Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Republicans had plenty of chances for input as the law was developed. In fact, key provisions of the law were originally Republican ideas they suddenly disowned when President Obama endorsed them. The “individual mandate,” for instance - one of the parts of the law the GOP most strongly opposes now - was originally pushed by the conservative Heritage Foundation as a function of personal responsibility - and yet the GOP now act as though THEIR IDEA is some kind of tyranny from "Dictator Obama".
GOP opposition to Obamacare is pure politics - as shown by the GOP lawsuit for FORCE "on time" institution of the Employer Mandate part of the law. They oppose the mandate but are taking the Administration to court to FORCE IT to be put in place????????
Pure partisan politics at its' finest.
The fact is the GOP DID HAVE INPUT during the laws' formation - that's WHY it ended up being based on Romneycare rather than a single-payer European-style system the way that folks on the Left would have prefered..
Ken
No matter how many times Democrat sheep bleat out the lie that Obamacare is a Republican plan, it won't make the lie anything other than a lie.
And GOP opposition to the failed DEMOCRAT bill isn't "pure partisan politics." It's called representing the interests of the people, who have NEVER supported this scheme. Democrats should try doing it sometime if they want to stop getting their rear ends kicked in anything other than a Presidential election with a novelty candidate to run.
And no, the GOP did not have input. Your revisionist history will not fly. People who aren't on Obama's pom pon squad well remember the town hall meetings, the bribes, the kickbacks, the tricks, the ignoring of Scott Brown's election, using reconciliation to avoid a filibuster.
The ONLY party that practiced "pure partisan politics" back when the ACA was passed was your failed party. The only good thing that came out of the ACA is that it has gotten a lot of liberals fired and it's going to get a lot more fired as the law fully implements.
No matter how many times Democrat sheep bleat out the lie that Obamacare is a Republican plan, it won't make the lie anything other than a lie.
And GOP opposition to the failed DEMOCRAT bill isn't "pure partisan politics." It's called representing the interests of the people, who have NEVER supported this scheme. Democrats should try doing it sometime if they want to stop getting their rear ends kicked in anything other than a Presidential election with a novelty candidate to run.
And no, the GOP did not have input. Your revisionist history will not fly. People who aren't on Obama's pom pon squad well remember the town hall meetings, the bribes, the kickbacks, the tricks, the ignoring of Scott Brown's election, using reconciliation to avoid a filibuster.
The ONLY party that practiced "pure partisan politics" back when the ACA was passed was your failed party. The only good thing that came out of the ACA is that it has gotten a lot of liberals fired and it's going to get a lot more fired as the law fully implements.
Oh bullsh*t.
Health Exchanges - came from ROMNEYCARE, which came from ideas put forth from the Heritage Foundation.
Insurance-based system- came from ROMNEYCARE, which came from ideas put forth from the Heritage Foundation.
Individual Mandate - came from ROMNEYCARE, which came from ideas put forth from the Heritage Foundation.
Those are the facts. They are recorded history. That's just the way it is - and your denial of that doesn't change it
Heritage Foundation article from October 5th, 2006 (on their OWN WEBSITE):
"...Congress could simply change the federal tax code to give individuals and families tax relief for the purchase of health insurance regardless of where they work so that they can buy and own the coverage they want at competitive prices. In other words, by changing the tax code, Congress could take a dramatic step to creating a real, consumer-driven health insurance market. Going even further, if Congress allowed interstate commerce in health insurance-letting individuals and families to buy coverage across state lines from any state in the United States-it would create a single national market for insurance coverage. In this large market, with large health insurance pools, individuals and families would own and control their own health insurance. These reforms would create a robust system of consumer choice and competition.
Enter the State Health Insurance Exchange
Short of congressional action to reform the tax code, the burden to improve health coverage rests with state officials. The best way to enable individuals and families to buy, own, and keep health insurance from job to job-without losing the tax advantages of the employment-based coverage-is to transform the balkanized and dysfunctional state health insurance market into a single health insurance market. This new market would function well for all sorts of individuals and small businesses, not just workers employed by large companies...."
There it is - right there in print - the Conservative Heritage Foundation calling for the VERY THINGS that Obamacare does - 4 YEARS before Obamacare was signed into law. Congress designed the law to set up both a Federal-level exchange AND allow for State-level exchanges - the very thing the Heritage Foundation proposed. Congress furthermore modified the tax code to allow folks to have tax credits to subsidize their health care costs - the very thing the Heritage Foundation proposed.
Now on to the Individual Mandate (from FOX News):
"The controversial individual mandate that was upheld Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court stems back more than 20 years, believed to have originated with a prominent conservative think tank.
The mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, appeared in a 1989 published proposal by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation called "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," which included a provision to "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."
The Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. But the idea of an individual health insurance mandate later appeared in two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993, according to the non-partisan research group ProCon.org. Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law...."
Care to deny anything else that's recorded forever out there on the web?
GOP opposition to those things is PURE POLITICS, nothing more. As soon as Obama got behind it, they sudden opposed the very thing their top think tank had been proposing for YEARS.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 02-17-2015 at 09:59 AM..
Why is it that lefties can never seem to stop this purported debate technique of making up imaginary dialog and attributing it to the opposition? It's almost like a disease on the left.
As for ACA, Democrats should not have enacted landmark, sea-change legislation with zero bi-partisan input or support, ramming it through the senate on a parliamentary trick. But they did, and now they own the resulting catastrophic mess. After King vs. Burwell is announced in June, it may well become the train wreck predicted by Max Baucus.
Too bad its not imaginary dialogue. I see many conservatives stating on here the ACA is communism and we now have complete govt ran healthcare. ..to which I say...no...just no. Lol
No matter how many times Democrat sheep bleat out the lie that Obamacare is a Republican plan, it won't make the lie anything other than a lie.
Denial of the reality doesn't help your case. To avoid righteous condemnation for your revisionist history, you'd have to admit that ACA very substantially resembles the plan implemented by a Republican governor, who ran against President Obama for POTUS, and a healthcare reform approach proposed by a right-wing think tank. It is clear that you realized admitting the truth would compromise the significance of your narrative, but that's just tough: The nuanced reality might ruin your narrative, but repeated attempts to ignore it ruins your credibility.
This kind of right-wing feigned ignorance is beginning to smell a lot like the "Obama half-breed Muslin" silliness. Don't right-wingers have any concern about how their silly nonsense just underscores the disreputable nature of their calls for reinstitutionalizing the callous disregard for the poor that they favor so much?
Denial of the reality doesn't help your case. To avoid righteous condemnation for your revisionist history, you'd have to admit that ACA very substantially resembles the plan implemented by a Republican governor, who ran against President Obama for POTUS. It is clear that you realized admitting the truth would compromise the significance of your narrative, but that's just tough: The nuanced reality might ruin your narrative, but your repeated attempts to ignore it ruins your credibility.
This kind of right-wing feigned ignorance is beginning to smell a lot like the "Obama is a Muslin" silliness. Don't right-wingers have any concern about how their silly nonsense just underscores the disreputable nature of their calls for reinstitutionalizing the callous disregard for the poor that they favor so much?
If the ACA is so wonderful, why are you leftist sheep so intent upon claiming it is a Republican idea?
Just because one health policy wonk published an opinion letter on heritage.org in 2006 in no way makes the Democrats' tar baby a "Republican plan." That's just lying, dishonest spin, which is all the Democrats are really good for these days.
No Republican introduced the ACA or anything like it at the federal level, and when push came to shove no Republican voted for it. It's one of the few things the Republicans have done in the past 20 years that deserve applause and respect.
Now, you guys can continue bleating your lies about which party is responsible for the ACA, but the voters know which party is responsible and that's why Congressional Democrats continue to get fired.
So realizing you've lost all credibility regarding the silly nonsense you posted earlier, you decide to try a different tack to save face. Sorry - no sale. Your comments were factually incorrect. They reflected the very corruption that you yourself attempted to ascribe to the comments of others. Until you admit that, there's no sense in giving your comments the respect you're clamoring for.
So realizing you've lost all credibility regarding the silly nonsense you posted earlier, you decide to try a different tack to save face. Sorry - no sale. Your comments were factually incorrect. They reflected the very corruption that you yourself attempted to ascribe to the comments of others. Until you admit that, there's no sense in giving your comments the respect you're clamoring for.
You are projecting your lying and dishonesty on to me. Unsurprising coming from a liberal. Tell you what, just go back under your bridge and stay there.
If the ACA is so wonderful, why are you leftist sheep so intent upon claiming it is a Republican idea?
Just because one health policy wonk published an opinion letter on heritage.org in 2006 in no way makes the Democrats' tar baby a "Republican plan." That's just lying, dishonest spin, which is all the Democrats are really good for these days.
No Republican introduced the ACA or anything like it at the federal level, and when push came to shove no Republican voted for it. It's one of the few things the Republicans have done in the past 20 years that deserve applause and respect.
Now, you guys can continue bleating your lies about which party is responsible for the ACA, but the voters know which party is responsible and that's why Congressional Democrats continue to get fired.
It isn't "so wonderful" - but it IS better than what we HAD.
I have NO PROBLEM crediting the GOP with the idea - that's just the way it is. Maybe that's the difference between US and YOU - we're more than willing to give credit where credit is due. The core of Obamacare was a GOP invention. And it wasn't "one policy wonk" - it was several of the GOPs' LEADERS - INCLUDING YOUR PARTYS' LAST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (who actually IMPLIMENTED SUCH A PLAN as Governor) and a PREVIOUS GOP Speaker of the House:
Now if only the GOP was willing to stand by their previous plan(s) rather than simply turning 180 degrees just to pick a political fight and try and make sure Obama was a "One term President". The problem is, the GOP put partisan politics over the good of the American People. Something that THEY had been pushing for for years - and that their Presidential candidate had just implemented - was now suddenly "bad" just because Obama embraced it. That's the worst kind of politics.
As to your latest outright lie - well, you JUST CLAIMED that "No Republican introduced the ACA or anything like it at the federal level" - and apparently you just can't help yourself because that claim is another lie too. Back when Hillarycare was being pushed by Clinton, the GOP proposed an altenativelagainst the employer mandate in that particular plan whereby they shifted the responsibility for having a plan to the employees:
"...To counter that, the late Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced a plan that avoided the employer mandate and cost controls. Chafee's plan, one of several Republican alternatives, created a universal tax deduction for health insurance and gave the poor vouchers to buy policies. It also required everyone to buy insurance -- an individual mandate.
Chafee's plan was backed by a group of Republican senators, including Hatch, according to news reports from the time. When the plan was formally introduced as legislation, Hatch was one of the co-sponsors. Two other current senators also co-sponsored the plan: Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
We examined the old legislation, which we found in the THOMAS legislative database. The individual mandate in that proposal appears to work the same as the mandate in the new law. The main difference is how the fines work for those who don't buy insurance. The new law sets a dollar amount; the older proposal set the fee at 120 percent of average premium limits, as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services...."
As mentioned by a previous poster, your constant denials are doing nothing for your credibility and simply make you look bad. There is TONS of UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE ONLINE that significant members of the GOP - and their top think tank - supported the very things they are now complaining about - which is absolutely dishonest and two-faced.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have a good day.
