Senator Chuck Grassley is still misleading Iowans about what’s in the health insurance reform bill Congress passed last month. On April 1 he had this to say in Mason City:
Several residents were worried about what would happen to their health care premiums now that the president has signed the health care law. The mandate requiring everyone to purchase health insurance was also a worry.
“It’s questionable whether the federal government can require you to buy anything,” Grassley said.
One woman asked Grassley if federal funds connected to the health care law could be used to pay for abortions.
Grassley said he believes that the subsidies the poor will receive to purchase insurance could be used to pay for abortion. Democrats believe an executive order signed by President Obama at the insistence of Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak stops any federal funds from being used for to pay for abortions.
“I think he was sold a bill of goods that an executive order would take care of it,” Grassley said. “I am pro-life and that’s how I feel about it.”
Grassley conveniently failed to mention that he supported a health insurance mandate in 1993, in 2007 and even last summer. He only started questioning the legality of a mandate last fall. Contrary to what he told the Mason City crowd, legal scholars don’t think much of the constitutional arguments against health reform. It’s also ludicrous for Grassley to charge that federal funds will be used for abortions. On the contrary, Obama’s executive order is likely to end all private insurance coverage of abortion, even for women who don’t receive a dime in government subsidies.
Grassley is smart enough not to call health insurance reform “socialist”, but when someone in the Mason City audience asked about the government taking stock in General Motors and some large banks, Grassley drew applause by saying, “If you’re listed in the Yellow Pages, I guess the president thinks that the government ought to nationalize you.”
As far as I can tell, Grassley is no longer claiming that health insurance reform will let the government “pull the plug on grandma.” A poll taken in late February found that a majority of Iowans think Grassley “embarrassed” our state by making that allegation last summer. In the same poll, only 42 percent of respondents said Grassley should be re-elected. The poll results were released this week; Iowa Independent analyzed the results here, and Senate Guru did the same in this guest post at Bleeding Heartland.
The Senate race still looks like Grassley’s to lose, but Iowans are aware that the senator stretched the truth about end-of-life counseling. We need to call him out on his other distortions too, like his claims about student loan reform. According to Grassley’s pretzel logic, ending big federal subsidies to banks will somehow impose a “tax” on students.
I encourage all Iowa Democrats to get involved in supporting one of Grassley’s challengers: Roxanne Conlin, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause.
12 Comments
DmD...
After months of lobbying, including sit-ins and arrests, a few local activists received a very nice four page letter from Grassley yesterday, in a hand addressed envelope, no less.
I don’t agree with any of the positions outlined in the letter. And Grassley does not agree with mine.
But he did take the time to explain his thinking on continued funding of the war, and his concerns over what he views as a partisan agenda reflected in the health care bill.
And he did respond to us. Personally.
And even at the worst of times, in the depth of fundamental ideological struggle, Charles Grassley has always remained in civil discourse with me.
Not something I can say about certain other elected officials.
eltondavis Tue 6 Apr 6:04 PM
I got a letter from Grassley as well,
it was the usual stuff about how this was a bad bill and it is all the Democrats fault that he wasn’t on board for the vote. etc.,etc.,etc.
Justification and a hope for getting my vote back, as I had told his staffers more than once that although I had voted for him in the past, if he didn’t change his mind and get on board, I would work for anyone who runs against him.
He has always responded to my calls or letters, as has Mr. Harkin, and even Mr. King.
This summer I watched him at the town hall he had in my town, change from the moderate Republican Senator, that I had always thought had Iowa’s best interest at heart, to a Tea Party Senator, who was afraid of the Tea Party protesters who where at the town hall and he said whatever they wanted to hear and I think that is part of why he voted the way he did. Although, most of the reason was because, the Republicans took a winner takes all tactical decision and are now hoping that the people don’t figure out they are misleading them, with how radical this bill is. Considering the bill is almost the same as the one the Republicans supported in 94.
If the Republicans continue with their program of just say no and continue to shut off unemployment benefits, and other things such as the fact that the flood insurance program has been affected by the last time they let politics interfere with what is best for the American people, then they may not do as well in the fall elections as some people think.
I plan on working for whomever wins the Democratic Primary, I will be supporting Roxanne, but if she doesn’t win, I will still work as hard as I can, to see Senator Grassley retired.
nwia-granny Wed 7 Apr 2:46 PM
Not entirely true
> Contrary to what he told the Mason City crowd, legal scholars don’t think much of the constitutional arguments against health reform.
Really? Because on Volokh’s website (which I regularly read), I saw:
http://volokh.com/2010/04/01/t…
“There is not and never has been an expert consensus on this issue. Rather, this is one of a number of disputed questions in constitutional law that tends to split experts along ideological lines. Nearly all left of center experts believe the mandate is constitutional, while the overwhelming majority of conservative and libertarian scholars believe the opposite.”
I’d suggest reading this article –
The Myth of an Expert Consensus on the Constitutionality of an Individual Health Insurance Mandate
http://volokh.com/2009/12/23/t…
Anyhow, Charles Glassley will be, for better or worse, re-elected until he retires; as will Tom Harkin. It’s the rule in Iowa…
libertarianjeff Wed 7 Apr 10:44 AM
they will not prevail in court
There is too much precedent for Congressional authority to regulate commerce and taxation. And even if they did win a court case, Congress could force states to adopt their own individual mandates on health insurance, the way all 50 states have mandates to own car insurance. Congress could simply restrict federal funding in some area until the states adopted insurance mandates.
desmoinesdem Wed 7 Apr 11:37 AM
-
> There is too much precedent for Congressional authority to regulate commerce and taxation
I never assumed or implied that would be the rationale for disputing it.
> And even if they did win a court case, Congress could force states to adopt their own individual mandates on health insurance, the way all 50 states have mandates to own car insurance
Well, probably this congress. But after 2010 elections, it’s unlikely they’d have the votes for this.
libertarianjeff Wed 7 Apr 11:49 AM
also
Also, I should add, I am not some lunatic fringe libertarian. I believe the following entitlement programs are 100% legal:
* Social Security
* Medicare
But the individual health care mandate extends the commerce clause’s power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity.
That is unprecedented.
While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company.
Regulating the auto industry or paying “cash for clunkers” is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.
libertarianjeff Wed 7 Apr 11:52 AM
insurance companies desperately want that mandate
They will say they need it if they are not allowed to exclude people for pre-existing conditions. Otherwise people could wait until they get sick to buy insurance.
Whether Republicans or Democrats control the Congress in the next few years, insurance companies will get what they want.
desmoinesdem Thu 8 Apr 10:45 AM
-
> There is too much precedent for Congressional authority to regulate commerce and taxation
I never assumed or implied that would be the rationale for disputing it.
> And even if they did win a court case, Congress could force states to adopt their own individual mandates on health insurance, the way all 50 states have mandates to own car insurance
Well, probably this congress. But after 2010 elections, it’s unlikely they’d have the votes for this.
libertarianjeff Wed 7 Apr 11:49 AM
In the end, the mandate has no teeth
because it won’t be enforced.
No jail time.
No fines.
No garnishing of paychecks.
Therefore, it seems as though the mandate isn’t actually a mandate at all. Unless I’m mistaken about the lack of enforcement.
ghbraves Wed 7 Apr 2:17 PM
Question
I thought the last thing I heard on this was, that the fines that are in the bill, would be collected by the IRS, just as back child support, and other things are now collected.
Is this not the case? If so, do you have any idea how I got that idea?
I think this is how the part of about needing 17,000 more IRS agents gets into the talking points, of the Republicans and others who are afraid of the changes and want to make people believe that this is not an effective bill.
I think it is way too soon to see just how effective this bill will be. We will have to see if there are any fixes or changes that either help or hurt the bill as it is now.
nwia-granny Wed 7 Apr 3:02 PM
I very well could be mistaken
I don’t have a link, but I thought Newt Gingrich was concerned on Sunday that 16,000 IRS agents were going to fining, jailing, etc.
I’m told that Gingrich is incorrect and that is not going to be happening at all.
ghbraves Wed 7 Apr 3:39 PM
we won't know until 2014 at the earliest
because the mandate doesn’t go into effect until the exchanges are up and running.
desmoinesdem Thu 8 Apr 10:43 AM