If your saying eventually nationalized
I'm all in
Guess Who's Supporting Obamacare Now?
- Thread starter Howey
- Start date
I'm all in
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Because it's true. Do some homework and study your history. These ideas go all the way back to he Nixon administration. It aint like there are any new ideas here. This is shit the rest of the industrialized world took care of 30 to 40 years ago.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I opposed the ACA cause Dems bailed on the single payer system, which makes far, far more sense, and compromized on the universal mandate.
Wait you expect more than fox talking points from truth deflector the dumb Jehovah's Witness.
You must think Ohio state doesn't have a slow d
That's an amusing claim; further evidence what a clueless moron you really are and that you are not rich.
I did my homework and my homework says that you're full of shit. Now try to put up or shut up...let's once again for the thousandth time have the debate and keep beating the truth into your thick skull until you get it.
I appreciate honest leftists. It doesn't mean your any more intlelligence thinking that becoming a ward of the state is a good thing, but at least your an honest dimwit.
Says the dimwit who seldom adds anything intelligent to any debate and moronically thinks that Democratic Presidents are a sound market indicator.
Yes dimwit, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.
Now why don't you leave your third grade mental midgetry to the school playground and try to have an intelligent discussion?
Proves you are still a dumbass paying middle class rates and are ignorant of tax breaks for the rich!
Seldom is a lot more than you
Your are 99 percent calling people dimwit
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No. No you haven't done your homework.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/
You read, but you do not comprehend. You parrot, yet do not seek the facts.
Therefore, once more we have to wander through the tortured history of your claim and those in this article to arrive at the truth.
Let's start at the false claim that Nixon wanted a similar plan. Here is his plan:
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (CHIP)
Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.
The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;
Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;
Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.
Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;
And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.
Now isn't it ironic that Democrats, who controlled the House and the Senate, didn't take this up. It is also further evidence of the LIE from Democrats that Republican do not care.
But NOTHING in that plan resembled ACA; I challenge you to find it.
Next the claims that Reagan's EMTALA is anything remotely related:
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay.
....
Congress passed EMTALA to combat the practice of "patient dumping," i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual has a medical emergency "and a request is made on the individual's behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition."[1]
No facts to support the leftist canard that Republicans wanted Government managed healthcare. But this does dispute the LIE from Democrats that the poor could not get treatment or that Republicans simply do not care.
Now to the Heritage article quoted. I would suggest that you read the Heritage plan carefully and note some of the key components I will list out here:
Direct and indirect government assistance should be concentrated on those who need it most. A reformed system should encourage greater innovation in the delivery of health care. The Heritage plan has several key components: 1) Change the tax treatment of health care. The plan would treat all health care benefits provided by employers as taxable income to the employee.
...
By shifting the tax benefits away from employer-provided services and to the individual, the plan would give the same tax incentives for all health care coverage regardless of the type of employment of the family earners.
....
2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This man d ate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses . Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is t h e family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.
.....
3) Provide help to those who cannot afford protection. A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection, which would end the problem of middle-class "free riders" on society's sense of obligation. But of course there are many lower-income households who could not reasonably afford to meet that obligation and yet are not eligible for current direct assistance programs such as Medicaid. Tax Credits. To an extent, the problems of affordability among these families would be dealt with through the system of tax credits outlined above. The Heritage plan also sees these tax credits as refundable - that is, a check would be sent to the family if the total credit exceeded the tax liability. In this way, families would receive direct assistance through the tax code to enable them to fulfill the obligation to obtain insurance. Nevertheless, there are certain families for whom even this assistance is not sufficient. Families with a very long history of health problems, for instance, may find insurance prohibitively expensive, even with generous tax benefits. In these cases, the Heritage plan envisions an expansion of subsidized risk pools operated through the states. Many states have these plans, in which high-risk individuals are pooled together, and then insurers are invited to compete to cover the pool with rates subsidized by the government.
.....
4) Reform programs for the elderly. The recent political battle over catastrophic health care for the elderly illustrates the current shortcomings of the Medicare system. Neither is the program a true insurance system nor is it a system that channels aid to those who really need it. In addition, its structure discourages cost consciousness once the deductibles have been met. Medicare. The Heritage proposal calls for major reforms of the Medicare system to use funds more effectively and to introduce greater cost consciousness. Under the proposal, the deductibles for Medicare would be increased, and part of the savings used to offset the extra costs for the less affluent elderly. In addition, there would be further encouragement for the elderly to use Medicare funds, in the form of a voucher, to obtain private insurance or HMO-type coverage instead of using Medicare as a reimbursement system.
.....
A CONSUMER-BASED SYSTEM
All of these measures, from the basic tax treatment of health care to the encouragement of long-term care insurance, would introduce a far greater degree of consumer activism into the health care market. This strategy, combined with a requirement for basic health coverage and the focusing of government assistance to those who need it most, would change the foundations of health care in America. Rather than the current system with its built-in inflation and enormous gaps in coverage, the result would be a system providing not only coverage to all but also a powerful set of incentives for the health care industry to be as efficient and consumer sensitive as possible. In this way, America could create a national health system that combines universal health care with a degree of quality, access, and budget control that is unavailable in other national health systems around the world.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans
Sorry dude, but NOTHING in the Heritage plan resembles Obama's abomination called ACA.
Stuart Butler’s response to the claims they invented the individual mandate:
Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate
Stuart Butler February 6, 2012
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 U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare “adopts the ‘individual mandate’ concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation,” Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate “has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.
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.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/
AGAIN; nothing contained in these proposals remotely resemble the abomination called the ACA, or Obamacare…which is nothing more than a small step towards a worse outcome…universal Government managed (oxymoron) care.
I'll bet you I make more and pay a lower rate than you!
that's your fault. As a sociopath, I would simply let anyone die that didn't have health insurance and ended up needing it.
And no, some people will be paying that DON'T use the care. That's the whole fucking point desh. If it weren't for young people, the whole system would collapse. They are banking on the vast majority of the youth not using the care and not getting their moneys worth.
I'll bet you think that your incredible claims are a substitute for reality too dimwit. But again; no one here cares or takes your third grade level prattle seriously.
You’re seen as a poor pathetic dimwit who has no friends and has to spend an inordinate amount of time on a forum trying to pretend he is someone he is not.
Dismissed dimwit.
BINGO!!
Shocker social conservative pusses out