(04-03-2012 07:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The heritage mandate was for catastrophic care, not for comprehensive coverage.

So they were for a mandate, but for lesser plans? Ok. The mandate is still their idea though, and Romney still did the exact same thing as Obama.

Quote:Further, the heritage foundation long ago turned against the thought for a variety of reasons,

Primarily that Hillarycare was defeated.

Quote:finally, they are not a legislative body...

So? They're a conservative thinktank that supplies ideas and talking points for GOP legislators.

Quote:So while forcing people to buy insurance might sound like a good idea on paper, it doesn't make it constitutional.

??? I don't see how any of what you just said leads to the conclusion that it's unconsitutional. Besides, it's absolutely constitutional. I just wrote why in another thread. Health care is 13% of the GDP and the free rider problem, which the mandate addresses, certainly impacts interstate commerce.

Quote:In fact, we already force all workers to buy insurance... It's called Medicaid. We also force retirement savings through social security... That doesnt mean we vcan force them ti buy savings bonds. Converting Medicaid to a catastrophic policy for everyone would satisfy the mandate.

Dude, I really don't see what any of this, if true, has to do with anything.

Liberals wanted to expand Medicare for all but you conservatives and your middlemen insurance buddies shot that down. Then you shot down the public option too because that too bothered your insurance buddies. What we ended up with is conservative universal health care that now you think is socialism. And now you're complaining that we didn't expand Medicare???

Quote:I COulD Go panel by panel, but it is really pointless if you think that the Heritage foundation isn't allowed to change its position in 20+ years, or are constitutional scholars who would never suggest something unconstitutional

Dude, it's a political think tank, of course they will change their position when it's politically expedient. The right used it as a weapon to defeat Hillarycare and the public option, and now they call it socialism because the Dems adopted it.

Quote:The point isn't whether they supported it or not. The point is, how is it implemented. If Obama wants to create a new tax, or increase Medicare taxes to cover his plans, I suspect he can get that passed. I mean, catastrophic insurance as in the heritage proposal was what Medicaid was founded on... But to impose a fine for failing to purchase coverage is constitutionally wrong. If health are is a right, then the government should provide it.... They shouldn't penalize you for not paying for your rights

The government should provide it? You hippie.

(04-04-2012 09:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How is this even material? Heritage admitted it as well... And not a few months later... But decades later. I mean, Obama was agsint it until he got elected, then suddenly for it. Coincidence??

You ignore that heritage supported critical care policies, not universal... Which are illegal under obamacare. Perhaps things like THIS are the problem, and not merely making everyone pay? That really is such a simple argument... I'm surprised someone of reasonable intelligence would even dignify it.

The mandate, in general is not the problem. Social security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes are mandatory... The problem with the mandate is, as has been explained to you, though you conveniently ignore, that it is being viewed as a penalty and not a tax, forcing people into commerce, as opposed to having the government enter into commerce for them, as we do for social security and Medicaid... And roads and the military and police for that matter. If you don't want to pay for it through Medicaid, then do it through the general fund. All you have to do is fund it and raise taxes or cut spending to pay for it.

I'll give you an example, Max. I generally favor partial privatization of social security. I don't particularly care if it is a government run "fund" that mirrors the S&P or the existing no load funds... Though I don't trust that the government will not skim off some funds for other purposes or create a burdensome as opposed to efficient management structure... But I digress... I trust them to keep private industry in line... I don't trust them to monitor themselves. This could be structured in a way that is Constitutional, and in ways that are not. I would prefer that it be Constitutional, and am not willing to bend on that merely to get my way. I CERTAINly wouldn't question and threaten the job of the SCOTUS in order to get my way. I mean seriously.... The administration passes a bill that their own people call a "big effing deal" and then try and act like it is merely day to day governmental legislation that would be unprecedented to overturn when they get questioned about it??

I've said it for months, and so have others, and it should NOw be perfectly clear that the administration could have avoided this particular challenge by calling it what it is. A Tax. They didn't for political reasons, and now they, and people like you, are trying to claim that it is the OTHER side that is playing politics?? Give me a break

I'm not ignoring anything and your point isn't very clear. Are you suggesting the fact Obama said it wasn't a tax 1. makes it not a tax and 2. makes it unconstitutional? Because it does neither. Even if the justices decide the mandate is not a tax (which they probably will), it can still be constitutional under the Interstate commerce clause. And people are in health commerce by virtue of breathing. And we probably would have just expanded Medicare if it weren't for the GOP and its corporate buddies.

No offense but your posts are filled with stream-of-consciousness-ish rambling and quite honestly trying to decipher what you mean sometimes can be a chore. I envision you in an opium den with your IPad with your eyes rolled back typing away, it makes me LOL

Max... Do you really think your chart accurately represents the differences and similarities of the plan, or that just because Romney supported something, that everyone who votes for him supports it.

Do you really agree with Obama on everything? Seriously?

Do you not understand that some people who support forcing people to have coverage don't support the specific mechanism obamacare does, or that catastrophic care, illegal under obamacare, is a better idea to many? Seriously?

John McCains plan was an individual mandate of sorts as well. It provided coverage through Medicare to all, just as it does now... But allowed people to take some of their allocation of funds... If you will, the cost of their Medicare coverage, and enter the markets voluntarily to buy a policy that suited their needs better... Whether it be catastrophic, or routine, or family care or not (gay men couples and seniors probably don't need pre-natal care)... The difference was, if you chose to do nothing, the government didn't penalize you. Saying they both had these features as in your chart is like saying a maserati and a Chevy are the same thing... 4 wheels, cruise control, an engine, radio, luxury items like power windows and locks... Even leather if you want it... They're exactly the same

Hambone I think you are approaching where I ended with Max. He will ignore or distort the points you make to suit his purpose and then, when you call him out on it, he'll just resort to insulting you and calling you stupid. Being the Obama sycophant he is that is the inevitable conclusion.

You make some great points. Keep it up.

(04-04-2012 10:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not ignoring anything and your point isn't very clear.

oh, but your cartoons are crystal clear... And whether you call it ignoring or conveniently choosing not to address responses on points where you "lose" is a matter of courtesy. I can stop that it youd like.

Quote:Are you suggesting the fact Obama said it wasn't a tax 1. makes it not a tax and 2. makes it unconstitutional? Because it does neither.

I am suggesting, and you look silly not to understand, that Obama said it wasnt a tax because if it were, he would be a bald-faced liar... Not because he didn't intend for it to have the same effect. Whether he is right or not (your one and two) are deflections and ignorant in light of my numerous comments here and elsewhere that had he called it a tax and structured it as such, it probably would have passed. I'm sorry you don't understand the obvious

Quote:Even if the justices decide the mandate is not a tax (which they probably will), it can still be constitutional under the Interstate commerce clause. And people are in health commerce by virtue of breathing.

i doubt they will say anything of the sort. It is immaterial whether the penalty for noncompliance... Not the mandate... You DO get the difference, right? Is a tax. It doesnt matter. The unconstitutional part is forcing people into the commerce of purchasing insurance. They are not purchasing healthcare. You do that when you go to the doctor and write a check or present your insurance card for payment. Do you even comprehend that?

Quote:And we probably would have just expanded Medicare if it weren't for the GOP and its corporate buddies.

. Laughable in light of a) the fact that the GOP didn't force Obama to say he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k or b) that the bill passed without a single republican vote. Are you saying that Obama gave concessions to people who voted against his bill?? What a MORON (Obama)

Quote:No offense but your posts are filled with stream-of-consciousness-ish rambling and quite honestly trying to decipher what you mean sometimes can be a chore. I envision you in an opium den with your IPad with your eyes rolled back typing away, it makes me LOL

I suppose I should be like you and find cartoons and charts that generally support my opinions and post them here as if they are indisputable proof of something. I ramble because your cartoons have 15 items that all make points that are factually inaccurate. That would certainly be useful and intelligent.... Battle of the cartoons...

I do use an iPad, and it is hard to view more than about 5 lines at a time with the virtual keyboard... My keyboard case is on the fritz... Compound that with the fact that I often start typing something, go do some work, and then come back and try and pick back up... And don't generally waste time proof reading forum posts. It is especially hard to do as I have done here and respond line by line on an iPad with a virtual keyboard

You're welcome. /Sheldon Cooper. tBBT

Quote:Max... Do you really think your chart accurately represents the differences and similarities of the plan, or that just because Romney supported something, that everyone who votes for him supports it.

Yes I think the chart I posted is accurate. No I don't think everyone who votes for Romney supports Romneycare.

Quote:Do you really agree with Obama on everything? Seriously?

No. Yes.

I've given the laundry list of complaints I've had with him on here plenty of times. Not closing Guantanamo, refusing civilian trials, not ending the wars (at least fast enough), extending the Bush tax cuts, renewing the Patriot Act, signing the NDAA, I could go on. So calling me a sycophant is a lie.

Quote:Do you not understand that some people who support forcing people to have coverage don't support the specific mechanism obamacare does, or that catastrophic care, illegal under obamacare, is a better idea to many? Seriously?

Oh I understand it. These same people though objected when we were discussing simply expanding Medicare. I also sincerely believe a good chunk of these old rich white selfish boomers wearing tri cornered hats don't give a damn about the "liberty" of being able to not buy insurance (because they already have insurance), but rather secretly object to the Cadillac plans tax and longer waits for treatment because poor people now have the same access they do (and to Owl's credit he readily admits the second part).

Quote:John McCains plan was an individual mandate of sorts as well. It provided coverage through Medicare to all, just as it does now... But allowed people to take some of their allocation of funds... If you will, the cost of their Medicare coverage, and enter the markets voluntarily to buy a policy that suited their needs better... Whether it be catastrophic, or routine, or family care or not (gay men couples and seniors probably don't need pre-natal care)... The difference was, if you chose to do nothing, the government didn't penalize you. Saying they both had these features as in your chart is like saying a maserati and a Chevy are the same thing... 4 wheels, cruise control, an engine, radio, luxury items like power windows and locks... Even leather if you want it... They're exactly the same

I don't see what McCain's plan has to do with any of this. His plan would have never made it through either because that's much like the plans many liberals espoused which cons shot down.

EXPLAIN how Obama's individual mandate and insurance exchanges and subsidies for poor people and expansion of Medicaid is a Maserati while Romney's individual mandate and insurance exchanges and subsidies for poor people and expansion of Medicaid is a Chevy.

(04-04-2012 10:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:Max... Do you really think your chart accurately represents the differences and similarities of the plan, or that just because Romney supported something, that everyone who votes for him supports it.

Yes I think the chart I posted is accurate. No I don't think everyone who votes for Romney supports Romneycare.

Quote:Do you really agree with Obama on everything? Seriously?

No. Yes.

I've given the laundry list of complaints I've had with him on here plenty of times. Not closing Guantanamo, refusing civilian trials, not ending the wars (at least fast enough), extending the Bush tax cuts, renewing the Patriot Act, signing the NDAA, I could go on. So calling me a sycophant is a lie.

Quote:Do you not understand that some people who support forcing people to have coverage don't support the specific mechanism obamacare does, or that catastrophic care, illegal under obamacare, is a better idea to many? Seriously?

Oh I understand it. These same people though objected when we were discussing simply expanding Medicare. I also sincerely believe a good chunk of these old rich white selfish boomers wearing tri cornered hats don't give a damn about the "liberty" of being able to not buy insurance (because they already have insurance), but rather secretly object to the Cadillac plans tax and longer waits for treatment because poor people now have the same access they do (and to Owl's credit he readily admits the second part).

Quote:John McCains plan was an individual mandate of sorts as well. It provided coverage through Medicare to all, just as it does now... But allowed people to take some of their allocation of funds... If you will, the cost of their Medicare coverage, and enter the markets voluntarily to buy a policy that suited their needs better... Whether it be catastrophic, or routine, or family care or not (gay men couples and seniors probably don't need pre-natal care)... The difference was, if you chose to do nothing, the government didn't penalize you. Saying they both had these features as in your chart is like saying a maserati and a Chevy are the same thing... 4 wheels, cruise control, an engine, radio, luxury items like power windows and locks... Even leather if you want it... They're exactly the same

I don't see what McCain's plan has to do with any of this. His plan would have never made it through either because that's much like the plans many liberals espoused which cons shot down.

EXPLAIN how Obama's individual mandate and insurance exchanges and subsidies for poor people and expansion of Medicaid is a Maserati while Romney's individual mandate and insurance exchanges and subsidies for poor people and expansion of Medicaid is a Chevy.

(04-04-2012 10:44 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Hambone I think you are approaching where I ended with Max. He will ignore or distort the points you make to suit his purpose and then, when you call him out on it, he'll just resort to insulting you and calling you stupid. Being the Obama sycophant he is that is the inevitable conclusion.

You make some great points. Keep it up.

Hope springs eternal. I'd honestly like to have a lucid discussion with someone who disagrees with me without it devolving into lunacy. We have a board like that on the Rice page, but because we all generally know and respect each other, and it is difficult to vehemently disagree without risking hurting friends feelings, we rarely get into meangful disputes

Max... To sum up your responses... You have an opinion as to why people who disagree with your position do so, and while it might not represent the majority, or even a meaningful number... If it represents one, it proves your point and can be applied to all. In your mind, the seventeen other stated reasons are the minority, and the one that paints your opponents as greedy, stupid, liars is the majority. Not exactly intelligent adult discourse.


Ok, if you don't agree with everything Obama says, then don't bring up romneycare as proof that republicans are being hypocritical. 90% of us have NEVER cast a vote for office for Romney... And even those that DID vote for him in a primary may have had other reasons, just like you.

Bringing up McCain was merely an attempt to show how two similar intentions could result in entirely different approaches. This is where your comics fall short. In the same way a Maserati and Chevy are both cars with many similarities, obviously close enough for your charts... Wheels, check... Engine, check... On a checklist, they will grade out very closely... But that doesn't mean you would be indifferent between the,. The point is, sometimes it is some pretty small differences that make a world of difference. Put leather on a Tahoe, it's still not an Escalade

Back to the point... You realize that insurance isn't healthcare, right? Obamacare doesnt force people to go to the doctor... To get healthcare. It forces them to buy insurance for something you also argue is a basic fundamental right... If it is a right, then yes... The government must defend it. It can't charge you (other than through taxes) for Protecting your basic Constitutional rights. That is their job. Obamacare keeps trying to argue both sides... It's a tax, but it's not... It's a right, but it's not...

Obaffoon is already in damage control because the SCOTUS will likely strike it down. So mini's constant harping about Ocare being Rcare will mean nothing.

(04-04-2012 09:34 AM)Max Power Wrote:  What other parts of Obamacare do conservatives dislike? It's virtually the same thing as Romney(again, soon to be the standardbearer of the GOP)care, the difference being Romneycare was paid for by the federal government (ie your tax dollars) while Obamacare had to tax Cadillac plans and made changes to Medicare to pay for it. Two of the architects of Romneycare, one of which is an MIT professor, said it's the exact same thing.

No, Obamacare is not virtually the same thing as Romneycare. Romneycare was a 100 page bill, Obamacare was a 2700 page bill. Two things that different in size cannot possibly be virtually the same.

Your graphic is misleading to suggest otherwise. Actually, if that graphic were a reasonable depiction, I probably wouldn't have that much trouble with Obamacare. Things that it omits that come to mind off the top of my head include the Health Choices Commission and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (and the Commission on Comparative Outcomes, too, but that was actually passed as part of the "stimulus"). There are 2600 pages of them, so there are obviously many more, but I don't have time to cite chapter and verse here. Also, for some of the items correctly identified as different in your graphic, the differences are far more impactful than the provisions cited as similar, so it's miselading to imply that every line item in the graphic should get the same weighting.

The graphic is also misleading in that it implies that some things are the same just because they address similar issues. Both Romneycare and Obamacare expand Medicaid, but the two are not the same, even though both get a green dot in your graphic.

"Obamacare is substantially the same as Romneycare," is just one more lie that the left is telling to try to rehabilitate the Act. I assume you are parroting the line not because you are a liar, but because you accept implicitly any talking point that comes from the left. Based upon your previous posts, that seems to be your MO.

That is just a graphic mini's handlers put out as a means of putting forth more lies and deception.

Mini, don't you have some ambulances to chase?

Quote:No, Obamacare is not virtually the same thing as Romneycare. Romneycare was a 100 page bill, Obamacare was a 2700 page bill. Two things that different in size cannot possibly be virtually the same.

Yes they can. First of all, the 2700 pages you cite includes the reconciliation bill which dealt with student loans and other non-Obamacare issues, and if you remove all of the non-Obamacare pages it's only 907. The difference between the two bills (besides the fact one is federal meaning it has to for example tackle jurisdictional issues and address the Medicare impact) is because Romneycare was paid for with federal funds, meanwhile the federal government had to find ways to cut costs and impose taxes to achieve the same budget balance. Second, the same guy wrote both bills and he says, and I quote, "They're the same f'king bill," and another one of Romney's advisors is Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at MIT who said ““Counting pages is a pretty stupid activity. The general point that is right is that the Affordable Care Act [Obama’s law] is more ambitious than the Massachusetts plan. Part was by necessity: In Massachusetts our plan was paid for (half by the feds), whereas for ACA they need to raise the money. Part was by choice: the Massachusetts plan didn’t do anything about cost control, while the ACA is very ambitious on this front.”

Sources:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/con...-past.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact..._blog.html

Quote:Your graphic is misleading to suggest otherwise. Actually, if that graphic were a reasonable depiction, I probably wouldn't have that much trouble with Obamacare. Things that it omits that come to mind off the top of my head include the Health Choices Commission and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (and the Commission on Comparative Outcomes, too, but that was actually passed as part of the "stimulus"). There are 2600 pages of them, so there are obviously many more, but I don't have time to cite chapter and verse here. Also, for some of the items correctly identified as different in your graphic, the differences are far more impactful than the provisions cited as similar, so it's miselading to imply that every line item in the graphic should get the same weighting.

As I posted last week the Health Choices Commission just manages the exchange, which Romneycare has too (the "Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector"). All the IPAB does is make recommendations to the HHS secretary to improve Medicare efficiency, which is of course something a state doesn't have to worry about (because the federal government is taking care of it for them).

It's very much substantially the same, and the people who wrote them said so.

So the bill is 800 pages of how to fund it?

Nothing you say, even if taken at face value dispute the fact that they can't possibly be virtually the same.... And you don't honestly believe that one person wrote both bills, or tha being an expert in state law would make one equally qualified in federal law?

And who cares? If they are identical, then romneycare would have been unconstitutional, but as he didn't need to raise funds (your words) he didn't need to make people buy something... Or did he? In which case, your comment isn't true (that he didn't need to raise funds)

You keep arguing about something immaterial to the discussion. The things you dismiss as immaterial are pretty big in my view... One... How to make them work across jurisdictions... Seems to me that the commerce clause was their attempt... And it failed... How are they different? One didn't involve interstate commerce... Funding... Well, duh... If you don't make them buy something, imposing a penalty/fine/tax if they don't, then the requirement is pretty moot, isnt it? Seems to me romneycare could have only required you to buy in if you wanted state services. What's the problem with that? And then finally, cost controls... As if those are immaterial

In other words, it's exactly the same, except those 800 pages where it's not, and they are immaterial (in your opinion)

Eh, the Supreme Court has already decided (voted on last Friday). I don't see a point in bickering over the bill here. We'll find out in June. At that point, I will be able to tell for sure whether I think they made the right decision or not.