Obama-Care Is Originally A Neo-Con Republican Idea
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
The idea originated in a book written by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmair in 1989 titled A National Health System for America. The book had this disclaimer:
Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
The only only mandate requirement was for the head of the household to have catastrophic insurance, which is very cheap.
Robo
Verified User
1. www.heritage.org/about/staff/b/stuart-butler
Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D. is a Distinguished Fellow and Director, Center for Policy Innovation, at The Heritage Foundation
1. www.heritage.org/about/staff/h/edmund-haislmaier
Edmund F. Haislmaier is a Senior Research Fellow, Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation
Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
Hillarycare did not have a single payer provision. Hillary Clinton: This is not government-run health care. I don't create a single new bureaucracy.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I have read the ideas that were thrown out by the Heritage Foundation and there is little connection to what is Obamacare or Massachusettes care. That is a dimwitted talking point. In addition, Romney had little to do with the legislation in Massachusettes other than signing it into law. These are Democrat inventions.
But you are right about one thing; if it works, Democrats will take credit ( but it will not) and if it doesn't work, Democrats will blame Republicans.
Right wingers were never FOR a mandate dimwit. Do you ever utter anything but lies and parrot moronic Democrat talking points like a trained circus monkey?
You're very selective in your responses; did you read the end of the post? The ONLY mandate requirement was for the head of household to have catastrophic insurance; much like car insurance requirements.
Because your claim isn't true and lacking factual content. It is a dimwitted talking point.
Nothing contained in the Heritage Foundation article Resembles ACA. If there are any, please post them here with a link and let's have the debate. But spare us the "because you say so" argument. It just doesn't compel.
The Obamacare mandate did not originate with the author's book. Two different types of mandates, and two different purposes. They were closely connected to Heritage, they were closely connected to their city, they were closely connected to their state, and they were closely connected to their country. They were two individuals who wrote a book; they made the point of separating the book from Heritage, it is that simple.
Robo
Verified User
Then you might need to let the ”dimwits” at right-wing FOX News know they’re fucking dimwits, they’ve reported it several times.
Does the word ”Mandate” ring a bell with you? A mandate to buy something means that someone is being ”forced” to buy something in this case ”health Insurance.” Does the Heritage boys idea have ”exchanges” where those being forced to buy health insurance can buy health insurance? Are exchanges and an individual mandate the foundation of the Heritage boys, Romney-Care & Obama-Care plans?
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, huh?
Robo
Verified User
Where did it originate? Which came first the author’s book or Romney-Care or Obama-Care?
Did they manage to separate themselves from their neo-con ideology? They sure as hell haven’t managed to separate themselves from Obama-Care. The world seems to have awarded them with originating mandates” to buy healthcare insurance and setting up exchanges where those mandated to do so can buy healthcare insurance. Are you denying those to be the foundation of their plan, Romney-Care & Obama-Care?
Robo
Verified User
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/...isowns-its-baby-noted-for-august-22-2013.html
Tim Noah: The Heritage Foundation disowns its baby:
Obamacare is largely Heritage’s own invention…. Look out, donors: the policies you pay Heritage to develop today may be policies you pay Heritage to defeat tomorrow…. Dr. Frankenstein is Stuart Butler, then director of domestic policy research at Heritage and, since 2010, director of Heritage’s Center For Policy Innovation. (No, they didn’t fire him.)… Butler wrote a 1989 pamphlet titled A National Health System For America in collaboration with Edmund Haislmaier (then a health care policy analyst at Heritage and now a senior research fellow there—no, they didn’t fire him, either). The pamphlet is not currently available on Heritage’s Web site…. In the lecture, Butler repeatedly called his proposal “the Heritage plan”…. Under Butler’s (whoops, make that Heritage’s) scheme, everyone would have to purchase his or her own health insurance. Butler proposed a consumer-choice system in which the government “set broad rules of the ‘game,’” and the context strongly suggested that by “government” Butler meant “federal government.”… When Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was putting together a state-level health reform plan that was another model for Obamacare, Heritage “helped us construct an exchange,” according to Romney’s 2010 book, No Apology…. Heritage denies that it ever favored a health plan that remotely resembled Obamacare. Conceding this point too conspicuously would compromise its splashy campaign to defeat Obamacare by any means necessary. How can Obamacare be the work of the devil if much of that work was done at Heritage? A subject, perhaps, for future scholarly inquiry.
Tim Noah: The Heritage Foundation disowns its baby:
Obamacare is largely Heritage’s own invention…. Look out, donors: the policies you pay Heritage to develop today may be policies you pay Heritage to defeat tomorrow…. Dr. Frankenstein is Stuart Butler, then director of domestic policy research at Heritage and, since 2010, director of Heritage’s Center For Policy Innovation. (No, they didn’t fire him.)… Butler wrote a 1989 pamphlet titled A National Health System For America in collaboration with Edmund Haislmaier (then a health care policy analyst at Heritage and now a senior research fellow there—no, they didn’t fire him, either). The pamphlet is not currently available on Heritage’s Web site…. In the lecture, Butler repeatedly called his proposal “the Heritage plan”…. Under Butler’s (whoops, make that Heritage’s) scheme, everyone would have to purchase his or her own health insurance. Butler proposed a consumer-choice system in which the government “set broad rules of the ‘game,’” and the context strongly suggested that by “government” Butler meant “federal government.”… When Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was putting together a state-level health reform plan that was another model for Obamacare, Heritage “helped us construct an exchange,” according to Romney’s 2010 book, No Apology…. Heritage denies that it ever favored a health plan that remotely resembled Obamacare. Conceding this point too conspicuously would compromise its splashy campaign to defeat Obamacare by any means necessary. How can Obamacare be the work of the devil if much of that work was done at Heritage? A subject, perhaps, for future scholarly inquiry.
Dude, you are flat out wrong and merely parroting leftist talking points.
Here are the facts from the Heritage Foundation website:
Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate
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 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.
..........
Stuart Butler, Ph.D., is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/02/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate
Another article:
Regarding the Heritage Foundation as the originator of the Individual mandate, the comment is not classifiable as a 'Holderian lie', instead it is more of a 'Pappian' agenda-advancing deception.
In the parlance of today's ObamaCare discussions the "Mandate" refers to a legal obligation dictated by the federal government for all residents to purchase comprehensive health insurance covering routine, preventative, emergency, and mental health care and more.
The 'mandates' laid out by the Heritage Foundation were of an entirely different nature, as they focused on two areas: 1) Employer Mandate, requiring all large companies to provide healthcare coverage and 2) A Catastrophic Insurance Mandate, intended to protect the public from absorbing the costs for uncovered emergency care.
Routine health care was always regarded as an individual obligation.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/heritage_vs_obamacare.html#ixzz2jJpZkKS2
READ; become informed and do not parrot leftist talking points. They make you look dumb.
Quite the credible source; a leftist Jew who lived in Beverly Hills and works for MSNBC.
Irony abounds. You rant about neocon Republicans and Liberals then source your false hysterical claims on a leftist journalist.