our political capital to pursue a radical social agenda that would end a womans right to choose
13:48 mark: When Pat Robertson says there is no constitutional doctrine of separation between Church and State, I say he is wrong
14:31 mark: When Ralph Reed says a pro-choice Republican isnt qualified to be our President, I say the Republican Party will not be intimidated or blackmailed by those kinds of threats.I, and millions of other pro-choice Republicans, will not be disenfranchised and made second class citizens.
15:33 mark: it is not Christian, or religious, or Judeo-Christian to bring God into politics; or to advocate intolerance and promote exclusion.
15:54 mark: I want to take abortion out of politics. I want to keep the Republican Party focused on the vital economic and foreign policy issues and leave moral issues such as abortion to the conscience of the individual. I believe abortion is an issue to be decided by women
16:40 mark: I pledge to lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform
Very reasonable and I appreciate the thinking. I had to digest some of these same things about Newt and I did so because I think he is so talented and now seasoned for a time such as this. I just don’t see much ability in RS and I see a ton of weaknesses in his so called true conservatism.
But again, while I disagree with your conclusion, I respect your thought process.
I’m in Texas. I figure one of the two will be out by the time we get around to voting, so it probably won’t matter.
If both are still standing, I prefer Santorum ... but I’ll probably just vote for whichever has a better chance of winning Texas from Romney. Last I heard, Rick was ahead around here.
I’m hoping the anti-Romney vote can coalesce. Not sure it can. I think it’d be better if one of the two — Rick or Newt — dropped out after Super Tuesday.
Sure you do.
He's a Social Conservative and he sings their song. Nothing else matters.
In contrast to Hillarycare, which required most employers to offer health insurance to their employees, Gramm-Santorum maintained the voluntary nature of employer-sponsored health insurance. However, the bill required that an employer that chose to offer coverage must also offer a consumer-driven health plan consisting of high-deductible insurance and a health savings account. Section 201 of the bill states that employers who failed to do so would not be allowed to deduct the expenses paid or incurred by an employer for a group health plan.The Forbes writer states, "While the Gramm-Santorum plan did bar certain individuals from seeking federal assistance if they chose to forego health insurance, the bill did not include an individual mandate in the way we have come to understand the term. While the bill did not do enough to address the problem of the uninsured, it did contain a number of important market-oriented proposals that most certainly would have improved our health-care system: and no obvious ones that would have made it worse. In the checkered world of health policy, that counts as a pretty good show."
In those days, consumer-driven plans were strongly discouraged by the tax code, and almost no one had them. (Interestingly, Forbes was one of the few employers that offered such plans at that time.) Santorum, a CDHP pioneer, sought to drive their uptake as a way to make health insurance more affordable. As it was described in a contemporaneous account in Congressional Quarterly, Under Gramms proposal, which is not aimed at universal coverage, no employers would be required to offer health insurance to their employees. But if they did, they would be required to offer a catastrophic plan with a medical savings account, in addition to whatever health insurance plan they now offer.
See post 11, it seems to trump everything.
Shouldn’t be a shock. His plan to exempt manufacturers from paying the same taxes every other company does is an even more gross abuse of the role of government in the economy than what he discusses in this article (which doesn’t discuss the mandate). We have to give Republicans some slack though, because Hillarycare was such a threat that it probably wasn’t a viable political position to stop it to just come out and argue for the status quo. So you can’t blame them for taking some time to figure out the right policy.
I agree. I think many Republicans embraced government intervention to some degree as a way to combat Hillarycare. That article makes clear Santorum’s general approach. It goes way beyond health care. He thinks it’s the government’s role to shape markets in order to encourage or discourage behavior.....social engineering.
It’s also an issue because he ran around for months saying he was against the individual mandate.
It is nice to see the socialist rag “Mother Jones” so concerned about us getting a truly conservative GOP nominee. Thank you Mother Jones. I’m sure your staff can’t sleep at night worrying that our candidate might not be true conservative.
As for the timeline, Santorum sure seems to care what Newt had to say in the early 90s. Or Romney had to say in the early 90s. Or Perry had to say in the early 90s. Or some other opponent had to say across their whole careers.
Santorum has an estranged relationship with the truth on the campaign trail, even falsely claiming endorsements that didn't take place.
He's just a dishonest lawyer/career politician who uses social conservatives as cover for his Big Government, Big Labor, Big Spender agenda. Through his confirmation vote for Clinton 2nd Circuit nominee Sonya Sotomayor, he plainly agrees with Obama on what kind of high ranking federal judges we need! After all, she was Obama's Number One Supreme Court pick.
Santorum's supporters are being had by an establishment player.
>> The more I learn about RS, the angrier I get.
Clearly you’re not a supporter. They don’t care.
Santorum said it would be a mistake to allow the delivery of health care services to be determined only by the market. He asserted that Republicans were “wrong” to let the marketplace decide how health care works. He instead argued that government should play a “proactive” role in shaping the health care marketplace “to make it work better.”
....when asked about the role of government in Americans’ lives, Santorum responded, “I believe that the federal government should set up a system where we create the right incentives for you to make efficient choices.”
“We can’t continue to ignore it and say, ‘Oh well, you know, it will work itself out in the marketplace.’ That’s wrong.”
Government intervention, he continued, was key to creating a functioning health care marketplace. “The government helps set the marketplace up, so we have some responsibility to alter that marketplace to make it work better.”
“I take a much more proactive position in government in solving problems than most Republicans, because I believe government has a role. A lot of folks believe, ‘Well, just keep government out of it.’ I don’t believe that.”
YIKES! The second section is very disturbing. He isn’t just talking about health care. He’s talking about the role of government!
I don’t care what anyone said in the 90’s. Santorum has a better record than Romney on ObamaCare. Rick and Newt are roughly equal on policy positions. Newt is a better debater. Rick is a better man.
I don’t buy that Santorum is a big government guy. He’s never had that reputation before this campaign.
I don’t mind his appeals to blue collar workers. Where do you think the “Reagan Democrats” came from in the 80s? Might be good to nominate a conservative that can appeal to a demographic we don’t normally win. Especially since they can be appealed to in a conservative way — highlighting Obama environmental policies that kill blue collar jobs, and Obama regulations that send them overseas. Its a win-win.
Santorum is the one getting endorsements from the likes of Michael Moore and mobbed up union crooks. Who do you think is supporting his run in Ohio? The same crew from Michigan.
So now Santorum supporters are identifying Michael Moore as a Reagan democrat. Santorum has an excuse for everything.
Santorum picking winners and losers just like Obama.
I don’t know who you are trying to appeal to when you keep attacking social conservatives on a social conservative, God fearing web site.
If you ever convince me that Catholic convert Newt Gingrich is not a social conservative, then I quit supporting him.
He might have an excuse for everything. I wouldn’t know. I don’t think he needs one.
I doubt Michael Moore was a Reagan Democrat. I doubt he’d be able to pry his lips from Obama’s ass long enough to be a Gingrich Democrat, Santorum Democrat, or Romney Democrat either. Who cares about Michael Moore?
Who do you think was turning out the vote for Santorum in Michigan?
Are you really this unaware of what Santorum is doing?
Look at the transcript and video in post 11.
Governor Whitman and I agree on 90 to 95 percent of the issues, Santorum said at a Republican rally in Hopewell. And when I find someone I agree with on 90 to 95 percent of the issues, I enthusiastically campaign for them because theyre heading this country in the right direction. Whitman, who was appointed director of the Environmental Protection agency by President George W. Bush, has lately been leading an effort to create a new party and began urging former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to run as a third-party candidate even before Huntsman dropped out of the hunt for the Republican nomination.
I’m not unaware. I’ve heard it all. I honestly don’t care who else was voting for him in Michigan. If there was a group of Obama voters trying to get Santorum nominated over Romney ... they picked the right guy, whether they meant to or not.
Those aren’t the Reagan Democrats I was talking about. They’re just Democrats — and, they’ll line up for Obama’s Kool-Aid in November, as ordered. I was talking about actual Reagan Democrats ... blue collar workers who don’t like Obama, but have the Union jabbering in their ear about the GOP. I think Santorum speaks well to that demographic.
Ok so you are naive. Answer accepted. Santorum = Obama win
Rick Santorum has a 0% rating from NARAL, and a 100% rating from National Right to Life Committee. Seems to piss off all the right people ... the feminists and gay rights activists hate him.
His family situation seems to indicate he is consistently pro-life and anti-birth control, publicly and privately. Honestly, he takes a step past me on the anti-birth control thing. I don’t find the pill morally objectionable — but I respect him for standing by it.
That’s good enough for me. I don’t care about Whitman.
>> Santorum = Obama win
Ridiculous. Obama is a weak candidate ... low approval, high unemployment, bad economy, high gas prices. He’s Jimmy Carter. Very beatable. I think any of the big three could beat Obama — Gingrich, Santorum or Romney.
I think Gingrich or Santorum would be a better President than Romney. I think Santorum is a better man than Gingrich, and Gingrich is a better debater than Santorum. Given the choice, I’d take Rick, but I’d be fine with Newt. I’d tolerate Romney if I must, but I won’t vote for him in the primary.
Really, really, try to explain why Santorum threw his support behind a Presidential candidate who wanted to drive the pro-life movement from the Republican party, and cut it off, and destroy it. Look at that transcript in post 11, also the video is there. That was Santorum's goal in 1995.
Weak candidate? You support a man who was a Senator and suffered a record breaking 18 point loss when he was dumped by his own constituents, just wait until Obama gets hold of this weak and shallow man with little accomplishment to show in his self absorbed life.
Santorum is not a leader, is not a world shaker, Gingrich has already made it into the history books as just that.
I know you don't like Santorum and will take every opportunity to bash him, but at least get your facts straight before you do!
$10 to FR says you won't watch it because you're just as dishonest as Mother Jones.
Mother Jones? We’re going to the far left now to destroy a conservative candidate because he’s not our favorite? Wow.
That’s from 1996. I don’t think anyone today would say that Rick Santorum is not pro-life. He’s attacked by the liberals (and even some conservatives) as being TOO pro-life.
1996? He said that he was pro-abortion all his life until he decided to run for office, and even that conversion was weak, as you can see in post 36.
In 1996 he is trying to destroy the pro-life movement by fighting for the man promising to drive it from the party, to be President.
By 1997 he was campaigning for Christine Whitman “when I find someone I agree with on 90 to 95 percent of the issues, I enthusiastically campaign for them because theyre heading this country in the right direction. as you can see in post 31.
As we all know, in 2004, Santorum was still endorsing and campaigning for the man who would destroy the pro-life movement.
Watch that video in post 11, that was Arlen Specter, with backer Rick Santorum announcing a Presidential run on this platform, “”I pledge to lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform ””.
When you take the mandate notion from The Heritage Foundation and others in context, and RS does, I will. Til then, turn about is fair play.
Actually, I don’t think I’m out of context. But I actually hope I am - so the full impact of how that feels will be realized.
I already said, I really don’t care what somebody said in 1990. I don’t buy that one 30-year-old quote, dug up out of some archive, can invalidate an entire record. That goes for Gingrich as much as Santorum.
Rick Santorum’s pro-life record speaks for itself.
Gingrich has made it into the record books for a lot of reasons, not all of them good. His political record is good. His personal record is not.
Honestly, that’s the only reason I’d take Santorum over Gingrich. If his personal life weren’t a complete catastrophe, I’d be wholeheartedly supporting him. You don’t need to sell me Newt Gingrich. I like Newt.
I think they’re both electable. I think they’d both be a good President. I think they’re about even on policy ... they agree more than they disagree. I think Gingrich has a better resume. I think Gingrich is a better debater. I think Rick Santorum is a better, more trustworthy, man. It is really as simple as that.
When Bill Clinton was President, the question was “if his own wife can’t even trust him, why should I?” With regard to Gingrich, I just don’t have a good answer to that question.
Where in the video (in or out of context) does Santorum approve of mandates?
No more out of context than RS claiming that what Newt and the Heritage Foundation supported is “the exact thing we are fighting with Obama Care” - no more than that.
How does it taste?
Santorum is not now, and never has been a small governemnt, get out of my wallet and off my back, conservative. He has always been and always will be a big government, social conservative. Ala the “compassionate conservative” mold. That’s just reality, anyone thinking Santorum is going to stem the tide of government expansion, is fully ignorant of the man and his career.
He certainly is not a liberal, and he may be to the right of Romney, but he is not a fiscal conservative, he’s not a small government conservative... never was, never will be.