Republican Rep. Mark Kirk's stance on the recently-passed health care bill is getting murkier by the day. First, the GOP Senate hopeful called forcefully for a full repeal of the bill. When leaders in his party realized that would be virtually impossible to achieve (and poor politics to boot), Kirk backed off that stance.  When pressed by reporters earlier this week, he refused to repeat his earlier pledge while incessantly reminding them that he voted against the legislation.  Yesterday, the North Shore congressman tweaked his stance yet again. In an interview with the Illinois Statehouse News, Kirk said he opposes the new taxes favored keeping in place certain provisions of the Democratic bill, such as the rule banning insurance companies from refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Watch:

Some in the media will probably treat this position as sensible and middle-of-the-road.  But from a policy perspective, it's totally illogical and completely ignores how this bill works.

Here's a quick reminder on how the central provisions of the Democrats' health care bill work in tandem:

If the government forces insurance companies to provide coverage to every applicant, regardless of their existing health problems, it must simultaneously ensure that the risk pool doesn't become so sick (and premiums so high as a result) that the healthy flee the system. That's why the bill includes an individual mandate: if the healthy are required to participate, premiums will remain affordable.

In carrying out that mandate, however, the government must provide assistance to working families who otherwise can't afford the coverage they are now required to purchase. That's why the bill provides subsides to families who earn less than $83,000 annually.

But if the government is going to require that lower-income families purchase insurance, it must also define what types of policies those families must buy. That's why the bill establishes so-called "minimum benefit regulations."

Don't believe me? Maybe conservative Ramesh Ponnuru of The National Review is more convincing.  He recently slapped down a similar attempt by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to cherry-pick the preexisting condition provision as one he'd like to preserve.

If Kirk continues to offer up this nonsensical position on health care, reporters need to challenge him on the effects. He can't have his cake and eat it too.