Obamacare

[lil mike]

wow.. you really think you got me there don't you.. 

nothing in that says anything about what Obama or HRC supported in 2008, in fact nothing in that has anything to do with the 2008 campaign,..... why are you trying to change the subject by bringing in details that immaterial to this conversation.. so she liked it and he didn't... oooohhh campaign promise breaker.*rollseyes* what are you "Gordo"?

 The IM was what the GOP was going to use against HRC when she was 1st lady.... the IM was a GOP concept from way back when.. and right up until Obama used it..

You said that Obama championed it, and I was merely reminding you that Obama opposed it during the election. 

[Howey]

From one of my favorite sites:

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

[ekg]

You said that Obama championed it, and I was merely reminding you that Obama opposed it during the election. 

ok Gordo..

my question is, why in the hell did you butt in with that? I obviously wasn't talking about the campaign.. so why in the hell would  you throw a stop stick into a perfectly good conversation?

[lil mike]

ok Gordo..

my question is, why in the hell did you butt in with that? I obviously wasn't talking about the campaign.. so why in the hell would  you throw a stop stick into a perfectly good conversation?

Ha!  This was the "perfectly good conversation" you think I threw a stop stick into.

because Obama championed it..  Had it been Bush, not a single (R) would have said a peep... The individual mandate was around before Hillarycare, it was what the GOP was going to 'counter' her idea with..  The GOP loved the idea right up until Obama used it, then it became evil.. and a r/d issue..

Think about it, you are forced to buy health insurance from a private company..  sure, that's a 'dem' idea..

and to show you how the GOP totally fucked up the message... brilliantly btw, this mandate is considered the height of Obama's socialistic policies.. it not only is proof he's a Marxist, but it also proves he's 'European'... even tho European's get their healthcare for free..

I mean, it's freaking amazing how the GOP was able to turn a plan that makes you buy from the private sector into socialism..

You turned the conversation around to being only a partisan issue.  So that's what I responded to.  You quit discussing policy a long time ago, remember?

And speaking of, Congress voted to repeal the CLASS Act, since HHS suspended the program.  It had done it's job, which was to provide phony revenue for the COB scoring of Obamacare.  I don't know why the Dems would bother fighting it, it's served its purpose.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/01/congressional-research-service-courts-could-force-hhs-to-implement-class-act-despite-its-insolvency/

[ekg]

Ha!  This was the "perfectly good conversation" you think I threw a stop stick into.

You turned the conversation around to being only a partisan issue.  So that's what I responded to.  You quit discussing policy a long time ago, remember?

you're an idiot..

o lookie! now I turned it into a name-calling issue..

go back and look at what the quoted reply was in answer to..

I'll help.

How is this a d/r issue. Romney wrote Obamacare.

tadaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

My answer was relevant and correct.. the GOP was for mandates up until Obama added it into his healthcare plan..That's not partsian, it's factual... unless?...? what because it's factual that's what makes it partisan? seriously? I know your party has issues with those pesky facts, but calling someone partsian for using them is a little out there don't you think?

policy? really...? dude, you're so hyper-partisan that you attacked Obama for being a 'cheap-skate' because he didn't give 14% of his income 20 years ago when he was probably still in school and living off of pop-tarts and funions..! until you can get past that kind of crap, you can't possibly contribute anything to a 'policy' conversation..

it's just like this conversation, did you reply with a counter to what I was saying about the GOP and their invention of the "mandate"..? Did you bring in anything on policy? anything on why the mandate was a bad idea? any research on that issue that could have been starting point? Nope,you just went with a 'flip-flopper' jab....

ooo, wow.. such a substantive conversation...very 'high-brow' of you! thanks pot!

but hey look on the bright side, you stopped another conversation from going any further... YA! You won! you diverted attention away from  the GOP's party of No, Obama-insanity...

[lil mike]

you're an idiot..

o lookie! now I turned it into a name-calling issue..

Don't worry, at this point, I don't expect better of you. 

go back and look at what the quoted reply was in answer to..

I'll help.

tadaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

My answer was relevant and correct.. the GOP was for mandates up until Obama added it into his healthcare plan..That's not partsian, it's factual... unless?...? what because it's factual that's what makes it partisan? seriously? I know your party has issues with those pesky facts, but calling someone partsian for using them is a little out there don't you think?

policy? really...? dude, you're so hyper-partisan that you attacked Obama for being a 'cheap-skate' because he didn't give 14% of his income 20 years ago when he was probably still in school and living off of pop-tarts and funions..! until you can get past that kind of crap, you can't possibly contribute anything to a 'policy' conversation..

it's just like this conversation, did you reply with a counter to what I was saying about the GOP and their invention of the "mandate"..? Did you bring in anything on policy? anything on why the mandate was a bad idea? any research on that issue that could have been starting point? Nope,you just went with a 'flip-flopper' jab....

ooo, wow.. such a substantive conversation...very 'high-brow' of you! thanks pot!

but hey look on the bright side, you stopped another conversation from going any further... YA! You won! you diverted attention away from  the GOP's party of No, Obama-insanity...

Howey brought up the charitable donations.  Now you're turning it around and making it my issue?  You guys can dish it, but when it comes to taking it, you freak out.

And you are incorrect.  The GOP wasn't for mandates, then suddenly Obama got behind them and the Republicans tossed it overboard.  Gingrich is for mandates, but he's not representative on that issue.  When were Republicans supporting a mandate last?  1994?  The idea that Republicans supported mandates until Obama got behind them is ridiculous.  Really going off the rails there...

And yes, I did bring something in on policy, the CLASS Act.  I noticed you didn't respond to it.  You were too busy ranting that Republicans supported mandates until Obama became President!

[Howey]

The GOP wasn't for mandates, then suddenly Obama got behind them and the Republicans tossed it overboard.  Gingrich is for mandates, but he's not representative on that issue.  When were Republicans supporting a mandate last?  1994?

You lie!

Republicans supported mandates until Obama became President!

True!

CLASS Act. 

What a shame...let's just throw the old fuckers in a nursing home and let them rot away!

[ekg]

Don't worry, at this point, I don't expect better of you. 

Howey brought up the charitable donations.  Now you're turning it around and making it my issue?  You guys can dish it, but when it comes to taking it, you freak out.

what? where did Howie bring up charitable donations?

you made this line of talk your issue with your

"You don't know the history of the 2008 election very well.  Hillary was for the individual mandate and Obama opposed it.  Obama only signed on after Congress wrote the bill for him.  Are you getting more ill informed as time goes on?  You were on top of these issues in 2008."

CLASS act? Puhleeze! you didn't bring that up for quite a few posts after your non-relavant post above.. you had no intention of anything other than starting shit, you had no intentions of starting a conversation with that.. so it's hilarious that you would accuse me being unable to talk policy when you're the one throwing shit in the room and laughing about it.. you are the one can never,ever 'take it' when it's dished to you..

And you are incorrect.  The GOP wasn't for mandates, then suddenly Obama got behind them and the Republicans tossed it overboard.  Gingrich is for mandates, but he's not representative on that issue.  When were Republicans supporting a mandate last?  1994?  The idea that Republicans supported mandates until Obama got behind them is ridiculous.  Really going off the rails there...

here are those rails.. hold on..

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

1. Nov. 20, 1993
(date introduced)    Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) (624 KB)    Sponsored by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) & 24 Republican cosponsors

2. Nov. 23, 1993
(date introduced)    Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) (1.6 MB) Sponsored by Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI) & 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R)

that's more than just Newt right there.. That's a lot more..  in fact, that last one was the GOP's universal healthcare bill

"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.

Holy shit would you look at that.. Uni Healthcare a GOP idea... well, until Obama wanted it.

3. Jan. 18, 2007
(date introduced)    Healthy Americans Act (SB 334) (427 KB)    Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 17 cosponsors (7-D, 1-I, 9-R)

4. Feb. 5, 2009
(date introduced)    Healthy Americans Act (SB 391) (394 KB)    Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 14 cosponsors (8-D, 1-I, 5-R)

all the way up until Obama

5. Dec. 24, 2009
(date passed)    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) (2.2 MB)    No sponsors. Bill re-written by Senate Democrats. No Republican Senator voted for the bill.

No republican's then..

so how in the hell am I incorrect,ridiculous or going off the rails?

answer? I'm not... you forgot to look into the issue and it shows with your inaccurate ranting..

also, when I said "The individual mandate was around before Hillarycare, it was what the GOP was going to 'counter' her idea with..  "

I was correct there also..

This tells you something about why Republican party leaders have had such a hard time addressing health policy issues over the last few years. Rather than make a prolonged case for health policy that does not involve endless expansion of entitlements and insurance subsidies, the GOP has instead focused primarily on reacting to Democratic proposals. The individual mandate was an attempt to beat Democrats at the universal coverage game and preempt the what would become HillaryCare.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/20/democrats-learned-about-obamac

  You were too busy ranting that Republicans supported mandates until Obama became President!

rant would seem to suggest that I was wrong... clearly, I wasn't..

care to apologize now?


bone up on your facts next time...

[lil mike]

what? where did Howie bring up charitable donations?

Romney earned it? By firing people. I respect Heinz because, unlike Mittens, she recognizes what the word compassion is.
 

Do you really think Romney wouldn't have given the Mormon church all those millions if he didn't have to? Of course, he could have wanted to in support of their homophobia campaign.  

you made this line of talk your issue with your

"You don't know the history of the 2008 election very well.  Hillary was for the individual mandate and Obama opposed it.  Obama only signed on after Congress wrote the bill for him.  Are you getting more ill informed as time goes on?  You were on top of these issues in 2008."

CLASS act? Puhleeze! you didn't bring that up for quite a few posts after your non-relavant post above.. you had no intention of anything other than starting shit, you had no intentions of starting a conversation with that.. so it's hilarious that you would accuse me being unable to talk policy when you're the one throwing shit in the room and laughing about it.. you are the one can never,ever 'take it' when it's dished to you..

here are those rails.. hold on..
 


that's more than just Newt right there.. That's a lot more..  in fact, that last one was the GOP's universal healthcare bill
Holy shit would you look at that.. Uni Healthcare a GOP idea... well, until Obama wanted it.

all the way up until Obama

No republican's then..

so how in the hell am I incorrect,ridiculous or going off the rails?

answer? I'm not... you forgot to look into the issue and it shows with your inaccurate ranting..

also, when I said "The individual mandate was around before Hillarycare, it was what the GOP was going to 'counter' her idea with..  "

I was correct there also..


rant would seem to suggest that I was wrong... clearly, I wasn't..

care to apologize now?


bone up on your facts next time...

I'll allow you to bone up on your facts I think!

First, I had already said that Republicans as a party hadn't supported the individual mandate since 1994, so I'm not sure why you brought up examples earlier than that, other than to confirm I was correct.

OK, I was correct.  I agree with you!

Now the real "meat" of your post was The Healthy Americans Act.  I was scratching my head, thinking I should have heard of such a bill before, so I googled the name...ahhh it was Wyden-Bennett!  I had actually brought this up  during our Obamacare discussions!  It was an alternative to Obamacare.  I opposed it too, but at least it didn't' have the private market destroying features of Obamacare.  But it also didn't have an individual mandate, it had a tax for premiums, like the Medicare part of FICA.  So although I oppose this too, it's not unconstitutional like the Obamacare individual mandate is since it doesn't run afoul of the Commerce clause.

Now you know, or used to know, what the individual mandate is, but either you've forgotten or just thought you could bluff me with your hyper partisan website you pulled this info from.

So if you are sincere, you will apologize to me since you got your facts wrong.

[Howey]

Do you really think Romney wouldn't have given the Mormon church all those millions if he didn't have to? Of course, he could have wanted to in support of their homophobia campaign. 

That was not in this thread and had nothing to do with this thread. Please pay attention.

Furthermore, that was not a charitable act.

It was a mandate of his church.

[lil mike]

That was not in this thread and had nothing to do with this thread. Please pay attention.

Furthermore, that was not a charitable act.

It was a mandate of his church.

No it didn't have anything to do with this thread, but I'm not the one who brought it here:

you're an idiot..

policy? really...? dude, you're so hyper-partisan that you attacked Obama for being a 'cheap-skate' because he didn't give 14% of his income 20 years ago when he was probably still in school and living off of pop-tarts and funions..! until you can get past that kind of crap, you can't possibly contribute anything to a 'policy' conversation..

Please pay attention!

[ekg]

I'll allow you to bone up on your facts I think!

First, I had already said that Republicans as a party hadn't supported the individual mandate since 1994, so I'm not sure why you brought up examples earlier than that, other than to confirm I was correct.

you did notice there are other bills with dates after 1994 that had (R) support and that they weren't just Newt idea right?

OK, I was correct.

I guess not..  you said "Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "

so let's try showing you that you are wrong...again

1. Nov. 20, 1993
(date introduced)    Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) (624 KB)    Sponsored by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) & 24 Republican cosponsors

I give you that Newt's big guy, but that's 25 GOP members right there, if nothing else, that proves you were wrong when you said ""Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "

2. Nov. 23, 1993
(date introduced)    Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) (1.6 MB) Sponsored by Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI) & 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R)

That's 19 more GOP members.. if nothing else, that, with the 25 above, proves you were wrong when you said "Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "

3. Jan. 18, 2007
(date introduced)    Healthy Americans Act (SB 334) (427 KB)    Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 17 cosponsors (7-D, 1-I, 9-R)

more than Newt there too...hmm I'm seeing a pattern and that pattern in you're wrong when you say "Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "

4. Feb. 5, 2009
(date introduced)    Healthy Americans Act (SB 391) (394 KB)    Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 14 cosponsors (8-D, 1-I, 5-R)

there's 5 more..

every time the mandate, that was conceived of by a GOP think tank and brought to congress by GOP congressmen with plenty of GOP support (that was more than just Newt Gingrich) and even supported by GOP member when Liberals brought it up, every time it came up it had some support from the GOP... right up until when?

oh yeah..

until Obama... So when i said "The individual mandate was around before Hillarycare," I was correct

when I said " it was what the GOP was going to 'counter' her idea with.. " I was correct

when I said "The GOP loved the idea right up until Obama used it, then it became evil.. and a r/d issue.." I was correct.

The fact that you ignored all that and still jumped to the "I'm correct" is cute, but it doesn't make you any less wrong..

Now the real "meat" of your post was The Healthy Americans Act.  I was scratching my head, thinking I should have heard of such a bill before, so I googled the name...ahhh it was Wyden-Bennett!  I had actually brought this up  during our Obamacare discussions!  It was an alternative to Obamacare.  I opposed it too, but at least it didn't' have the private market destroying features of Obamacare.  But it also didn't have an individual mandate, it had a tax for premiums, like the Medicare part of FICA.  So although I oppose this too, it's not unconstitutional like the Obamacare individual mandate is since it doesn't run afoul of the Commerce clause.

I don't really know why that was thrown in here.. that must be some kid of 'tourettes' or something..because the 'meat' of my post was informing you on the different bills, with mandates, either created, sponsored by, or supported by the gOP right up until Obama brought it up and then not a single GOP member, even ones around when they used to support it, supported it..

but the 'healthy Americans act'

Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll."

yeah,... it requires... it makes... responsible for enrolling....penalties for noncompliance... yeah sorry, that's mandate.

Now you know, or used to know, what the individual mandate is, but either you've forgotten or just thought you could bluff me with your hyper partisan website you pulled this info from.

Hyper Partisan website?

HA!

"Who we are..

ProCon.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity that has no government affiliations of any kind. Our purpose is to provide resources for critical thinking and to educate without bias. We do not express opinions on our research projects ("issue websites").

Our mission statement is:

    "Promoting critical thinking, education, and informed citizenship by presenting controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan, primarily pro-con format."

We accomplish our mission by researching issues that we feel are controversial and important, and we work to present them in a balanced, comprehensive, straightforward, and primarily pro-con format at no charge on our websites.

ok... yep they educate without bias, I can see how that's 'hyper-partisan'.. since your party is sooooo anti-education, but here in the real world, out side the bubble, we like education w/o bias.. and hey, even if you don't like the site, the links go to the actual bills..

So if you are sincere, you will apologize to me since you got your facts wrong.

HAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  Haaaaaaaaaaa sure Mike, you're right... you're always right... even when proven so fucking wrong, you're still right..

do me a favor, you can't admit you were rusty on this issue when you opened your mouth and have now been schooled... iow, you can't admit you were in error... so let's just move on and will you explain this to me..


the private market destroying features of Obamacare

how is it destroying the private market...

[lil mike]

you did notice there are other bills with dates after 1994 that had (R) support and that they weren't just Newt idea right?

There was one: Healthy Americans Act or also known as Wyden Bennett.  But I already addressed that.

I guess not..  you said "Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "

so let's try showing you that you are wrong...again

I give you that Newt's big guy, but that's 25 GOP members right there, if nothing else, that proves you were wrong when you said ""Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "

That's 19 more GOP members.. if nothing else, that, with the 25 above, proves you were wrong when you said "Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "

more than Newt there too...hmm I'm seeing a pattern and that pattern in you're wrong when you say "Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "


there's 5 more..

every time the mandate, that was conceived of by a GOP think tank and brought to congress by GOP congressmen with plenty of GOP support (that was more than just Newt Gingrich) and even supported by GOP member when Liberals brought it up, every time it came up it had some support from the GOP... right up until when?

oh yeah..

until Obama... So when i said "The individual mandate was around before Hillarycare," I was correct

when I said " it was what the GOP was going to 'counter' her idea with.. " I was correct

when I said "The GOP loved the idea right up until Obama used it, then it became evil.. and a r/d issue.." I was correct.

The fact that you ignored all that and still jumped to the "I'm correct" is cute, but it doesn't make you any less wrong..

I'm trying to figure this out.  I had already said there hadn't been Republican support for an individual mandate since 1994, so as a "gotcha" you repost the same bills that had some Republican support from 1993.  Plus Wyden Bennett, which I also acknowledged had Republican support, although it didn't have an individual mandate.  It was a tax.  Structurally and constitutionally, they are nowhere near the same.  Back a few years ago when we were actually arguing Obamacare, you actually understood the difference.  What happened?  Why don't you understand that now?

[lil mike]

I don't really know why that was thrown in here.. that must be some kid of 'tourettes' or something..because the 'meat' of my post was informing you on the different bills, with mandates, either created, sponsored by, or supported by the gOP right up until Obama brought it up and then not a single GOP member, even ones around when they used to support it, supported it..

but the 'healthy Americans act'

yeah,... it requires... it makes... responsible for enrolling....penalties for noncompliance... yeah sorry, that's mandate.


Hyper Partisan website?

HA!
ok... yep they educate without bias, I can see how that's 'hyper-partisan'.. since your party is sooooo anti-education, but here in the real world, out side the bubble, we like education w/o bias.. and hey, even if you don't like the site, the links go to the actual bills..

HAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  Haaaaaaaaaaa sure Mike, you're right... you're always right... even when proven so fucking wrong, you're still right..

do me a favor, you can't admit you were rusty on this issue when you opened your mouth and have now been schooled... iow, you can't admit you were in error... so let's just move on and will you explain this to me..


the private market destroying features of Obamacare

how is it destroying the private market...

Talking Points Memo is a 501c too.

As for the schooling, it looks like still, everything I said was correct.  You have not peeled back one point that I made.  Instead you went and reposted the same points I discredited. 

But it's OK, I'm patient.  I'll wait for the apology!

[ekg]

Talking Points Memo is a 501c too.

As for the schooling, it looks like still, everything I said was correct.  You have not peeled back one point that I made.  Instead you went and reposted the same points I discredited. 

But it's OK, I'm patient.  I'll wait for the apology!

amazing.. when proven wrong, you just resort to changing your argument and pretending that was your argument from jump..

sorry, your argument was ""Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "

after having it pointed out to you  that you were oh so wrong, you've decided your argument is now.."I had already said there hadn't been Republican support for an individual mandate since 1994,"

even still, you were proven wrong with the 2 introductions of the Wyden bill, which did have a mandate as explained..and most importantly did have GOP support..

Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll."

That is not a 'tax'.. that is a penalty for not getting insured, no different from Obama's 'mandate'...

"Subtitle F: Shared Responsibility for Health Care - Part I: Individual Responsibility - (Sec. 1501, as modified by section 10106) Requires individuals to maintain minimal essential health care coverage beginning in 2014. Imposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage beginning in 2014, except for certain low-income individuals who cannot afford coverage, members of Indian tribes, and individuals who suffer hardship. Exempts from the coverage requirement individuals who object to health care coverage on religious grounds, individuals not lawfully present in the United States, and individuals who are incarcerated."

Odd that you are calling the Wyden bill a 'tax' but you argue Obama's same 'mandate' isn't.. just more proof that you're  hyper-partisan and hypocritical..


and BTW, the wydenn bill did have GOP support both times it was intro'd as shown.. my position,which has never changed, was also correct..  the GOP liked the mandate until Obama, and that was proven by the bills listed that had GOP support up until Obama used it and then no GOP support..

as for the site, can you prove it's biased? then who cares if it holds the same status and TP..  the definition of a 501 (c)(3) is

501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations

who gives a shit..all that means is it has tax-exemptions...  none of that proves hyper-partisan.. you just don't like the site because it proves your original argument and this new one, wrong... well, too bad.. facts hurt like that.

you will get no apology since you haven't been proven correct on any argument you've made.. your points have been weighed,measured and found lacking...whether that be the original one that you've now back away from since you found yourself in error, or the second one you've now adopted in some desperate attempt to get some points for knowing something about this issue..