ON RARE OCCASIONS MEMBERS OF THE FAR LEFT permit a glimpse, as dark as it may be, into the inner workings of their minds. As radical Israeli professor Ilon Pappe told Le Soir, “The struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers.” That statement serves as an example of how the left rationalizes their consistent assertions that are either at odds with the facts or are purposefully misleading.
Two years ago, Eric Holder gave us another such glimpse of the left’s aversion to veracity when asked by Sen. James Sensenbrenner to define “the difference between lying and misleading…”: “it all has to do,” said Holder, “with your state of mind, and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie.”
Mr. Pappe at least is presenting a simple fact: he does not care if something is true or false, as long as the cause is served. Holder, on the other hand, shifts the burden of proof away from facts to a subjective evaluation of intent. He also presents a troubling legal tightrope by arguing that a statement is only a lie if made to deceive. Which begs the question; when is a lie told when not meant to be deceptive?
With the above points in mind it is worth noting the increasing usage of comments emanating from ObamaCare acolytes that the conservative think tank; the Heritage Foundation, originated the concept of the ‘individual Mandate” based on a paper written by Dr. Stuart Butler.
Supporters of President Obama such as Chris Mathews, Nancy Pelosi, and Jonathan Alter have all made the claim. More recently former Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich stated in the Huffington Post:
In 1989, Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that would ‘mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.’ “
Regarding the Heritage Foundation as the originator of the Individual mandate, the comment is not classifiable as a ‘Holderian lie’, instead it is more of a ‘Pappian’ agenda-advancing deception.
In the parlance of today’s ObamaCare discussions the “Mandate” refers to a legal obligation dictated by the federal government for all residents to purchase comprehensive health insurance covering routine, preventative, emergency, and mental health care and more.
The ‘mandates’ laid out by the Heritage Foundation were of an entirely different nature, as they focused on two areas: 1) Employer Mandate, requiring all large companies to provide healthcare coverage and 2) A Catastrophic Insurance Mandate, intended to protect the public from absorbing the costs for uncovered emergency care.
Routine health care was always regarded as an individual obligation.
At the time the Heritage foundation was responding to two different events: recent legislation signed by President Reagan obligating emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay, and growing discussions regarding a “National Health Care” system (later known as “HillaryCare”).
Dr. Butler in a USA Today article in February of 2012, summed up the position of the Heritage Foundation:
Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it Constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.
The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.”
In its amicus brief to the Court, the Foundation stated:
the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice (should) have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.”
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA
[ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage(true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all familiesand other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
It is curious that as ObamaCare has begun to be imposed upon the unwilling, by the incompetent, that we have seen the increasing use of “Hey, it was your guy’s idea”. This is likely as much to deflect blame as it is to embarrass the political right. After all, if Conservatives thought of it first, they need to share the blame, correct?
The next time you hear or read someone mention that the Heritage Foundation conceived of the “individual mandate,” one should reflect a bit, not on what is being said, but on what is being left out. We need to recognize that the Heritage Foundation:
1) Did not propose a mandate for routine health care.
2) Later withdrew all support of any type of a mandate.
3) Recognized that any such mandate is unconstitutional.
4) Argued to the Supreme Court (via briefs) that any such mandate was at odds with individual liberty.
Yet, just as Professor Pappe does not care if what he claims has any basis of truth to it, we will hear time and again the left’s distortion of reality by repeating the simplistic claim that the “individual mandate was originated by the Heritage Foundation.”
Those making this statement are relying on the reader to not having all the facts. After all, if deception advances the cause, why let the truth get in the way of that noble goal?
Dennis Lund lived in Benicia for many years. This column originally appeared in American Thinker.
Sharing is caring!
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis: Do you really think that Conservatives are any less flawed than Liberals? Presumably we all got off Noah’s boat at the same time and have been scrambling across the shores and racing to invent better cellphones, petroleum products, and offshore tax loopholes from the same Getgo. So your consistent need to demean Liberals evades one glaring flaw: Show me a more perfect specimen of a Conservative who puts on his or her pants any differently or less flawed in the morning. Occasionally take the higher road and see if you can see any similarities in the entire human race. Anyone can demean the termites in the woodpile, but why not lead them to a better source of benevolent thinking? Elsewise what are all these BS degrees good for? PB
Peter Asked: Do you really think that Conservatives are any less flawed than Liberals?
Not enough room to cover that big question in any detail. But if we limit the discussion to the politicians elected by ‘Liberals’ vs. those by ‘Conservatives’ I would answer with an old analogy:
Our country is destined to become a European styled socialist state. It does not matter if you vote Republicrat or Demican; that is where we are going.
If one likes that direction and believes that Washington is the all knowing, all curing, all wonderful Oz like entity, then vote liberal democrat for an express train headed in that direction. If one wants to slow that fast train down, then vote Republican.
If one thinks they all should be thrown out, then some level of common sense prevails.
Sorry, Amigo, your assessment of The Good Guys versus The Bad Guys holds no water with me. I say they are all shallow and mediocre and unless the grassroots public gets off its complacent bottom, we all drown in stagnation. We all carry the stigmata of being flawed humans with miles and eons of evolution to go before we ever really sleep. The only way is uphill, not perennially biting at each other. Show me a flea or a dog that’s an inspiring leader…PB
Whatever you were smoking when you wrote this…I’d like to have some. Someone on the right is complaining about ideological rigidity? Ideological rigidity has destroyed the Whigs. Further, your arguments about the Heritage Foundation’s position on health care is nonsense. They wanted a mandate. No two ways around it. Whether for only catastrophic or also routine care is meaningless. The HF supported the concept. Current HF President Jim DeMint supported Romneycare as a national model while he was supporting Romney for president in 2008.
But, then the black guy became president. Even after the 2008 election, but before ACA, Romney went on Meet the Press and said Romneycare should be a model for the nation. Lindsey Graham was sitting beside him nodding.
Keep in mind, Obamacare was a compromise. No public option. No single payer. No progressive (and better) ideas. Obamacare is what the right wanted. But when it’s proposed by Obama and not the HF, it’s SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, MARXISM, etc. Because the Whigs agreed they would oppose EVERYTHING from the black guy, they were unanimous in their opposition to ACA. (BTW, this fact is something you can never get past. Every political debate since 2009 comes back to this and you have no response to it). Politics over country. What patriots!
Sure, the HF has changed their positions (what happened to principled resolve?). Only because they couldn’t stand to be on the same side as the black guy.
what happened to principled resolve?
Maybe you should ask the man you call “the black guy”, as he was opposed to the mandate when he was a candidate against the white woman.
So, you’re calling Obama’s move to a more moderate position in an attempt to compromise and create a worthwhile new law the equivalent of the Whigs move to an exact opposite of their previous position in an attempt to bring down the President (the aforementioned one-time Romneycare supporter Jim DeMint: ‘it (Obamacare) will be his Waterloo’)?
“American Thinker” is a highly biased right wing rag. Someone has finally found a home. Happy backslapping!
Can you tell us if any of the assertions Dennis made are false and cite the HF’s positions? I truly would be interested in knowing. I also would be interested in people having a serious debate about the issue of ACA and its underlying structure. Let’s stay away from the ideological matters and the name calling. People in my family believe in health care reform and I understand that. The issue is whether this actually reforms anything and whether it presents an existential risk to our economy.
What I can tell you, without a doubt, is that the most of the commenters on the “American Thinker” are participating in a circle jerk.
More history (information) on the individual mandate and the Heritage Foundation for the community to consider… A key excerpt from the article below:
With these considerations in mind, in 1989, Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation proposed a plan he called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans.” Stuart’s plan included a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance,” which he framed explicitly as a way to address the “free rider” problem and employer mandates (emphasis added):
” Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.”
” This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services—even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/