Obamacare cost...

[byu71]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_4166664.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/op...dge.html?_r=1&

I would pay money to have my 4-10 year old grandkids see Reich and Krugman on the same stage talking.

[Goatnapper'96]

Do you actually care about historical fact? Or is it all malleable to the narrow necessities of a flawed ideology?

Virginia Coug is right. The Republican, or better said, conservatives came up with the mandate. They came up with other stuff that was totally ignored and not implemented in the Obamacare bill, so much to the point that no Republican (not even the Centrist Senator Republicans) voted for the bill. But the fact that the individual mandate was included allows open minded moderates like him, President Obama, Robert Reich and Krugman to beat this dumb fucking drum that the ACA is entirely based upon an economic concept with its genesis in conservative thought. Some people are even smart enough/not brainwashed by Fox News to believe them. Not very many, but some.

I am with '71, the Democrats own it and the people know it.

But I like the spin, self-aggrandizement and even the the condescension. I don't like the state of our health care system and that this bill does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to influence what is creating our health care crisis....but somebody tell me it is based upon a conservative principle and how hard Barack Obama tried to make it bi-partisan. If this bill were bi-partisan it still would NOT DO A THING TO COUNTERACT WHAT IS ACTUALLY DRIVING UP OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS. It would still be a bad bill that does nothing to remedy the real challenge facing this country. But if you add up Krugman, Virginia Coug, Robert Reich and the other moderates' statements on the bill and 90% would be about Barack Obama's hard on and strenuous efforts to make this bill, THE SAME BILL THAT DOES NOTHING TO COUNTERACT WHAT IS ACTUALLY DRIVING UP OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS, a bi-partisan bill.

But he is right, the mandate had its roots in conservative thought. As does the crazy idea of getting consumers closer to the actual cost of their health care.

[VirginiaCougar]

Yes, do you? If you do, you will agree with everything in the post of mine you responded to.

You may want to think twice then before posting.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...11161144786448
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

and the original document:

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._americans.pdf

[imanihonjin]

Do you actually care about historical fact? Or is it all malleable to the narrow necessities of a flawed ideology?

Is it, or is it not, a historical fact that no republican voted for the ACA and that it is wholly a democrat passed bill? If it is a fact, who the freak cares what republicans supported nearly 20 years ago and what impact does that support have on the level of suckiness of the current program? None, absolutely none. The article was somehow trying to make republicans responsible, to some degree, or the suckiness of the ACA. So let me ask you, do you care about logic and facts, or it is malleable to the narrow necessities of a flawed ideology?

[Uncle Ted]

Do you actually care about historical fact? Or is it all malleable to the narrow necessities of a flawed ideology?

I recall Obamacare really being Hillary's idea...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091700118.html

Obama wasn't hot on the individual mandate and said that his healthcare plan would somehow lower the cost for everyone...

How Obama Broke His Promise on Individual Mandates
[...]
Let's go back to 2007, when then-Senator Barack Obama had been a presidential candidate for only about six weeks. In March, Obama spoke at a Service Employees International Union health-care forum in Las Vegas. A 23-year-old woman asked for details of his health-care plan. He did not have any. No details, no plan. But, he said, he had a principle: "Number one, we're going to have to make sure that everybody is in."


Two months later he released his plan. There was no individual mandate, as in John Edwards' plan, and Obama focused primarily on price, not coverage. By design, he had not included everyone, as he said in Las Vegas he would. That did not stop him from claiming that he included everyone, but the claim was debunked by Politifact, Factcheck.org, and others, including his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

That September, Hillary Clinton announced a plan that did put "everybody in." As the Associated Press reported in its lede, "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's sweeping health-care proposal, which she plans to unveil today, would require every American to carry health insurance and offer federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage." It was Clinton and Edwards against Obama on the propriety of the state forcing people to buy health insurance.


In the Jan. 21, 2008, presidential primary debate in South Carolina, Edwards criticized Obama's plan for its lack of a mandate. Obama responded, "A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance." Instead of going that route, his plan, he said, "emphasizes lowering costs."


Obama held that position throughout the campaign. Elect Hillary, he said, and the government will compel you to buy health insurance. Elect me, and I'll give you lower costs and let you keep your freedom.

One Obama TV ad drove the point home: "Hillary Clinton's attacking, but what's she not telling you about her health care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't."

Obama's strong objection to the government forcing people to buy insurance in order to get to universal coverage vanished six months into his presidency. In July of 2009, he came out in favor of a mandate, claiming that he had changed his mind.

Obama's strong objection to the government forcing people to buy insurance in order to get to universal coverage vanished six months into his presidency. In July of 2009, he came out in favor of a mandate, claiming that he had changed his mind.
[...]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ndates/259183/

So in the end it was that SOB Bush Jr's fault.


How do you recall the historical fact?

[Goatnapper'96]

Is it, or is it not, a historical fact that no republican voted for the ACA and that it is wholly a democrat passed bill? If it is a fact, who the freak cares what republicans supported nearly 20 years ago and what impact does that support have on the level of suckiness of the current program? None, absolutely none. The article was somehow trying to make republicans responsible, to some degree, or the suckiness of the ACA. So let me ask you, do you care about logic and facts, or it is malleable to the narrow necessities of a flawed ideology?

20 years ago? I mean the statute of limitations for believing Saddam Hussein had wmd was like 2 years! 20 years?

Have I mentioned that the most important aspect about the so called "Affordable Care Act" is it does nothing to make health care more affordable? I know moderates spend 90% of their time on this act talking about the fact that the mandate has its root in conservative think tank, but when they attempt to convince me they are mere pragmatists I wan't to know why they do so little commenting on the fact that the "Affordable Care Act" doesn't make healthcare more affordable?

[byu71]

So in the end it was that SOB Bush Jr's fault.


How do you recall the historical fact?

That has to really suck for the dems. Bush's plan is called Obamacare?

[imanihonjin]

You may want to think twice then before posting.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...11161144786448
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

and the original document:

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._americans.pdf

Seriously, do you freaking care to read and actually comprehend what others write and say? He said that no republican voted for the ACA and you post crap about how the republicans came up with the individual mandate way back when. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

It must feel good to shadow box, convinced that you just took out Ivan Drago.

[VirginiaCougar]

Virginia Coug is right. The Republican, or better said, conservatives came up with the mandate. They came up with other stuff that was totally ignored and not implemented in the Obamacare bill, so much to the point that no Republican (not even the Centrist Senator Republicans) voted for the bill. But the fact that the individual mandate was included allows open minded moderates like him, President Obama, Robert Reich and Krugman to beat this dumb fucking drum that the ACA is entirely based upon an economic concept with its genesis in conservative thought. Some people are even smart enough/not brainwashed by Fox News to believe them. Not very many, but some.

I am with '71, the Democrats own it and the people know it.

But I like the spin, self-aggrandizement and even the the condescension. I don't like the state of our health care system and that this bill does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to influence what is creating our health care crisis....but somebody tell me it is based upon a conservative principle and how hard Barack Obama tried to make it bi-partisan. If this bill were bi-partisan it still would NOT DO A THING TO COUNTERACT WHAT IS ACTUALLY DRIVING UP OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS. It would still be a bad bill that does nothing to remedy the real challenge facing this country. But if you add up Krugman, Virginia Coug, Robert Reich and the other moderates' statements on the bill and 90% would be about Barack Obama's hard on and strenuous efforts to make this bill, THE SAME BILL THAT DOES NOTHING TO COUNTERACT WHAT IS ACTUALLY DRIVING UP OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS, a bi-partisan bill.

But he is right, the mandate had its roots in conservative thought. As does the crazy idea of getting consumers closer to the actual cost of their health care.

This is how screwed up our politics are.

So in the end, Obama and Democrats own a bill fundamentally based on GOP ideas that the GOP fought against because Obama is Obama and it didn't really matter - they were going to fight anything from the Black, Marxist, Kenyan Muslim. They refused to give him any victory, even when it was their ideas he was promoting in an attempt to have a large bi-partisan victory early in his administration.

The ironic thing will be that if the bill does fail, it will be in good measure an indictment of 20 years of GOP thinking on the issue. It is funny that they really should be hoping that Obamacare succeeds.

[byu71]

This is how screwed up our politics are.

So in the end, Obama and Democrats own a bill fundamentally based on GOP ideas that the GOP fought against because Obama is Obama and it didn't really matter - they were going to fight anything from the Black, Marxist, Kenyan Muslim. They refused to give him any victory, even when it was their ideas he was promoting in an attempt to have a large bi-partisan victory early in his administration.

The ironic thing will be that if the bill does fail, it will be in good measure an indictment of 20 years of GOP thinking on the issue. It is funny that they really should be hoping that Obamacare succeeds.

You must really think a lot of people on her do not have the ability to think or reason.

Rosie O'Donell is fundamnetally a woman and sweet spirit, you can finish it. I don't want to be mean.

[Uncle Ted]

You may want to think twice then before posting.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...11161144786448
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

and the original document:

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._americans.pdf

So they didn't even vote for their own idea but somehow they got all the dems to, including the kingpin himself, Obama. That's pretty good.

[imanihonjin]

This is how screwed up our politics are.

So in the end, Obama and Democrats own a bill fundamentally based on GOP ideas that the GOP fought against because Obama is Obama and it didn't really matter - they were going to fight anything from the Black, Marxist, Kenyan Muslim. They refused to give him any victory, even when it was their ideas he was promoting in an attempt to have a large bi-partisan victory early in his administration.

The ironic thing will be that if the bill does fail, it will be in good measure an indictment of 20 years of GOP thinking on the issue. It is funny that they really should be hoping that Obamacare succeeds.

Why do you freaking keep saying that it was Obama's attempt to have a bipartisan victory early in administration that prompted him to include the individual mandate. It became abundantly clear many many months before the bill was passed that he wasn't going to get any support from the right, so why did he include provisions that you claim he included to get their support full well knowing that he would never get their support?

In spite of whatever republicans believed in the 90's, democrats and democrats only voted on a bill. They passed it without needing a single republican. They own the whole entire thing and could have passed anything they wanted (again not so sure why they were stupid enough to actually pass something that you apparently think they passed to be bipartisan when it was wholly partisan) yet they chose to pass it in the form it is. You want to discount every freaking flaw with the bill saying "but the republicans supported an individual mandate", so therefore they own a part of a bill they didn't vote for. I am sure that if the bill became a wild success you and every media outlet would be crediting the genius of the republican party for coming up with such a well thought of plan, right?

[imanihonjin]

they were going to fight anything from the Black, Marxist, Kenyan Muslim.

And there it is......VC is officially afraid of the boogeyman.

[VirginiaCougar]

I recall Obamacare really being Hillary's idea...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091700118.html

Obama wasn't hot on the individual mandate and said that his healthcare plan would somehow lower the cost for everyone...


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ndates/259183/

So in the end it was that SOB Bush Jr's fault.


How do you recall the historical fact?

LOL. Hillary's "Individual Mandate" is a single payer system. That is the history. The individual mandate we are discussing has long come from my side of the aisle (GOP).

With all this huff and puff, wouldn't it be ironic if Obamacare, based on GOP ideas, actually worked despite the GOP trying to shoot themselves and their ideas in the face as many times as possible? Bloomberg's editorial board took that position today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...prognosis.html

[Goatnapper'96]

This is how screwed up our politics are.

So in the end, Obama and Democrats own a bill fundamentally based on GOP ideas that the GOP fought against because Obama is Obama and it didn't really matter - they were going to fight anything from the Black, Marxist, Kenyan Muslim. They refused to give him any victory, even when it was their ideas he was promoting in an attempt to have a large bi-partisan victory early in his administration.

The ironic thing will be that if the bill does fail, it will be in good measure an indictment of 20 years of GOP thinking on the issue. It is funny that they really should be hoping that Obamacare succeeds.

Professor:

I am going to try and type this slow because the beating of this refrain annoys me. Just because the bill has the individual mandate does not make it a Republican bill. You go back and read those think tank recommendations and see how many other "Conservative" recommendations were heeded? There are many reasons why our politics are screwed up. But this bill is screwed up because it is a bad bill. It just is. One cannot take one concept from a very complex solution and then give some dumbass response of this will be an indictment on Republican thought for the last 20 years......without also attempting to also incorporate the other recommendations that were ignored.

See Professor, this is what is wrong with our politics. Attempting to deflect the bad bill passed by Democrats as somebody else's fault. Now as a Professor of Political Science I am sure you are intimately aware how bills are passed. You see, this was a bad bill. When bad bills are passed we should blame the people who write and vote for the bad bills. Not sit like a "moderate" and scream but this part came from a conservative think tank back when I was waking up with sticky jockey shorts thinking about the big breasted girl in my honors Algebra course in the 8th grade! It is all their fault and this proves it. No, this is a bad bill and it proves the people who wrote the bill wrote a bad bill and the people who voted for a bad bill voted for a bad bill.

It might prove the point that compromise in some situations is also a bad idea. I think a better solution to the problem is if the Liberals just rammed home a socialized medicine program that pays for the basics and then others can get a more comfortable health insurance program on the private market. Now to me it means poor folks end up with ugly teethe, but I likely don't poll well with feeling the pain of the middle class - wtf that is!