TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.02.2008
Hillary Hatred, Irrational and Here to Stay

Following up on my previous item, here's one other note about Jim Cooper, the Democratic congressman from Tennessee who appears prominently in today's David Brooks column.

Towards the end of the column, Cooper suggests that Hillary Clinton is acting just as rigidly now as she did back in 1993 and 1994 -- when she spurned his offers of compromise.  Why does he think that?  Apparently, it's because she's made such a big deal about having an individual mandate -- that is, a requirement that everybody purchase insurance.

Rather than reiterate the details of this issue for the millionth time, I'll just quote Cooper's take, as Brooks recounts it:

Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.”

He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there.

As I said in my previous item, Cooper has worked on health care for a long time -- and seems genuinely interested in making insurance more affordable. 

Still, while the mandate does seem to be unpopular with the conservative public, I'm not so sure Republicans in Washington would reject this approach out of hand. 

Over in the Senate, Ron Wyden's bill -- which is also based on an individual mandate -- has a several Republican co-sponsors, including Bob Bennett, the very conservative senator from the very conservative state of Utah  He and others actually see the mandate as one of the plan's chief virtues, much as Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, because they think it's a way of forcing individuals to take responsibility for their medical bills.

The House, meahwhile, has its own companion bill to Wyden's.  It goes by the same name, the Healthy Americans Act, and it, too, has an individual mandate. 

And guess who's one of the measures's three co-sponsors?  Why, that would be Jim Cooper.

-- Jonathan Cohn

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:19 PM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

Quemoy and Matsu, 2008 version. yawn

February 5, 2008 4:10 PM

blackton said:

"It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there." Couldn't have said it better myself.

Jonathan, how many illegals and resident aliens don't have health insurance in America, you know the people who also have the nerve to get sick or injured on American soil? Will they be mandated to buy insurance as well? And just how is that mandate to be enforced? Oh, wait, we will work out those issues afterwards, but Obama's plan is written in stone right? The fact that Democrats are having a huge fight about it should be sign it ain't such a political winner, but I guess it is better to be right and lose (like Hillarycare 93) then fight for those people who desperately need insurance and can't afford it.

I don't care that much that Hillary has mandates, but why does she (and you) have to flog it so?

Let the Republicans fight against offering the poor opportunities to buy affordable insurance, instead of the Democrats fighting to go after the few freeriders. Win first, then revisit mandates. Is that so hard?

February 5, 2008 5:24 PM

boxofrox said:

Hey drdanyu or anyone with a comment. Do you work out of a hospital? If so; Does your hospital turn anyone away seeking attention? I know the inefficiency thing, with all of its implications, and agree. But the hospital eats that cost, right? I know that's how the Mayo clinic and its partner hospitals operate. I know you guys really have to contend with insurance companies to the point of profound distraction. Aside from the potential for a better healthcare delivery system what do you think the impact will be per your profession if UHC becomes a reality?. Would the increased pools of available money find its way into practitioners pockets? It seems to me like it would. At least as long as there aren't any wage controls. How much would hospitals really be able to realize to their bottom line in real terms that they don't already by virtue of write offs and tax provisions for out of pocket service?

Jack (humbly seeking education)

February 5, 2008 5:36 PM

The Plank said:

About two weeks ago, I wrote in this space about Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Cooper is perhaps

February 19, 2008 2:19 PM