Debate: The ACA is a Republican plan through and through (TUH's Proof vs. BarNone's Proof))

[DEAD7]

It went to the supreme court as a mandate, how is this a debate?

 

[The Real]

lol.... yall are full of shyt about the 'mandate'.. it really is a mandate due to penalties.

A mandate gives you no choice, and there's no sense reducing what is in fact a concrete choice to being forced. A mandate also doesn't have exceptions. This kind of muddy and exaggerated thinking is only going to make it more difficult to criticize it properly. People will associate all criticism of the buy-in with the usual idiotic propaganda about Obama as some kind of Stalinist tyrant (not that much of the criticism about it isn't already doing it.)

 

[DEAD7]

A mandate gives you no choice, and there's no sense reducing what is in fact a concrete choice to being forced. A mandate also doesn't have exceptions. This kind of muddy and exaggerated thinking is only going to make it more difficult to criticize it properly. People will associate all criticism of the buy-in with the usual idiotic propaganda about Obama as some kind of Stalinist tyrant (not that much of the criticism about it isn't already doing it.)

So how do I opt out or become an exception?

 

[Constantine]

Actually, the main components of the ACA were envisioned before the first Clinton administration. The Health Exchanges were conceived by a economist named Alain Enthoven in the 70's under the guise of Managed Competition. http://www.channelingreality.com/Co...r/History_and_Principles_Enthoven_157_VC2.pdf

Abstract:Managed competition in health care is an idea that has evolved over two decades of research and refinement. It is defined as a purchasing strategy to obtain maximum value for consumers and employers, using rules for competition derived from microeconomic principles. A sponsor(either an employer, a governmental entity, or a purchasing cooperative), acting on behalf of a large group of subscribers, structures and adjusts the market to overcome attempts by insurers to avoid price competition.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billof...mon-ground-becomes-a-healthcare-battleground/

In fact, “Obamacare” and the Romney/Ryan Medicare proposals advocate for the same thing. The system is called “managed competition”, and Alain Enthoven began arguing for its use in healthcare several decades back.

http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/sum04/commTOC.html

In 1977, while serving as a consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services in the Carter administration, he designed and proposed the Consumer Choice Health Plan, a plan for universal health insurance based on managed competition in the private sector. The plan, based on the existence of integrated delivery systems such as Kaiser Permanente (KP) and Group Health Cooperative (GHC), provided the foundation for what became the Clinton administration's proposed health care reform plan in the early 1990s.

The Individual Mandate was conceived in the early 40's, early 50's during the Rooselvelt, and Truman administrations. Health insurance was mandated/compulsory, it was also a tax due to the provision that insurance would be paid for directly out of wage earners wages through payroll taxes, just like Social Security is taken out of wage earners paychecks in the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill .
http://faculty.virginia.edu/jajenkins/health_care.pdf
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/eccles/026_07_0010.pdf

The bill calls for a payroll tax of 12 percent, 6 percent on employees, 6 per cent on employers.

Truman called for the program to be overseen by the Surgeon General, and the government would set rates for services, much like the ACA has a rates board.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1473701/pdf/calwestmed00012-0044.pdf

 

[Type Username Here]

Actually, the main components of the ACA were envisioned before the first Clinton administration. The Health Exchanges were conceived by a economist named Alain Enthoven in the 70's under the guise of Managed Competition. http://www.channelingreality.com/Co...r/History_and_Principles_Enthoven_157_VC2.pdf


http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billof...mon-ground-becomes-a-healthcare-battleground/


http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/sum04/commTOC.html


The Individual Mandate was conceived in the early 40's, early 50's during the Rooselvelt, and Truman administrations. Health insurance was mandated/compulsory, it was also a tax due to the provision that insurance would be paid for directly out of wage earners wages through payroll taxes, just like Social Security is taken out of wage earners paychecks in the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill .
http://faculty.virginia.edu/jajenkins/health_care.pdf
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/eccles/026_07_0010.pdf

Truman called for the program to be overseen by the Surgeon General, and the government would set rates for services, much like the ACA has a rates board.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1473701/pdf/calwestmed00012-0044.pdf

Thank you for your well sourced reply. I will read the rest, but having read your source about post WWII era, it seems you are presenting a misleading argument. They were advocating something akin to a public option or heavily subsidized government plans. I will quote later after I read the rest and am on a computer.

Much appreciated.

 

[Darts]

I think some liberals and people like the OP (whatever he classifies himself as) are incapable of understanding two things:

1) Big legislation usually starts off as compromises or downright shytty in the beginning, but can be greatly improved over time. Example Social Security.

2) Elections works in cycles.

One day (possibly in the near future) there will be a Democratic President and Dem Congress just like in 09...and thanks to the heavy lift done by Obama and company, they can easily pass some sensible adjustments to the ACA without having to go through all the bullshyt of starting over from scratch.

 

[Blackking]

A mandate gives you no choice, and there's no sense reducing what is in fact a concrete choice to being forced. A mandate also doesn't have exceptions. This kind of muddy and exaggerated thinking is only going to make it more difficult to criticize it properly. People will associate all criticism of the buy-in with the usual idiotic propaganda about Obama as some kind of Stalinist tyrant (not that much of the criticism about it isn't already doing it.)

Being in denial about what it is and stretching the definitions of words is what makes it difficult to criticize.

Mandate =/= to no choice... it mean something that is mandated... and in this case enforced with penalty. That's just like how we ignore the language in the bill that promotes the eventual use of Rrif chips.... and combining that with things that are already mandated could be concerning for most people.

 

[MostReal]

Obama is a BlueDog...which is why he said he wanted to be the Democrats Regan

 

[The Real]

Being in denial about what it is and stretching the definitions of words is what makes it difficult to criticize.

Mandate =/= to no choice... it mean something that is mandated... and in this case enforced with penalty. That's just like how we ignore the language in the bill that promotes the eventual use of Rrif chips.... and combining that with things that are already mandated could be concerning for most people.

No, you're the one stretching the definition of the word. A mandate is an order, plain and simple. There is no real choice and no exception involved. The "penalty" involved here isn't of the same kind as someone going to jail for committing a crime or being executed for treason/ rejecting royal authority in the old days. Only exaggeration could make the two seem the same.

 

[Blackking]

No, you're the one stretching the definition of the word. A mandate is an order, plain and simple. There is no real choice and no exception involved. The "penalty" involved here isn't of the same kind as someone going to jail for committing a crime or being executed for treason/ rejecting royal authority in the old days. Only exaggeration could make the two seem the same.

So people aren't going to be ordered to get this? Making something a requirement and enforcing penalties makes something a De-facto mandate. Is it exaggeration to say that this socalled non-mandate comes with things that could eventually have ur taxes withheld? For it a 'liberal policy it sure is rough on the poor.... so what if a man in 2016 hasn't signed up - should he have to come up w 700 bucks to pay to the feds? That 700 will fukk a poor person over.

If it's not a mandate then you should be able to opt out of insurance all together and suffer no penalties.

Plus This is also a pick and choose policy - A Jehovah witness can say his religion prevents him, but a Christian Scientist can't??? What type of big gov bias shyt is that? You don't have to sign up if your Native American, but you do if your black or white?


Realistically, if Indians are exempt black should be as well.

 

[theworldismine13]

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

 

[theworldismine13]

So people aren't going to be ordered to get this? Making something a requirement and enforcing penalties makes something a De-facto mandate. Is it exaggeration to say that this socalled non-mandate comes with things that could eventually have ur taxes withheld? For it a 'liberal policy it sure is rough on the poor.... so what if a man in 2016 hasn't signed up - should he have to come up w 700 bucks to pay to the feds? That 700 will fukk a poor person over.

If it's not a mandate then you should be able to opt out of insurance all together and suffer no penalties.

Plus This is also a pick and choose policy - A Jehovah witness can say his religion prevents him, but a Christian Scientist can't??? What type of big gov bias shyt is that? You don't have to sign up if your Native American, but you do if your black or white?


Realistically, if Indians are exempt black should be as well.

yeah basically, the real has a habit of doing this, he is trying to avoid the word mandate for political reasons, he thinks calling it mandate is itself a political attack

and as you can see it eventually makes him to disattach himself from reality

 

[Broke Wave]

Indeed Broke. But define "progressive policy" because I think you're conflating progressive with a socialized policy which is not necessarily required. Or at least that was the thought process of many Democrats in the 90s and the Massachusetts legislature in the mid 2000s. The fact is, no one knows how a complete overhaul would work in the US, which is why I always endorsed the compromise where medicare would be extended to the most expensive groups of people not yet on medicare. It was going to be for a period of 10 years to monitor it alongside what we have now (got dropped in Congress). My only point is that Democrats who call this a Republican plan to seem less radical and those who call it one to voice their displeasure miss the greater point of whether or not it's a good policy or building block.

I think you're sensible enough to know the genesis of something does not necessarily determine its effect. The only reason I even addressed it is because only @tru_m.a.c and I seem be the only people to ever address where it fails and where it helps on a substantive level as opposed to worrying about a name.

I don't think I'm conflating them at all... I said the bill has progressive intentions which it does at face value, but the method to which they are trying to reach that end is through neo-liberal policy. It's like saying that a tax cut is a progressive policy because the idea is to put money back in the hands of consumers and tax payers, or a tax credit which does the same thing... it definitely is not.

The ACA is totally Neo-Liberalism... it forces people under threat of penalty to give money to a private corporation... that's terrible. As far as it being a good policy in and of itself, I think it is far from that and definitely not a building block... was Medicare a building block to this? If so it took 40 years.