We have Republicans who were for the health care reform individual mandate before they were against it, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who as recently as June 2009 said, "But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance. Because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren’t insured, there’s no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it ... I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates."
TAANSTAFL : There ain't no such thing as a free lunch! But right now, since there's currently no individual mandate until it takes effect, people are getting that free lunch. Is that really what the Republicans think is better? Is it better to give essentially free health care to those who can't (or won't) pay for it than it is to ensure that everyone does pay their fair share for the health care that they will sooner or later have?
We have Republicans who were for the individual mandate before they were against it, and still are sometimes for it, such as Mitt Romney, who stated last March
I know some people say, gee, your Massachusetts health care plan isn’t conservative. I say oh, yes it is. Because right now in this country, people that don’t have health insurance go to the hospital if they get a serious illness, and they get treated for free by government. My plan says no, they can’t do that. No more free riders. People have to take personal responsibility. I consider it a conservative plan.
Can anyone seriously disagree with Romney's description of the reason for the individual mandate? After all, everyone needs health care sooner or later. And we have Republicans who think that we should keep the "job-killing" health care reform law. Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had this to say:
It is not the bill that [Republicans] would have written. It is not the bill that I would have drafted. But it is the law of the land and it is the platform, the fundamental platform, upon which all future efforts to make that system better, for that patient, for that family, will be based. And that is a fact. I know the discussion of Washington is repeal and I'm sure we will come back to that discussion
" ... [The bill] has many strong elements," Frist added later, "And those elements, whatever happens, need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented. But how do you do it? How do you do a lot of what is in this law?"