Drudge is pushing a story about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan. While Drudge focused on the dollar amount, I saw this:
The centerpiece of Clinton’s plan is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rivalhas also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by does not.
Especially if Mitt Romney is the nominee, how do conservatives argue against this? Now Matt Drudge, who seems to be a Romney fan, highlights a different issue, the $110b per year price tag. So, one strategy is going to be price tag. After all, that really is a lot of money.
But once we have abandoned the principle of freedom that is inherent in the mandate issue, aren’t we just, to quote Churchill, "haggling over price?" Don’t Republicans lose when we "haggle over price," rather than principle?
And if Romney points out that he no longer supports these, doesn’t this raise the flip-flopping issue?
UPDATE: In the WSJ’s coverage, they point to a Democracy Corps (D, Carville in fact) poll on this:
A Democracy Corp. poll in May found that 66% of likely voters would be much more or somewhat more likely to support a candidate for Congress who proposed a mandate combined with subsidies. Just 15% said they would be less likely to support such a candidate.
It is going to be very hard to stand against this.