Thread on Government Shutdown: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS OFFICIALLY REOPENED!

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,970
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,060
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
A lot of the basis for the plan comes from conservative origins, Romney, the Heritage Foundation/Gingrich. For example the individual mandate:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/03/ironic_challenge_affordable_ca.html

Republicans were for ACA before they were against it.:yeshrug:

Single payer option was also scrapped to try and appeal to Republicans.

Absolutely
, but how was the ACA voted on passed with compromise/republican input or consideration? From what I can find on the ACA wiki Dems had a majority in both houses and didnt need GoP votes... is this inaccurate?
 

ghostwriterx

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
6,703
Reputation
740
Daps
14,204
Absolutely, but how was the ACA voted on passed with compromise/republican input or consideration? From what I can find on the ACA wiki Dems had a majority in both houses and didnt need GoP votes... is this inaccurate?

That's accurate. I suppose it depends on what you mean when you say "compromise"? That fact that no repubs voted for the ACA doesn't mean they didn't have any input or that the final bill wasn't a compromise. That's political theater on their part.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/affordable-care-act_n_1377013.html

They could have had more input, but they had little interest in coming to the table. ACA's success if any will be a victory for Obama and the dems. If they can convince the country ACA is a horrible overreach of an ever growing govt, destined to destroy the country they can use that to help retake the house (which they did). However, they've become married to that cause. If Obamacare works, republicans come off poorly as they've held the govt. hostage for nothing. They actually fear that more than they fear Obamacare being a complete disaster, that would be a huge political boon for them.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,692
Reputation
4,889
Daps
68,697
Republicans didn't have input on ACA?

They created the ACA. :russ:
Obamacare Isn't Romneycare, and the GOP Didn't Invent It
Brenton Smith
1_photo.jpg

Obamacare Isn't Romneycare, and the GOP Didn't Invent It
© AP

The proponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have a number of talking points, the favorite of which seems to be that Obamacare is really a Republican idea. The purpose of this talking point is to create the illusion of bipartisanship and promote the idea that the GOP only wants to argue about its name.

The argument that follows the talking point is that the ACA is based on the GOP's Romneycare. Let's forget that Romney vetoed many parts of the legislation. Let's forget that the legislation was broadly expanded by Romney's Democratic successor. Let's forget that Romney distanced himself from his own plan during the Republican primaries largely because the idea was unpopular with actual Republicans. Finally, let's forget the struggles Romney had to get the nomination, introducing the question of whether he is truly reflective of the party.

Even if Romney were a bedrock Republican endorsed by all 50 states, the ACA is vastly different from what Romney actually proposed. The ACA is comprehensive coverage rather than catastrophic coverage. Romney opposed the employer-based insurance concept, whereas the ACA heavily encourages it with tax subsidies and penalizes those who do not comply. The penalties in the ACA are as much as 10 times as much as those in Romneycare. So the talking point that the ACA draws on Romneycare is very loosely defined.

The talking point is correct that the GOP has considered these ideas previously. It is virtually impossible to produce 2,000 pages of healthcare reform without touching something that has been considered by someone else. The individual mandate has roots within the Heritage Foundation and Milton Friedman. Similarly, McCain argued for a tax on healthcare plans. It is, however, a bit of a stretch to say that the ACA is a Republican idea because a specific concept out of 2,000 pages derives from a GOP platform.

It is beyond that stretch, though, to attribute a concept to Republicans when the concept is applied in the exact opposite of the intended use. Milton Friedman, a Libertarian icon, argue for an individual mandate when he worked for the Hoover Institute. In his article, Friedman argued that employer-provided healthcare benefits are a significant component in the rise of cost of healthcare. Yes, Milton Friedman envisioned an individual mandate, but it was in response to the problems caused by the employer-provided insurance market which is so strongly encouraged by the ACA.

The individual mandate for health insurance makes sense within the context of a plan that protects society. The government requires the owner of a car to own auto insurance to protect society for the negligent use of the car. Today, the government requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay. Hence the government can justify an individual mandate for health insurance so that society can protect itself from having to pay for the "Free Riders." This is what Romney meant when he said that "A free ride on the government is not libertarian."

The ACA is 2,000 pages of law with many moving parts. Some of these parts have been talked about in the past by Republicans. That doesn't mean that the Republican Party was the genesis of the ACA. What parts derive from Republican leanings frequently promote the problems that the GOP sought to solve.

Now stop this (not TUH, but everyone) so we can actually have an informed debate about the American healthcare system and what the ACA seeks to do in many areas and the positives and negatives of the minutia of the law. Just because the ACA borrows a few republicans ideas it does not mean they invented it. They actively opposed many of the things in the ACA. Worst off, this lazy RomneyCare - ObamaCare comparison when Romney vetoed significant provisions of the law after it was passed, only to find that Democrats controlled the legislature and they overrode his veto and then Democratic Governor Deval Patrick implemented what Romney did not want to.

@White Mike @FAH1223 or anyone else who cosigned that TUH post, I suggest you go to the other thread and see my point :smh:
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
Obamacare Isn't Romneycare, and the GOP Didn't Invent It
Brenton Smith

Obamacare Isn't Romneycare, and the GOP Didn't Invent It
© AP

The proponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have a number of talking points, the favorite of which seems to be that Obamacare is really a Republican idea. The purpose of this talking point is to create the illusion of bipartisanship and promote the idea that the GOP only wants to argue about its name.

The argument that follows the talking point is that the ACA is based on the GOP's Romneycare. Let's forget that Romney vetoed many parts of the legislation. Let's forget that the legislation was broadly expanded by Romney's Democratic successor. Let's forget that Romney distanced himself from his own plan during the Republican primaries largely because the idea was unpopular with actual Republicans. Finally, let's forget the struggles Romney had to get the nomination, introducing the question of whether he is truly reflective of the party.

Even if Romney were a bedrock Republican endorsed by all 50 states, the ACA is vastly different from what Romney actually proposed. The ACA is comprehensive coverage rather than catastrophic coverage. Romney opposed the employer-based insurance concept, whereas the ACA heavily encourages it with tax subsidies and penalizes those who do not comply. The penalties in the ACA are as much as 10 times as much as those in Romneycare. So the talking point that the ACA draws on Romneycare is very loosely defined.

The talking point is correct that the GOP has considered these ideas previously. It is virtually impossible to produce 2,000 pages of healthcare reform without touching something that has been considered by someone else. The individual mandate has roots within the Heritage Foundation and Milton Friedman. Similarly, McCain argued for a tax on healthcare plans. It is, however, a bit of a stretch to say that the ACA is a Republican idea because a specific concept out of 2,000 pages derives from a GOP platform.

It is beyond that stretch, though, to attribute a concept to Republicans when the concept is applied in the exact opposite of the intended use. Milton Friedman, a Libertarian icon, argue for an individual mandate when he worked for the Hoover Institute. In his article, Friedman argued that employer-provided healthcare benefits are a significant component in the rise of cost of healthcare. Yes, Milton Friedman envisioned an individual mandate, but it was in response to the problems caused by the employer-provided insurance market which is so strongly encouraged by the ACA.

The individual mandate for health insurance makes sense within the context of a plan that protects society. The government requires the owner of a car to own auto insurance to protect society for the negligent use of the car. Today, the government requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay. Hence the government can justify an individual mandate for health insurance so that society can protect itself from having to pay for the "Free Riders." This is what Romney meant when he said that "A free ride on the government is not libertarian."

The ACA is 2,000 pages of law with many moving parts. Some of these parts have been talked about in the past by Republicans. That doesn't mean that the Republican Party was the genesis of the ACA. What parts derive from Republican leanings frequently promote the problems that the GOP sought to solve.

Now stop this (not TUH, but everyone) so we can actually have an informed debate about the American healthcare system and what the ACA seeks to do in many areas and the positives and negatives of the minutia of the law. Just because the ACA borrows a few republicans ideas it does not mean they invented it. They actively opposed many of the things in the ACA. Worst off, this lazy RomneyCare - ObamaCare comparison when Romney vetoed significant provisions of the law after it was passed, only to find that Democrats controlled the legislature and they overrode his veto and then Democratic Governor Deval Patrick implemented what Romney did not want to.



Shows your lack of knowledge. I wasn't even talking about Romney-Care this is a mid-90s Republican plan to counter what they thought was going to be Clinton's (Aka HilaryCare) push for universal healthcare.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."

Sec. 1003) Establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.

(Sec. 1004) Requires each employer to make available, either directly, through a purchasing group, or otherwise, enrollment in a qualified health plan to each eligible employee.

Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.



BarNone, you stop it. You don't even know what you're talking about. Go read this proposal. I have other GOP proposals from that time as well and MOST of them form a basis for the ACA.
 

Piff Perkins

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
52,400
Reputation
19,281
Daps
285,788
Absolutely, but how was the ACA voted on passed with compromise/republican input or consideration? From what I can find on the ACA wiki Dems had a majority in both houses and didnt need GoP votes... is this inaccurate?

The bill has many republican ideas in it. One of the most popular - letting kids stay on their parents plan until they're 26 - was the idea of a republican congressman. Olympia Snowe was also heavily involved in crafting the bill, as democrats let her add shyt in hopes that she'd vote for it.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,692
Reputation
4,889
Daps
68,697
Shows your lack of knowledge. I wasn't even talking about Romney-Care this is a mid-90s Republican plan to counter what they thought was going to be Clinton's (Aka HilaryCare) push for universal healthcare.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx









BarNone, you stop it. You don't even know what you're talking about. Go read this proposal. I have other GOP proposals from that time as well and MOST of them form a basis for the ACA.
Please quit. (see other thread)
 

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
well i cant post this in the obama care sticky page because well they've banned me from it.:troll:

everytime the govt is planning something i always ask myself who's making money behind it. be it individuals or companies. because we all know america is a business blah blah blah and doesn't really care for the people....

Welcome to the welfare state:

Welcome to the welfare State
ASSISTED-SUICIDE, EUTHANSIA, & ABORTION SUBSIDIES, being part of Soros’ vision for nationalized medical care, the hedge fund magnate initially plunged $15 million to “overturn the dominance of marketplace values in the practice of medicine.” These are Soros’ exact words when addressing a group of physicians and surgeons during a recent speech at Columbia University.

Soros is peddling financial and political influence through the Institute On Medicine As A Profession which he founded in 2003 with a $7.5 million grant from his umbrella group, The Open Society Institute, a leading promoter of health care reform.

In its Mission Statement, Soros’ Institute On Medicine As A Profession calls for centralized regulation of the medical profession:

“There is a clear need for formal regulation of the medical industry whether through state or federal legislative and administrative bodies.” View Entire Story.

A cast of Jewish medical professionals make up Soros’ Board of Directors and Faculty of his Institute On Medicine As A Profession. Along with President of the Board, Dr David Rothman and his wife, Dr Sheila Rothman, (both of Jewish-owned Columbia University), is Wendy Levinson MD and a sprinkling of Gentile doctors conveniently used as ‘non-Jewish’ window dressing.

Allied with Soros’s Institute On Medicine As A Profession are two of Soros-funded Jewish organizations that promote “wealth redistribution” of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY – not theirs. The Center For American Progress and its parent company, The Democratic Alliance, are Soros’ leading vehicles in his drive to drain the white Christian middle class in a Marxist welfare state.

Rallies – Bought and Paid For
DEMONSTATORS IN THE NATION’S CAPITOL supporting Obama’s health care reform plan have failed to capture the enthusiasm of the American people, 60% of which, reject Obama’s scheme to nationalize their medical care.

The rallies were organized by Health Care for America Now!, a “national grassroots campaign of more than 1,000 organizations dedicated to the US government’s financing of health coverage for all Americans.” The group is known for its “close ties” to the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.
Most of Health Care for America Now! component organizations have two things in common: they have no expertise in health care and are the furthest thing from being a “grassroots campaign” with virtually all receiving large tax-exempt grants from far-left Jewish billionaires George Soros and investment banker mogul, Steve Gluckstern.

The leading members of the groups’ “grassroots” steering committee are MoveOn.org, The Center for American Progress, and The Campaign for America’s Future, all created with Soros-money. View More Members.

The Campaign for America’s Future co-founders include Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson, sixties agitator Tom Hayden, and socialist feminist Barbara Ehrenreich – ALL Jews.

Each year, The Campaign for America’s Future holds a “Take Back America” conference, a gathering of DC “progressives,” (a euphemism for “Marxists”). In 2006, prominent speakers at this conference included Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Russ Feingold, all socialized medicine advocates at the time. View Entire Story.

The coalition of these groups, which foists its Marxist agenda on America’s domestic life, is steered by the financial and political fingers of George Soros and his Jewish adjuncts. What is their aim? The redistribution of white Americans’ wealth. The result? Total Jewish control over the fleeced, dispirited, and bankrupted white Gentiles and their country…
 
Last edited:

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
  • Justice March 25, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
    I’d like to add to the astute observations and comments by Norseman regarding the media hysteria over the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandals.

    The story first broke in 2002 because the neo-cons (Jews pretending to be Republicans) were trying to ratchet up support for their unjust, pre-emptive war against Iraq. There was a flurry of visits back and forth between Washington and the Vatican during the period leading up to the Iraq war.

    The neo-cons were desperately trying to get Pope John Paul’s approval for the war. He would not relent. John Paul II spoke out publicly that an attack against Iraq did not meet the Just War criteria and could not be approved by the Church.

    Suddenly, the Boston Globe broke the priest sex abuse scandals in 2002 and it has been an all-out media war against the Church ever since. So clearly the Pope had been warned the story would be exposed if he didn’t approve of the war. He did not approve of the war, and they retaliated with their media.

    These abuse cases mostly happened in the 1970s - 80s and involved homosexual priests abusing post-pubescent boys, i.e., homosexual pederasty not pedophilia. Fewer than 1% of priests ever abused anyone, but the media makes it seem that almost all priests are “pedophiles” which smears the Church, but protects the homosexual movement they promote.

    So to Norseman’s point: what is Pope Benedict refusing to do? That is a most compelling question. Clearly they are retaliating against him for something he did or did not do to their liking.

    Perhaps it is to completely destroy the credibility of the Church so that when they speak out against abortion, as the US Bishops did regarding this health bill, then no one will listen to them. The Bishops, for all their faults, did speak out against voting for the healthcare bill because it provides for federally funded abortion.

    Perhaps that’s why it’s happening now. Or perhaps it’s something else we don’t know about.
 
Top