Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

Hybrid View

  1. #1 Modern Republicanism' Is Protecting Obamacare 
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809


    A defunding debate scorecard: How 'Modern Republicanism' is protecting Obamacare

    Sen. Ted Cruz stood for hours on end Tuesday and into Wednesday this week making the case for defunding Obamacare.

    It's a compelling case because Obamacare increasingly appears to be converting America into a nation of part-time workers, crushing the opportunity of businesses to expand and create new jobs, robbing millions of families and individuals of the doctors and health insurance President Obama promised they could keep, stifling medical innovation that could someday save countless lives, compromising the financial and medical privacy that was before sacrosanct, and in countless other ways subverting a private sector-based health care system that draws the lame, the ill and the injured from around the world.

    And it is doing all of that even before its first full official day in effect.

    Cruz has turned himself into a hero to many outside of Washington, and a thorn to many more inside the Beltway. >>>

    Here's how it will play out: McConnell and Cornyn will support – or at least not vigorously oppose - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s forthcoming motion to cut off debate and silence Cruz.

    Then, when the defunding issue is put to a vote (requiring only a simple majority to pass), they will “support” defunding, which will almost certainly be defeated on a straight-party line, 54-46.

    Here’s the key: The motion to end debate will require 60 votes, which a unified Senate GOP can defeat. Doing so would preserve the House continuing resolution that defunds Obamacare and vindicate Cruz, at least temporarily, by preventing the second simple majority vote that Democrats will surely win.

    By voting first to silence Cruz and then casting a doomed vote to defund Obamacare, McConnell, Cornyn and other Senate GOPers who follow their lead will appear to be opposing Obamacare, but in reality will effectively be protecting President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

    Somewhere, Roosevelt and Larson will be beaming, >>>

    That expectation is why a growing number of GOP incumbents, including McConnell, are being "primaried" by Tea Party rivals. In other words, adherence to Modern Republicanism long ago almost certainly made a split in the GOP all but inevitable and made it seem all-but-impossible to restore limited government.

    More@WashingtonExaminer



    Those who only fight when victory is assured cannot be called warriors.
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Good post. The GOP has alot to answer for, for where we are now.

    I don't agree with the conclusion of this cartoon, that it's "conservatives" pushing for it today, but it's spot on for it's history. It was the Heritage foundation that pushed the study to compete with Hillary care. And guys like Romney helped write it into early blueprint laws.





    I'm glad Cruz is bringing this to light.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Good post. The GOP has alot to answer for, for where we are now.

    I don't agree with the conclusion of this cartoon, that it's "conservatives" pushing for it today, but it's spot on for it's history. It was the Heritage foundation that pushed the study to compete with Hillary care. And guys like Romney helped write it into early blueprint laws.





    I'm glad Cruz is bringing this to light.
    You really should know better than to accept DUmmie talking points. First, Heritage did not propose Obamacare.

    Column: Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

    By Stuart Butler

    Updated 2/6/2012 10:40 AM
    Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

    The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage's health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

    Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

    The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

    My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."


    My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

    But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

    Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

    And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.


    So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?

    First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.

    Also, advances in "risk adjustment" tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees' coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That's why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.

    Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.

    Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.

    And there's another thing. Changing one's mind about the best policy to pursue — but not one's principles — is part of being a researcher at a major think tank such as Heritage or the Brookings Institution. Serious professional analysts actually take part in a continuous bipartisan and collegial discussion about major policy questions. We read each other's research. We look at the facts. We talk through ideas with those who agree or disagree with us. And we change our policy views over time based on new facts, new research or good counterarguments.

    Thanks to this good process, I've altered my views on many things. The individual mandate in health care is one of them.


    Stuart Butler, Ph.D., is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), where he is the director of the Center for Policy Innovation.

    This became the Republican alternative to Hillarycare, which is why the cartoon claims that Gingrich had a hand in it. But the whole point of this was to provide a market-drive approach to health insurance that mimicked auto insurance, with the requirement for a catastrophic coverage plan with high deductibles and low premiums as the recommended coverage. It was not Obamacare, which imposes massive mandates on insurers to cover all manner of things. This, BTW, is the major difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. Debra Saunders addressed this during the campaign:


    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunde...re-3917862.php
    There are a lot of differences between Obamacare and Romneycare, even though President Obama said that the two plans were based on an "identical model" during the first presidential debate in Denver Wednesday night.

    "We've seen this model work very well," said Obama, "in Massachusetts."

    Wrong, countered his GOP opponent Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, he passed a health care plan "on a bipartisan basis."

    President Obama, Romney said, instead of bringing America together, rammed through a bill that garnered no support across the aisle. "Something this big, this important," Romney concluded, "has to be done on a bipartisan basis."

    Note this: Romney had to work with Democrats. They comprised 87 percent of the Massachusetts Legislature. In Obama's first two years in the White House, Democrats controlled the House and enjoyed a large majority in the Senate. Obama was able to pass his health care bill without courting GOP votes. Still, it was a poor choice with consequences.

    Obama sulked that his plan was based on a Republican idea, which begs the question: Why did he fail to win a single Republican vote?

    If he cannot sell Republicans on what he says is a Republican idea, then what good is he?


    Despite what the president said, Romneycare and Obamacare are very different. Romney worked to promote flexibility; Obama and the Democrats imposed uniformity.

    While Romney worked to limit mandates in Massachusetts health care, Obama and a Democratic Congress president threw into the Affordable Care Act a host of goodies - such as an end to co-payments for "preventive care." Employers now will have to pay for services for which workers used to chip in.

    This administration has refined passing the hat. With Congress, the president enacted mandates - "free" birth control, adult children can stay on their parents' insurance plans up to age 26 - for which Washington pols do not have to pay. The private sector pays.

    They don't even have to pretend that Congress will have to pay in the future.

    "If you've got health insurance," Obama said of his plan, "it doesn't mean a government takeover."

    It's a government takeover without government responsibility for the bill.

    Early in the debate, Romney quipped that Obama seems to have levied an "economy tax." Well put. What employer wants to hire new workers when that employer knows Washington pols are confident they can add new mandates to the package at no cost to themselves?

    Even before Obamacare goes into full effect, it's clear that this model cannot, as the president promised, "get the cost down so it's more affordable." That's not possible - do the math.

    And, let's remember that the Romneycare law is only a few pages long, while Obamacare was over 2,000 pages long. How can the substance of the two laws be the same with that much disparity in content?

    This talking point about Obamacare coming from Republicans is a way for Democrats to distance themselves from a fiasco that they conceived and executed, and which is rapidly becoming a train wreck of epic proportions. They don't want this around their necks going into the midterm elections, so they are doing what they do best, which is lying about it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Good post. The GOP has alot to answer for, for where we are now.

    I don't agree with the conclusion of this cartoon, that it's "conservatives" pushing for it today, but it's spot on for it's history. It was the Heritage foundation that pushed the study to compete with Hillary care. And guys like Romney helped write it into early blueprint laws.





    I'm glad Cruz is bringing this to light.
    Hey genius, if this was such a conservative ideal how do you explain not one Republican voting for it?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Hey genius, if this was such a conservative ideal how do you explain not one Republican voting for it?
    Because it's now not politically expedient?

    Or the better answer.

    The mistake of confusing "Republican" with "Conservative".

    There aren't many real "conservatives" in Congress.

    But just ignore the facts because you all must be right. Nevermind that Newt and Romney beat each other up on who was to blame. Go to 27:50

    Last edited by Molon Labe; 09-26-2013 at 07:40 AM.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Because it's now not politically expedient?

    Or the better answer.

    The mistake of confusing "Republican" with "Conservative".

    There aren't many real "conservatives" in Congress.

    But just ignore the facts because you all must be right. Nevermind that Newt and Romney beat each other up on who was to blame. Go to 27:50

    Speaking of ignoring facts, I provided major differences between what Romney proposed (and what Democrats eventually accepted in Massachusetts) and Obamacare, and also showed that what the Heritage Foundation proposed had little resemblance to the Atrocious Care Act. Why don't you address those instead of repeating DU talking points?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Speaking of ignoring facts, I provided major differences between what Romney proposed (and what Democrats eventually accepted in Massachusetts) and Obamacare, and also showed that what the Heritage Foundation proposed had little resemblance to the Atrocious Care Act. Why don't you address those instead of repeating DU talking points?

    The bottom line is that the study concluded you would still have to purchase insurance. If you force someone to purchase health insurance then you are indeed pushing government control over the individual.

    Yes we all know that bad ideas have historical roots. The fact is what Heritage proposed wasn't "conservative" either. And what Newt was pushing against Hillary care wasn't either.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Because it's now not politically expedient?

    Or the better answer.

    The mistake of confusing "Republican" with "Conservative".

    There aren't many real "conservatives" in Congress.

    But just ignore the facts because you all must be right. Nevermind that Newt and Romney beat each other up on who was to blame. Go to 27:50
    You keep saying this nonsense and yet you supported Obama. You threw your support at Obama. And because of people like you, Obama got 4 more years. Why you are so thick headed as not to see this boggles the mind.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    You keep saying this nonsense and yet you supported Obama. You threw your support at Obama. And because of people like you, Obama got 4 more years. Why you are so thick headed as not to see this boggles the mind.
    Are you derailing this thread again?
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Good post. The GOP has alot to answer for, for where we are now.

    I don't agree with the conclusion of this cartoon, that it's "conservatives" pushing for it today, but it's spot on for it's history. It was the Heritage foundation that pushed the study to compete with Hillary care. And guys like Romney helped write it into early blueprint laws.





    I'm glad Cruz is bringing this to light.
    You do know dummy that Romney isn't a conservative? That his version of his healthcare plan was changed by dems overriding his veto?
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •