The Myth Of GOP Role In ACA

[JoeTheEconomist]

The proponents of the Affordable Care Act have a number of talking points, the favorite of which seems to be that the ACA 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 Obamacare is modeled after 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 of Romney to get the nomination suggesting he isn't truely reflective of the party.

Even if Romney were a bedrock Republican endorsed by all 50 states, the ACA is vastly different from what Mitt Romney actually proprosed. The ACA is comprehensive coverage rather than catastrophic coverage. Romney opposed the employer-based insurance concept, where as the ACA heavily encourages it with tax subsidies and penalizes those who do not comply. The penalties are as much as 10 times as much in the ACA than 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 2000 pages of healthcare reform without touching something that has been thought of by someone else. The individual mandate has roots with The Heritage Foundation and Milton Friedman. 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 2000 pages derives from a GOP platform.

It is beyond stretch however to attribute the 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 argues 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 the problems caused by the employer-insurance which is 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.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

The proponents of the Affordable Care Act have a number of talking points, the favorite of which seems to be that the ACA 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 Obamacare is modeled after 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 of Romney to get the nomination suggesting he isn't truely reflective of the party.

Even if Romney were a bedrock Republican endorsed by all 50 states, the ACA is vastly different from what Mitt Romney actually proprosed. The ACA is comprehensive coverage rather than catastrophic coverage. Romney opposed the employer-based insurance concept, where as the ACA heavily encourages it with tax subsidies and penalizes those who do not comply. The penalties are as much as 10 times as much in the ACA than 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 2000 pages of healthcare reform without touching something that has been thought of by someone else. The individual mandate has roots with The Heritage Foundation and Milton Friedman. 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 2000 pages derives from a GOP platform.

It is beyond stretch however to attribute the 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 argues 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 the problems caused by the employer-insurance which is 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.

Couldn't have said that better.

 

[Mycroft]

Very good post, Joe.

I would add one more difference between Obamacare and anything that may have been conceived by Republicans...and that is the fact that liberals are uniquely suited to enact Obamacare whereas the Republicans are not. Liberals have the requisite lack of character, ethics and honor that was necessary to force this crap on the people...even after they were told the people didn't want it. Those lacks are also what are prompting them to attempt to include the Republicans in responsibility for Obamacare...even after they denied Republicans any means of influencing Obamacare.

 

[roughdraft274]

The talking point is correct that the GOP has considered these ideas previously. It is virtually impossible to produce 2000 pages of healthcare reform without touching something that has been thought of by someone else. The individual mandate has roots with The Heritage Foundation and Milton Friedman. 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 2000 pages derives from a GOP platform.

The individual mandate is far and away the back bone of the entire bill. You can't treat it as though it's just another number on the list.

If you read Newt Gingrich's book, he outlines his idea of what healthcare reform during the clinton years should have looked like. He argued for an individual mandate and federal subsidies for low income people. He also argued that these ideas were very conservative because they teach that you need to take care of yourself and get your own insurance rather than get sick, go to the emergency room and skip out on the bills. Id bet everything I had down to the last penny that if it was a Republican president that proposed a bill just like ObamaCare that at the very least half of all Republican congressman would have voted for it, and on the other hand that only around a quarter or less democrats would have voted for it.

 

[roughdraft274]

even after they denied Republicans any means of influencing Obamacare.

Pure lies. They enacted Republican amendments in the law. Like Chuck Grassley's that forced congress to purchase their own healthcare plans through the federal health care exchange.

Republicans could have very easily had input on the bill. Instead they were too busy acting like kids and talking about non-existant death panels and trying to stop the bill at all cost. Every time they were invited to discuss changes to the bill, their response was "lets scrap it and start fresh". Much like they are arguing now "defund it or we shut down the government."

 

[Paschendale]

There was a public option, which was one of the most important parts of the proposed reforms, until the Republicans pitched a fit. That's quite a bit of role taking. Taking a proposal that included public and private sector solutions, and demanding that it be entirely private sector, fundamentally altered the intent and methods of the law. Republicans most certainly had a significant role in how the ACA turned out. It would have been a far better reform if not for their meddling.

How about we address the myth that the reforms in the ACA are unpopular? The term "Obamacare" polls poorly, but "The Affordable Care Act" polls at around 20% higher. Just the name affects people's opinions right there. Support for the actual provisions, like preventing insurance companies from dumping customers when they actually need insurance, or preventing people with preexisting conditions from obtaining insurance, or extending parents' coverage to their children until 26, is even higher. The individual mandate is unpopular, but that's the mechanism for paying for all the benefits. That's like saying that public support for restaurants is low because people don't like getting the check.

Sounds like that "lack of character, ethics and honor" is coming from the people who are using lies and spin to trick the American people into fighting against the ACA, even though they don't actually oppose it.

 

[Fenton]

Very good post, Joe.


I would add one more difference between Obamacare and anything that may have been conceived by Republicans...and that is the fact that liberals are uniquely suited to enact Obamacare whereas the Republicans are not. Liberals have the requisite lack of character, ethics and honor that was necessary to force this crap on the people...even after they were told the people didn't want it. Those lacks are also what are prompting them to attempt to include the Republicans in responsibility for Obamacare...even after they denied Republicans any means of influencing Obamacare.

Great post.

Their root ideology centers around the idiom of "the ends justify the meams".

And they are so lacking in fundamental charactet and integrity, they will never understand that there is a price to be paid for that type of approach.

No matter what their tactics are, their policies in the end creat misery, poverty and dependance.

 

[Fenton]

There was a public option, which was one of the most important parts of
the proposed reforms, until the Republicans pitched a fit. That's quite a bit of role taking. Taking a proposal that included public and private sector solutions, and demanding that it be entirely private sector, fundamentally altered the intent and methods of the law. Republicans most certainly had a significant role in how the ACA turned out. It would have been a far better reform if not for their meddling.

How about we address the myth that the reforms in the ACA are unpopular? The term "Obamacare" polls poorly, but "The Affordable Care Act" polls at around 20% higher. Just the name affects people's opinions right there. Support for the actual provisions, like preventing insurance companies from dumping customers when they actually need insurance, or preventing people with preexisting conditions from obtaining insurance, or extending parents' coverage to their children until 26, is even higher. The individual mandate is unpopular, but that's the mechanism for paying for all the benefits. That's like saying that public support for restaurants is low because people don't like getting the check.

Sounds like that "lack of character, ethics and honor" is coming from the people who are using lies and spin to trick the American people into fighting against the ACA, even though they don't actually oppose it.

We aren't the ones throwing out all of these "chicken little " false narratives like "default".

We aren't the ones shutting down websites like " Amber Alert" and Parks and memorials so we can gin up some leverage through demagogy.

No all we really have to do is let peoplelearn for themselves that its going to be tje middle class , not " the rich" who have been selected to fund the mandated new policies in Obama-Care through higher premiums.

All you people have done for the last 5 years is lie.

2500 dollar drop in premiums. The ACA was going to ceate jobs or it was going to insure 30 million people with out health insurance.

And millions of Ameicans realize that.

Its why your President has switched the debate over to " default", even though we can pay our debt service.

Because people, the vast majority hate the ACA

And the Website being down is to Barry's benefit.

People ( middle class Americans ) have to wait to find out that their insurance premiums are going to go up.

You guys owe everyone a apology and it would be nice if you didn't poison Washington with your lying Politicians anymore.

How about a 6 year loss of voting priveledges for Everyone who voted for Peebo in 2012 ?

 

[Moot]

Great post.

Their root ideology centers around the idiom of "the ends justify the meams".

And they are so lacking in fundamental charactet and integrity, they will never understand that there is a price to be paid for that type of approach.

No matter what their tactics are, their policies in the end creat misery, poverty and dependance.

How's that Republican shut down working out for ya? Do you think the end will justify their means?


".....A survey released Monday by The Washington Post and ABC News said disapproval of Republican handling of the budget showdown was measured at 70 percent, up from 63 percent a week earlier. Disapproval of Obama's role was statistically unchanged at 51 percent......."

Government shutdown 2013: Debt ceiling legislation to be introduced by Senate Democrats | WJLA.com


Looks like the GOP can kiss the 2016 election goodbye.

 

[Mycroft]

Pure lies. They enacted Republican amendments in the law. Like Chuck Grassley's that forced congress to purchase their own healthcare plans through the federal health care exchange.

Republicans could have very easily had input on the bill. Instead they were too busy acting like kids and talking about non-existant death panels and trying to stop the bill at all cost. Every time they were invited to discuss changes to the bill, their response was "lets scrap it and start fresh". Much like they are arguing now "defund it or we shut down the government."

LOL!! The Grassley amendment was a bone that was tossed to the Republicans...a bone, btw, that came back to bite the dumbass Democrats in the ass.

No, the Democrats allowed nothing of substance from the Republicans and you trying to rewrite history with spin won't work.

Here are two articles out of many that told the truth at the time.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/fact-check-2-obama-v-house-republicans/?_r=0

Democrats plan to fast-track final health care bill to shut out GOP opponents - The Boston Globe

Too bad nobody listened to them.

 

[roughdraft274]

LOL!! The Grassley amendment was a bone that was tossed to the Republicans...a bone, btw, that came back to bite the dumbass Democrats in the ass.

Right, so the democrats allowed absolutely no input, and when they do, oh well that's just them tossing a bone.

Go argue with a wall if your going to use that ****ed up logic. You're setting up a false reality to fit your preconceived narrative. So that you can ignore any pertinent facts.

 

[Mycroft]

There was a public option, which was one of the most important parts of the proposed reforms, until the Republicans pitched a fit. That's quite a bit of role taking. Taking a proposal that included public and private sector solutions, and demanding that it be entirely private sector, fundamentally altered the intent and methods of the law. Republicans most certainly had a significant role in how the ACA turned out. It would have been a far better reform if not for their meddling.

How about we address the myth that the reforms in the ACA are unpopular? The term "Obamacare" polls poorly, but "The Affordable Care Act" polls at around 20% higher. Just the name affects people's opinions right there. Support for the actual provisions, like preventing insurance companies from dumping customers when they actually need insurance, or preventing people with preexisting conditions from obtaining insurance, or extending parents' coverage to their children until 26, is even higher. The individual mandate is unpopular, but that's the mechanism for paying for all the benefits. That's like saying that public support for restaurants is low because people don't like getting the check.

Sounds like that "lack of character, ethics and honor" is coming from the people who are using lies and spin to trick the American people into fighting against the ACA, even though they don't actually oppose it.

The public option was nuked by Democrats. The Five Democrats Who Voted Against The Public Option Sorry, dude...like other attempts, this try by you to make it the Republicans fault just won't work.

Oh...and the individual mandate is not unpopular only because it is the mechanism for paying for Obamacare...it is unpopular because it forces people to do something they don't want to chose to do. It is sleazy and un-American.

 

[Mycroft]

Right, so the democrats allowed absolutely no input, and when they do, oh well that's just them tossing a bone.

Go argue with a wall if your going to use that ****ed up logic. You're setting up a false reality to fit your preconceived narrative. So that you can ignore any pertinent facts.

You didn't even read the links I gave you, eh? Talk about ignoring pertinent facts!

 

[head of joaquin]

Crank revisionist history from the rightwing noise machine.

The ACA is based almost exclusively on Romneycare. Romneycare was an idea generated in conservative think tanks, espoused by conservative blowhards like Gingrich, and passed by a conservative governor.

But somehow, when the Democrats in Congress pass it, it is no longer a conservative idea!

And they wonder why nobody takes conservatives seriously.

 

[Mycroft]

Crank revisionist history from the rightwing noise machine.

The ACA is based almost exclusively on Romneycare. Romneycare was an idea generated in conservative think tanks, espoused by conservative blowhards like Gingrich, and passed by a conservative governor.

But somehow, when the Democrats in Congress pass it, it is no longer a conservative idea!

And they wonder why nobody takes conservatives seriously.

Your tendency to stick your fingers in your ears and shout, "Na Na Na...I can't hear you!"...and then repeat your blather after it has been disputed by the OP's post really does no more than show everyone that you are a partisan hack.

 

[roughdraft274]

You didn't even read the links I gave you, eh? Talk about ignoring pertinent facts!

From your source...

Bypassing a formal conference committee enables Democrats to omit time-consuming procedural steps in the Senate and prevents Republicans from trying to delay the final negotiations.

Your source clearly states that the Republicans weren't trying to compromise or add to the bill in any way, they only were trying to delay and block it. Instead of trying to make the bill better, they just continually tried to derail it.


EDIT: so in other words, your source agrees with my original post, so maybe you should read them before you post them next time.

Republicans could have very easily had input on the bill. Instead they were too busy acting like kids and talking about non-existant death panels and trying to stop the bill at all cost. Every time they were invited to discuss changes to the bill, their response was "lets scrap it and start fresh". Much like they are arguing now "defund it or we shut down the government."

 

[Deuce]

161 GOP amendments to the bill and some of these people still think there was "No GOP influence" on it?

LOL!! The Grassley amendment was a bone that was tossed to the Republicans...a bone, btw, that came back to bite the dumbass Democrats in the ass.

No, the Democrats allowed nothing of substance from the Republicans and you trying to rewrite history with spin won't work.

Here are two articles out of many that told the truth at the time.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/fact-check-2-obama-v-house-republicans/?_r=0

Democrats plan to fast-track final health care bill to shut out GOP opponents - The Boston Globe

Too bad nobody listened to them.

Then tell me about the other hundred and sixty amendments. And those are just the ones that got accepted. Fast track? Fast? This bill took a frigging year!

 

[Comunitee]

The individual mandate is far and away the back bone of the entire bill. You can't treat it as though it's just another number on the list.

If you read Newt Gingrich's book, he outlines his idea of what healthcare reform during the clinton years should have looked like. He argued for an individual mandate and federal subsidies for low income people. He also argued that these ideas were very conservative because they teach that you need to take care of yourself and get your own insurance rather than get sick, go to the emergency room and skip out on the bills. Id bet everything I had down to the last penny that if it was a Republican president that proposed a bill just like ObamaCare that at the very least half of all Republican congressman would have voted for it, and on the other hand that only around a quarter or less democrats would have voted for it.

If you read Newt Gingrich's book, you probably needed the world's biggest aspirin.

 

[Mycroft]

From your source...



Your source clearly states that the Republicans weren't trying to compromise or add to the bill in any way, they only were trying to delay and block it. Instead of trying to make the bill better, they just continually tried to derail it.


EDIT: so in other words, your source agrees with my original post, so maybe you should read them before you post them next time.

My links do not agree with you at all...you've just spun what they said.

Democrats were intent upon passing something without Republican input. That's why they shut out the Republicans. Of course the Republicans were trying to delay or block the Democrats. All they wanted was a say in what the bill would look like...and the Democrats weren't giving them any say.

Heck, even Obama lied to the Republicans about being shut out...as shown in the other link. I guess I shouldn't expect any different spin and lies from you.

 

[American]

There was a public option, which was one of the most important parts of the proposed reforms, until the Republicans pitched a fit. That's quite a bit of role taking. Taking a proposal that included public and private sector solutions, and demanding that it be entirely private sector, fundamentally altered the intent and methods of the law. Republicans most certainly had a significant role in how the ACA turned out. It would have been a far better reform if not for their meddling.

How about we address the myth that the reforms in the ACA are unpopular? The term "Obamacare" polls poorly, but "The Affordable Care Act" polls at around 20% higher. Just the name affects people's opinions right there. Support for the actual provisions, like preventing insurance companies from dumping customers when they actually need insurance, or preventing people with preexisting conditions from obtaining insurance, or extending parents' coverage to their children until 26, is even higher. The individual mandate is unpopular, but that's the mechanism for paying for all the benefits. That's like saying that public support for restaurants is low because people don't like getting the check.

Sounds like that "lack of character, ethics and honor" is coming from the people who are using lies and spin to trick the American people into fighting against the ACA, even though they don't actually oppose it.

You people had to suck a bunch of Democrat ass to get enough votes for that thing. Remember all the famous deals Cornhusker Kickback, Lousianna Purchase......yeah forgot that didn't you? Not me, I remember how you had to hustle your own people to vote for that. Popular my ass.

 

[Mycroft]

161 GOP amendments to the bill and some of these people still think there was "No GOP influence" on it?



Then tell me about the other hundred and sixty amendments. And those are just the ones that got accepted. Fast track? Fast? This bill took a frigging year!

Mostly technical amendments...big deal.

Face it, the Democrats shoved this **** down the people's throat. They own it.

 

[roughdraft274]

My links do not agree with you at all...you've just spun what they said.

I read it and quoted it, no spinning involved. No point in arguing with you about anything else if you really can't bring yourself to admit the obvious.

 

[Diving Mullah]

The proponents of the Affordable Care Act have a number of talking points, the favorite of which seems to be that the ACA 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 Obamacare is modeled after 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 of Romney to get the nomination suggesting he isn't truely reflective of the party.

Even if Romney were a bedrock Republican endorsed by all 50 states, the ACA is vastly different from what Mitt Romney actually proprosed. The ACA is comprehensive coverage rather than catastrophic coverage. Romney opposed the employer-based insurance concept, where as the ACA heavily encourages it with tax subsidies and penalizes those who do not comply. The penalties are as much as 10 times as much in the ACA than 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 2000 pages of healthcare reform without touching something that has been thought of by someone else. The individual mandate has roots with The Heritage Foundation and Milton Friedman. 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 2000 pages derives from a GOP platform.

It is beyond stretch however to attribute the 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 argues 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 the problems caused by the employer-insurance which is 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.

ummmm interesting rant but entirely fallacious and wrong. ACA is not and never claimed to be Romney care(actually Romney care is much better). ACA was originally introduced by Newt and the gang in 1993 as counter measure to Hillary Healthcare plan.

As for the 2000 pages there are mostly written by health insurance lobbyist, not the law makers....

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News


It always nice to have facts on your side. :=)

Diving Mullah

 

[soot]

The proponents of the Affordable Care Act have a number of talking points, the favorite of which seems to be that the ACA is really a Republican idea.

Can you point to this being a pervasive tactic?

I mean, I've seen a handful of knuckleheads make that argument but you're making it seem like this is pretty much standard fare when discussing the ACA with any of its many proponents. And I've gotta say that I've never seen anyone whose grasp of the ACA I respect making anything close to an "the ACA is a Republican policy" argument.

I've seen such people throw out the notion that universal healthcare came of age as a Republican policy position, or that Republicans will support universal healthcare when it's a Republican position but call it Socialism when it's a Democrat position, or that Republicans will paradoxically and inexplicably run a guy as a candidate for President despite his personal history of pushing socialized medicine while calling his opponent a Socialist for pushing socialized medicine.

I think those arguments are fair, even if they're weak.

But, no, never saw a sober Liberal/Democrat argue that the ACA is a Republican baby.

 

[head of joaquin]

Your tendency to stick your fingers in your ears and shout, "Na Na Na...I can't hear you!"...and then repeat your blather after it has been disputed by the OP's post really does no more than show everyone that you are a partisan hack.

Look who's talking!

ACA is Romneycare, a conservative program generated by conservative think tanks promoted by conservative blowhards passed by a conservative governor.

What alternate universe are you posting from now?