1. Are you ready for the Galaxy S20? Here is everything we know so far!

GOP the source of Health Care Mandate

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by noah way, May 29, 2011.

  1. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    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

  2. Crude

    Crude Android Expert

    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?
  3. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    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."
  4. Crude

    Crude Android Expert

    You missed this part. :rolleyes:
  5. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    Is that all you've got?

  6. Crude

    Crude Android Expert

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

    Mac_Leod Well-Known Member

    It is a good question. Makes me think you simply posted this as flamebate.
    Crude likes this.
  8. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    My "purpose" is suspect?

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

  9. Crude

    Crude Android Expert

    IF it looks like a duck and all...
  10. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

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

    I particularly liked
    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.
  11. copestag

    copestag Android Expert

    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


    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
  12. Crude

    Crude Android Expert

  13. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    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.

    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.

    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?
  14. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    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.
  16. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert

    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.
  18. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    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.

  19. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert

    You see, welfare :D

    I doubt the much loved founding fathers would be so pro free market as the GOP would like to believe
  20. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

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

    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.

    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.

    You are wrong. Period.

    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.
  21. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

  22. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    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
  23. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

    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.
  24. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    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.
  25. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter

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

    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.


Share This Page