Fucking nazi commuter
Obama-Care Is Originally A Neo-Con Republican Idea
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Robo
Verified User
What does his ”Jewishness” have to do with the issue at hand?
If you’re implying that MSNBC reports nothing but lies, can you prove it and what about Neil Cavuto and Lou Dobbs both of Fox News having repeated the charge that the fundamental idea of Obama-Care originated with Heritage? Are you calling Cavuto and Dobbs “leftist?”
Actually my claims are sourced on several sources including what has become general knowledge it seems to everybody except fucking neo-cons in terrified denial.
If you care to know, I find little to no difference between fucking neo-cons and neo-liberal sons-of-bitches. They’re all BIG government Constitution violating bastards in my opinion.
Disprove The following quote from the Jew’s piece.
“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…”
Only inasmuch as he identifies as a Democrat as do most Jewish voters.
No, I am saying they are as uninformed as you appear to be on the topic.
Yes, they are sources that merely parrot those inane talking points but never revert back to the original source which I have.
I know you don’t; and sometimes I am in 100% agreement with you. But on this issue, you are dead wrong.
My response:
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/01/mitts-fit
Remember, Romney was Governor and could not write the legislation and had to deal with Democrat control in Massachusetts state house. Heritage, like others were asked for ideas and opinions; they certainly had NOTHING to do with writing this law. That claim is an outright lie.
2 – What Changes Would Romney Make to RomneyCare?
Governor Romney is often asked what he would change about RomneyCare, or what he would have done differently. Romney’s first response is “I would re-institute my vetoes.” Many voters don’t realize that Romney vetoed significant portions of the bill in an attempt to control costs and unnecessary regulation. Unfortunately, all of Romney’s vetoes were later overridden by the Massachusetts legislature which was 87% Democrats at the time. Here is a list of provisions that Romney vetoed, or things he would otherwise change:
1 – The item Romney most vigorously opposed was the “Employer Mandate” which required that all businesses with 11 or more employees provide health insurance to those employees. In his view, an employer mandate was an unnecessary burden on businesses in the state. Romney believed that the employer mandate would harm low-profit-margin businesses (such as new or struggling businesses) and that it could reduce wages, or distort employment patterns.
2 – Minimum Coverage Options - Romney wanted a “higher deductible” option of health insurance that would pass the state’s “minimum-coverage” guidelines. Romney wanted to give the citizens of MA the option to buy a bare-bones policy that covered only hospitalization and catastrophic illness. That idea was rejected by the legislature. Instead the legislature mandated benefit-rich insurance plans (also called “gold-plated” insurance plans). “We wanted no mandated benefits,” Romney said in a recent interview. Imagine the additional cost imposed on the state and the individual by mandating these benefit-rich insurance plans.
3 – Romney also objected to the state’s “minimum-coverage guidelines” not only because it required expensive features that only a few people would use but also because some people would morally object to certain provisions such as “unlimited in-vitro fertilization” and abortion. Romney believed that consumers should be free to choose a healthcare plan with the benefits they wanted, not be dictated by the government what features their healthcare plan must contain. (source – No Apology, paperback edition, pg. 194)
4 – Romney vetoed coverage of dental care, and optical care for Medicaid participants. Romney noticed that 60% of employers who offered health insurance didn’t offer dental/optical benefits. Providing dental/optical benefits seemed unfairly generous and extremely costly. Romney estimated that the dental/optical insurance costs for Medicaid patients would add an additional $75 million per year, an exceedingly large amount.
5 – Opt out option - Romney wanted to have a way for people to be able to “opt out” of the insurance mandate if an individual could show that they had sufficient money to pay for catastrophic care. One could opt out of the mandate by posting a bond – essentially a promise to pay for future uninsured health care costs. The principle of being able to opt out of the mandate mattered to Romney. Despite arguing in favor of an opt out option, the Democratic legislature rejected the idea.
6 – Romney wanted to control costs by having everyone, even the poorest of citizens, pay some portion of their premiums for their health insurance. But the current law gives it to the poor absolutely free. Romney also argues that giving healthcare absolutely free to poor citizens creates a strong incentive for people – particularly the unhealthy – to move into the state. Imagine the increased costs “free” healthcare creates for the government. (Additional source – No Apology, paperback edition, pg. 194)
7 – Romney vetoed a medicaid expansion for children that was added to RomneyCare by the Democratic legislature. Romney vetoed the provision due to cost constraints but the veto was also overridden.
8 – Romney vetoed coverage for non-poor legal immigrants called “special status aliens.” This group of individuals were legal immigrants who had come to America with the sponsorship of an individual who agreed to be financially responsible for them. Romney thought the state should take into account the financial status of the sponsor before offering coverage. It is interesting to note that even though the MA legislature initially overturned Romney’s veto, the MA legislature later re-institituted this policy by giving reduced subsidies to legal immigrants as costs for the health care law increased.
9 – In order to increase choice and competition, Romney fought for a plan that would have allowed employees to use their employers funds to buy health insurance on the open market. According to this plan, an employee wouldn’t have been locked in to using their employers health plan. Employees could choose any plan from any insurance company that best fit their needs, and then use their employers funds to help pay for it.
10 – Romney would also have rather provided a tax break for those who have health insurance rather than a tax penalty for those without health insurance. Both would have provided the same mathematical incentive to become insured. (Source, No Apology, pg. 194)
11 – After RomneyCare was passed, Romney’s successor, Governor Patrick, set the state’s share of the premiums above a level Romney thought was affordable. Those who received subsidies on their health insurance, now could rely on the government to pay a bigger portion of their premiums. (source – No Apology, hardback edition, pg. 175)
12 – Gov. Patrick also added an expensive prescription drug benefit after Romney had left the governorship.
13 – Romney also supports the need for patients to provide documentation to insurance companies of prior coverage in order to be insured. There have been reports of people “gaming the system” and not signing up for health insurance until they are sick or the state tax filings are due. A simple way to avoid such a problem is by requiring patients to show evidence of prior coverage.
14 – Emergency Room Visits - In Massachusetts (as in other states), too many people continue to go to the Emergency Room for simple problems that could be easily treated by their family doctor. The problem with going to the ER is that it cost 3-5 times as much for the same care. Romney supports taking steps that encourage people to go to their family doctor first, such as raising the co-payment charge on ER visits in order to dissuade people from using the ER as a way to get primary care. (Source, No Apology 2nd edition,)
In summary, Romney fought for a health care system with less regulation, more competition, and less cost to the state, individuals and businesses. It is important to note that all of these modifications to RomneyCare made by his successor and the MA legislature have had a major impact on costs. Were Romney a part of the implementation of the bill, and were his vetoes not over-ridden, the law would be considerably different today, and the state would stand to save a lot of money.
http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/
I assume you should blame it in the French since the word "mandate" originated there in the 1500s. But them again all that seems to matter to you, regardless of the facts, is to associate it with anything with an "R" next to their name. You haven't read the book, but want to argue with whatever opinion you can find about the book if it suits your needs. Basically, you want to argue using a proxy.
Robo
Verified User
And most radical evangelicals identify as Republicans, so what? What’s relevant to this issue about any of that?
Well I don’t seem to be anymore “uninformed” than Neil Cavuto and Lou Dobbs and they supposedly do “information” for a living.
Who’s “talking points” are you parroting? Seems as though you like to parrot the Heritage neo-con talking points.
It’s not difficult at all for me to register Heritage as a gang of RINO neo-cons. They endlessly promote the BIG government Military Industrial Complex and their plan for healthcare amounts to a federal government mandate putting the federal government gun to the backs of supposed free Americans to buy a product that they may well not want, need or can afford. They’re no fucking different than the authoritarian Democrats.
Well let’s see. The healthcare plan that highly connected people at the Heritage Foundation concocted and Heritage “published,” had a "mandate”, i. e. (government gun at the back of the American people), for Americans to buy healthcare insurance as does Romney-Care & Obama-Care. It also has ”exchanges” set up by government where the American folks can buy the healthcare insurance they’re forced to buy just like the fundamental principles of Romney-Care & Obama-Care. The plan published by Heritage came before Romney-Care & Obama-Care and is considered by even some Republicans at Fox News to have been the blueprint for Romney-Care & Obama-Care. However some on the right feverishly attempt to separate Heritage from Romney-Care & Obama-Care and claim I’m “dead wrong” to even suggest that the plan hatched at Heritage was/is the blueprint for Romney-Care & Obama-Care even though all evidence and rationality is on my side of the issue. Then they wonder how they get identified as RINO’s and Neo-Cons. They complain and cry about lies and cover-up’s being the stuff Democrats are made of, but then they prove that they themselves aren’t just liars and cover-up purveyors but also card carrying members of the Corrupt Duopoly.
Oh yeah! To boot there’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to establish a national Healthcare insurance plan/program proving yet again that Heritage is just another BIG fucking government authoritarian gang of Constitution Ignoring son-of-bitches and bastards.
Robo
Verified User
On the contrary! That would be more like a corrupt deceitful tactic you would use to distance, (as far as you can), Heritage-Care from Obama-Care.
That would be “R”INO or Neo-Con next to their name. FACT is the healthcare insurance plan hatched by the highly connected at Heritage and published by Heritage has a government mandate and government exchanges exactly like Obama-Care and is considered by virtually everyone except RINO Neo-Cons in denial to have been the blueprint for Romney-Care & Obama-Care. Now friend those are the actual facts.
I don’t need to read any stinking book to be aware of the fact that the healthcare insurance plan hatched by the highly connected at Heritage and published by Heritage has a government mandate and government exchanges exactly like Obama-Care and is considered by virtually everyone except RINO Neo-Cons in denial to have been the blueprint for Romney-Care & Obama-Care. That’s been reported by right and left media and now considered by all truthful, rational folks to be truthful information.
BTW, I don’t read right-wing or left-wing propaganda. The national airwaves are full enough of that shit nobody needs to bother reading it.
Robo
Verified User
Takes one to know one huh Fatty?
This pretty much sums up your argument:
You seem to be comfortable making an argument armed with other's opinions about a book you have not read: the plan in the book has nothing in common with Obamacare and was not published or written by Heritage.
Robo
Verified User
A National health system for America
CONTRIBUTORS:
Editor: Butler, Stuart M.
Editor: Haislmaier, Edmund F.
PUBLISHER:
Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
SERIES TITLE:
YEAR: 1989
http://www.getcited.org/pub/102831374
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Since when was Nixon a Neo Con?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yes...one of the more spectacularly flawed analysis posted on the topic. One that shows not only a misunderstanding of the history which lead up to the PPACA but one that draws an incorrect conclusion based of a false premise. The ACA and it's market driven emphasis has only begun to be implemented. How could anyone possibly know if it is a success or failure unless they are blinded by bias and ideology?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well unfortunately for you SCOTUS does not agree with your claim. By the way, where did you obtain your Juris Doctorate in constitutional law?
Robo
Verified User
From that bastion of Republican propaganda, The New York Times, we learn the following.
How Johnson Won Election He'd Lost
By MARTIN TOLCHIN, Special to The New York Times
Published: February 11, 1990
• Sign In to E-Mail
• Single-Page
A study of Lyndon B. Johnson provides new evidence that the 36th President stole his first election to the United States Senate, in 1948.
The book, ''Means of Ascent,'' by Robert A. Caro, is the second volume of a projected four-volume study, ''The Years of Lyndon Johnson.'' With a first printing of 250,000 copies, it is to be published on March 15 by Knopf, and excerpts have appeared in The New Yorker.
Mr. Caro maintains that although ballot fraud was common in the late 1940's in some parts of Texas, the Johnson campaign of 1948 raised it to a new level. Mr. Caro supports his charge with an interview with Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County who said he acknowledged his role only after all others involved in the theft had died.
Determined to Win at All Costs
It has been alleged for years that Johnson captured his Senate seat through fraud, but Mr. Caro goes into great detail to tell how the future President overcame a 20,000-vote deficit to achieve his famous 87-vote victory in the 1948 Democratic runoff primary against a former Governor, Coke Stevenson. A South Texas political boss, George Parr, had manufactured thousands of votes, Mr. Caro found. Johnson died in 1973, Stevenson and Parr in 1975. Mr. Caro says the election showed Johnson's determination to win at all costs as well as his coolness under fire and his ability to select gifted lieutenants, whom he then manipulated.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html
Give it a fucking rest Fatty!!!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Ah yes...the "States Rights" argument. A thoroughly discredited notion of nullification that if a State doesn't agree with federal law they can disregard it. A notion that was discredited and put to bed back in 1865.
The "States Right" argument is an argument used primarily by bigots to justify the restrictions and attacks of the rights, liberties and properties of individuals and minorities within a particular State. That's all the "States Rights" argument is.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You can always count on Damo for a good strawman. No one has ever claimed that the ACA isn't a Democratic legislative accomplishment. They have stated, and factually correctly too, that the ideas being implemented were originally proposed and endorsed by Republicans as a market driven alternative to a single payer system. That's a fact Damo. Look it up.
There are two primary sources of Republican opposition to the ACA.
The first is just plain political opposition that their opponents, Democrats, have coopted their ideas. Though that's not entirely accurate as many Democrats opposed the market driven approach of the universal mandate and favored a single payer system. It was Democrats who compromised with Republicans to favor the market driven universal mandate approach in order to begin health care reform. Republicans then voted against their own compromise they won in negotiations. Much to the consternation of Democrats.
The second is that much of the opposition to anything proposed by the Obama administration is based on pure racism and the opposition by many white conservatives who are appalled that, to use their words, a niger was elected President.