Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Are they a racist bunch? If not, you agree with me. Truth has nothing to do with aspersions.
The idea behind the Emancipation Proclamation was Republican too but the Republicans are still cast as a racist bunch.
So we will put boo down for a vote for "blame Republicans for the actions of Democrats".
Why, I'll bet that that congitive dissonance doesn't even hurt any more, does it, eh?
Are they a racist bunch? If not, you agree with me. Truth has nothing to do with aspersions.
Do you cast them as such? I know the lefties do it on more than an occasional basis.
That would be incorrect. I say both will share blame and praise, depending on how it pans out. Democrats did let the tea party demonizing influence them and did implement republican ideas. They too can't escape responsibility for that. Everyone is responsible for the things they are responsible for.
This is where I stopped wondering if I needed to take this reply seriously. The Public Option was killed by Democrat Joe Lieberman.
all this? is crap. These things indeed did exist in the bill - they were buy-offs to democrat senators to get them to vote for this hunk of junk. The Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback weren't to Republicans. They were to Democrats. Not a single Republican got concessions because not a single Republican voted for this disaster of a piece of legislation.
Not the issue. The ideas, not the vote, were republican in origin. Sorry.
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 and then, its hard to really make such a claim. Unless you're one of the typically dishonest hyper partisan types, implying 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, is ridiculous
While the mandating of insurance is similar, there are a number of difference between the two bills that is at the core a likely reason its okay then and not now. For example, one of the key ones it seems is the ability to purchase between state lines. This opens up competition in the market place making insurance more varied, more affordable, and gives more choices to those having to buy it. From what I've seen the penalties for buying your own insurance, and buying very good insurance for yourself, were not present in the older bill which again makes the choice more difficult.
The plan from 1993 also had a number of things, such a reform of malpractice law, that have been denied going into this.
It also doesn't seem to have a number of things, such as the direct access to our bank accounts, a government panel making decisions regarding what treatment you can have (without the appeals process found in private insurance), subsidizing union contracts, and other such things that add to this.
As I've stated, I very much dislike the notion of mandated insurance. I think its a constitutionally problematic thing that I believe violates the spirit more so than the letter of it. That said, as part of a compromised bill which stressed consumer responsibility and choice of private insurance with the government simply, at most, as a safety net...without a number of penalties and regulations that seem to have no real purpose other than to set the stage for continual legislation pushes towards more people choosing or needing the government plan and thus moving to single payer...could be a compromised type bill I could get behind if done honestly and above the board while in the minority...as the republicans were in 1993.
That is not the case, in any way here. Many of the core conservative ideas for fixing things have been utterly rejected. The only real compromise that's been presented is "We'll make it LESS liberal" in most cases. The various regulations, penalties, and fines on individuals, business, and the insurance companies appears to be a clear attempt to make it either difficult or inefficient to get the insurance you want, you want to provide as a business owner, or you need to provide to get a profit as an insurance provider. This, coupled with the mandate for individual insurance, I believe is going to simply set the stage for more problems, not less, to simply give a way to say "See, we should've done single payer in the first place, lets do it now".
I don't see those same things in the 1993 plan.
First, there was no real official "republican" health care bill. There was one penned by oft criticized former Republican Lincoln Chafee that did get a significant amount of support for a short time as a possible "compromise" bill, one such compromise being the individual mandate. However within a few months the mandate, and the bill, was roundly criticized and rejected by a majority of Republicans including those previously supporting it, the AMA, and the CBO. You also had the Cooper-Grady health care proposal out there as a possible Republican backed proposal along with the Rowland/Bilirakis one and not that long after the Packwood-Dole which was just as largely supported by Republicans as the Chafee plan and it rejected the idea of an individual mandate. So stating it was some kind of "Official" uniformed Republican preference is an absolute absurdity and highlights the hypocrisy of you complaining about others being honest when you spew such rhetoric yourself. Taking ONE republican backed plan during a time when they were completely out of control of the government and had to put forth compromised bills that gave ground to the other side in hopes of having any shot of legitimately potentially getting something passed as the "OFFICIAL" stance of "REPUBLIACNS" while ignoring other competing bills and wide scale rejection of said bill within a few months time is ridiculously disingenuous. At best you could say it was the stance of a majority of Senate Republicans, and that's about as far as you can get.
Secondly, attempting to attribute individuals within a parties ideas as some sort of party wide stance is ridiculous. Shall I find a singular Democrat suggesting pro-life and suggest then that pro-life is the Democratic Parties stance? Shall I find a singular bill penned by a Democrat pushing for the banning of all handguns as proof that it is the Democratic Parties idea of gun control? Shall we ignore that one of Romeny's largest problems during the primary was his actions surrounding health care in Massachusetts and he's rounded stated that such a thing was the right choice based on his constituents desires at a state level but not something he'd suggest for the federal? Your logic has so many holes in it and your hypocrisy is so transparent that your post might as well best be described as a pane of glass mimicing swiss cheese.
Thirdly, the idea of an individual mandate as the only method of allowing the government for force insurance companies to stop denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions is a legitimate one. It also just happens to be an unconstitutional one. Thus the problem. Its the only thing that even gets close to making the notion the Democrats are pushing "doable", and even that is a stretch, and yet to do so would be to act in a way that is unconstitutional...which is what makes the entire thing problematic to begin with and something the government shouldn't be doing due to the damage it will cause.
I don't deny that at some point some republicans had the ideas about the individual mandate. However the constistant labeling it as a "Republican Idea" as if that gives it credance, makes it some "official stance", or suggest that conservatives by and large are automatically hypocritical for disagreeing with it as if its some kind of unconditional truth of conservatism...as your use of the "republican idea" meme continually implies and suggests...is as dishonest as going through threads repeatedly suggesting that Democrats support banning all guns.
This is skewing reality, and seeing how some on your side have enjoyed lambasting people for obvious skews through omission, I figured I'd join in.
You state the "ideas" of the Bill were republican in origin, obviously trying to suggest multiple and giving no atempt what so ever to specific which but to simply state it broadly and to give no input as to the context of those ideas. To borrow a phrase from another poster here...this is like a child eating just his dessert and saying that he ate what was given to him. In terms of the ACA and the former republican "ideas":
At best you can say SOME of hte ideas were "republican" in origin, and even that is just picking at dessert while ignoring the main course.
I don't support Obamacare.
I feel lonely...
There is no way for it to do otherwise.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
I think most Americans understood from the beginning that there was no way that this massive scam could possibly succeed at achieving any of what it was claimed to be intended to achieve. As the inevitability of failure becomes increasingly obvious, there are still quite a few suckers who deny the obvious, and I think that this will remain true, no matter how massive and how obvious this failure becomes.
The famous statement popularly, but incorrectly attributed to P. T. Barnum is, in fact, a massive understatement.
Sort of. Prefaced upon the description of how it is currently failing.
Then perhaps you should have reworded your poll to reflect accuracy.
.... the CBO is deceptive because they don't tell you what you want to hear. Classic ad sourcinem by Redress.
Here's a deception for you: "If you like your insurance, you can keep it." That was deceptive as the man knew that it was crap when he said it. I would believe he has been honestly surprised by the fact that he's bent the cost-curve up, though. Give the man honest credit for his beliefs.
Gonna be fun watching ya'll deal with this slow self-dismemberment. Little bit of schadenfreude in all of us.
:shrug: I'd argue that we haven't gotten past the "denial" phase of mourning yet, but sure.
Btw, cp... I read the links in the OP. There was so much you misrepresented, I didn't even bother posting... mostly because you're not going to listen anyway and because your OP is a false premise, anyhow, making your entire point irrelevant.
And your argument would be wrong.
If you want denial, look in the mirror. There's plenty on both sides of the aisle.
I always like when people do the "drive by" gosh-you're-just-so-wrong-that-I-can't-take-the-time-to-explain-why response.
CC, I actually had someone use telepathic powers to read your mind, pull out your arguments, and I then listed and defeated them all. However, I'm not going to post any of those responses because :shrug: it's not like you would read them.
see how foolish that sounds?
That's fantastic to hear. Please link or quote the Obamacare supporters who have passed that phase and are now either on to bargaining or acceptance. I would be fascinated to see how fast the left-wing recognition of the disaster that this piece of legislation is turning into is proceeding.
:yawn: and both sides are full of good people and bad people and stupid people and smart people and so on and so forth and qualifier ad nauseum. Which alters the problems that this poorly-thought-out attempt to re-work 1/8th of our economy through mass-bureaucracy is experiencing not a whit.
That's fantastic to hear. Please link or quote the Obamacare supporters who have passed that phase and are now either on to bargaining or acceptance. I would be fascinated to see how fast the left-wing recognition of the disaster that this piece of legislation is turning into is proceeding.
:
I always like when people do the "drive by" gosh-you're-just-so-wrong-that-I-can't-take-the-time-to-explain-why response.
CC, I actually had someone use telepathic powers to read your mind, pull out your arguments, and I then listed and defeated them all. However, I'm not going to post any of those responses because :shrug: it's not like you would read them. In the meantime, the links are simply what pops up first on the google search when I look back for the stories I remember :shrug: most of them are conservative sources (because that is who is interested in keeping tabs on the ongoing failures inside the Obamacare implementation efforts) citing non-partisan primary sources such as the IRS and CBO.
see how foolish that sounds?
It would be nice if YOU could recognize when you misrepresent things. But even when confronted, you deny these things. Here... the first link:
Your quote is "Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law". This is not what the article says. What it says is that these people will CHOOSE to pay penalties rather than pay for Obamacare. You misrepresented... not surprisingly. It's what you do.
CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.
Now, if you had actually presented an HONEST and accurate OP question, this might be different. But you didn't.
And yet as has been shown in this very thread, those sources lied and distorted what the CBO actually did say. And you bought those lies because they where what you wanted to hear.
let's quote the actual article and see:
See the whole "pushed out of their job based insurance coverage" bit? It doesn't say that 7 million people will choose to pay the penalties, it says that their employers will choose to pay the penalties. Look, it's in the second paragraph:
Funny you should say so - it seems that you are the one who has inaccurately described the article. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - I don't think you did it because you are inherently untruthful. I think you just skimmed the article and took away a false impression. But perhaps you should make sure before you accuse others of duplicity, eh?
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?