Thank God For The Gop's Health Plan

[Politico]

More Leftytoon logic. It hasn't happened to me thus it doesn't happen.

 

[Faun]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

ObamaCare was the GOP healthcare plan ... until Obama passed it. Then they hated it.

 

[Moonglow]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

ObamaCare was the GOP healthcare plan ... until Obama passed it. Then they hated it.

I know, but they act like George bush and the ACA was never a repub idea...

 

[initforme]

I didn't think the GOP presented a plan. They want to keep things as is... forever. Why are they opposed to all people being covered. Is this not aq good thing? Health care should never be a privilege, if you care about the sanctity of life.

 

[dblack]

I didn't think the GOP presented a plan. They want to keep things as is... forever. Why are they opposed to all people being covered. Is this not aq good thing? Health care should never be a privilege, if you care about the sanctity of life.

It depends on what you think the purpose of government is. If you think government is there to take care of us and provide us with our needs, then health care should be a priority for government. If you think government is there to protect our rights, and it's up to us to take care of ourselves, then government has no responsibility to provide us with health care, and no authority to dictate how we manage it ourselves.

 

[ninja007]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

The Leftytoon method. Deny every disabled American benefits with red tape. Hopefully they will die before you have to pay out.

except that wasn't the case and you know it. The libs had a shitload of backdoor leftist agenda crap tacked onto the bill.

 

[emilynghiem]

GOP Healthplan....Wedontcare

LOL only a true idiot would think a republican doesn't care about good health care,really only a truly dense person would repeat and believe such BS.

Actually Republicans do care about healthcare

They care about blocking any universal healthcare available to all Americans. They have been doing it for 50 years

rightwinger
sorry but this idea that opposing health care mandates through federal govt
equates to blocking health care
is like
equating opposing federal regulations on abortion
as promoting babykilling -- do you get the point?

Wanting freedom from government regs
is not the same as wanting to promote a certain consequence!

Liberals actively oppose government mandating regulating or penalizing
reproductive freedom and right to choose
and make this CLEAR it does NOT mean "equating to pushing abortion and baby killing"

why do you insist on using this same
false equation with the rightwing
and falsely equate wanting "free market health care"
with opposing health care for all?

Why can't charities and medical schools provide "sustainable health care for all"
and not depend on going through federal govt to set that up?

Look at Doctors without Borders, Americares and other model groups.
Why can't those efficient organizations be the model that don't rely on going through govt to operate and serve the public?

 

[emilynghiem]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

ObamaCare was the GOP healthcare plan ... until Obama passed it. Then they hated it.

Sorry but no Republican plan I ever saw
created a pseudo-govt exchange mixing federal mandates with private insurance business.

Romney was criticized as being too moderate by
passing the state version of insurance mandates, and that did not create
a federal exchange that imposed IRS penalties on all citizens.
It was on a state level which is different from federal.

If you do not know the difference between state and federal laws and govt,
then no wonder you do not understand the arguments and outrage incited over ACA.

Please tell me you understand
the limits between federal govt and state jurisdiction to pass laws for itself (by citizens voting within that State)
vs. laws passed by Congress through federal govt where the citizens of the states did NOT get to vote on it.

Do you understand the difference this makes
when it comes to decisions about Health care, which used to be a personal liberty and private choice,
made on a federal level where the tax penalties are on individual citizens?

Do you understand the concept of depriving citizens of rights previously enjoyed,
but without going through ANY due process to prove that such citizens committed a crime that warrants losing freedom?

Do you understand this is why conservatives and even liberal prochoice Constitutionalists
like me are opposed to ACA on Constitutional grounds? I'm a prochoice Democrat, and I can see it is anti-choice and pushing a belief-based agenda through federal govt as a nationalized religion based on "health care as a right through govt" and excluding equal exercise of beliefs in natural rights and freedoms as the default, not govt.

Sorry if you cannot see or understand Constitutional beliefs as valid.

Your assessment of ACA as supported by Republicans
reminds me of people who insist that Muslims support Jihadist interpretations
of killing in the name of God, when they will tell you that runs totally contrary to their Islamic beliefs.

 

[Faun]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

ObamaCare was the GOP healthcare plan ... until Obama passed it. Then they hated it.

Sorry but no Republican plan I ever saw
created a pseudo-govt exchange mixing federal mandates with private insurance business.

Romney was criticized as being too moderate by
passing the state version of insurance mandates, and that did not create
a federal exchange that imposed IRS penalties on all citizens.
It was on a state level which is different from federal.

If you do not know the difference between state and federal laws and govt,
then no wonder you do not understand the arguments and outrage incited over ACA.

Please tell me you understand
the limits between federal govt and state jurisdiction to pass laws for itself (by citizens voting within that State)
vs. laws passed by Congress through federal govt where the citizens of the states did NOT get to vote on it.

Do you understand the difference this makes
when it comes to decisions about Health care, which used to be a personal liberty and private choice,
made on a federal level where the tax penalties are on individual citizens?

Do you understand the concept of depriving citizens of rights previously enjoyed,
but without going through ANY due process to prove that such citizens committed a crime that warrants losing freedom?

Do you understand this is why conservatives and even liberal prochoice Constitutionalists
like me are opposed to ACA on Constitutional grounds? I'm a prochoice Democrat, and I can see it is anti-choice and pushing a belief-based agenda through federal govt as a nationalized religion based on "health care as a right through govt" and excluding equal exercise of beliefs in natural rights and freedoms as the default, not govt.

Sorry if you cannot see or understand Constitutional beliefs as valid.

Your assessment of ACA as supported by Republicans
reminds me of people who insist that Muslims support Jihadist interpretations
of killing in the name of God, when they will tell you that runs totally contrary to their Islamic beliefs.

You haven't seen it? Well now you have ... the individual mandate, brought to you by those Librules over at the Heritage Foundation...

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate 1989-2010 - Obamacare Health Care Laws - ProCon.org

I would link you directly to the Heritage Foundations healthcare plan, but it seems the link to that page is not working...

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

But essentially, ObamaCare was modeled on RomneyCare, and RomneyCare was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan.

The right loved the plan when Conservatives pitched the idea ... they hate it now because Obama passed it.

 

[CowboyTed]

I didn't think the GOP presented a plan. They want to keep things as is... forever. Why are they opposed to all people being covered. Is this not aq good thing? Health care should never be a privilege, if you care about the sanctity of life.

It depends on what you think the purpose of government is. If you think government is there to take care of us and provide us with our needs, then health care should be a priority for government. If you think government is there to protect our rights, and it's up to us to take care of ourselves, then government has no responsibility to provide us with health care, and no authority to dictate how we manage it ourselves.

Pretty sure 'right to life' is a right...

 

[CowboyTed]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

ObamaCare was the GOP healthcare plan ... until Obama passed it. Then they hated it.

Sorry but no Republican plan I ever saw
created a pseudo-govt exchange mixing federal mandates with private insurance business.

Romney was criticized as being too moderate by
passing the state version of insurance mandates, and that did not create
a federal exchange that imposed IRS penalties on all citizens.
It was on a state level which is different from federal.

If you do not know the difference between state and federal laws and govt,
then no wonder you do not understand the arguments and outrage incited over ACA.

Please tell me you understand
the limits between federal govt and state jurisdiction to pass laws for itself (by citizens voting within that State)
vs. laws passed by Congress through federal govt where the citizens of the states did NOT get to vote on it.

Do you understand the difference this makes
when it comes to decisions about Health care, which used to be a personal liberty and private choice,
made on a federal level where the tax penalties are on individual citizens?

Do you understand the concept of depriving citizens of rights previously enjoyed,
but without going through ANY due process to prove that such citizens committed a crime that warrants losing freedom?

Do you understand this is why conservatives and even liberal prochoice Constitutionalists
like me are opposed to ACA on Constitutional grounds? I'm a prochoice Democrat, and I can see it is anti-choice and pushing a belief-based agenda through federal govt as a nationalized religion based on "health care as a right through govt" and excluding equal exercise of beliefs in natural rights and freedoms as the default, not govt.

Sorry if you cannot see or understand Constitutional beliefs as valid.

Your assessment of ACA as supported by Republicans
reminds me of people who insist that Muslims support Jihadist interpretations
of killing in the name of God, when they will tell you that runs totally contrary to their Islamic beliefs.

You haven't seen it? Well now you have ... the individual mandate, brought to you by those Librules over at the Heritage Foundation...

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate 1989-2010 - Obamacare Health Care Laws - ProCon.org

I would link you directly to the Heritage Foundations healthcare plan, but it seems the link to that page is not working...

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

But essentially, ObamaCare was modeled on RomneyCare, and RomneyCare was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan.

The right loved the plan when Conservatives pitched the idea ... they hate it now because Obama passed it.

But if they don't read this, then they can't see it... So let them ignore this...

 

[Faun]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

ObamaCare was the GOP healthcare plan ... until Obama passed it. Then they hated it.

Sorry but no Republican plan I ever saw
created a pseudo-govt exchange mixing federal mandates with private insurance business.

Romney was criticized as being too moderate by
passing the state version of insurance mandates, and that did not create
a federal exchange that imposed IRS penalties on all citizens.
It was on a state level which is different from federal.

If you do not know the difference between state and federal laws and govt,
then no wonder you do not understand the arguments and outrage incited over ACA.

Please tell me you understand
the limits between federal govt and state jurisdiction to pass laws for itself (by citizens voting within that State)
vs. laws passed by Congress through federal govt where the citizens of the states did NOT get to vote on it.

Do you understand the difference this makes
when it comes to decisions about Health care, which used to be a personal liberty and private choice,
made on a federal level where the tax penalties are on individual citizens?

Do you understand the concept of depriving citizens of rights previously enjoyed,
but without going through ANY due process to prove that such citizens committed a crime that warrants losing freedom?

Do you understand this is why conservatives and even liberal prochoice Constitutionalists
like me are opposed to ACA on Constitutional grounds? I'm a prochoice Democrat, and I can see it is anti-choice and pushing a belief-based agenda through federal govt as a nationalized religion based on "health care as a right through govt" and excluding equal exercise of beliefs in natural rights and freedoms as the default, not govt.

Sorry if you cannot see or understand Constitutional beliefs as valid.

Your assessment of ACA as supported by Republicans
reminds me of people who insist that Muslims support Jihadist interpretations
of killing in the name of God, when they will tell you that runs totally contrary to their Islamic beliefs.

You haven't seen it? Well now you have ... the individual mandate, brought to you by those Librules over at the Heritage Foundation...

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate 1989-2010 - Obamacare Health Care Laws - ProCon.org

I would link you directly to the Heritage Foundations healthcare plan, but it seems the link to that page is not working...

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

But essentially, ObamaCare was modeled on RomneyCare, and RomneyCare was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan.

The right loved the plan when Conservatives pitched the idea ... they hate it now because Obama passed it.

But if they don't read this, then they can't see it... So let them ignore this...

No worries ... the link is working now ...

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

 

[emilynghiem]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

ObamaCare was the GOP healthcare plan ... until Obama passed it. Then they hated it.

Sorry but no Republican plan I ever saw
created a pseudo-govt exchange mixing federal mandates with private insurance business.

Romney was criticized as being too moderate by
passing the state version of insurance mandates, and that did not create
a federal exchange that imposed IRS penalties on all citizens.
It was on a state level which is different from federal.

If you do not know the difference between state and federal laws and govt,
then no wonder you do not understand the arguments and outrage incited over ACA.

Please tell me you understand
the limits between federal govt and state jurisdiction to pass laws for itself (by citizens voting within that State)
vs. laws passed by Congress through federal govt where the citizens of the states did NOT get to vote on it.

Do you understand the difference this makes
when it comes to decisions about Health care, which used to be a personal liberty and private choice,
made on a federal level where the tax penalties are on individual citizens?

Do you understand the concept of depriving citizens of rights previously enjoyed,
but without going through ANY due process to prove that such citizens committed a crime that warrants losing freedom?

Do you understand this is why conservatives and even liberal prochoice Constitutionalists
like me are opposed to ACA on Constitutional grounds? I'm a prochoice Democrat, and I can see it is anti-choice and pushing a belief-based agenda through federal govt as a nationalized religion based on "health care as a right through govt" and excluding equal exercise of beliefs in natural rights and freedoms as the default, not govt.

Sorry if you cannot see or understand Constitutional beliefs as valid.

Your assessment of ACA as supported by Republicans
reminds me of people who insist that Muslims support Jihadist interpretations
of killing in the name of God, when they will tell you that runs totally contrary to their Islamic beliefs.

You haven't seen it? Well now you have ... the individual mandate, brought to you by those Librules over at the Heritage Foundation...

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate 1989-2010 - Obamacare Health Care Laws - ProCon.org

I would link you directly to the Heritage Foundations healthcare plan, but it seems the link to that page is not working...

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

But essentially, ObamaCare was modeled on RomneyCare, and RomneyCare was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan.

The right loved the plan when Conservatives pitched the idea ... they hate it now because Obama passed it.

But if they don't read this, then they can't see it... So let them ignore this...

No worries ... the link is working now ...

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

Question:
1. where is any mention of creating a "pseudo-mix" of private insurance
in a federally mandated exchange (that escapes check because it is considered private
and yet the mandates are federal)?

2. Most conservatives I know ALSO contested Romney's plans for requiring insurance,
but only approved it, if at all, because people of the state VOTED on it. Many still disagree and
expect it to fail, and believe in free market solutions to keep health care locally managed, and to minimalize the bureaucracy that federal govt should have to handle.

3. the same way Libertarians and other Conservatives (and even liberal Constitutionalists and anarchist on the left) protest the Federal Reserve as an unconstitutional mix of private interests using federal govt as a cover, this ACA is even more publicly protested for being a pseudo-mix of corporate interests meshed with federal mandates.

Unlike the Federal Reserve notes, which are *optional* to use for private exchanges and only required when payiing taxes to govt that only recognize US notes on taxes that remain mandatory regardless of the currency used, the ACA mandates are NOT optional but required to go through, so this is protested equally if not more than the Federal Reserve is.

If you assume that conservatives "approve" of the Federal Reserve just because it was passed through legislation, where have you been? if you assume they "approve" of social security and other welfare through federal govt, where have you been? The whole Tea Party and conservative split in the GOP is over the career politicians considered "sold out" to pander to votes at the expense of limited govt under the Constitution that has been demonized.

Just because majority rules doesn't mean people approve or the policies are Constitutional or right. They are what we have for now until we agree how to reform the system; until we agree, we get a mix of things and in the case of ACA I don't know anyone who really wants it, but sees it as a step to get somewhere else, that again, not all sides agree on. We ended up with a bastard baby that nobody wants and really wants to trade it in for something better; but
since we can't agree yet, we are stuck with this bastard baby as an illegitimate mix of
two different systems that have no way to check it directly except by executive orders,
which is arguably outside the Constitutional structures in how it mixes private business
with public mandates. How can anyone expect to check that?

4. Note that the previous attempts to pass bills through Congress also got defeated by Republican and Conservative Constitutionalists voting NO.

This only got passed after Democrat "right to health care through govt" advocates
offered incentives NOT related to the bill
to sway votes in Congress to get the necessary majority.

You can say other laws have been passed by these side means,
but in this case if you look at the votes they were decidedly partisan,
where the votes were split along political beliefs by party.

If this vote had been split along religious lines, such as Muslims vs. Hindus
or Atheists vs. Christians, there would have been a huge uproar against establishing
a belief for the nation as law -- the belief this is constitutional and the most expedient way
to push for health care by mandating it through govt and creating "federal exchanges".

The same way Atheists sue to remove 'crosses' as "symbols of a Christian faith' they don't believe in by religious freedom; where is the same respect to remove the "ACA' as a "symbol of the belief in right to health care through govt" as a "political creed" that dissenters
"do not believe in." in the case of Atheist who win lawsuits, they are merely offended or excluded and not fined or punished; but in the case of ACA excluding beliefs in the chioce of free market health care by political creed, these people ARE facing penalties and aren't allowed
the equal option of paying for health care to meet the goal, but are only given the "choice" of
buying insurance under federal mandates that violate their beliefs or pay a fine to govt
under the same mandates in violation of their beliefs. That is much more of an imposition
than just an Atheist suing over a symbolic cross endorsed by govt; this is a tax penalty
that discriminates against people by creed, forcing people with beliefs in free market
health care to pay into a system based on opposing beliefs being established as
MANDATORY by federal laws and enforced by penalties. How is that NOT a violation
of equal beliefs and protection under the law from discrimination by creed?

The Constitutionalists I know who contest the Federal Reserve still make the same argument
that such an ADDITION to the powers and authority of Govt require a Constitutional Amendment first
because how the Federal Reserve is set up, and now the ACA, using a NEW mix of private structures mixed
with Federal Govt is NOT specifically given in the Constitution.

If you look, to this day we STILL have problems checking the IRS and Federal Reserve
because their STRUCTURE gives them powers outside the Constitution and cannot be "directly
checked" through the normal three branches of govt.

the mix of PRIVATE interests in with federal govt has exceeded the Constitutional structures and process.

Same problem with the Federal Reserve, and we've made this same mistake again
of going outside the Constitutional structures to escape the checks, balances and separation/limitations on powers.

That's fine to reform the Constitution but it must be done by consensus.

Again the same Constitutionalists NIXED the idea of insurance mandates
imposed through FEDERAL govt and that's why this didn't pass, because of people enforcing the Constitution.

As a prochoice Democrat, who believes in "consent of the governed" as the basis of civil law and social contract, and Equal Inclusion of political beliefs with respect to the First and Fourteenth Amendment,

I agree with opponents on Constitutional grounds that an Amendment needed to be passed before passing the ACA which adds extra-constitutional structures to govt, and/or host a constitutional convention and come to an agreement or amendment on how to manage political beliefs, such as by conflict resolution and consensus or separation by party,
to prevent from violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of citizens of conflicting or dissenting political beliefs that are equally valid and which the parties are willing to fund themselves to prevent from imposing on each other.[/B]

 

[dblack]

The GOP health plan, die early, leave a pretty corpse....

ObamaCare was the GOP healthcare plan ... until Obama passed it. Then they hated it.

Sorry but no Republican plan I ever saw
created a pseudo-govt exchange mixing federal mandates with private insurance business.

Romney was criticized as being too moderate by
passing the state version of insurance mandates, and that did not create
a federal exchange that imposed IRS penalties on all citizens.
It was on a state level which is different from federal.

If you do not know the difference between state and federal laws and govt,
then no wonder you do not understand the arguments and outrage incited over ACA.

Please tell me you understand
the limits between federal govt and state jurisdiction to pass laws for itself (by citizens voting within that State)
vs. laws passed by Congress through federal govt where the citizens of the states did NOT get to vote on it.

Do you understand the difference this makes
when it comes to decisions about Health care, which used to be a personal liberty and private choice,
made on a federal level where the tax penalties are on individual citizens?

Do you understand the concept of depriving citizens of rights previously enjoyed,
but without going through ANY due process to prove that such citizens committed a crime that warrants losing freedom?

Do you understand this is why conservatives and even liberal prochoice Constitutionalists
like me are opposed to ACA on Constitutional grounds? I'm a prochoice Democrat, and I can see it is anti-choice and pushing a belief-based agenda through federal govt as a nationalized religion based on "health care as a right through govt" and excluding equal exercise of beliefs in natural rights and freedoms as the default, not govt.

Sorry if you cannot see or understand Constitutional beliefs as valid.

Your assessment of ACA as supported by Republicans
reminds me of people who insist that Muslims support Jihadist interpretations
of killing in the name of God, when they will tell you that runs totally contrary to their Islamic beliefs.

You haven't seen it? Well now you have ... the individual mandate, brought to you by those Librules over at the Heritage Foundation...

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate 1989-2010 - Obamacare Health Care Laws - ProCon.org

I would link you directly to the Heritage Foundations healthcare plan, but it seems the link to that page is not working...

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

But essentially, ObamaCare was modeled on RomneyCare, and RomneyCare was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan.

The right loved the plan when Conservatives pitched the idea ... they hate it now because Obama passed it.

I don't care.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[PredFan]

I love threads like this. It illustrates the stupidity of liberals. The really funny thing is that they volunteer their stupidity over and over again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[dblack]

I didn't think the GOP presented a plan. They want to keep things as is... forever. Why are they opposed to all people being covered. Is this not aq good thing? Health care should never be a privilege, if you care about the sanctity of life.

It depends on what you think the purpose of government is. If you think government is there to take care of us and provide us with our needs, then health care should be a priority for government. If you think government is there to protect our rights, and it's up to us to take care of ourselves, then government has no responsibility to provide us with health care, and no authority to dictate how we manage it ourselves.

Pretty sure 'right to life' is a right...

Well, that gets right to confusion at the heart of this issue. Protecting our rights isn't the same thing as empowering us to exercise them. Protecting your right to life doesn't mean government is responsible for providing you everything you might need to live, just as protecting your right to free speech doesn't mean government must ensure your capability to speak.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Actually Republicans do care about healthcare

They care about blocking any universal healthcare available to all Americans. They have been doing it for 50 years

Yeah, when you Obamunists are only doing what is best for the nation...