09-26-2013, 02:44 PM
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.So, not only did Heritage not invent the individual mandate, but what they proposed as least likely to disrupt the economy was an idea that used Medical Savings Accounts and tax incentives to encourage purchases of insurance, rather than a mandate. The only "mandate" was the threat of loss of tax breaks which were meant to encourage insurance purchases. Again, from the article:
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."
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.
The claim that Obamacare came from Republicans is a libel, used by Democrats to divert the blame for the most unpopular federal program since Prohibition. It's a specious, dishonest talking point, and we should not be repeating it as fact.
09-26-2013, 02:45 PM
09-26-2013, 05:21 PM
09-26-2013, 09:21 PM
Be advised: If the GOP goes back to the way it was circa 1980..... then the Liberals will be getting all our McCain, Graham, Bill Kristol runaways. You probably don't want that, but there will be no other place for them to go unless that is so. I'm guardedly optimistic given the tone of the new evolving leadership in the GOP.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
09-27-2013, 07:07 AM
The Boehner and McConnell types hated Reagan the same way they hate Cruz and Lee and McCaul and some others.
As for the Dems in the 80's...they were working just as they are now to undermine the Constitution and change us into a Socialist utopia. They blocked Reagan and H.W. Bush at every turn.
What is different now from 30 years ago is that they aren't afraid to hide what they are trying to do and put it right out there for everyone to see.In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid
To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
09-27-2013, 10:36 AM
I believe that Obama is going to have the same effect on some Democrats as Jimmy Carter had back then (not as many, of course, since the party has purged most of the people that would have rejected the current leftward tilt over the years), but some. In particular, there are a lot of dissatisfied union members who see their leadership getting rich while their jobs disappear or they lose benefits. Unions are terrified of rules that require recertification, because given a choice, most union members will opt out (look at Wisconsin for an example). Another group that we can pick off are women, specifically those who recognize that they are not men, and do not want to be men. Women with children don't want to send them to failing schools and they don't want their daughters to grow up with the same predatory liberal men that they had to fight off when they were young. We blew it big time with Bill Clinton, by not pursuing Juanita Broaddrick's rape allegations. We let the Democrats slander and dismiss her, when their own rhetoric demanded that she be believed, or at least get a fair hearing. We have to overcome the Democratic propaganda that claims that we don't value them as anything but wombs, when in fact it's the Democrats who don't value them as anything but votes and sex toys (There is a reason that the media ignored Kermit Gosnell's abattoir, but there are many more of them out there, and they must be exposed and drummed into the public mind). College students have been betrayed by an education establishment that sold them degrees in worthless fields. We need to engage them and let them know that the leftist professors have lied to them and that they have a future, but that they will have to earn it. We have a harder sell, because maturity and responsibility is harder to sell than fun and games, but it's necessary if we want to educate voters and build, not just a political party, but a nation capable of governing itself.
We won't get all of the people that I've described, but we already get 40% of union households voting Republican, and another 10% would tip the scales in many states. Republicans generally get more married women's votes than Democrats, but there are a lot more single women out there and they vote overwhelmingly Democratic because, in their heart of hearts, they want to be taken care of, if not by a man, then by the man. We have to show them that the feminist ideal of a single, childless woman looking back on a career with nothing to show for it beyond the material benefits is a sterile, ugly life. We have to reeducate men to understand that we have duties that go beyond hooking up. In short, we have to educate voters, because high information voters are our best weapon. We need to tell voters the truth, and that means countering the Democratic/Media/Government complex, which pervasively trashes conservatives and conservative values. We need to fight the common adversary, and not engage in friendly fire when we don't have to. Remember that every one of the Republicans in the house and senate who was there in 2009 voted against Obamacare. What they disagree on now is not principle, but tactics. To get them on board, we have to convince them that we have a strategic and tactical plan that will overcome the Democrats' advantages in media and discipline. Cruz's filibuster is a superb first step in making the case against Obamacare (his dissection of Dick Durban was particularly effective), but now we have to build on that. Here's how:
Strategically, we need to have Republican majorities on both houses of congress and we need a president who will sign off on repeal. Tactically, we need to build the coalition that will demand that repeal. The way to do that is not necessarily by defunding Obamacare, but by forcing it on those who demanded it in the first place. Rand Paul has the right idea in forcing the revocation of the illegal waivers that Obama has issued, and the repeal of the congressional subsidy, both of which are highly unpopular among all voters. This is a case of using the Democrats' core strength, their blatant power lust, against them, as we can highlight their hypocrisy. Even the NY Times and MSDNC would have a hard time explaining why Obamacare is good enough for their audience, but not good enough for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the various unions that clamored for it.
09-27-2013, 11:01 AMThe difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
09-27-2013, 11:10 AM
Our children will all be like Arroyo Dolbo.The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
09-27-2013, 11:39 AM
I don't think we are in Whig territory for the party but I would not be surprised if this reaches the Dixiecrat stage for the Republicans.
09-27-2013, 12:25 PMGun 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
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|