« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Bob Bennett Must Go: The Individual Mandate

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 27th, 2010 at 11:03 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I don’t know about you, but I think when proposing such bold initiatives, our senators should actually ask, “Is it constitutional?” But it is clear Bob Bennett does not respect the constitution.

[N]ot every member of the GOP opposes an individual mandate.

Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, backed an individual mandate as part of a bipartisan health reform bill he pushed with Democratic Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden. Their bill had a handful of other Republican sponsors as well.

The Senate is not seriously considering the “Healthy Americans Act” at this time.

Bennett said this week that the constitutional issues never came up as they crafted their health care fix. He said he looked at the individual mandate in health care as something analogous to the requirement to have car insurance.

Bennett voted in the Senate that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but has refused to back away from the individual mandate in his own legislation, which is pretty much the same as the one in Obamacare.

But when the constitution is outmoded, constitutionality really does not matter. I guess.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • saintgeorgegentile

    What’s the limit in describing this smarmy, lying weasel before being censured & banned?

  • bigfix

    Please find me any reference to Bennett saying the Constitution is “outmoded.” You won’t find one, because he never said it. Ever.

    The Healthy Americans Act was not being seriously considered – it was a starting point for discussion. Bennett has never championed the individual mandate, and it is unlikely it would have survived into any final bill.

    You guys have created a straw man and are beating the stuffing out of him, but it might be helpful if your straw man bore some resemblance to Bob Bennett.

  • mbecker908

    So Bennett has never championed the individual mandate? Then why would he put his name on a bill that featured it? And don’t even try to sell the “starting point” crap. That might fly in your home district of Washington DC, but it sure won’t sell here.

    You really should be spending your time polishing up your resume because it looks like your boss is headed for the hinterlands and I’m pretty sure his replacement will be hiring new people.

  • Vegas_Rick

    is that he didn’t “look at the constitutional issues” and he ” looked at the individual mandate in health care as something analogous to the requirement to have car insurance.”

    Let me clue you in: we EXPECT these idiots to look at the constitutional issues. That’s what’s wrong with progressives on both sides, including your hero, they’re not worried if the crap they push is actually constitutional.

    Only a moron cannot understand that requiring auto insurance to protect the OTHER guy, when driving a car is optional, is not the same as forcing someone to buy a product simply because they live in this country.

    Get a grip!

  • momo

    You want to take away our freedom to choose whether or not to have health insurance. We only have to carry auto insurance when we choose to drive. If you don’t drive, you don’t have to purchase auto insurance!!!!

  • mavericktime

    I don’t get it. Bennett’s bill isn’t even being talked about.

  • redneck_hippie

    a feature, not a bug.

    If the collectivists have their way, our governing framework will no longer exist. Woodrow Wilson was in favor of scrapping the divided powers framework in favor of a parliamentary style of government. Currently, the legislative power is being usurped by unelected bureaucrats.

    The left acknowledges no limit to the power of the state. Lucky for us they decided to overreach so massively that they instigated a popular revolt. Perfectly understandable that the left is discomfitted by the tea party. They must now recognize themselves in the unfamiliar role of the reactionary defenders of the status quo.
    .

  • sarge324

    please correct me if iam wrong.mr.bennett did place his hand on the bible and swore to god to protect and preserve the constitution.you that oath means nothing.progressives have no part in the country.if mr. bennett can swear on the bible,like the bible is nothing but a book and the constitution is a peice of paper than do we need him in the senate.he must go when his time is up.

  • bigfix

    I don’t live in DC. It doesn’t fit your template, I know, but there are more of us out here who support Senator Bennett than the blinders-on folks here would have you believe.

    Again, just saying “don’t mention the ‘starting point’ crap” isn’t a refutation – it’s just indignation masquerading as argument.

  • bigfix

    What should I do with it?

    Bennett supports the court case to settle the constitutional issues surrounding an individual mandate. He also wants to seriously reform health care, relying on private industry and not government-run care to do it. It’s nice to have a senator who is looking for solutions rather than screaming fiery rhetoric and accomplishing nothing.

  • bigfix

    … is much more solid than your own grasp of the fundamentals of capitalization, punctuation, and grammar.

  • bigfix

    His Democratic co-sponsor has abandoned it in favor of Obamacare. And Bennett supports settling the constitutional question of the individual mandate. Erickson’s grasping at straws here.

    This isn’t really about Bennett in the first place – it’s about Erick Erickson setting himself up as a kingmaker and definer of all things conservative.

  • janis

    who is supporting Bennett? No matter which diary mentions the man, you’re the only one I’ve seen who shows up to pimp for him.