1. Download our Official Android App: Forums for Android!

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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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
     

    Advertisement

  2. Crude

    Crude Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,152
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009

    Nov 26, 2009
    1,152
    129
    143
    Nexusville
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,152
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009

    Nov 26, 2009
    1,152
    129
    143
    Nexusville
    You missed this part. :rolleyes:
     
  5. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    Is that all you've got?

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Crude

    Crude Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,152
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009

    Nov 26, 2009
    1,152
    129
    143
    Nexusville
    You should have answered that, you would have had my attention a lot longer.
     
  7. Mac_Leod

    Mac_Leod Well-Known Member
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    38
    Posts:
    106
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010

    Sep 18, 2010
    106
    18
    38
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    My "purpose" is suspect?

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

    <yawn>
     
  9. Crude

    Crude Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,152
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009

    Nov 26, 2009
    1,152
    129
    143
    Nexusville
    IF it looks like a duck and all...
     
  10. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,355
    Joined:
    May 23, 2010

    May 23, 2010
    1,355
    247
    143
    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
     
  12. Crude

    Crude Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,152
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009

    Nov 26, 2009
    1,152
    129
    143
    Nexusville
    qft
     
  13. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    43
    Posts:
    200
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010

    Sep 7, 2010
    200
    27
    43
    Ft Worth, TX
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    43
    Posts:
    200
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010

    Sep 7, 2010
    200
    27
    43
    Ft Worth, TX
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    183
    Posts:
    4,488
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010

    Aug 29, 2010
    4,488
    472
    183
    Student
    Cork City, IMF, EU
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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
     
  19. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    183
    Posts:
    4,488
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010

    Aug 29, 2010
    4,488
    472
    183
    Student
    Cork City, IMF, EU
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    43
    Posts:
    200
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010

    Sep 7, 2010
    200
    27
    43
    Ft Worth, TX
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    43
    Posts:
    200
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010

    Sep 7, 2010
    200
    27
    43
    Ft Worth, TX
     
  22. noah way

    noah way Android Enthusiast
    Thread Starter
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    43
    Posts:
    200
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010

    Sep 7, 2010
    200
    27
    43
    Ft Worth, TX
    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
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    496
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010

    Apr 20, 2010
    496
    141
    68
    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.

    wel
     

Share This Page

Loading...