Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

Hmm interesting

Poll: Most Say High Court Should Reject Health Insurance Mandate (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/26/poll-most-say-high-court-should-reject-health-insurance-mandate/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29)

A new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that more than half of Americans say the Supreme Court should rule that the health overhaul law’s requirement to have health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional.

The poll by the nonpartisan foundation found that 54% of those surveyed said the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate while only 17% said the court should uphold it and 29% either didn’t know or didn’t answer.

I thought it was going to become popular when passed?

Republican opposition to the Democrats’ 2010 health care overhaul law is intense, with 73% of Republicans having an unfavorable view of it. By contrast, 62% of Democrats view it favorably.

The survey also found that most Republican voters don’t agree with the attack on GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney that the health care law he signed as governor of  Massachusetts is similar to the federal law.  Some 30% said they felt Mr. Romney’s views on health care were akin to President Barack Obama’s, but almost half said the former governor’s views are different, and 22% didn’t answer.

So are the national health plan and the Massachusetts plan that similar? In a word, Yes.

Majority Of Americans Think Ideology Will Affect High Court’s Ruling On Health Law

The public doubts the Supreme Court renders judgments based solely on the law.  Three-quarters (75%) say they think that, in general, Justices let their own ideological views influence their decisions while 17 percent say they usually decide cases based on legal analysis without regard to politics and ideology.  Similarly, when asked specifically about the challenge to the individual mandate in the health reform law, six in ten (59%) Americans say they expect the Justices will take their own ideological views into account, while 28 percent think their decision will be based purely on legal analysis and interpretation.

It's a shame you Republicans are soooo misinformed. According to PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/12/tim-pawlenty/pawlenty-says-obamacare-patterned-after-romneycare/), the Mass law is very, very much like Obamacare:

Mr. Romney got another dose of good news Wednesday: An article in the influential policy journal Health Affairs said there are several indications that the Massachusetts health law has been a success.

Ahh...more misinformation.

Let's also look at this comment:

It's a shame you Republicans are soooo misinformed. According to PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/12/tim-pawlenty/pawlenty-says-obamacare-patterned-after-romneycare/), the Mass law is very, very much like Obamacare:
:
 

That is (again, duh) pretty much obvious. Thankfully, the SCOTUS has determined Kagan doesn't need to recuse herself.

I agree that the Mass law is very much like Obamacare.  It's been a good indicator of what to expect.

Why thankfully, unless you expect Kagan's vote is already assured, regardless of the case?

I just thought of something. Why are Republicans today so opposed to an insurance mandate?

If I remember correctly they were the first in line supporting it.  :-\

I'd like you to answer my question.

When Mitt Romney is asked, as he often is, to explain the fact that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare, he asks the President: “If that’s the case, why didn’t you call me? Why didn’t you ask what was wrong? Why didn’t you ask if this was an experiment, what worked and what didn’t…I would have told him, ‘What you’re doing, Mr. President, is going to bankrupt us.’” Now, Michael Isikoff, the Newsweek veteran who is best known for his investigative reporting on the Monica Lewinsky flap, is out with a lengthy report divulging “fresh details” on how the Obama administration relied on the designers of Romneycare in fashioning their own health-care law.

Despite the report’s somewhat breathless tone, it’s actually old news that Mitt Romney’s health-care experts helped design Obamacare. Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was the architect of both laws, received nearly $400,000 as a consultant to the Obama administration for “technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform.” (Gruber frequently failed to mention this fact when opining on the bill in the press.)

Gruber, for his part, has said all along that Romneycare and Obamacare are “basically…the same thing.” Gruber told the Boston Globe in March 2010 that Obamacare would never have passed had Romney not made “the decision in 2005 to go for it. He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform.”

And, as Isikoff notes, while President Obama may not have called Romney, he did call Gruber. Indeed, White House visitor logs show that “senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three [Romney] health-care advisers and experts.” These included Gruber (five); Jon Kingsdale (three), executive director of Massachusetts’ new subsidized insurance exchange; and John McDonough (four), executive director of a Massachusetts advocacy organization called “Health Care for All.”

One of the White House meetings with Gruber was personally chaired by the President in the Oval Office. “The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Gruber. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

Gruber is an admirer of Romney. “I went into [my first meeting with Romney] and came out as a Democratic voter scared about the prospect of him as a Republican [presidential] candidate,” Gruber once told NPR. “I mean, he’s brilliant. He clearly had a grasp of the issues. He’s incredibly personable and powerful. And I just came away totally impressed.”

These days, Gruber thinks it’s “depressing” that Romney distances himself from Obamacare. “I think he is the single person most responsible for health care reform in the United States…I’m not trying to make a political position or a political statement, I honestly feel that way. If Mitt Romney had not stood up for this reform in Massachusetts…I don’t think it would have happened nationally. So I think he really is the guy with whom it all starts.”

Here’s a 7-minute video of an interview Romney did with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on the heels of Romneycare’s passage in 2006, discussing the law’s rationale.
In that context, let me say one thing in Romney’s defense. Most conservatives roll their eyes at Romney’s argument that he would never support something like Obamacare, because it foists a “one-size-fits-all” approach on the country. I think Romney is being truthful. Romney consistently said back in 2006 that he thought Massachusetts might serve as a model for other states. “How much of our health-care plan applies to other states? A lot,” wrote Romney in a 2006 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.

That’s the part that will get play in his opponents’ ads. But, in fairness to Romney, later in the piece, he did argue that federalism and experimentation were the best way forward. “One great thing about federalism is that states can innovate, demonstrate and incorporate ideas from one another,” he wrote. “Other states will learn from our experience and improve on what we’ve done. That’s the way we’ll make health care work for everyone.”

Romney has changed his mind on quite a few things since his days as governor. And many of his arguments distinguishing Romneycare from Obamacare are nonsensical. But it’s accurate to say that he has consistently supported state-based health-care reform over a one-size-fits-all approach. On that narrow point, perhaps, conservatives should cut him a break.

UPDATE: Jonathan Cohn reminds me that John McDonough’s book, Inside National Health Reform, details the ties between Romneycare and Obamacare. McDonough served Ted Kennedy at the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee in 2008:

As it happens, McDonough has just published a book on that experience called Inside National Health Reform. In it, he describes just how consciously, and closely, reformers in Washington followed the example Massachusetts had set.

Among the stories he recounts is an October 2008 meeting in the Dirksen Senate Office building. In a presentation to key “stakeholders” — consumer advocates, lobbyists for the health care industry, and so on — HELP staff outlined three possible approaches to reform. There was “Constitution Avenue,” meaning a wholesale change to single-payer or some other new system, along with “Independence Avenue,” meaning an incremental, go-slow approach to reform. And then there was “Massachusetts Avenue,”

“Meaning reform based on the key elements of the near-universal coverage law enacted in Massachusetts in 2006. Those elements include deep and systematic health insurance market reform, a mandate on individuals to purchase insurance, subsidies to make insurance affordable, and an insurance “exchange” to connect people with coverage.”

The group’s overwhelming favorite was Massachusetts Avenue, which, McDonough notes, was hardly surprising:

“By October 2008, this approach had become the accepted direction among nearly all major Democratic officeholders who wanted health reform to be a top priority in 2009, including the three major Democratic presidential candidates. … Before the election, before the congressional process was actively engaged, a 2006 Massachusetts law had already become the essential template for national reform.”If you want to read more about the many connections between Romneycare and Obamacare, by the way, I highly recommend Brian Mooney’s series in the Boston Globe and Ryan Lizza‘s essay in the New Yorker — along with McDonough’s book.

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

I just thought of something. Why are Republicans today so opposed to an insurance mandate?

If I remember correctly they were the first in line supporting it.  :-\

Angry little man!

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

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.. (http://www.myemoticons.com/images/minis/people-emotions/rolling-eyes.gif)

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..

I just thought of something. Why are Republicans today so opposed to an insurance mandate?

If I remember correctly they were the first in line supporting it.  :-\

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.

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..

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. 

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?

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.. (http://www.myemoticons.com/images/minis/people-emotions/rolling-eyes.gif)

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..

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?

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

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.

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...

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?

Republicans supported mandates until Obama became President!

CLASS Act. 

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.

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...

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)

"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.

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)

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.

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!

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 (http://www.heinzfamily.org/aboutus/teresaheinz_01.html) 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...

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.

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..

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.

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)

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)

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.

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."

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.

"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.

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

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

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 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!

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."

"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."

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

Talking Points Memo is a 501c too.

Really? A left leaning blog is now considered a 501c?

I smell another lie brewing...

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,"

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...

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..

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

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

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..  

(http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/wp-content/uploads/maher_olbermannsg.jpg)

Really?  How are they organized then?

You tell me. You're the one making the claim that TPM is a 501c.

Really? A left leaning blog is now considered a 501c?

I smell another lie brewing...

Yes but aren't you the one thinking it's a lie?

Until you prove it's a 501c it's just another lie...pretty much par for the course, though.  :-[

Three whole days and no reply... ::)

I was going to let this simmer for a while.

Until you prove it's a 501c it's just another lie...pretty much par for the course, though.  :-[

Is that lilMike speak for "I lied"?

Nope!

I was waiting for you to proffer a wager of some sort.

Is that lilMike speak for "I lied"?

Nope!

I was waiting for you to proffer a wager of some sort.

so is this the lesson then, say whatever you want, whether true or not, get asked about it, piddle around hoping they forgot, piddle around some more hoping they forgot and then say you'll tell  the answer to their question on you facts if, and only if they will wager something first..

you made a statement of fact. you used that statement of fact to try and deflect from a website that you didn't like since it proved you wrong..you called that website "Hyper Partisan" because it's either that  or you're wrong..so how can it be anything else (http://www.c4rlh.com/emoticons/stupid.gif)... you are now asked to back up your statement of fact. Either TPM is a  501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity like ProCon.org is  or you owe me an apology.. there is no 'what will you give me if I tell you' here.. you made the statement, it's on you to back it up... not me or Howie to entice you into proving what you said..

Jesus Christ, grow the hell up already... if your wrong say so.. who gives a shit. You're not God, you do err.

so is this the lesson then, say whatever you want, whether true or not, get asked about it, piddle around hoping they forgot, piddle around some more hoping they forgot and then say you'll tell  the answer to their question on you facts if, and only if they will wager something first..

you made a statement of fact. you used that statement of fact to try and deflect from a website that you didn't like since it proved you wrong..you called that website "Hyper Partisan" because it's either that  or you're wrong..so how can it be anything else (http://www.c4rlh.com/emoticons/stupid.gif)... you are now asked to back up your statement of fact. Either TPM is a  501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity like ProCon.org is  or you owe me an apology.. there is no 'what will you give me if I tell you' here.. you made the statement, it's on you to back it up... not me or Howie to entice you into proving what you said..

Jesus Christ, grow the hell up already... if your wrong say so.. who gives a shit. You're not God, you do err.

I don't know how Pro-Con got dragged into this. Its nonprofit, nonpartisan and used by everyone.

You stated that your website proved me wrong. Thats incorrect.

By the way, don't you owe me an apology for that?

I used them.. and he called them a "hyper partisan website" ... when I explained what they were a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity  that's when he came back and said TPM was the same thing..

I used to use ProCon as a truly non-partisan source on the muche. Which they are. They look at both sides of an issue withouut judgement. Nowhere have I seen or heard of them being anything else but that. Neither are a "charity", so I don't understand
L that comparison. As I said before, TPM is a left leaning news site, not a 501c.  :-\

ProCon is a research tool, not a news (or opinion) site.

it's just their tax status..

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

Their tax status is based on them being "educational" in nature, not charitable or anything else. Funny how Mr. LITERAL doesn't see that.

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.

'charity' came from their website..

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
   
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175418,00.html

Okay I get what you're saying. That still does not negate the fact that they are not politically involved like lilMike accusrs them of. But he's accomplished his goal of diverting the topic away from the issue.

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
 

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances.  For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources  to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition.  As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

Ok, Kazzy's back..

Howie, you won't get your answer.. this is lilmike, he makes things up and when you ask him to prove his claims he ducks and weaves and then makes you offer him something in order for him to tell you where he got his information..which he never tells you anyway.

iow, he's a fraud..

Damn I'm dense sometimes. That proves TPM isn't a 501c and that lilMike is, indeed, a LIAR!

absolutely

Lying is a strong word..right now Mike only misspoke and can't take it back because in his world if you make an error once, everything you've ever said or will ever say is in error also.. the part he doesn't get is people will only question his past and future remarks when he fails to acknowledge a blatant and non-relevant mistake such as this... I mean, if he won't admit he's wrong here, when obviously he is because TPM doesn't fall anywhere with those IRS guidelines, then what has he knowingly been wrong on before and kept to himself, and what will he falsify in the future?

You are correct that TPM isn’t a 501c.  I was wrong on that and I admit it.

I must have been thinking of Media Matters.  They’ve been quite in the news this week as you probably know.

No, you said that Wyden-Bennett had an individual mandate, not a tax.  I proved you wrong; with links.

You are correct that TPM isn’t a 501c.  I was wrong on that and I admit it.  I must have been thinking of Media Matters.  They’ve been quite in the news this week as you probably know.

So I’m wrong on that and am willing to admit it.  However I’m not a liar since didn’t know that they were a LLC at the time I stated they were a 501c.  I can’t what possible purpose it would serve to lie about the tax status of TPM.  It wasn’t even a major part of what we were talking about.  We were talking about the individual mandate, an issue that’s fairly agnostic to TPM’s tax status.

Oh I admit I was wrong on TPM.  But I’m willing to admit it, and you still have not admitted that Wyden Bennett didn’t have an individual mandate, even those the CBO clearly stated it was a tax.
But anytime you don’t think I’m being factual, feel free to challenge me on it.  I’m not above being challenged, I’m not above being wrong, and I’m also not above admitting I’m wrong. 

However I’m very much alone in that last part.

Which is OK.

Really?  How are they organized then?

Yes but aren't you the one thinking it's a lie?

Until you prove it's a 501c it's just another lie...pretty much par for the course, though.  :-[

I was going to let this simmer for a while.

Another three days...still waiting!

Nope!

I was waiting for you to proffer a wager of some sort.

"Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI), which is: (1) a plan offered by a state; or (2) an employer-sponsored health coverage plan. 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."

"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."

says the man who made us practically beg to prove his statement..

I don't believe any one here, other than you, has a problem saying "Oops".. hell, you continue to throw my scating attack of Obama at me like I'm afraid of being wrong or something.. I'm not, I was wrong, I've said it for 2 years now but you keep bringing it up.. no one here is going to nag you for years on end when you make a mistake. You're not God, you're human,  you err. So instead of playing bullshit games..

just admit it..it really makes life so much easier.. and the one admitting the mistake a whole lot more credible..

and btw..14 days total it took you to finally admit it,14 days of asking...I bring it up only to ask you to please.. PLEASE don't sit there and pretend.."But anytime you don’t think I’m being factual, feel free to challenge me on it.  I’m not above being challenged, I’m not above being wrong, and I’m also not above admitting I’m wrong. "

because that's just been proven wrong..so when you say that and then say "However I’m very much alone in that last part. Which is OK."

you are not only misspeaking and being very insulting to the ones who  did nothing wrong,only asked you to prove your own statement, but you're also be total dick who can't handle it when he makes a mistake.. which again is completely counter to the 'I'm cool with being wrong' position you're trying to eek out for yourself.. that little quip you ended with, doesn't give off 'cool' it gives off 'bitter'..

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...

and btw.. if Wyden Bennet didn't have a mandate then what is this?

requires one to buy insurance, if you don't.. you get a penalty..

and  if that's not a 'mandate, it's a tax' then so is this..
requires one to buy insurance, if you don't.. you get a penalty..

if one is not a mandate, neither is the other.. if one is a tax, then so is the other... sorry, you can't have it both ways..

and really, I believe pro-con over you on this issue.. and they say both are mandates..  so I'm not too worried about you answering this.. you don't admit mistakes easily so I know you'll never admit this one..

That's not true.  As soon as I realized my mistake, I fessed up.

That's not true.  As soon as I realized my mistake, I fessed up.

I already showed you were the CBO said it was a tax.  The premium comes out of taxes, just like FICA.

Interestingly, you've argued both ways on the Obamacare mandate.  That it was a mandate covered by commerce clause and it was a tax.

WHAT THE FUCK?

DID I JUST READ THAT RIGHT?????////