Deal or no deal? Repeal or no repeal?

[Foxfyre]

I am unaware of any conservatives who proposed such a thing. But then anybody who would propose such a thing would not be conservative.

See post #38. Notable Republicans who have supported an individual mandate: Bob Bennett, Kit Bond, Pete Domenici, Lauch Faircloth, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, Alan Simpson, Ted Stevens, John Warner, Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander, Judd Gregg. There are more, I just don't care to go on. Not a conservative among them? The Heritage Foundation has also been on board for some time.

Okay here's the most prominent opinion of the Heritage Foundation that I doubt seriously has been amended in any way:

Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional
Published on December 9, 2009 by Randy Barnett , Nathaniel Stewart and Todd Gaziano

Executive Summary

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.[1]

This statement from a 1994 Congressional Budget Office Memorandum remains true today. Yet, all of the leading House and Senate health-care reform bills being debated in Congress require Americans to either secure or purchase health insurance with a particular threshold of coverage, estimated by CBO to cost up to $15,000 per year for a typical family.[2] This personal mandate to enter into a contract with a private health insurance company is enforced through civil and criminal tax penalties in section 501 of the House bill[3] and with a freestanding mandate and equally questionable civil tax penalties in sections 501 and 513 of the pending Senate bill.[4]
Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional | The Heritage Foundation

As for that 1993 bill, yes it did require coverage for all Americans though at least they built in sufficient deductions, tax credits, and exclusions from income into the bill that the cost to the individual and employers would have been minimal and did allow those who objected on religious reasons to opt out. But because it did take the personal responsibility away from the individual, it was not conservative. I don't care who sponsored it. I know Hatch has since stated that they came up with the alternative to Hillarycare in an effort to derail that and he said they just weren't thinking constitutionality at that time. I believe CATO opposed it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Bill is now law.

Does the GOP have the balls to tell 40 million Americans that they want to take away their healthcare? Do they want to throw people back into the uninsured?

Go for it GOP...Run in 2010 telling people you want to take away their healthcare

i love the way this number is allways different....it has ranged from 20 million to as high as 48 million....are Illegals without Ins. a part of this number?....just askin....

Who cares?

Run for election on taking away their insurance Republicans

who cares?....a bogus number to sell something is ok?..........

 

[Harry Dresden]

As I said, the bill did not go far enough. It was a compromise to get something passed. The bill was attacked by the insurance lobby from its inception and the Dems wimped out.

Doesn't mean we still cannot fix it

But guess what Republicans...I read it and there is no Government takeover and no Death Panels

you know Rw....this whole thing could have been done much easier for right now....with all the people out of work and with all the companies not doing so great....all that had to be done for right now is put forth a plan for helping the 20-25 million Americans who NEED ins right now.....it would have been a HELL of a lot cheaper and easier to implement....when the economy gets back in gear and unemployment drops back down to 3-4%.....then talk about a national plan.....if no one is working and companies are doing so so.....who is going to pay for this thing?....people working and companies doing great....this country can move mountains....right now....hills are kinda tough....

 

[Immanuel]

Then why were conservatives promoting an individual mandate in a very prominent as recently as 2003?

A very prominent what?

Way. A very prominent way. I went back to change the sentence and didn't finish the thought.

Been there done that. Read it later and said, "What the hell was I talking about?"

Immie

 

[Greenbeard]

Okay here's the most prominent opinion of the Heritage Foundation that I doubt seriously has been amended in any way:

Here's a bit of history for you: Heritage was among those who suggested an individual mandate as an alternative to an employer mandate in 1990:

The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers, who are not. By no longer restricting tax relief for medical care to employer-provided plans, and by restructuring tax assistance to help those Americans most in need, the Heritage proposal significantly would improve the American health system.​

They held onto this idea throughout the '90s and even included it in a proposal to Congress in 2003:

The current social contract should be replaced with a more rational one. In a civilized and rich country like the United States, it is reasonable for society to accept an obligation to ensure that all residents have affordable access to at least basic health care - much as we accept the same obligation to assure a reasonable level of housing, education and nutrition.

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

The obligations on individuals does not have to be a "hard" mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a "soft" mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements. In addition, if federal tax benefits or other assistance accompanied the requirement, states and localities could receive the value of the assistance forgone by the person failing to obtain coverage, in order to compensate providers who deliver services to the uninsured family.​

Why did they disown it last year? Well, because they're hacks. I have a good friend who works at Heritage. And I tell him this all the time. He works for a hack organization.

As for that 1993 bill, yes it did require coverage for all Americans though at least they built in sufficient deductions, tax credits, and exclusions from income into the bill that the cost to the individual and employers would have been minimal

The assistance level in that 1993 Republican bill reached to 240% of the poverty line, phased in over an 8-year period. A family at 150% of the poverty line under that bill would get a voucher to pay about 65% of the costs of a lower-end plan. A family at 200% of the poverty line would get a voucher for about 29% of the cost of a lower-end plan.

We can use the Kaiser subsidy calculator to see what a family of 4 in a medium cost area at 150% of the poverty line would get under the new reform law: a subsidy worth about 85% of the cost of a lower-end silver plan. The same family at 200% of the poverty level would get a subsidy worth about 68% of that plan. And instead of tapering out at 240% of the poverty line, the new reform law tapers out at 400% of the poverty line.

So if you want to play the "but they have more assistance to help people pay for it" card, you're playing it for the wrong bill.

and did allow those who objected on religious reasons to opt out.

So does this law. In fact, not only are there religious exemptions, there are exemptions for hardship, relatively short coverage lapses, and individuals who can't afford coverage in their area.

 

[Care4all]

Okay here's the most prominent opinion of the Heritage Foundation that I doubt seriously has been amended in any way:

Here's a bit of history for you: Heritage was among those who suggested an individual mandate as an alternative to an employer mandate in 1990:

The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers, who are not. By no longer restricting tax relief for medical care to employer-provided plans, and by restructuring tax assistance to help those Americans most in need, the Heritage proposal significantly would improve the American health system.​

They held onto this idea throughout the '90s and even included it in a proposal to Congress in 2003:

The current social contract should be replaced with a more rational one. In a civilized and rich country like the United States, it is reasonable for society to accept an obligation to ensure that all residents have affordable access to at least basic health care - much as we accept the same obligation to assure a reasonable level of housing, education and nutrition.

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

The obligations on individuals does not have to be a "hard" mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a "soft" mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements. In addition, if federal tax benefits or other assistance accompanied the requirement, states and localities could receive the value of the assistance forgone by the person failing to obtain coverage, in order to compensate providers who deliver services to the uninsured family.​

Why did they disown it last year? Well, because they're hacks. I have a good friend who works at Heritage. And I tell him this all the time. He works for a hack organization.

As for that 1993 bill, yes it did require coverage for all Americans though at least they built in sufficient deductions, tax credits, and exclusions from income into the bill that the cost to the individual and employers would have been minimal

The assistance level in that 1993 Republican bill reached to 240% of the poverty line, phased in over an 8-year period. A family at 150% of the poverty line under that bill would get a voucher to pay about 65% of the costs of a lower-end plan. A family at 200% of the poverty line would get a voucher for about 29% of the cost of a lower-end plan.

We can use the Kaiser subsidy calculator to see what a family of 4 in a medium cost area at 150% of the poverty line would get under the new reform law: a subsidy worth about 85% of the cost of a lower-end silver plan. The same family at 200% of the poverty level would get a subsidy worth about 68% of that plan. And instead of tapering out at 240% of the poverty line, the new reform law tapers out at 400% of the poverty line.

So if you want to play the "but they have more assistance to help people pay for it" card, you're playing it for the wrong bill.

and did allow those who objected on religious reasons to opt out.

So does this law. In fact, not only are there religious exemptions, there are exemptions for hardship, relatively short coverage lapses, and individuals who can't afford coverage in their area.

wow! great info to know....thank you.

Care

 

[Polk]

But what mandate are we talking about?

The individual mandate. The quick term for "requires people to purchase or acquire health insurance".

I am unaware of any conservatives who proposed such a thing. But then anybody who would propose such a thing would not be conservative. One of the reasons the GOP lost power so severely in 2006 is because our Congressional representatives and our President abandoned so many conservative principles and the Conservative base wouldn't stand for it.

So we now have the Democrats in power who are much worse.

Sigh. Sometimes life just isn't fair.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

And yes, conservatives have been promoting the idea for years. It was part of the GOP alternative to Clinton's 1994 proposal and Heritage included it as part of their health care reform proposal circa 2003 (oddly enough, the "radical leftist" bill that was passed is probably more similar to that Heritage proposal than anything else).

 

[Care4all]

gosh, if that isn't a check mate, I don't know what is.....

Sad though....that it is all a game, of who can one up the other side, showing them the shenanigans that has really been going on with their "side"....only to ignore when it is their own side or more like, it doesn't seems to bother one as much when it is pointed out that their side just lied to them and twisted things so much, that no one knows the truth...it gets a pass....(this is probably a natural phenomenon that those that are pulling our strings know and use to manipulate us or the human nature of us to defend "our side"....???)

It's all just a game....(shakes head) it's all just a game that blogs fueled by Partisan interests that pit us against each other all the time.

I knew I didn't like this bill...I knew it was a giveaway to the Insurance industry and just could not get past that.... and now I know why, it WAS a Republican bill that the Democrats copied! (just teasing)

 

[Modbert]

If the Republican plan from 1994 is considered socialist by modern-day Republicans, I wonder if that is a good indicator of how far to the right the GOP has gone?

 

[Polk]

If the Republican plan from 1994 is considered socialist by modern-day Republicans, I wonder if that is a good indicator of how far to the right the GOP has gone?

Uh... yeah. American politics has shifted radically to the right in the last few decades though. A lot of the things Nixon proposed while in office would be on the left flank of the Democratic Party today.

 

[Care4all]

I think liberals may have shifted to the right and if you think about it.... Liberals really whole heartedly (is that a word?) supported more of a plan on the lines of a Universal Health care coverage type...that dropped the middle man Insurance companies...?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay here's the most prominent opinion of the Heritage Foundation that I doubt seriously has been amended in any way:

Here's a bit of history for you: Heritage was among those who suggested an individual mandate as an alternative to an employer mandate in 1990:

The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers, who are not. By no longer restricting tax relief for medical care to employer-provided plans, and by restructuring tax assistance to help those Americans most in need, the Heritage proposal significantly would improve the American health system.​

They held onto this idea throughout the '90s and even included it in a proposal to Congress in 2003:

The current social contract should be replaced with a more rational one. In a civilized and rich country like the United States, it is reasonable for society to accept an obligation to ensure that all residents have affordable access to at least basic health care - much as we accept the same obligation to assure a reasonable level of housing, education and nutrition.

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

The obligations on individuals does not have to be a "hard" mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a "soft" mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements. In addition, if federal tax benefits or other assistance accompanied the requirement, states and localities could receive the value of the assistance forgone by the person failing to obtain coverage, in order to compensate providers who deliver services to the uninsured family.​

Why did they disown it last year? Well, because they're hacks. I have a good friend who works at Heritage. And I tell him this all the time. He works for a hack organization.




The assistance level in that 1993 Republican bill reached to 240% of the poverty line, phased in over an 8-year period. A family at 150% of the poverty line under that bill would get a voucher to pay about 65% of the costs of a lower-end plan. A family at 200% of the poverty line would get a voucher for about 29% of the cost of a lower-end plan.

We can use the Kaiser subsidy calculator to see what a family of 4 in a medium cost area at 150% of the poverty line would get under the new reform law: a subsidy worth about 85% of the cost of a lower-end silver plan. The same family at 200% of the poverty level would get a subsidy worth about 68% of that plan. And instead of tapering out at 240% of the poverty line, the new reform law tapers out at 400% of the poverty line.

So if you want to play the "but they have more assistance to help people pay for it" card, you're playing it for the wrong bill.

and did allow those who objected on religious reasons to opt out.

So does this law. In fact, not only are there religious exemptions, there are exemptions for hardship, relatively short coverage lapses, and individuals who can't afford coverage in their area.

wow! great info to know....thank you.

Care

Yes it is all interesting as to how different approaches to the problem have been addressed, It also should put to rest the ridiculous notion that Republicans or Conservatives don't care about this stuff, haven't been thinking about it, and have never outlined their own proposals. Nixon was the first Republican president, and maybe the first president, to actively pursue universal health coverage.

Nobody is arguing that people should not have access to affordable healthcare. Nobody is arguing that government policy and regulation can't help in making healthcare more affordable and available to everybody.

But note the subtle approach in the Heritage Foundation info up there. Whatever 'mandate' the government imposed would not require anybody to do anything. It simply stipulates that we will provide tax relief and credits and make it financially doable for you, and if you don't do that on your own behalf, you forfeit other government benefits. Nobody, no conservative for sure, should have a problem with that. That would be no different than requiring the able bodied recipient of a welfare or unemployment check to be actively pursuing employment or lose their benefits. That would be no different than requiring random drug tests of welfare recipients which many people think would be not only just, but a very good idea, and if you refuse you lose your benefits. That would be no different than revoking a grant of a student who was just goofing off in school, not attending classes, not earning his/her grades.

And this is where the debate should be. How best to accomplish what we want and provide strong incentive for people to be responsible without taking away the rights, choices, options, opportunities of the people. The government should not have power to demand that we buy something that we don't want that affects nobody but ourselves.

I, for instance, am of the school that the government would be within its authority to break up the little monopolies insurance companies have within the states and mandate that states must allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Note I'm not saying that anybody HAS to compete, just that nobody will be forbidden from competing. And then I would like to see the norm shift to privately owned, and therefore completely portable, insurance that people would take with them if they lose their job or change jobs. Companies could still pick up all or a portion of the premium as a benefit to their employees, but the companies would not own the policies.

There are all kinds of good ways to deal with the problem without the government taking over and regulating the whole thing or forcing people to buy what they don't want to buy. Most Americans do not believe that the current healthcare legislation has fixed much of anything and do not believe it will bring down costs or help them in any way.

We can do better. Repeal the turkey that we have and start over, slow and careful and deliberate this time, and put together a plan that actually works, that everybody understands, and that we all can feel good about.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes it is all interesting as to how different approaches to the problem have been addressed, It also should put to rest the ridiculous notion that Republicans or Conservatives don't care about this stuff, haven't been thinking about it, and have never outlined their own proposals. Nixon was the first Republican president, and maybe the first president, to actively pursue universal health coverage.

I'll give you Nixon on the Republican side, since Teddy Roosevelt didn't jump on the bandwagon until after he had left the White House. But the first president to pursue universal health care while in office was, of course, Harry Truman:

On November 19, 1945, only 7 months into his presidency, Harry S. Truman sent a Presidential message to the United States Congress proposing a new national health care program.​

In fact, the son of the "D" in the W-M-D bill, John Dingell, was the sponsor of the House health care reform bills considered this time around.

But note the subtle approach in the Heritage Foundation info up there. Whatever 'mandate' the government imposed would not require anybody to do anything. It simply stipulates that we will provide tax relief and credits and make it financially doable for you, and if you don't do that on your own behalf, you forfeit other government benefits. Nobody, no conservative for sure, should have a problem with that.

I get a little bit more exasperated with every one of your posts. How is the federal mandate in the new law enforced? By withholding your tax refund (you know, at the end of the year when you take your standard deduction or deduct specific things from your taxes so the government will send you a rebate check). That's what Heritage was talking about, that's (apparently) what you're talking about, and that's what the individual mandate is. If no conservative has any problem with that proposal then what's the deal here? I can't tell if you're twisting like a pretzel or simply have no idea what's in the reform law that you think you oppose.

Do we need like a tutorial on this law or something?

I, for instance, am of the school that the government would be within its authority to break up the little monopolies insurance companies have within the states and mandate that states must allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

That's interesting because that's undeniably a federal usurpation of state authority, which I thought was a key conservative complaint about the new law. That said, the new federal law contains provisions to help that process:

Sec. 1333. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one State. By July 1, 2013, requires the Secretary, in consultation with NAIC, to issue regulations for interstate health care choice compacts, which can be entered into beginning in 2016. Under such compacts, qualified health plans could be offered in all participating States, but insurers would still be subject to the consumer protection laws of the purchaser’s State. Insurers would be required to be licensed in all participating States (or comply as if they were licensed), and to clearly notify consumers that a policy may not be subject to all the laws and regulations of the purchaser’s State. Requires States to enact a law to enter into compacts and Secretarial approval, but only if the Secretary determines that the compact will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable, to at least a comparable number of residents, as this title would provide; and that it will not increase the Federal deficit or weaken enforcement of State consumer protection laws.​

Note I'm not saying that anybody HAS to compete, just that nobody will be forbidden from competing. And then I would like to see the norm shift to privately owned, and therefore completely portable, insurance that people would take with them if they lose their job or change jobs. Companies could still pick up all or a portion of the premium as a benefit to their employees, but the companies would not own the policies.

In other words, you'd like there to be health insurance exchanges, new competitive marketplaces where individuals can buy insurance, and employers can take their employees to let them choose their own plan. If only someone would pass a law creating such things...

 

[Foxfyre]

Get as exasperated as you wish, but I will continue to reserve the right to see things as I see it. The tax refund is not the governments. The tax refund is taxes that the person did not owe and overpaid. The government has had use of it, but it is not the government's money to confiscate. And it is blatantly unconstitutional to take the people's property without due process and without providing fair value for the property taken.

I have generally overpaid our taxes simply to avoid any hassle. I could have spent the time to calculate them exactly over the year however and paid not one penny more than I owed. Or underpaid as some people do preferring to use the money myself during the year rather than give it interest free to the government to use.

Withhold their tax refunds indeed. We might as well dump the Constitution and go back to monarchal England or some other system in which the people have no rights but are allowed to do whatever the authority of the moment chooses to allow them to do.

Just how much authority do you wish to hand over to the government to order, direct, regulate, and manage your life for you?

 

[Greenbeard]

Get as exasperated as you wish, but I will continue to reserve the right to see things as I see it. The tax refund is not the governments. The tax refund is taxes that the person did not owe and overpaid.

So when Heritage says "failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits" (clearly understood to be tax credits, whether that be the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families, the homeowner's tax credit, tax credits for energy efficiency or paying down the interest on your student loans, and so on) and you said "no conservative for sure, should have a problem with that" what you really meant was "actually I hate that, that's unconstitutional!"

Why on earth should I be exasperated? I love pretzels.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, I feel your pain, but until the 16th amendment is repealed, feds taxing our income is legal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Get as exasperated as you wish, but I will continue to reserve the right to see things as I see it. The tax refund is not the governments. The tax refund is taxes that the person did not owe and overpaid.

So when Heritage says "failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits" (clearly understood to be tax credits, whether that be the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families, the homeowner's tax credit, tax credits for energy efficiency or paying down the interest on your student loans, and so on) and you said "no conservative for sure, should have a problem with that" what you really meant was "actually I hate that, that's unconstitutional!"

Why on earth should I be exasperated? I love pretzels.

You didn't say tax credits. You said tax refunds. Huge difference between those two things. Tax refunds are the property of the citizen and are Constitutionally inviolate.

Tax credits, however, should ALWAYS be for the sole purpose of generating activity that is beneficial to everybody--promote the general welfare. They should always be universal irrespective of socioeconomic circumstances and should never be for the benefit of a special interest class or group. But yes, tax credits ordered for the purpose of accomplishing the general welfare should absolutely be withheld from those who choose not to participate in that because those who choose not to participate would not qualify for the credit.

There is a huge difference between credits offered to help anybody who wants to take advantage of them and penalities assessed because people aren't living their lives the way government authorities demand that they live them.

Short of violating the rights of others, a free people is allowed to choose how they wish to live their lives. The great experiment is that the people choose the society they wish to have and that freedom is not given over to a government to decide for them.

 

[daveman]

Just how much authority do you wish to hand over to the government to order, direct, regulate, and manage your life for you?

All of it, seemingly.

 

[rightwinger]

As I said, the bill did not go far enough. It was a compromise to get something passed. The bill was attacked by the insurance lobby from its inception and the Dems wimped out.

Doesn't mean we still cannot fix it

But guess what Republicans...I read it and there is no Government takeover and no Death Panels

you know Rw....this whole thing could have been done much easier for right now....with all the people out of work and with all the companies not doing so great....all that had to be done for right now is put forth a plan for helping the 20-25 million Americans who NEED ins right now.....it would have been a HELL of a lot cheaper and easier to implement....when the economy gets back in gear and unemployment drops back down to 3-4%.....then talk about a national plan.....if no one is working and companies are doing so so.....who is going to pay for this thing?....people working and companies doing great....this country can move mountains....right now....hills are kinda tough....

Yes, if the only problem with our healthcare was getting people insured. Problem is that costs keep escallating. more and more employers don't want to be in the insurance business, people are still tied to their employer if they have a pre-existing condition.
The Healthcare bill that passed did not do enough, a simple patch was not going to fix our problems.
Yea the GOP wanted us to wait. Now is not the right time, wait till we can afford it. That was the GOP position in 1994 and nothing was done for 15 years. We needed to get something on the books. Waiting for the GOP to say we are ready for national healthcare will last forever

 

[Care4all]

What's evident to me, is that this Bill of the supposed Democrats was nearly the PRECISE Bill of the supposed Republicans in the very recent past.

-Here we are... where our rolls/positions, have completely reversed....yet we each STILL, for the most part, call ourselves Republicans/conservatives or call ourselves Democratic/liberals?

How can that be, for goodness sakes?

How, can our own party representatives, have convinced the Democratic voters that this was THEIR plan and a good plan at that....WHEN it is the very Republican plan that they were AGAINST previously?

I mean, how did they get the media and the blogs from both sides of the aisle that were AWARE of this reversal stance, to NOT report this, to not give it legs, while the health care debate was going on and before the vote?

Think about this...

The Democratic Party COULD have used this information.... one would initially presume, to PLAY AGAINST the Republican Party, as a marketing tool. Meaning they really could have USED this information to point out how hypocritical the Republicans, who were mouthing off that this was Socialism at its PEAK, and government take over at its PEAK, really were.....

I mean...it really COULD have helped the Democratic Party member's cause...one could speculate, no?

BUT THEY DID NOT USE THIS INFORMATION against the Republicans?

So I am left with, WHY NOT?

And then, in the heavens, I heard the Angels sing....ahhhh ahhhhh ahhhhhhhhhh!!!

IF the Democratic Leadership used this information about the Democratic plan being the Republican plan of the recent past, THEN most of the Democratic voting citizens WOULD HAVE REJECTED IT, just on the basis of it being a Republican plan, since the two sides Party organizers have MADE us DESPISE each other so much.

Yep, that's what I think....and they could not RISK this happening, so they sat on their hands, and did NOTHING to really focus on the hypocrisy of the Republicans rejecting such plan, NOW.

And equally perplexing, is that the Republican Party Organizers and Leaders, managed to also keep out of the Media and Keep away from their republican voting constituency, even on their own right leaning message boards and blogs, this information that this Democratic plan was essentially the SAME plan that the Republicans proposed back in 1994 and 2003 as their FULLY ACCEPTABLE alternative plan for health care reform, verses the Democratic plan at that time.

And somehow the republican leadership and Blog organizers for the right wing, managed to CONVINCE near every Republican voting constituent that this "supposed plan of the Democrats" was PURE EVIL SOCIALISM AND GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER NAZISM, when it was THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN!

sheesh sheesh sheesh....

Do you feel HAD? (I sure do, from both the front and the back!)