Early GOP Health care bill question..

[soulcougher73]

I have seen posted numerous times here about an earlier GOP health care bill that was similar to Obamacare or contained a lot of what was in Obamacare in it. Does anyone have a link to this said bill? I'd love it if it were true that Obamacare was basically an earlier GOP idea.

I tried googling but maybe im using the wrong search words.

 

[Anarchist420]

I think the Kaiser Foundation may have had something about it, but it was drawn up by the Heritage Foundation if I'm not mistaken.

It was proposed by a Rockefeller Republican as the Rockefeller Republicans still had a lot of power in the GOP as of 1993... Newt Gingrich is actually a Rockefeller Republican.

 

[cybrsage]

I am also interested in this - can those who repeatedly mention this bill actually link us to it?

 

[her209]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:S.1770:

 

[soulcougher73]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:S.1770:

Thanks. That led me to the wiki page on "Individual Mandate". It really is funny watching the GOP flip flop from initially championing the idea and even one Repub getting it set up in his state to now flip flopping on the whole idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate

As ive said before..they are just mad they dont get the credit for an idea they originally championed. Has nothing to do with them being against the idea, its only the fact the Dems did it. Laughable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks. That led me to the wiki page on "Individual Mandate". It really is funny watching the GOP flip flop from initially championing the idea and even one Repub getting it set up in his state to now flip flopping on the whole idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate

As ive said before..they are just mad they dont get the credit for an idea they originally championed. Has nothing to do with them being against the idea, its only the fact the Dems did it. Laughable.

You aren't quite right. The reps never wanted this. This was a political device which was part of an action to defeat hillarycare and both got scrapped.

 

[her209]

Thanks. That led me to the wiki page on "Individual Mandate". It really is funny watching the GOP flip flop from initially championing the idea and even one Repub getting it set up in his state to now flip flopping on the whole idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate

As ive said before..they are just mad they dont get the credit for an idea they originally championed. Has nothing to do with them being against the idea, its only the fact the Dems did it. Laughable.

See this section of the HEART Act.

`SEC. 5000A. FAILURE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH INSURANCE.

`(a) GENERAL RULE- There is hereby imposed a tax on the failure of any individual to comply with the requirements of section 1501 of the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.

What is section 1501?

SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT OF COVERAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Effective January 1, 2005, each individual who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States shall be covered under--

(1) a qualified health plan, or

(2) an equivalent health care program (as defined in section 1601(7)).

(b) EXCEPTION- Subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of an individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including an individual who declines health plan coverage due to a reliance on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.

Sound familiar???

 

[her209]

PS: The Act also outlines a Benefits Commission. In Palinspeak, "death panels".

 

[manimal]

^
think of the children!!!!


In all seriousness this is a great thread. I wish we could get mittens in here to explain his position

 

[PokerGuy]

In all seriousness this is a great thread. I wish we could get mittens in here to explain his position

Already done.

You aren't quite right. The reps never wanted this. This was a political device which was part of an action to defeat hillarycare and both got scrapped.

 

[cybrsage]

You aren't quite right. The reps never wanted this. This was a political device which was part of an action to defeat hillarycare and both got scrapped.

Yep. It is commonly called a poison pill:

Politics
Main article: Wrecking amendment
A poison pill may also be used in politics, such as attaching an amendment so distasteful to a bill that even the bill's supporters are forced to vote against it. This manipulative tactic may be intended to simply kill the bill, or to create a no-win situation for the bill's supporters, so that the bill's opponents can accuse them of voting for something bad no matter what. This is known as a "wrecking amendment".
In the U.S., it may also refer to a stipulation often attached to constitutional amendments, which kills the amendment if it has not been ratified after seven years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill

 

[soulcougher73]

Yep. It is commonly called a poison pill:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill

So poisioness the current GOP Pres canidate is the only person to ever get it installed at a state level. But now its bad.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So poisioness the current GOP Pres canidate is the only person to ever get it installed at a state level. But now its bad.

The state level wasn't the issue. It was the national mandate that you brought up.

 

[woolfe9999]

You aren't quite right. The reps never wanted this. This was a political device which was part of an action to defeat hillarycare and both got scrapped.

To give the full picture, the mandate was legitimately a conservative idea which originally came out of the Heritage Foundation. Doubtless it was supported by those conservatives who originally backed the idea. When it came up for the first time in a legislative context it was the GOP trying to defeat Hilcare while at the same time posturing themselves as caring about healthcare reform, and in that vein, they had to present an alternative, so they picked a conservative idea which had been bandied about for a few years. It's an open question how much individual GOP legislators actually believed in it at the time. It probably varied.

In any event, it was the same play book as this time around. A desire to defeat any comprehensive reform proposed by the dems, and the need to present alternatives. Because the dems adopted the guts of prior GOP proposals this time around, the GOP alternatives were further to the right, meaning less comprehensive.

You can bet that if somehow Obamacare gets repealed and 10 years from now, the dems propose exactly what the GOP proposed during the debate in 2010, that it will be deemed socialist. Again.

- wolf

 

[lopri]

You aren't quite right. The reps never wanted this. This was a political device which was part of an action to defeat hillarycare and both got scrapped.

I appreciate your honesty. It's refreshing. I am not being sarcastic at all.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You aren't quite right. The reps never wanted this. This was a political device which was part of an action to defeat hillarycare and both got scrapped.

That is not at all what happened. You can't rewrite history using today's GOD context to suit your revisionist purposes.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

That is not at all what happened. You can't rewrite history using today's GOD context to suit your revisionist purposes.

So let me get this straight: some random GOP think tank comes up with an idea and it automatically become the official GOP position? Is the individual mandate a liberal idea?

I just started a liberal think tank that advocates killing children under the age of three.

So, take your liberal posts elsewhere babykiller.

 

[jhu]

The state level wasn't the issue. It was the national mandate that you brought up.

Mitt's op-ed.

Cliffs: Hey Obama! Look what I did! You should do it too!

 

[cybrsage]

So poisioness the current GOP Pres canidate is the only person to ever get it installed at a state level. But now its bad.

The state level wasn't the issue. It was the national mandate that you brought up.

I cannot speak for all republicans and/or conservatives, but for me it has always been a State vs Fed rights issue. The SCOTUS got the mandate right - the Fed does not have that power. The State does, though.

Personally, I would MUCH rather see 50 competing State healthcare systems than one Fed system. A State is easier to keep in check, easier to punish the wrongdoers, and easier to tailor to the needs of that State. A Fed system will simply bloat until it explodes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Mitt's op-ed.

Cliffs: Hey Obama! Look what I did! You should do it too!

The question brought up the health care bill that the Reps put up during the Clinton era. I correctly explained the context of the politics regarding it, specifically that the Republicans didn't want it per se, but to submarine Hillarycare. Whatever Romney says or said doesn't change that fact. Context is important.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Mitt's op-ed.

Cliffs: Hey Obama! Look what I did! You should do it too!

Interesting read. I did notice this sentence though:

"Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, "

Oops, but now that he wants to slam Obama it's not:

"Massachusetts' mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was..."

He really will say anything to get elected.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

So let me get this straight: some random GOP think tank comes up with an idea and it automatically become the official GOP position? Is the individual mandate a liberal idea?

I just started a liberal think tank that advocates killing children under the age of three.

So, take your liberal posts elsewhere babykiller.

Couple of things:

1. The Heritage Foundation is certainly not "some random GOP think tank".
2. Your attempt at an analogy is utterly laughable. The GOP did in fact adopt a plan created by the Heritage Foundation. This is historical fact.
3. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

 

[cybrsage]

I looked up the Mass law:

(b) Every person who files an individual income tax return as a resident of the commonwealth, either separately or jointly with a spouse, shall indicate on the return, in a manner prescribed by the commissioner of revenue, whether such person (i) had creditable coverage in force for each of the 12 months of the taxable year for which the return is filed as required under paragraph (a) whether covered as an individual or as a named beneficiary of a policy covering multiple individuals, (ii) claims an exemption under section 3, or (iii) had a certificate issued under section 3 of chapter 176Q. If the person fails to indicate or indicates that he did not have such coverage in force, then a penalty shall be assessed on the return. If the person indicates that he had such coverage in force but the commissioner determines, based on the information available to him, that such requirement of paragraph (a) was not met, then the commissioner shall assess the penalty. If in any taxable year, in whole or in part, a taxpayer does not comply with the requirement of paragraph (a), the commissioner shall retain any amount overpaid by the taxpayer for purposes of making payments described in paragraph (c); provided, however, that the amount retained shall not exceed 50 per cent of the minimum insurance premium for creditable coverage for which the individual would have qualified during the previous year. The penalty shall be assessed for each of the months the individual did not meet the requirement of paragraph (a); provided, that any lapse in coverage of 63 days or less shall not be counted in calculating the penalty; and, provided further, that nothing in this paragraph shall be considered to authorize the commissioner to retain any amount for such purposes that otherwise would be paid to a claimant agency or agencies as debts described in clauses (i) to (vii), inclusive, of section 13 of chapter 62D. If the amount retained is insufficient to meet the penalty assessed, the commissioner shall notify the taxpayer of the balance due on the penalty and related interest. The commonwealth shall have all enforcement and collection procedures available under chapter 62C to collect any penalties assessed under this section.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2006/Chapter58

I would say it is a penalty in Mass...especialy since it is Constitutional for a State to do this, so it would not have to be called a tax in order for it to be allowable. Therefor, it is not a tax but a penalty, per the law.


So Romney is correct when he says it is a penalty and not a tax.

 

[her209]

So let me get this straight: some random GOP think tank comes up with an idea and it automatically become the official GOP position? Is the individual mandate a liberal idea?

I just started a liberal think tank that advocates killing children under the age of three.

So, take your liberal posts elsewhere babykiller.

 

[shadow9d9]

So let me get this straight: some random GOP think tank comes up with an idea and it automatically become the official GOP position? Is the individual mandate a liberal idea?

I just started a liberal think tank that advocates killing children under the age of three.

So, take your liberal posts elsewhere babykiller.

Pretty much the biggest GOP thinktank, support by Gingrich, in opposition to hillarycare. Used by Romney in his state.

Not agreeing with the extreme right wing that is the GOP does NOT make someone "liberal." There is one liberal in the Senate. The Democrats are moderate/right.

When the Presidential nominee implements the idea and the former congress head Gingrich and others adopt the thinktank's idea... then yes, it represents them.