(03-04-2016 10:32 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 10:28 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 06:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 05:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 03:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's been a while so I might be wrong but didn't republican originally think it was a good idea for each American to be obligated to have health insurance in the name of " personal responsibility"?

That's not an unreasonable interpretation of what they believe(d) but it's far from being that simple.

Thinking something is a good idea and using the taxing power of the Government to force it isn't a flip-flop. That's essentially what I'm talking about. Heritage, Romney and Obama ALL included 'mandates'... but they all had different ideas about WHAT would be mandated, AND about what would be done if you failed to comply.

It's like saying that you favor the war IF it means we go in, kill them all in a week and then leave... and then have someone say you flip-flopped because we went in, screwed around for 10 years and are still there.

Well it was their idea and now it seems they don't want any part of it. I guess they had a change of heart.

Obviously you're not paying attention.

They don't want any part of what Obama is calling an 'individual mandate', but that doesn't mean that they want to part of ANY 'individual mandate'.

You understand that Medicare/Medicaid is ALREADY an individual mandate, correct? You can certainly imagine that someone might support Medicare/Medicaid (or something LIKE it), but not support forcing people to buy insurance from their own pocket, right? Since that WAS the situation for the last 50 or so years.

Of course I know that. Again, I'm only talking about being forced to purchase health insurance. Not how to enforce it, not how much of a fine. Just a mandate to purchase insurance. Some republicans were for it until they were against it.

Well what do you expect when you have to pass the bill in order to see what's on the it?


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

(03-04-2016 10:32 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course I know that. Again, I'm only talking about being forced to purchase health insurance. Not how to enforce it, not how much of a fine. Just a mandate to purchase insurance. Some republicans were for it until they were against it.

So again, you're not understanding. You aren't required to purchase insurance under Medicare. You're simply required to pay taxes... and the government buys your insurance with those taxes. Lots of people who (by your definition) are required to buy retirement insurance will never see a dime of the benefits from it, meaning they bought nothing. They are merely required to pay the taxes.

There isn't one single Republican who was in favor of having people be required to enter into specific commerce (buy insurance) without specifics of that commerce. Again, you're trying to equate 'thinking being responsible' is a good thing to ANY definition of 'responsibility'. Wearing a condom during sex is certainly a healthy thing to do, but I wouldn't describe that as 'healthcare'... so if I support 'healthcare' and you define it as wearing a condom, I'd be against it. If you want to call that a flip-flop, that's your business... but that doesn't make it true

(03-04-2016 10:32 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 10:28 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  They don't want any part of what Obama is calling an 'individual mandate', but that doesn't mean that they want to part of ANY 'individual mandate'.

Of course I know that. Again, I'm only talking about being forced to purchase health insurance. Not how to enforce it, not how much of a fine. Just a mandate to purchase insurance. Some republicans were for it until they were against it.

But the mandate that they favored, and the "mandate" that they opposed, are two different things. That's Hambone's point, it's not the abstract concept of a mandate that they flip-flopped on, but rather that once said "mandate" took on totally different attributes, they opposed it. The differences between the Heritage/republican mandate and the Obamacare mandate are what they oppose.

Just like the Obamacare "exchanges" bear little resemblance to the Heritage/republican/German exchanges. The latter exist specifically to facilitate the interstate purchase of insurance. The former is part of a law that bans such purchases. They cannot possibly be the same thing.

(03-04-2016 01:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Just like the Obamacare "exchanges" bear little resemblance to the Heritage/republican/German exchanges. The latter exist specifically to facilitate the interstate purchase of insurance. The former is part of a law that bans such purposes. They cannot possibly be the same thing.

Outstanding example

Democrats were 'against' (Heritage) exchanges before they were 'for' (Obama) exchanges.