Santorum Supported Individual Mandate Before He Was Morally Aghast By It

Rick Santorum is really against the individual mandate.  Watch any debate and you’ll see that he’s barely able to contain his contempt for Gov. Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts.

However, in 1994, he was singing a different tune.  Back then, he wanted to require people to buy health insurance. Here’s a 1994 LeHigh Valley article (this is page two, but I’m trying to draw your attention to the top sentence):

Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.

I don’t doubt that people change and alter their views over the course of several years.  But this is what gets me: the absolute moral indignation candidates like Newt and Santorum show when they act as if they’d never consider such an “unconstitutional concept.”  Though this is no doubt a show for the red-meat conservatives who’d rather someone shake a fist in the air than propose actual solutions, it’s still disheartening.

Will it come up in the New Hampshire debate?

As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha.”

 

About Nancy French

Nancy French is a three time New York Times Best Selling Author.

  • Concerned Christian

    Mrs. French can you give evangelicals a really good reason to vote for Governor Romney without trying to bring up irrelevent and ridiculous information about the other candidates? 1994 really! This is not as tacky and cruel as your article on Newt Gingrich’s wives. How sad to disrespect his family. Remember the golden rule! Maybe you should follow Ronald Reagan’s example of how to treat others especially your fellow republicans.

  • James Carter

    Can you be more specific about the sourcing of the article? I can’t find it.

  • Michael Lewis

    I do not care whether politicians are opposed to the mandate. I am opposed! Where does my money start if the government can tell me how to spend after tax dollars. There has been no mandate for over 200 hundred years and that should be sufficient precedent that none should be upheld now!

  • K.G.

    As a hard-core Tea Party marchin’ in DC conservative I am 100% in favor of a state mandate if that’s what the people in the state want. Taxpayers can either pay for those who could afford insurance (those too poor have Medicaid), or the taxpayers pay. As I taxpayer, I would like my state to step up and insist the deadbeats pay for their own care as opposed to me being “mandated” to pay for others.

    But this is hardly the point. The point is the hypocrisy of Newt and now Santorum; they were for the mandate before they were against it. OK, fine. But Nancy is right to point out cynical political ploy of Newt and Rick.

  • Irish Right

    Concerned Christian,
    If you have a problem with Mrs. French citing a 1994 article about Sen. Santorum, perhaps you can indicate that you and others of your persuasion have had the same problem with those citing arguments made by (then) private citizen Romney while running against Sen. Kennedy in 1994?

    It appears from your comment that you don’t subscribe to the philosophy of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Tim

    @Concerned Christian.. can you give evangelicals a really good reason to vote for any other candidate without trying to bring up irrelevent and ridiculous information about Romney? All of the other candidates have brought up issues from Romney’s past. Maybe they should follow Ronald Reagan’s example of how to treat others especially your fellow republicans.

  • indianinusa

    would be good if you gave credit to the source of your information: ronpaulforums. otherwise, it makes you look like a plagiarist.

  • Nancy Irving

    Come on, Mrs. French, righteous indignation is the number one GOP stock-in-trade. How can you ask any Republican to forgo it, especially when married to hypocrisy? (The kind of marriage that will never be outlawed by a constitutional amendment, I would add.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X