disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
beat ya to it :mrgreen:New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea - Yahoo! News
Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.
The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.....Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.
Any argument that the tactics of the GOP are anything other than political posturing simply to oppose anything that Obama proposes is disengenuous.
They were for it before they were against it.
So what, even if true, it's still wrong.
thats ok, have a mod merge themopps.....sorry.....didn't see it.
The topic isn't about whether you personally agree that the healthcare bill is right or wrong. Its about whether the GOP is genuine in their opposition or whether their actions demonstrate otherwise.
There are plenty of other topics to express your personal like or dislike of the healthcare bill.
But republicans didn't implement it, Democrats did. Nice try at putting out fires, but words < actions.....the Republican party sucks, but the Democrat party sucks harder and they own everything about this bill.
just imagine if the repubs actually tried to work with the dems on the recent legislation :shock:i'm not tring to "put out fires". I'm more interested in discussing how people view the GOP's "opposition" to it in light of the fact that their history shows that they supported it...before they were against it.
Who implemented it? The Democrats did. I know this is hard for some to understand, but the actor owns the action, the Democrats are the actors(in more ways than one.). Since you are a partisan that means you own this as well. Funny how things work huh?i'm not tring to "put out fires". I'm more interested in discussing how people view the GOP's "opposition" to it in light of the fact that their history shows that they supported it...before they were against it.
Who implemented it? The Democrats did. I know this is hard for some to understand, but the actor owns the action, the Democrats are the actors(in more ways than one.). Since you are a partisan that means you own this as well. Funny how things work huh?
Well, to be honest, which I know is tough for you, one would have to look at the big picture here. Did they support this as part of a different plan? Maybe it made sense to them then... Who knows.
This hyperpartisan "na-na" game that you all have been playing since the bills passage is so sophomoric it would be laughable if not so lame.
i'm not tring to "put out fires". I'm more interested in discussing how people view the GOP's "opposition" to it in light of the fact that their history shows that they supported it...before they were against it.
If it made sense to them then....why is the biggest issue they are raising the very thing that they were behind? Rather than stomping their feet and screaming about other parts of the bill?
We are all partisan...that is why we are here :doh
The reality is...yes, the Democrats got the plan through. However, the mandate to purchase insurance came courtesy of the Republicans and the Bluedogs in exchange for the public option. The public option was removed and replaced by this because they refused to even come to the table if the public option was included.
Now...looking at their history and their support for this, is it any surprise?
:stop: the :spin: I have supported Democrats in the rare instances they were right, I conceded that Medicare part D was a frivolous waste of money, and always put constitution and country first regardless of party. Partisans are the types that simply tow the party line. So please stop trying to put everyone in the partisan camp.We are all partisan...that is why we are here :doh
So if one of my colleagues suggests a bad idea, rethinks it, and I implement it he's the one who is responsible even though I'm the one who did it? You cannot possibly think that is an adequate response.The reality is...yes, the Democrats got the plan through. However, the mandate to purchase insurance came courtesy of the Republicans and the Bluedogs in exchange for the public option.No Republicans voted Yea on the bill anyway, so what's your point?The public option was removed and replaced by this because they refused to even come to the table if the public option was included.:roll: So the Democrats own it and you are all trying to put out fires, thanks for the concession.Now...looking at their history and their support for this, is it any surprise?
Please list and quote the ones who were strongly for it, and the context of the plan they supported.... who are now resoundly against it.
Memebers who voted on both plans please.
Zyphlin said:I have yet to have a single, solitary person on this forum provide any actual evidence of the actual proposal that was given in 1993. I've seen bloggers speaking about it, typically referencing other bloggers. I've seen a 3rd party comparison chart that is exceedingly lacking in specifics and depth. However I've seen absolutely zero hard evidence of a plan to be able to look at it independently and actually compare, despite some people on this site claiming they're nearly "identical" yet never having seen it themselves.
Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan
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.
Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News
Chafee also faces intraparty competition from Senator Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), a Presidential aspirant. Under Gramm's plan, families would be expected to cover the first $3,000 in annual medical expenses with help from tax-deductible "medical IRAs." Mandatory insurance would pay for catastrophic illness. Price-conscious shoppers would drive down costs, Gramm argues, without the "collectivism" of the Clinton and Chafee plans. "If you change the incentives," he says, "consumers will decide how to reorganize the health system--not some planners over at the White House."
BW Online | July 5, 1993 | HEALTH REFORM: HOW THE GOP COULD BLOW ITS CHANCE
I have yet to have a single, solitary person on this forum provide any actual evidence of the actual proposal that was given in 1993. I've seen bloggers speaking about it, typically referencing other bloggers. I've seen a 3rd party comparison chart that is exceedingly lacking in specifics and depth. However I've seen absolutely zero hard evidence of a plan to be able to look at it independently and actually compare, despite some people on this site claiming they're nearly "identical" yet never having seen it themselves.
In 1993 the Republicans were a minority group, likely suggesting a plan that would look bipartisan and compromising in nature rather than one that was the idea thing they'd want. However there has been no indication anywhere that I've seen of the penalties or enforcement that was in the 1993 plan, which alone could paint a very different picture.
As I've said before, one could say someone should like Golf if they like Football because that shows they like games with a ball in it. One could also say that would be an incredibly ignorant comment to make.
Without actual evidence and ability to look at the plan, to see the reasonings surrounding it almost 20 years ago, and the difference between now its hard to really make such a claim, unless you're one of the typically dishonest hyper partisan types, that its automatically hypocritical or partisan to say that almost 20 years ago people in a party supported a plan that had this one particular thing in it, the extent of which is completely unknown, but to be against this current plan.
Who IMPLEMENTED them? Democrats. Who suggested them is irrelevant as the acting party owns the actions.I've been saying these sorts of things for the last year but nobody listens. "Look, these were all GOP ideas first!" is always met with "Nuh UH" or some really convoluted reasoning for why the GOP didn't actually support the bills they proposed.
Conservatives, for the most part, seem to be mentally rewriting history to suit their mental image of the way the world should be. "We didn't have any terrorist attacks under Bush, we've now had one under Obama." Guiliani said that on ABC, and the chucklehead interviewing him didn't even ****ing call him on it. So much for the liberal media.
Republicans are calling a mandate a government takeover of healthcare, "armageddon," it's going to destroy the country, it's unconstitutional to make people buy insurance, but they introduced the idea themselves. Wasn't it unconstitutional then, Republicans?
I start to wonder, what's the point? Why bother talking to these people at all? If conservatives are operating on a different set of historical facts and a different dictionary than the rest of us, what use is any discussion at all?
Who IMPLEMENTED them? Democrats. Who suggested them is irrelevant as the acting party owns the actions.
Besides, if this was anything more than an idea from Republicans, as has been shown in this thread as a less bad alternative to a horrible public option then they would have IMPLEMENTED them when they had the majority.
In short: The Democrats own this, so people need to stop trying to pass the ball.
/Thread.
Versus a worse option that was equally so. Doesn't matter in the end though, the Democrat part majority leadership voted to implement it with no Republican yea votes. So congratulations, you own it and there is nothing you can say that will change the fact that you own it.So what you're saying is the Republicans introduced a bill they believed with all their hearts was grossly harmful and unconstitutional?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?