The first reaction I had after reading this post was Does Tarryl really expect us to believe this”? My second reaction was Obamacare collapses without an individual mandate.

While meeting liberal activists at this year’s Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas, Tarryl Clark said she opposes individual health care mandates like those included in the federal health care legislation.

“I’m against individual mandates,” she told Talking Points Memo while discussing the health care bill. “Minnesota’s been a leader in health care. We’ve shown that you can get just about everybody covered without having mandates.”

Clark also said the bill did not do enough “on cost containment.”

Clark spokeswoman Carrie Lucking said the state senator still would have voted for the health care bill had she been in Congress.

“Just because you have concerns about parts of the bill doesn’t mean that overall you don’t think it’s a step in the right direction,” Lucking said, noting that Clark is particularly supportive of the provision barring discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

TRANSLATION: Tarryl knows that the individual mandate isn’t popular so saying that she’s against it is her best hope of earning her some brownie points.

Tarryl hasn’t figured it out that people don’t care whether you oppose the individual mandate if you’d vote for legislation that includes the individual mandate. People pay attention to a person’s actions, not their words.

Let’s look at the totality of Tarryl’s statement. First, Obamacare crumples without the individual and corporate mandates. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

Second, according to her spokester, Tarryl didn’t like the individual mandate but she would’ve voted for the bill anyway. Tarryl didn’t think the legislation did enough to control costs but she would’ve voted for the bill anyway.

Given the fact that it wouldn’t have controlled costs and given the fact that health care legislation would’ve fined people if they didn’t buy a health insurance policy that wouldn’t help control cost, what’s the reason for voting for it? Voting for it because Speaker Pelosi tells her to vote for something isn’t a legitimate reason.

Tarryl is a rubberstamp, pure and simple. She isn’t a policy wonk she doesn’t think in terms of doing what’s right for her constituents. Her votes are paybacks to the special interests that support her.

I’d take Tarryl seriously if she’d consistently said that she wouldn’t have voted for Obamacare because it didn’t do enough to lower health care costs or health insurance premiums. That would’ve should’ve proven that she’s got a spine. Because she didn’t show a spine, it’s appropriate to call her just another spineless politician.

That’s why I won’t take her statements seriously.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Tarryl Opposes Obamacare?”

Leave a Reply