The Myth Of GOP Role In ACA

[polgara]

Democrats aren't blaming Republicans for the ACA.....they're giving them credit for the idea. An idea that a lot of democrats happen to like.....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Good post, Moot!

Greetings to you! :2wave:

 

[Perotista]

Talking points really do not involve sense. It is about time. The shapers of public opinion reduce a concept to the fewest words with as much tilt as possible. Then you get an army of idiots to repeat that phrase so many times that the mind becomes conditioned to it. Have you read any of the Head's posts?

I don't recognize the name. Slogans, talking points, the word of the day, repeativness of things as you say, seem to fill the airways, but what of substance, ideas, solutions, etc. They are not there. Politicians and parties do what works. To explain one's ideas for the future of this country would take more than a 10 second sound bite. It might take 30 minutes, an hour etc and the average voter is not about to sit down and take the time to listen. So people decide whom they will vote for via the sound bite, slogan etc. It is no wonder this country is in the trouble it is today with little hope for the future. It boils down to, whom do I vote for, the left's sound bite, word of the day or the right's slogan and talking point? What a way to run and determine elections.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Democrats aren't blaming Republicans for the ACA.....they're giving them credit for the idea. An idea that a lot of democrats happen to like.....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

There is no credit given by the Democrats. It is an act to get people to believe that the Democrats are willing to consider outside ideas.

I would spend time reading the piece by the Heritage Foundation before you blindly quote the Wikipedia referencing it. The basis of the Heritage concept is that employer provided healthcare fuels the problem in cost. The Heritage piece seeks to replace the employer role, not subsidize it.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

Here is the writers response :

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

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

Where was Newt on that list of co-sponsors?

Here is the Politifact on it. Somehow I don't see Newt saying anything specific. Newt is a little short on details of what he believes.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-newt-gingrich-backed-individ/

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

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.

Look one comment down "ACA is Romneycare, a conservative program generated by conservative think tanks promoted by conservative blowhards passed by a conservative governor."

I am not saying Head is bright, but rather his writing is consistent with the people who want the GOP to capitulate on the issue of the CRs and the government shutdown. I don't know that the CRs are all that important. It gave Americans two weeks head-start on the debt-ceiling debate.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

For two decades the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, promoted healthcare reform with a mandate..

Did you read that plan? Tell me what the function of the Heritage mandate was...

 

[Fenton]

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.

You simply don't get it.

A Democrat win in 2016 is a massive loss for the Country, as the policies that have caused untold amounts of econonic damage over the last 5 years go into overdrive.

You win we lose, as the Democrat Congress inflates the debt to nose bleed proportions and impliment policies like carbon taxes and "gun control.

MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people will sstill be unemployed, and the middle class will slowly realize that the money needed to pay for all of the Democrats hair brained schemes is coming out of their pockets.

Like Obama-Care.

A economy on life support currently, propped up with Perpetual QE, will simply collapse as the FED monetizes more and more of our own debt.

You people drone on about taxing the rich, but its the average American family thats been hurt the most.

QE will stop and interest rates will climb. Since the FED holds a massive amount of our short term securities as they mature our debt payment will rise.

And the only people making out are people like the "Obama-Phone" lady.

And THATS what you stand for. Mediocrite, suffering and dependance, because thats all the Democrats and Peebo have to offer.

I mean the last 5 years have been an abject failure . A economy held up with massive unprecedented FED printing, poverty rates climbing, disabillity rates doubling, and all YOU have to offer is a long list of warmed over talking points.

How about that "green jobs" iniative ?

I'm not sure what you're so excited about.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

Awe shucks, you guys don't need to be so coy. The AHC act could never have been passed without the success of the trial run that Gov. Romney so kindly ran for us in Mass. In that way alone a Republican was a HUGE help and we thank you for it. He proved once and for all that healthcare reform is a bipartisan effort. Someday you will be singing his praises. Hell you might even nominate him for President again.

 

[Born Free]

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.

This is the adults talking, Romneycare was never indorsed by the republicans, nor is Obamacare. You wonder why, it's because it's a complete failure. Obama said insurance cost would go down but instead it's costing more. Of course it's liberal failure, not one republican voted for Obamacare, nor did one republican vote for Obama's trillion dollar failed stimulus. How do you like being the sole party to bring us failed Obamacare and a failed stimulus and still be proud of both failures. Liberals are running and hiding trying to get away from Obama failure. But heck you stay and turn out the lights.

 

[Moot]

There is no credit given by the Democrats. It is an act to get people to believe that the Democrats are willing to consider outside ideas.

I would spend time reading the piece by the Heritage Foundation before you blindly quote the Wikipedia referencing it. The basis of the Heritage concept is that employer provided healthcare fuels the problem in cost. The Heritage piece seeks to replace the employer role, not subsidize it.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

Here is the writers response :

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

Maybe you should try actually reading the Heritage Healthcare plan.....

The Heritage Plan

The fundamental defects of the existing system and the serious flaws in most solutions to the problem of the uninsured hasled the The Heritage Foundation to propose a national health system based on very different foundations. Developed in detail in the monograph, A National Health System for America, the Heritage plan aims at achieving four related objectives:

*All citizens should be guarenteed universal access to affordable health care.

*The inflationary pressures in the health industry should be brought under control.

*Direct or indirect government assistance should be concentrated on those who need it most.

*A reformed system should encourage greater innovation in the delivery of health care.

The Heritage Plan has key compentents.....<read>

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

 

[Moot]

This is the adults talking, Romneycare was never indorsed by the republicans, nor is Obamacare. You wonder why, it's because it's a complete failure. Obama said insurance cost would go down but instead it's costing more. Of course it's liberal failure, not one republican voted for Obamacare, nor did one republican vote for Obama's trillion dollar failed stimulus. How do you like being the sole party to bring us failed Obamacare and a failed stimulus and still be proud of both failures. Liberals are running and hiding trying to get away from Obama failure. But heck you stay and turn out the lights.

You guys are too easy to refute and rebuke......



"....During Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Jim DeMint praised Romney's ability to "take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured." Romney himself said of the individual mandate: "I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be the model for the nation."....read...."

Mitt Romney’s Health-Care Reform : The New Yorker

 

[Deuce]

Mostly technical amendments...big deal.

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

Handwaving. Nice. :2wave:

 

[Juanita]

Did you read that plan? Tell me what the function of the Heritage mandate was...

NOW they want to say that it was Oh so different....The basic ideas are the same....

 

[Moot]

A couple reminders:

We already have government subsidized health care for all. It is offered via emergency rooms, the least cost efficient way to do it.

The cost of medical problems was responsible for roughly half of the home foreclosures during the last economic crisis.

What we had before Obamacare was non-funded health care system where the insurance policy holders and hospitals footed the bills for people who refused to take personal responsibilty for their own healthcare. I thought personal responsibility was a conservative ideal....but not anymore, huh?

 

[Paschendale]

A couple reminders:

We already have government subsidized health care for all. It is offered via emergency rooms, the least cost efficient way to do it.

The cost of medical problems was responsible for roughly half of the home foreclosures during the last economic crisis.

Why do you think that healthcare only consists of setting broken bones? When was the last time an emergency room handled someone's chronic heartburn or epilepsy? Or diabetes? Or anything besides an acute injury or illness? Emergency rooms certainly don't do any preventative care, which is one thing that American medicine is sorely lacking, and one major reason why we pay so much more than other countries for healthcare.

And you're gonna have to provide a cite for that last assertion. A reputable one, if you please.

What we had before Obamacare was non-funded health care system where the insurance policy holders and hospitals footed the bills for people who refused to take personal responsibilty for their own healthcare. I thought personal responsibility was a conservative ideal....but not anymore, huh?

I hope we don't forget that "refused to take personal responsibility" mostly means "can't afford the high premiums".

 

[Mycroft]

What we had before Obamacare was non-funded health care system where the insurance policy holders and hospitals footed the bills for people who refused to take personal responsibilty for their own healthcare. I thought personal responsibility was a conservative ideal....but not anymore, huh?

Personal responsibility and personal choice go hand in hand. Neither can be effectively legislated, except to take them away from the individual. That is what liberals want to do, as if that is the solution. It is not.

 

[Moot]

Personal responsibility and personal choice go hand in hand. Neither can be effectively legislated, except to take them away from the individual. That is what liberals want to do, as if that is the solution. It is not.

Actually, it can be effectively legislated, just like SS and Medicare were effectively legislated. In fact I would argue that in spite of whether or not you agree with a bill.....any bill that passes all three branches of government and signed into law is effectively legisated.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

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.

<<<The media should have seen it coming. Last week, on CNN, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said a public insurance option was “not the essential element” of reform, and that a non-profit cooperative arrangement might fulfill the White House goal of more competition in buying health insurance. Many in the media professed surprise at Sebelius’s statement—but with all the flip flops and subtle hints dropped here and there over the past few months, it’s mystifying that Madame Secretary’s remarks seem to have caught everybody unawares.

The day before Sebelius’s CNN appearance, President Obama said something similar to town hall attendees in Colorado. The president said of the public option: “Whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.” But after Sebelius’s remarks, the administration worked hard to douse the fire. Said Sebelius: "All I can tell you is that Sunday must have been a very slow news day, because here’s the bottom line: Absolutely nothing has changed. We continue to support the public option. That will help lower costs, give American consumers more choice and keep private insurers honest."

All along, though, Sebelius has been saying similar things that should have had reporters asking questions about whether the administration was really serious about a public option, and what kind it would be. The president’s campaign boilerplate called for a new public plan, like Medicare, that would be available for small businesses and people without other insurance. Then came the eight lofty principles tucked into his budget message, none of which mentioned a Medicare-esque public option, or any of the co-ops currently discussed. One principle called for giving Americans a choice of health plans and physicians, as well as the option of keeping their employer-based coverage.

Off and on the president has talked about the necessity of a public plan. But as insurers, doctors, drug companies, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tightened the noose around members of Congress, and their Republican allies used Frank Luntz’s tested messages to warn about a government takeover of health care, the president’s HHS secretary started sending other signals.

In April, Sebelius testified that she supported a public option that is “constructed effectively and wisely” and with “actuarial support.” On June 14, she told CNN that the health insurance plan proposed by the administration would increase competition and drive down costs. Two days later, Sebelius told the Associated Press that the insurance lobby wouldn’t block a public health plan, because most Americans realize they would be better off if the industry had competition. She predicted that, in any showdown over a public plan, the industry would blink first. To paraphrase Barney Frank: What planet was she on?>>>

continued at link

Was a Public Plan Ever Really in the Cards? : Columbia Journalism Review

It wasn't exactly something pushed by the administration. And asking if support for it was ever serious is a very legitimate question. let's face it, one of the huge issues with the healthcare debate was the Obama administration was concerned with a legislative victory, not meaningful legislation

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

there was also this:

<<<Currently, lawmakers would restrict the public option to small businesses buying coverage for their workers and people seeking policies in the individual market. The plan would be off-limits to the millions of Americans who get their insurance from employers. The limitation, of course, is meant to prevent “crowd out”—that’s jargon for taking too much business away from private insurers. With so few people using the plan, though, it’s hard to see how it will lower health care costs or compete against the likes of insurance giant WellPoint, which is aggressively marketing very cheap and very limited insurance products to individuals.>>>


<<<Stephanopoulos then turned to his panelists, where Atlanta Journal-Constitution political columnist Cynthia Tucker further narrowed the scope of the public plan. Stephanopoulos asked if people actually realized how limited the public plan would be, noting that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only about twelve million people would be able to use such a plan; if states opted out, the number would be even smaller.>>>

Truth Emerges about the Public Option : Columbia Journalism Review

PS Trudy provides some of the best coverage you will find on healthcare. And if it's a topic that interests you, then you should be actively following her reporting on the subject. i can't recommend it enough

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, it can be effectively legislated, just like SS and Medicare were effectively legislated. In fact I would argue that in spite of whether or not you agree with a bill.....any bill that passes all three branches of government and signed into law is effectively legisated.

SS and Medicare of examples of personal responsibility and personal choice being taken away from the individual.

Did you deliberately misunderstand what I said?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Why do you think that healthcare only consists of setting broken bones? When was the last time an emergency room handled someone's chronic heartburn or epilepsy? Or diabetes? Or anything besides an acute injury or illness? Emergency rooms certainly don't do any preventative care, which is one thing that American medicine is sorely lacking, and one major reason why we pay so much more than other countries for healthcare.

And you're gonna have to provide a cite for that last assertion. A reputable one, if you please.



I hope we don't forget that "refused to take personal responsibility" mostly means "can't afford the high premiums".

Not only that, but research indicates the uninsured just go without treatment, even at the emergency room. The real issue with ER crowding, and one that isn't addressed in the ACA, is lack of primary care providers, reluctance of practitioners to accept medicaid and medicair, and those with chronic health issues who can't get adequate care WITH insurance

Health care is really ****ed in this country and I truly pity anyone with a chronic illness

 

[thinkforyoursel]

I actually blame the republicans for what we have today in the ACA.

Instead of acting like adults...instead of admitting that the situation prior to the ACA was deeply flawed....you people went out to demagogue the ACA as it was being implemented.

Thanks to some of your heroes like Bachman with her ...KILL SENIORS...KILL PEOPLE .....rants .....the democrats were able to skillfully package these footage and beat you at your own game.

When the ACA was being formulated ...many progressive didn't like the role of the insurance companies .....and you can bet they are the ones who made the system mandatory and penalizing. It's not just Obama ....you idiots!

When this occurred what did the republicans do .....they effectively ensured the country tuned them out by trying to use the argument that the existing system was great and the best in the world!! And nobody was buying that.

For once ...please understand ...Rush Limbaugh is a wealthy man because he have a few million die hard listeners......THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICA!!

You know the irony in all this .....in time ...when these introductory low rates are over and the insurance companies start ramping up the rates. Rates that you now ...must pay ....the ensuing republicans will be for it.....why?

Because in the end they are greedy politicians willing to sell out to the highest bidder. And your republicans can effectively do this ...by being silent...or ranting at town halls and go back to Washington and ....do nothing!!

We had a problem ...the health care system needed serious fixing...Obama's only ally were the greedy insurance companies ....and they helped shaped this law!!

 

[Mycroft]

I actually blame the republicans for what we have today in the ACA.

<snipped the rant>

Yeah, yeah...that's real smart. Blame Republicans...the people who tried to prevent this crap from being passed. But the Democrats?...the people who built this thing?...Yeah, let's give them a pass.

:doh

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I actually blame the republicans for what we have today in the ACA.

Instead of acting like adults...instead of admitting that the situation prior to the ACA was deeply flawed....you people went out to demagogue the ACA as it was being implemented.

If you want to hold the republicans solely accountable for it, you can. But the DNC plan was always a pretty weak solution to a very real problem (single payer was never really considered and the public option was largely meaningless in how it was conceived). And you would also be ignoring all the resistance that came from other democrats in congress, and who were the by product of Rahm's election strategy that sidelined more progressive oriented candidates.

Naturally the Republicans hardly offered any viable solutions and their mindless resistence to all things democrat surely didn't help, but it took two to place that sturdy turd in the punchbowl. And ignoring that is the type of mindless partisanship that had democrats fighting tooth and nail for a ****ty piece of legislation that delivered a captive market to the insurence industry

 

[iguanaman]

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.

The mandate forces people to pay for life saving services they already have at every emergency room in the country. No one is immune from accident or illness and no one should get a FREE RIDE. That is why Romney, Bob Dole and many other Reps. were great supporters of it. Because you guys don't like free rides, right? Could it be that you all are enjoying your free rides so much that you have changed your minds?