Why are Repubs so against Obamacare?

[Matt1970]

Somebody apparently feels the need to create a duplicate account.

I really don't know how well the ACA will work, never claimed to. OTOH, I have pointed out that the usual denialists are doing an awful lot of projecting from their armchair quarterback positions. You're claiming the game is over & the score settled before it really even starts.

Your claim that the ACA is unlike the heritage plan is mere assertion, as well, very convenient assertion in the usual fashion. The personal mandate aspect certainly was part of the original Heritage idea. The information is trivially easy to find-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

The rest is merely personal attack, lashing out in denial so as to avoid looking at your own propaganda driven faith based position.

Repubs were for it before they were against it, yet claim they were always opposed. That's revisionist history at its most blatant.

Did the Heritage plan get shoved down the throats of an unwilling America?

 

[fskimospy]

Did the Heritage plan get shoved down the throats of an unwilling America?

Of course by "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" you mean "enacted by the popularly elected legislature and signed by the President".

You guys love to act like somehow this was an illegitimate piece of legislation somehow forced upon America as opposed to a natural policy outcome that came after the Democrats won overwhelming victories at every level.

I have no doubt that you don't view the Bush tax cuts as being "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" despite them being passed through budget reconciliation and the like. The reason? 1.) You liked the Bush tax cuts, and 2.) You haven't read a website that tells you that you're supposed to think that.

 

[row]

...Your claim that the ACA is unlike the heritage plan is mere assertion, as well, very convenient assertion in the usual fashion. The personal mandate aspect certainly was part of the original Heritage idea. The information is trivially easy to find...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

instead of using second hand information you might attempt to google the source professor. in the architects own words..


"Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.....After all, I headed Heritage's health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative....."

try again loser

 

[Strk]

instead of using second hand information you might attempt to google the source professor. in the architects own words..


"Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.....After all, I headed Heritage's health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative....."

try again loser

Supreme Court says otherwise

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course by "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" you mean "enacted by the popularly elected legislature and signed by the President".

You guys love to act like somehow this was an illegitimate piece of legislation somehow forced upon America as opposed to a natural policy outcome that came after the Democrats won overwhelming victories at every level.

I have no doubt that you don't view the Bush tax cuts as being "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" despite them being passed through budget reconciliation and the like. The reason? 1.) You liked the Bush tax cuts, and 2.) You haven't read a website that tells you that you're supposed to think that.

It's just part of the usual right wing oppression fantasy, a very necessary aspect of their ability to maintain denial. When they've lost, they have to claim that the other side cheated to maintain credibility in their own eyes. It's just Birtherism in a different form.

 

[fskimospy]

instead of using second hand information you might attempt to google the source professor. in the architects own words..


"Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.....After all, I headed Heritage's health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative....."

try again loser

I'm pretty sure that everyone's well aware of Heritage's backflips in order to pretend that the individual mandate wasn't their idea. You have to remember that the Heritage Foundation has descended into complete hackery in the last few years.

I think we should DEFINITELY take the "architect"'s own words on the subject. Instead of asking him what he thinks now as he desperately tries to avoid his own ideas however, let's look at the actual heritage proposal.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.

This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services—even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.

A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection, which would end the problem of middle-class “free riders” on society’s sense of obligation.

Yeah, so he didn't support an individual mandate, he just said that we should have a 'mandate on households to force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection'.


Lol. I'm not sure what is sadder, the desperate rewriting of history by Heritage or the fact that you guys are so easily fooled.

 

[Jhhnn]

instead of using second hand information you might attempt to google the source professor. in the architects own words..


"Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.....After all, I headed Heritage's health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative....."

try again loser

Well, yeh, he's running for cover himself, you silly man. He, too, was for it before he was against it, basically admits he was while dancing around as if the truth were otherwise.

Which is, of course, why you clipped the quote & failed to link the source. Let me take care of that for you-

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

 

[LagunaX]

One Health Plan to rule them all, One Health Plan to find them,
One Health Plan to bring them all and in the United States bind them.

In the Realm of Middle American Healthcare, Obamacare was designed from the get go to make the rest of the Rings of Power (PPO's) yield and fall under it by making them so expensive and unaffordable by means of the 2014 healthcare mandates.
Thus the One Health plan would gain dominion over the masses as few could afford a personal choice PPO any longer.
Thus the members of the Fellowship of the PPO are the Republicans and the PPO personal choice health plans.

Please do not flame my silly analogy, but feel free to poke fun at it :awe:

 

[TerryMathews]

Supreme Court says otherwise

The Supreme Court issued a finding on who's idea the individual mandate of was? Link?

I think this was a reading comprehension issue on your part.

 

[TerryMathews]

It's just part of the usual right wing oppression fantasy, a very necessary aspect of their ability to maintain denial. When they've lost, they have to claim that the other side cheated to maintain credibility in their own eyes. It's just Birtherism in a different form.

So are you claiming this wasn't passed during a lame duck session?

 

[fskimospy]

Well, yeh, he's running for cover himself, you silly man. He, too, was for it before he was against it, basically admits he was while dancing around as if the truth were otherwise.

Which is, of course, why you clipped the quote & failed to link the source. Let me take care of that for you-

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

I've said it before, but I find it interesting that conservatives frequently complain about how liberals hold them in intellectual contempt.

This is interesting to me because there is clearly no group in America that holds the intellect of conservatives in more contempt than conservative thought leaders.

 

[monovillage]

Obama had to lie to the American people and lie to the legislatures that enacted it in order to get it passed. Ever wonder why Pelosi said "we have to pass the Bill so you can find out what is in it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

It's a Bill that was passed by lies and deceit and that's the way the Democrats and the assholes that support them want it.

 

[fskimospy]

So are you claiming this wasn't passed during a lame duck session?

Of course it wasn't passed during a lame duck session.

It passed the House on September 17th, 2009.
It passed the Senate on December 24th, 2009.
Amendments passed through reconciliation on March 21, 2010.
Signed into law on March 23rd, 2010.

A lame duck session is the period between November of an election year and when those elected take office in January. Not one aspect of the ACA was passed during this time. The closest election would have been November, 2010 - more than seven months after the bill was passed.

 

[schmuckley]

Of course by "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" you mean "enacted by the popularly elected legislature and signed by the President".

You guys love to act like somehow this was an illegitimate piece of legislation somehow forced upon America as opposed to a natural policy outcome that came after the Democrats won overwhelming victories at every level.

I have no doubt that you don't view the Bush tax cuts as being "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" despite them being passed through budget reconciliation and the like. The reason? 1.) You liked the Bush tax cuts, and 2.) You haven't read a website that tells you that you're supposed to think that.

It was: popular poll said 59% were opposed.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/22/new-cnn-poll-59-oppose-obamacare/

It's a big fail.period.

The people did not want the ACA;yet the government is trying to cram it down their throats.

Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY7ZX6ngOSs

 

[piasabird]

My daughter lost her job because of Obama Care. ACA is hurting an awful lot of part time employees. This legislation hurts everyone, saves no one any money. It just sucks. Now my wife will have to pay a penalty because she is not insured due to personal problems. Then some people get waivers and some dont.

 

[TerryMathews]

nm

 

[fskimospy]

nm

I will assume that you are no longer eagerly awaiting my reply.

 

[piasabird]

People on the supreme court need to all be fired. The president and everyone who voted for this baloney need to be gotten rid of. By Impeachment or any other means is fine for me. If you voted democrat, this is your doing.

 

[fskimospy]

It was: popular poll said 59% were opposed.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/22/new-cnn-poll-59-oppose-obamacare/

It's a big fail.period.

The people did not want the ACA;yet the government is trying to cram it down their throats.

Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY7ZX6ngOSs

Hmm, I was unaware that representative democracy is conducted by polling people about individual pieces of legislation.

The American people have had a number of opportunities to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They have repeatedly chosen not to.

 

[TerryMathews]

I will assume that you are no longer eagerly awaiting my reply.

I will be, as soon as I can find a link that has the story I want your commentary on. There are so few sites you will accept.

FWIW, the funding bill for Obamacare was passed under a lame duck session, 12/24/2010.

 

[fskimospy]

I will be, as soon as I can find a link that has the story I want your commentary on. There are so few sites you will accept.

FWIW, the funding bill for Obamacare was passed under a lame duck session, 12/24/2010.

"So few sites I will accept". Give me a break. You're wrong and you know it.

What bill do you explicitly mean as the 'funding bill for Obamacare'? Please be specific. (and provide the HR # if possible).The Senate passed the House bill on 24 December, but that was 24 December 2009. Most of the funding for the ACA is not subject to appropriations bills and is contained in the body of the bill itself so it is unlikely that any 'Obamacare funding bill' was passed during a lame duck session, at least no bill that provided the bulk of the funding for it.

 

[TerryMathews]

"So few sites I will accept". Give me a break. You're wrong and you know it.

I'm still working on a non-partisan site for you, but I quoted this because I'm going to pick the shit out of it.

Would you be willing to Paypal me a nickel for every time you nitpicked the source of a story?

 

[row]

"...Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders..."

 

[fskimospy]

I'm still working on a non-partisan site for you, but I quoted this because I'm going to pick the shit out of it.

Would you be willing to Paypal me a nickel for every time you nitpicked the source of a story?

I like how asking people to provide even nominally credible sources is somehow 'nitpicking'.

By 'so few sites' you mean every major news source, nonpartisan analytic body, IGOs, etc, etc. If you think that me dismissing ultra partisan websites that have a proven track record of serial dishonest is 'nitpicking' that says more about you guys than me.

Considering this must have been a substantial bill, the information on it should be readily available for any number of credible, nonpartisan sources. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble finding it.

 

[schmuckley]

Hmm, I was unaware that representative democracy is conducted by polling people about individual pieces of legislation.

The American people have had a number of opportunities to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They have repeatedly chosen not to.

What if representative democracy WAS conducted that way? Would the ACA have been passed? NO

Nice try to spin, but no.

When have the people chosen not to? When they burned up the phone lines
of Representatives telling them to defund the ACA?
Somehow the government "shutdown" got blamed on Republicans when they were doing the will of the people.
It's (ACA) coming up for review now.
It's got to go;amongst other things.