An interested observer slipped me this video clip from Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna's January 5th appearance at the Panorama Retirement Community in Lacey, WA.

Though it may sound like McKenna's merely spouting some more boring policy nonsense designed to gently rock seniors to sleep, it's actually yet another example of McKenna loudly pointing at his own tortured position on President Obama's health care reform act.

On the stump, McKenna says over and over again that even though he's joined a federal lawsuit against the health care reform law—now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court—he doesn't want the whole law to be struck down. The truth, McKenna claims, is that he likes its protections for people with pre-existing conditions, its provisions allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance until age 25, and just about every other popular bit except for the "individual mandate," which requires everyone to have insurance.

In this video, though, you can hear McKenna explain that he understands exactly why the mandate exists—it exists, he tells the seniors, to make popular provisions (like the ban on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, a ban he supports!) economically feasible.

"Now, why did they include this mandate in the law?" McKenna asks the seniors.

His answer:

"It's because another part of the law says that insurance companies must issue insurance to anyone who requests it, regardless of pre-existing conditions or any other conditions. And I understand that, because if someone is ill, and is without insurance through no fault of their own, they should have some way to be covered. They should. But, of course, if we required insurance companies to issue a policy to anyone who asks, guess what's gonna happen? Imagine if you could get your auto insurance the same way. Would you get your auto insurance before or after the accident? Would you buy your property insurance before or after your house is on fire?"

Exactly! This, McKenna went on to explain, is why the mandate requires people to get insurance now—to eliminate what experts call the free-rider problem, and to make health insurance more affordable for everyone.

All of which shows that McKenna very well understands how central the mandate is to the proper functioning of the entire health care reform act. Which, of course, makes his contention that he's only going after the mandate—just the mandate!—simply not credible. McKenna knows, according to his own explanation to these seniors, that if the mandate falls, so do popular provisions like the ban on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.

And, by the way, this video isn't the only thing that leads one to the conclusion that McKenna's lawsuit is going after more than just the mandate. Look at this Jan. 6 Supreme Court amicus brief that he signed onto. Among other things, it states:

Congress considered the individual mandate essential to the Act’s functioning, to its passage, and to its ability to achieve Congress’ goal of near-universal health insurance. This Court cannot remove the hub of the individual mandate while leaving the spokes in place without violating Congress’ evident intent.

To put it simply:

Rob McKenna cannot say that 1) he wants the mandate struck down, but 2) he knows the mandate makes the entire health care reform law possible, including key provisions that he and other people like without 3) reasonable people concluding that his own evident intent is to torpedo the entire health care reform law, popular provisions included.