GOP the source of Health Care Mandate

[noah way]

Many in GOP who oppose health insurance requirement used to favor it

"Until the healthcare law passed last year, requiring medical insurance had a long history as a mainstream GOP idea.

It was promoted by conservative policy experts at places like the Heritage Foundation more than 20 years ago. In the 1990s, the concept was championed by Republicans on Capitol Hill.
...
In 1993, however, more than a third of the Senate GOP caucus, including Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas, signed on to a proposal by Sen. John Chafee (D-R.I.)* to expand health coverage using an insurance requirement. Other cosponsors of the Chafee bill included Sens. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, all of whom are still in the Senate.
...
In 2007, Republicans once again began pushing a mandate at the federal level. Ten Republican senators

 

[Crude]

They used to favor it because they saw they would be voted out. That and a lot of republicans are what we refer to as rinos or republicans in name only.

What was your purpose in posting that?

 

[noah way]

According to you Hatch, Grassley, Dole, Stevens, Lugar, Romney AND The Heritage Foundation are all RINOs (Republican in name only)?

LOL - now that's funny!

Conservative ratings:

Hatch - 100%
Faircloth - 100%
Grassley - 96%
Bennett - 86%
Dole - 81%
Lugar - 77%
Stevens - 64%
Romney - 46% (he hasn't got a chance ...)

For comparison purposes:

Obama - 17%
Biden - 13%
Kucinich - 9%.

"Among the cosponsors were conservative stalwarts Robert Bennett of Utah, Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina and Ted Stevens of Alaska.

Other cosponsors of the Chafee bill included Sens. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, all of whom are still in the Senate.

...

But Republicans did not abandon the insurance mandate. A decade later, Romney made it a cornerstone of his plan to guarantee all Massachusetts residents health coverage, and was joined at the bill signing by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Moffit.

In 2007, Republicans once again began pushing a mandate at the federal level."

 

[Crude]

What was your purpose in posting that?

You missed this part.

 

[noah way]

You missed this part.

Is that all you've got?

 

[Crude]

You should have answered that, you would have had my attention a lot longer.

 

[Mac_Leod]

Is that all you've got?

It is a good question. Makes me think you simply posted this as flamebate.

 

[noah way]

It is a good question. Makes me think you simply posted this as flamebate.

My "purpose" is suspect?

When you can't address the issue, attack the messenger.

<yawn>

 

[Crude]

It is a good question. Makes me think you simply posted this as flamebate.

IF it looks like a duck and all...

 

[noah way]

IF it looks like a duck and all...

Come on Crude, you can do better than that. How about a robust discussion of your conservative ideology?

I particularly liked

They used to favor it because they saw they would be voted out.

Instead you grasp for the last resort of the truly desperate:

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

 

[copestag]

politicians change positions......... its what politicians do......... the better questions are:

do idiots really believe whole heartedly in what the politicians are saying day to day or decade to decade

and

just because the mandate has gone full circle in what govt mouthpiece supports it........ are there really IDIOTS who believe in it?

sounds a lot to me like looking for a way to justify

Edit: of course there are those who support the mandate... the same people who support raising taxes.......... those who have never paid a dime to either and want to make sure they never do

 

[Crude]

politicians change positions......... Its what politicians do......... The better questions are:

Do idiots really believe whole heartedly in what the politicians are saying day to day or decade to decade

and

just because the mandate has gone full circle in what govt mouthpiece supports it........ Are there really idiots who believe in it?

Sounds a lot to me like looking for a way to justify

edit: Of course there are those who support the mandate... The same people who support raising taxes.......... Those who have never paid a dime to either and want to make sure they never do

qft

 

[noah way]

politicians change positions......... its what politicians do.........

What politicians do is serve themselves and of course their donors, who in turn become their beneficiaries. One "side" is no better than the other, and in fact they are all beholden to the very same powerful interests.

the better questions are:

do idiots really believe whole heartedly in what the politicians are saying day to day or decade to decade

and

just because the mandate has gone full circle in what govt mouthpiece supports it........ are there really IDIOTS who believe in it?

Are you saying that Crude is an idiot for believing the GOP?

Some people clearly think that one brand of politician is more believable / honest / principled than another. The rabid defense of the GOP and the blaming of *everything* on Democrats (and vice versa) on various threads here is a good example of this.

I think the better question is why would anyone believe anything that the media / the government / the corporations tells us? The media is owned by the corporations, as is the government.

sounds a lot to me like looking for a way to justify

Edit: of course there are those who support the mandate... the same people who support raising taxes.......... those who have never paid a dime to either and want to make sure they never do

This is not logical ... the real mandate - the intention of the conservatives and corporate lobbyists who wrote it - is to LOWER TAXES (and further enrich corporations that donate heavily to politicians) by eliminating public (taxpayer funded) health insurance.

I would expect you and Crude to being doing back-flips over this - it's almost exactly what you want. If you already have insurance, and the government is going to make people that don't buy it for themselves, which will lower your taxes, what's the problem?

 

[mike114]

Noah, maybe you can explain why so many democrats who used to be against the Patriot Act n ow voted to extend it?? I see a pattern developing.

And maybe you weren't paying attention last year, but the good Senator from Utah, Robert Bennett who you promote as this recognized conservative was ousted by....wait for it....REPUBLICAN VOTERS!!! Maybe they are understanding that we are tired of unConstitutional rule and are demanding changes.

Nice try though.

 

[noah way]

Noah, maybe you can explain why so many democrats who used to be against the Patriot Act n ow voted to extend it?? I see a pattern developing.

And maybe you weren't paying attention last year, but the good Senator from Utah, Robert Bennett who you promote as this recognized conservative was ousted by....wait for it....REPUBLICAN VOTERS!!! Maybe they are understanding that we are tired of unConstitutional rule and are demanding changes.

Nice try though.

Are you actually depending on politicians to do the right thing, or are you under the illusion that I think Democrats are any better than Republicans? They all work for the same people, and it's not you and me.

As for another ass-clown getting voted out: the Republicans took the last election as a mandate when really it was just a house cleaning. They ALL suck.

 

[mike114]

Are you actually depending on politicians to do the right thing, or are you under the illusion that I think Democrats are any better than Republicans? They all work for the same people, and it's not you and me.

As for another ass-clown getting voted out: the Republicans took the last election as a mandate when really it was just a house cleaning. They ALL suck.

No I don't depend on most of these clowns to do the right thing at all. And why would I be under any illusion that you think dems are any better?? Could it be because you decided to single out the GOP in an instance of possible hypocrisy without demonstrating or stating that no party is virtuous?

Actually, it was a mandate. No more borrowing, cut all spending and get back to Constitutional principles. Whether they decide to listen is another question. I have no doubt that they will once again decide to ignore their constituents.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Do you really think the founding fathers had a telescope to the future when they wrote the constitution?
It is just the basic law of a country, and you can not implement a law that contradicts it.
Would you like to see a country with feck all governance?
Not a pretty picture mate
Would you like to see a country without universal healthcare?
Again, not a nice thing
Would you like to see a country without universal education?
Well, its not like you'd want to go there .lol


My point is, there are things the government can do better than the private sector, and vice versa
If you ever want your country to get out of the shithole it is in you need to get over that and start living in the real world.
And for fecks sake, there is note a word in the constitution about healthcare.

 

[noah way]

And for fecks sake, there is note a word in the constitution about healthcare.

Actually ...

Preamble to the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

wel

 

[ElasticNinja]

You see, welfare

I doubt the much loved founding fathers would be so pro free market as the GOP would like to believe

 

[mike114]

Do you really think the founding fathers had a telescope to the future when they wrote the constitution?

No, that is why there is an amendment process. If something needs to be changed, there is a built in mechanism to change it.

Would you like to see a country without universal healthcare?
Again, not a nice thing

Yes I would. It's not up to OUR federal gov't to provide such a service. If the states want some type of universal healthcare, they can have at it.

Would you like to see a country without universal education?
Well, its not like you'd want to go there .lol

I have no problem going there. Do you have any clue what "universal" public education has done to our children, especially black children, in this country? Public schools are run by idiot politicians and union hacks.

My point is, there are things the government can do better than the private sector, and vice versa

You are wrong. Period.

If you ever want your country to get out of the shithole it is in you need to get over that and start living in the real world.
And for fecks sake, there is note a word in the constitution about healthcare.

Please explain to me how the United States in such a short period of time became the richest, most powerful country in the history of mankind? Was it because government was involved in everyone's lives, or was it because government played a very limited role up until 1900's? And it seems to me we are in the real world. The reality that we are going broke, just like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. How's that reality for you??

And hence why any healthcare laws passed by our government should be struck down immediately.

 

[mike114]

Actually ...

Preamble to the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

wel

 

[noah way]

Please explain to me how the United States in such a short period of time became the richest, most powerful country in the history of mankind? Was it because government was involved in everyone's lives, or was it because government played a very limited role up until 1900's? And it seems to me we are in the real world. The reality that we are going broke, just like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. How's that reality for you??

And hence why any healthcare laws passed by our government should be struck down immediately.

Seems to me you've got this backwards. The best days of the US are behind us because of the repeal and non-enforcement of government regulations and citizen protections. This has destroyed this country by concentrating extreme wealth (and the power associated with it) among a small group who's only purpose is to further increase their own wealth.

As but one example, the Gramm

 

[noah way]

Wow, you're still going with that argument, huh? You somehow believe that the Founders who wanted a very LIMITED central government would somehow just put a clause like that in the Constitution without defining it so that there would be NO limits on gov't?

Welfare, defined as health and well-being, is specifically cited as a reason for the creation of the constitution and as a specified responsibility of government.

Your comment about redistribution and limits on government is an attempt at misdirection from - and is irrelevant to - this point.

 

[mike114]

Welfare, defined as health and well-being, is specifically cited as a reason for the creation of the constitution and as a specified responsibility of government.

Your comment about redistribution and limits on government is an attempt at misdirection from - and is irrelevant to - this point.

Where is this mystical definition cited? Please provide said citation backing your claim that welfare as we know it today is what the Founders were referring to in the Constitution.

 

[noah way]

Where is this mystical definition cited? Please provide said citation backing your claim that welfare as we know it today is what the Founders were referring to in the Constitution.

In the Preamble, cited in a post above, and in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the very first Article you cited):

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Why do you keep trying to misdirect?. I didn't "claim that welfare as we know it today is what the Founders were referring to in the Constitution".

You said "get back to Constitutional principles". I simply pointed out what some of them are.

wel