Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:05 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,133,586 times
Reputation: 11095

Advertisements

For the answer, let's return to 1993. Bill Clinton had just been elected, and was trying to move Hillary-care through Congress. Many Republicans, recognizing that the system needed fixing, were thinking about cooperating, and drafting a sound, bipartisan, and moderate bill.

Then Bill Kristol wrote his famous memo, which pretty much set Republican strategy for the next 20 years. Say what you want about Kristol, that was some memo!


Democratic efforts to reform the private health insurance system, a popular goal in 1993, should be painted as a massive government takeover that will interfere with every patient's relationship with his or her doctor and doom us all to inadequate care, Kristol wrote. For Republicans, the "long-term political effects of a successful Clinton healthcare bill will be even worse--much worse," he said. "It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."

And therein, I think, lies the real reason that Republicans have been fighting so hard. It is not that they think this legislation is the political kiss of death; it's that, in their hearts, they're terrified that it will be a rousing success.


Why Republicans Fear Obama's Healthcare Reform - John A. Farrell (usnews.com)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:08 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,203,858 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
For the answer, let's return to 1993. Bill Clinton had just been elected, and was trying to move Hillary-care through Congress. Many Republicans, recognizing that the system needed fixing, were thinking about cooperating, and drafting a sound, bipartisan, and moderate bill.

Then Bill Kristol wrote his famous memo, which pretty much set Republican strategy for the next 20 years. Say what you want about Kristol, that was some memo!

Democratic efforts to reform the private health insurance system, a popular goal in 1993, should be painted as a massive government takeover that will interfere with every patient's relationship with his or her doctor and doom us all to inadequate care, Kristol wrote. For Republicans, the "long-term political effects of a successful Clinton healthcare bill will be even worse--much worse," he said. "It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."

And therein, I think, lies the real reason that Republicans have been fighting so hard. It is not that they think this legislation is the political kiss of death; it's that, in their hearts, they're terrified that it will be a rousing success.

Why Republicans Fear Obama's Healthcare Reform - John A. Farrell (usnews.com)

it is hard to be a rousing success when you have to steal monies from those that work to pay for the health insurance of those that cant or wont work.

better to just not participate in the program in the 1st place.

I am waiting for the 60%/40% ratio to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:21 PM
 
2,318 posts, read 1,896,528 times
Reputation: 540
Everyone will soon find out to their own horror why we fought this un-constututional seditious bill .

Just wait til they drop the big one on us this will help fill up Obamas private army tht according to Osama ,I mean Obama [ whoopps misplaced one letter ] will be better trained than Americas !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,827,269 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappy&Me View Post
Everyone will soon find out to their own horror why we fought this un-constututional seditious bill .
What is unconstitutional about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:47 PM
 
Location: The High Seas
7,372 posts, read 16,019,677 times
Reputation: 11868
There are lots of things to not like about the mystery bill. Simply put, many people like less government regulation; not more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:53 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,133,586 times
Reputation: 11095
The point of the OP is that it would not have mattered one iota what bill was presented and passed. The Republican agenda was to quash it regardless of its contents. How could Bill Kristol have known in 1993 what would be in the current bill? He did not even know who Obama was back then. They were determined during the Clinton era not to ever allow the Democrats to take credit for health care reform that just might benefit the average American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 12:02 AM
 
45,585 posts, read 27,203,264 times
Reputation: 23898
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
What is unconstitutional about it?
These are possible issues...

Congress can not regulate state governments
Congress can not order people to purchase health care insurance
Congress can not discriminate taxation (Cadillac tax, tanning tax)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 12:08 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,203,858 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
The point of the OP is that it would not have mattered one iota what bill was presented and passed. The Republican agenda was to quash it regardless of its contents. How could Bill Kristol have known in 1993 what would be in the current bill? He did not even know who Obama was back then. They were determined during the Clinton era not to ever allow the Democrats to take credit for health care reform that just might benefit the average American.

I look at the health care bill as totally unconstitutional and not even in the federals hands.

after all, congress made it illegal for me to buy my health insurance outside of the state i currently live in.

meaning that congress knew ahead of time that health care was a state or an individual issue, and not a national issue.

if congress wanted to actually lower health care costs, then they would make it legal for me or anyone else to buy our health insurance in any state we desire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 12:11 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,191 posts, read 19,470,309 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
I look at the health care bill as totally unconstitutional and not even in the federals hands.

after all, congress made it illegal for me to buy my health insurance outside of the state i currently live in.

meaning that congress knew ahead of time that health care was a state or an individual issue, and not a national issue.

if congress wanted to actually lower health care costs, then they would make it legal for me or anyone else to buy our health insurance in any state we desire.
They did that so their wouldn't be a rush to the bottom, and have all the insurance companies rush to the state with the least regulations, ala credit card companies and Delaware.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2010, 12:19 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,203,858 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
They did that so their wouldn't be a rush to the bottom, and have all the insurance companies rush to the state with the least regulations, ala credit card companies and Delaware.

it is not the choice of the federals to do that, but the choice of the individuals. hence the 10 Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top