Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 25, 2013, 10:36:08 PM
From Mike Huckabee...
A businessman in Texas just sold three pizza parlors. So how does that affect you? Brace yourself... The story next...Back in 2010, Bob Westbrook owned three Cici's Pizza parlors. While the people who wrote and passed Obamacare couldn't be bothered to read it, Bob didn't have that luxury. He was president of the Texas Restaurant Association, so it was his job to find out what was in Obamacare.
What he found was that he'd be forced to buy his 96 fulltime workers heath coverage, which would bankrupt him -- or pay a fine $78,000 bigger than all three restaurants' profits combined.
So he did the only logical thing: he gave up and sold his businesses. My guess is that those 96 fulltime jobs will soon become 200 part time jobs.
Hey, that's more than double the job creation, right? So how does this affect you? Multiply Bob's story by every medium-sized business in America. And now you know why Obama is so anxious to put off Obamacare until after the election.
Because it slices up American jobs like a pizza.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 27, 2013, 12:18:42 PM
Okay, as normal, this has been spun and twisted.
First of all,
This all started when I posted a story that Mike Huckabee shared about how the HCRA is having a negative effect on small business. Which IS a very interesting look at a person who IS a small business and studied the laws and realized the impacts it carries.
Then comes the personal attacks at Mike Huckabee. That he is dumb as dirt. Then came some shots at the IQ level of people from his state. Nothing to do with the story I posted about the HCRA.
THEN, I asked WHY he was "dumb as dirt". The answer I got was because he is a creationist. So, my conclusion was that he is NO longer qualified to an intelligent opinion, because he believes in that God created the universe. Tit for tat, 6 days or how ever long it took for God to create it.
I then replied that Obama TOO, believes that GOD created the universe. I made the mistake of calling him a creationist. Okay, you win that part, but Obama still believes in GOD and that He created everything. Maybe Obama and Huckabee will disagree on the exact time work, but BOTH believe in God and His creations.
This whole thing was spun around from the point from the story I posted is that HCRA is either going to force business' to close or to quit having so many full time employees and hire more part time employees. Which is NOT good for our economy.
Twist and turn everything you want, but it is NOT a good law. PERIOD.
^^^
Those posts are a recap.
Now to the meat.
Hank, the following is why Huckabee is 'dumber than dirt' - and why you also fall into that category by swallowing that tripe and regurgitating it.
Take a listen:
Bob Westbrook TV Spot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4srJRH5LS34)
Take a read:
Bob Westbrook
President at WR Ventures, Inc.dba CiCi's Pizza (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bob-westbrook/16/13a/baa)
We can glean facts from those two links.
1. Bob had 3 locations which he states serve 'roughly a thousand guests a day' each, and approximately 100 employees.
2. Bob was President of the Texas Restaurant Association for one year, 2010 - 2011.
Now let's take fact 1 and do the math:
3 locations x 1000 patrons each per day = 3000 patrons per day
Now let's take a low assumption of $10 per patron spending - I really think $20 per is closer to the mark.
3000 x $10 x 365 = $10,950,000 gross income
Now let's assume ole' Bob was paying his 100 employees over minimum wage and they were all full time - though I think minimum wage and part time is FAR more likely - and is paying them $10 an hour and they work 40 hours a week.
100 x 10 x 40 x 52 = $2,080,000 employee cost
Quote from: Y on July 31, 2013, 07:10:17 PM
Now let's assume ole' Bob was paying his 100 employees over minimum wage and they were all full time - though I think minimum wage and part time is FAR more likely - and is paying them $10 an hour and they work 40 hours a week.
100 x 10 x 40 x 52 = $2,080,000 employee cost
Don't forget to add in the cost of the insurance, utilities, supplies, business insurance, and other misc. expenses.
Now assuming Bob was renting and didn't own his locations.
http://www.dallas-ecodev.org/real-points-daily-reports-on-commercial-real-estate-greg-biggs-another-dallas-advantage-operating-expenses/
Let's use Dallas approximations - Tyler is actually close to Dallas but rents should be less expensive - of $24 k, which includes electricity:
$1000 x 12 + $1000 x 12 = $24,000 x 3 = $72,000
Now let's assume Bob is paying approximately $1000 a month for his liability and workman's compensation etc. insurance needs:
$1000 x 12 = $12,000
$10,950,000 gross income
less
$2,080,000 employee cost
$72,000 rent and utilities
$12,000 insurance
=
$8,796,800 approximate net
Now that net would be less inventory and other miscellaneous costs that are unknown, but as we can see ole' Bob is making money even after those costs...
...and would be EVEN if he had to offer insurance to all his employees.
Quote from: me on July 31, 2013, 07:19:26 PM
Don't forget to add in the cost of the insurance, utilities, supplies, business insurance, and other misc. expenses.
How about your non-business understanding ass shuts the fuck up and let's him finish? Oh, and now he has...feel stupid much?
Now let's look at ole' Bob's claim "or pay a fine $78,000 bigger than all three restaurants' profits combined".
http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/workforce-management/employee-benefits-management/health-care-reform.aspx
Penalty for not providing insurance: Employers with over 50 employees that do not provide insurance must pay a penalty of $2,000 for every employee in the company if even one employee opts to obtain insurance through an exchange. However, the first 30 employees are not counted in calculation of the penalty. Example: an employer with 75 employees would pay the penalty for 45 workers, or $90,000 (45 x $2.000).
Bob's fine would be:
100 - 30 x $2000 = $140,000
Now Bob says his fine would be: "$78,000 bigger than all three restaurants' profits combined".
$140,000 - $78,000 = $62,000
That $62k is what ole' Bob is claiming as "all three restaurants' profits combined".
Out of $8,796,800 approximate net - less inventory costs and miscellaneous expenses.
Not remotely believable.
Bob's other claim: "he'd be forced to buy his 96 fulltime workers heath coverage, which would bankrupt him".
http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/workforce-management/employee-benefits-management/health-care-reform.aspx
Beginning in 2014, health insurance will be available to individuals and small businesses through state-run "exchanges." These will require insurance companies to compete for business in the marketplace. The objective is to make it it easier for individuals and small businesses to obtain health insurance at a lower price.
The exchange program for small businesses, known as the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), will allow small businesses to pool together to increase their purchasing power. This will allow these businesses to offer health insurance to their employees at rates similar to those available to large corporations.
Beginning in 2014, small businesses that purchase health insurance for their employees through SHOP can receive a two-year small business tax credit of up to 50% of the cost of the premiums.
There are provisions in the law which make it easier to obtain insurance, lower costs of that insurance, AND even subsidize that insurance.
Those facts make Bob's claim of 'bankruptcy' unbelievable.
Also, Bob sold two of his operations: "So he did the only logical thing: he gave up and sold his businesses."
If Bob's claim of 'bankruptcy' and 'fines more than his profit' were even remotely believable, what business person would buy Bob's operations?
The logical answer is Bob would not have been able to sell those operations if the purchaser had no reasonable expectation of making a profit.
Bob's claims essentially state there is NO expectation of profit to be had - all because of the AHCA.
As we've seen, Bob can't be seen as anything but a liar - and an obvious one at that.
Therefore, Huckabee is obviously 'dumber than dirt' for swallowing ole' Bob's lies, as was Hank and again for Hank regurgitating it.
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2013, 02:18:55 PM
Yes. One of the following is true.
1. He's dumb as dirt.
2. He's a political opportunist capitalizing on people who are dumb as dirt.
3. He's both.
And I agree with Loc.
I vote #3.
:yes:
Quote from: Y on July 31, 2013, 07:27:44 PM
Now assuming Bob was renting and didn't own his locations.
http://www.dallas-ecodev.org/real-points-daily-reports-on-commercial-real-estate-greg-biggs-another-dallas-advantage-operating-expenses/
Let's use Dallas approximations - Tyler is actually close to Dallas but rents should be less expensive - of $24 k, which includes electricity:
$1000 x 12 + $1000 x 12 = $24,000 x 3 = $72,000
You can't assume anything and come out with an accurate picture. You can assume in your favor and want to talk as if it were fact and I could assume in my favor and talk as if it were fact but both would be only opinion. If he couldn't make it he couldn't make it period. If that business was his only income he had to also make enough to live on and have enough backup money to cover expenses in the bad times. We are talking small business here not a large corporation. You are assuming he was filthy rich because he owed three businesses which isn't always the case, cash on hand at any rate, it could all be on paper. There are tax breaks he would not be able to take advantage of as a small business that the larger corporations get. One of your figures, $90,000, would be a hell of a chunk for a small business and if that were less than it would cost to insure them all what would that be. Remember he has to buy insurance for himself and his family too and that isn't cheap either.
Oh, and in all likelihood for a business like that it would be a triple net lease so his expenses would be the same as if he owned it for the most part plus he would still have to maintain business insurance.
Quote from: me on July 31, 2013, 08:51:14 PM
If he couldn't make it he couldn't make it period.
So cutting all of that other BS out, and completely ignoring how you failed to address the rest of Y's points, let's assume the above is true. He just couldn't make it under the onerous health care law.
So what about this?
Quote from: Y on July 31, 2013, 08:27:18 PM
Also, Bob sold two of his operations: "So he did the only logical thing: he gave up and sold his businesses."
If Bob's claim of 'bankruptcy' and 'fines more than his profit' were even remotely believable, what business person would buy Bob's operations?
The logical answer is Bob would not have been able to sell those operations if the purchaser had no reasonable expectation of making a profit.
Bob's claims essentially state there is NO expectation of profit to be had - all because of the AHCA.
As we've seen, Bob can't be seen as anything but a liar - and an obvious one at that.
Who would buy a business from ole' Bob if they couldn't expect to turn a profit?
Quote from: me on July 31, 2013, 08:53:47 PM
Oh, and in all likely hood for a business like that it would be a triple net lease so his expenses would be the same as if he owned it for the most part plus he would still have to maintain business insurance.
likelihood :wink:
I figured I would zap you on that one before Exterminator gets around to it.
Quote from: Locutus on July 31, 2013, 08:56:39 PM
So cutting all of that other BS out, and completely ignoring how you failed to address the rest of Y's points, let's assume the above is true. He just couldn't make it under the onerous health care law.
So what about this?
Who would buy a business from ole' Bob if they couldn't expect to turn a profit?
What Bob did and what someone else might do are two different things. The buyer may have more money to operate with and different ideas. There are people who would rather pay less for a business which may not be doing so well and turn it around than pay a big price for a business that's booming and worry about it going down the tubes and losing a large investment. Y's point is not very valid in what he's trying to figure.
:rolleyes:
Good grief!
You obviously don't EVEN get the point...
...which leaves you absolutely clueless to make an assessment of it.
Quote from: Y on July 31, 2013, 09:59:30 PM
:rolleyes:
Good grief!
You obviously don't EVEN get the point...
...which leaves you absolutely clueless to make an assessment of it.
Yes, I get the point quite well. You are doing your best to discredit what Huckabee said.
Y, you sure did make a lot of "assumptions" to arrive at your numbers....but that is ALL beside the point.
Two things.....my first point about the HC act and Bob's business is all real. It is not made up.
Here is my proof.
http://www.12newsnow.com/story/19920415/obamacare-affecting-small-business-owners (http://www.12newsnow.com/story/19920415/obamacare-affecting-small-business-owners)
it IS indeed a real concern by many business owners and it has already made a negative impact on our economy.
Second,
My exchange with Locutus, was more to the fact he doesn't like Huck, because he is a creationist. Apparently that makes him dumb as dirt. Which I have no problem with Lo, not liking him for whatever reason he wants, but he needs to apply that to others, and Obama too, believes that God Created everything.....sure he may not arrive at the same reasoning as huck, but the overall concept of creationism is still at play.
Thirdly, I really don't care. The HC Act is NOT a good thing. That plan is not what the American people need. Pass any law just to say we did something is NOT good.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2013, 08:13:23 AM
Y, you sure did make a lot of "assumptions" to arrive at your numbers....but that is ALL beside the point.
Two things.....my first point about the HC act and Bob's business is all real. It is not made up.
Here is my proof.
http://www.12newsnow.com/story/19920415/obamacare-affecting-small-business-owners (http://www.12newsnow.com/story/19920415/obamacare-affecting-small-business-owners)
it IS indeed a real concern by many business owners and it has already made a negative impact on our economy.
Hank, pardon my French, but you're a dumbarse. That story is the same load of crap from the original one - the same load of crap I proved could not be the truth.
You need to stay away from that circle jerk over on HUB and stop getting smoke blown up your arse and stop blowing smoke up those HUB idiot's arses.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2013, 08:13:23 AM
Thirdly, I really don't care. The HC Act is NOT a good thing. That plan is not what the American people need. Pass any law just to say we did something is NOT good.
The final HC Act is EXACTLY what the Repugs in the Senate and the House wanted it to be, so if you or the rest of your dimwitted party want to complain about it, you should be doing it in the mirror.
Your party gutted what was in essence a REPUBLICAN PLAN - a PLAN the REPUBLICANS had proposed and never passed, a PLAN the REPUBLICAN Mitt Romney DID PASS in MA.
BUT, let a BLACK Democratic President appear as if his administration would get credit for getting that REPUBLICAN PLAN put into law, SUDDENLY the Repugs are against it and gut their OWN PLAN!
Quote from: Y on August 22, 2013, 03:10:47 PM
Hank, pardon my French, but you're a dumbarse. That story is the same load of crap from the original one - the same load of crap I proved could not be the truth.
You need to stay away from that circle jerk over on HUB and stop getting smoke blown up your arse and stop blowing smoke up those HUB idiot's arses.
Just in case you missed it that is a local ABC TV news cast he got the link from so if anyone is blowing smoke it's a mainstream TV news channel. http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kbmt/APRIL-9-KBMT.pdf Of course that would matter not to you since you've got it all figured out and HH just can't possibly be right about something. You really need to quit discounting everything we post and start checking things out a little better. Don't have a clue what the HUB is but this definitely didn't come from there.
Quote from: Y on August 22, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
The final HC Act is EXACTLY what the Repugs in the Senate and the House wanted it to be, so if you or the rest of your dimwitted party want to complain about it, you should be doing it in the mirror.
Your party gutted what was in essence a REPUBLICAN PLAN - a PLAN the REPUBLICANS had proposed and never passed, a PLAN the REPUBLICAN Mitt Romney DID PASS in MA.
BUT, let a BLACK Democratic President appear as if his administration would get credit for getting that REPUBLICAN PLAN put into law, SUDDENLY the Repugs are against it and gut their OWN PLAN!
I don't recall being asked to vote on the Massachusetts HCB or give an opinion on whether I thought they should have it Y and if you remember correctly it is basically a liberal state. Did you vote for it to pass in Massachusetts? Did anyone besides the residence of that state vote on it?
Quote from: Y on August 22, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
The final HC Act is EXACTLY what the Repugs in the Senate and the House wanted it to be, so if you or the rest of your dimwitted party want to complain about it, you should be doing it in the mirror.
Your party gutted what was in essence a REPUBLICAN PLAN - a PLAN the REPUBLICANS had proposed and never passed, a PLAN the REPUBLICAN Mitt Romney DID PASS in MA.
BUT, let a BLACK Democratic President appear as if his administration would get credit for getting that REPUBLICAN PLAN put into law, SUDDENLY the Repugs are against it and gut their OWN PLAN!
Yup. And the replies to this posting thus far do not surprise me. I've been saying this same thing for a LONG time now; with similar results.
Quote from: Palehorse on August 22, 2013, 06:00:51 PM
Yup. And the replies to this posting thus far do not surprise me. I've been saying this same thing for a LONG time now; with similar results.
Quote from: me on August 22, 2013, 03:35:04 PM
I don't recall being asked to vote on the Massachusetts HCB or give an opinion on whether I thought they should have it Y and if you remember correctly it is basically a liberal state. Did you vote for it to pass in Massachusetts? Did anyone besides the residence of that state vote on it?
http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=18813.msg479317#msg479317
Quote from: me on August 22, 2013, 09:10:03 PM
http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=18813.msg479317#msg479317
Really? Do I appear even remotely lazy and lacking in high level brain function as to be incapable of scrolling up three posts in order to read the quote in its original placement? :rolleyes:
Are you now saying you desire a say in the voting of other states business? No? Then what the hell are you trying to say? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on August 23, 2013, 07:51:05 AM
Really? Do I appear even remotely lazy and lacking in high level brain function as to be incapable of scrolling up three posts in order to read the quote in its original placement? :rolleyes:
Are you now saying you desire a say in the voting of other states business? No? Then what the hell are you trying to say? :rolleyes:
Ya'll are saying we didn't object to the Romney bill so it has to be because Obama is black that we disagree with his....Well, had the Romney bill been one I could have voted on I would have objected to it too but I don't live in Massachusetts. It is not technically "Obama's" bill since he had nothing to do with writing it he just wanted it called that so he would get credit for it and Pelosi and Reid wanted to get it passed so they could be heroes and score brownie points. Also had everyone thought the conservative bill was so great it would have passed and it didn't so obviously it was objected to too.
Quote from: Y on August 22, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
The final HC Act is EXACTLY what the Repugs in the Senate and the House wanted it to be, so if you or the rest of your dimwitted party want to complain about it, you should be doing it in the mirror.
Your party gutted what was in essence a REPUBLICAN PLAN - a PLAN the REPUBLICANS had proposed and never passed, a PLAN the REPUBLICAN Mitt Romney DID PASS in MA.
BUT, let a BLACK Democratic President appear as if his administration would get credit for getting that REPUBLICAN PLAN put into law, SUDDENLY the Repugs are against it and gut their OWN PLAN!
Quote from: me on August 23, 2013, 08:43:44 AM
Ya'll are saying we didn't object to the Romney bill so it has to be because Obama is black that we disagree with his....Well, had the Romney bill been one I could have voted on I would have objected to it too but I don't live in Massachusetts. It is not technically "Obama's" bill since he had nothing to do with writing it he just wanted it called that so he would get credit for it and Pelosi and Reid wanted to get it passed so they could be heroes and score brownie points. Also had everyone thought the conservative bill was so great it would have passed and it didn't so obviously it was objected to too.
Holy hell! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on August 23, 2013, 02:47:07 PM
Holy hell! :rolleyes:
Ok let me say this slowly. Did the conservative HCB get passed? No. Would the people have objected to it? Yes, especially if it was similar to the one that did pass.
Did the "Obama" HCB get passed? Yes Did he write it? No. Was it Pelosi and Reid who forced it through? Yes
Did Hillary's HCB pass? No Did people object to it? Yes
How does that add up to having anything to do with the color of Obama's skin? It doesn't but it sure is a convenient thing for the liberals to use to cause upheaval and blame it on anything but the truth.
Quote from: me on August 22, 2013, 03:31:01 PM
Just in case you missed it that is a local ABC TV news cast he got the link from so if anyone is blowing smoke it's a mainstream TV news channel. http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kbmt/APRIL-9-KBMT.pdf Of course that would matter not to you since you've got it all figured out and HH just can't possibly be right about something. You really need to quit discounting everything we post and start checking things out a little better. Don't have a clue what the HUB is but this definitely didn't come from there.
Good grief!!!
1. It's the SAME story, about the SAME guy, with the SAME lies! I've gone through it and proved how the guy is a liar and the crap he spews is BS.
2. The HUB doesn't have anything to do with #1, it's a personal comment to Hank about the crap he spews elsewhere - the HUB. Hank enjoys having the idiots on HUB blow smoke up his arse and Hank enjoys reciprocating. It's just a RW idiotic circle jerk. They, and Hank, like it because it's self-validating - everyone glad hands everyone else for their mutual stupidity.
<rant>
I see it all over the place. The RW idiocracy runs away from any critical thinkers who expose their BS and the flaws in their thinking. They then congregate in little hidey-holes across the internet and perpetuate their little circle jerks, glad handing their lil' pee-pees and telling themselves they're the only ones who see and have a handle on the Country's problems and congratulating themselves on how smart they are and how crooked, corrupt, stupid, racist, socialist, communist, hateful, ideologues anyone is who doesn't agree with them and participate in their little circle jerks.
The thing is, they can't defend their BS with facts, evidence, and logic, and they get tired of getting shown to be idiots, so that's why they have to run and congregate to self-validate.
They refuse to participate in the marketplace of ideas because their ideas fall apart under scrutiny and criticism.
And folks, that's why those lil' recalcitrant cowards are dangerous to this Country, our society, and our heritage of governance by Rights and Law.
</rant>
So Me and Hank can educate themselves.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx
Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan
In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."
Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Here is a summary of the 1993 bill:
Title I: Basic Reforms to Expand Access to Health Insurance Coverage and to Ensure Universal Coverage - Subtitle A: Universal Access - Provides access to health insurance coverage under a qualified health plan for every citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States.
(Sec. 1003) Establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.
(Sec. 1004) Requires each employer to make available, either directly, through a purchasing group, or otherwise, enrollment in a qualified health plan to each eligible employee.
Subtitle B: Qualified General Access Plan in the Small Employer and Individual Marketplace- Requires the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to develop specific standards to implement requirements concerning: (1) guaranteed eligibility, availability, and renewability of health insurance coverage; (2) nondiscrimination based on health status; (3) benefits offered; (4) insurer financial solvency; (5) enrollment process; (6) premium rating limitations; (7) risk adjustment; and (8) consumer protection.
(Sec. 1119) Requires each qualified general access plan to: (1) establish and maintain a quality assurance program and a mediation procedures program; and (2) contain assurances of service to designated underserved areas.
(Sec. 1141) Provides for the formation of purchasing groups by individuals and small employers.
(Sec. 1161) Requires brokers or insurers to provide specified information to prospective enrollees.
(Sec. 1162) Prohibits insurers from creating improper financial incentives and from selling duplicate coverage.
Subtitle C: Qualified Health Plans in the Large Employer Marketplace - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to establish standards for large employer plans similar to requirements applicable to small employer plans.
(Sec. 1203) Requires large employers to offer to employees at least a standard package and a catastrophic package.
(Sec. 1205) Allows two or more large employers to form purchasing groups, but not through an individual or small employer purchasing group.
(Sec. 1206) Requires a semi-annual review of each large employer plan to determine whether requirements are being met and what corrective actions need to be taken.
(Sec. 1221) Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to revise provisions to conform to this Act.
Subtitle D: Benefits; Benefits Commission - Requires each qualified health plan to provide a standard package and a catastrophic package. Specifies items and services to be covered.
(Sec. 1311) Establishes the Benefits Commission to develop and propose legislation that provides a clarification of covered items and services and includes specifications for cost sharing.
(Sec. 1314) Provides for congressional consideration and implementation of such legislation.
Subtitle E: State and Federal Responsibilities in Relation to Qualified Health Plans - Requires each State to establish a program to: (1) certify insured health plans; (2) disseminate information on health care coverage areas; (3) establish procedures for purchasing groups; (4) prepare information concerning plans and purchasing groups; (5) provide for a risk adjustment program, including an adjustment for differences in nonpayments among qualified insured health plans; (6) develop a binding arbitration process; and (7) specify an annual general enrollment period.
(Sec. 1421) Allows the waiver of specified requirements.
(Sec. 1431) Provides preemptions of certain State laws.
(Sec. 1441) Specifies the Federal responsibilities with respect to multi-State employer plans and in case of State defaults.
Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.
Subtitle G: Definitions - Defines terms used in this Act.
Title II: Tax and Enforcement Provisions - Subtitle A: General Tax Provisions - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from an employee's gross income employer-provided coverage under a qualified health plan or employer-provided contributions to the employee's medical savings account. Includes excess employer contributions in such gross income.
(Sec. 2002) Allows a business expense deduction for employer costs of qualified health plans or contributions to an employee's medical savings account.
Increases the allowable deduction (from 25 percent to 100 percent) for the qualified health insurance costs of self-employed individuals. Makes such deduction permanent.
(Sec. 2003) Allows individuals a tax deduction for contributions made to a medical care savings account established for the benefit of an eligible individual.
Allows such deduction whether or not an individual itemizes deductions.
Disallows distributions from such accounts as medical expense deductions.
Excludes employer contributions to such accounts from employment taxes.
Establishes an excise tax for excess contributions to medical care savings accounts.
(Sec. 2004) Eliminates the commonality of interest and geographic location requirements with respect to group purchasing by large tax-exempt organizations.
(Sec. 2005) Revises and repeals provisions concerning continuation coverage requirements of group health plans upon implementation of this Act.
Subtitle B: Provisions Relating to Acceleration of Death Benefits - Requires payment under a life insurance contract on the life of an insured who is terminally ill to be treated as a death benefit, making such payment eligible for tax exclusion from gross income.
(Sec. 2102) Provides that any reference to life insurance shall be treated as referring to a qualified terminal illness rider.
Subtitle C: Long-Term Care Tax Provisions - Treats qualified long-term care services as medical care for purposes of the medical expense deduction.
(Sec. 2202) Provides for the treatment of long-term care insurance as accident and health insurance.
(Sec. 2301) Sets forth consumer protection provisions to be satisfied by qualified long-term care insurance contracts, including the model regulation and Act promulgated by National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Requires NAIC to promulgate standards for the use of uniform language and definitions in such policies, with certain variations permitted.
Subtitle D: Enforcement Provisions - Amends part A (General Provisions) of Social Security Act title XI to establish the Health Insurance Coverage Data Bank to: (1) further the purposes of coverage requirements under this Act; and (2) collect certain information reported by employers about individual employee group health plan coverage for purposes of identifying and collecting from responsible third parties any amounts owed to reimburse Medicare or Medicaid for health care items and services furnished to their beneficiaries. (Replaces the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank.)
(Sec. 2402) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose excise taxes on failures by employers and insurers to comply with provisions of this Act.
(Sec. 2411) Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to make conforming changes regarding enforcement of employer failures.
Title III: Quality Assurance and Simplification - Subtitle A: Quality Assurance - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with relevant agencies, to develop and publish standards for quality assurance programs and ensure that appropriate performance measures are established. Requires the standards to contain provider risk programs to prevent or provide early warning of practices that may result in injury.
(Sec. 3002) Provides for the standardization of information through a national health data system.
(Sec. 3003) Requires the Secretary to establish measures to determine quality of care in specialized centers of care.
(Sec. 3004) Authorizes appropriations to examine the feasibility of creating an Agency for Clinical Evaluations by consolidating the responsibilities of specified other offices.
(Sec. 3005) Requires the Secretary to report annually to the Congress on factors affecting universal coverage and make recommendations for increasing such coverage.
(Sec. 3006) Requires the Secretary to monitor the reinsurance market for qualified health plans and periodically report to the Congress on the financial implications.
(Sec. 3101) Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish within the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research a clearinghouse for information and research data concerning clinical trials. Requires the appointment of a fund investigator for the Agency.
(Sec. 3201) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to establish the National Fund for Medical Research and provide for the designation of tax overpayments to such fund.
Subtitle B: Administrative Simplification - Establishes a health care data interchange system to make data available on a uniform basis to all participants in the health care system.
(Sec. 3302) Requires the Health Care Data Panel to develop regulations for the operation of an integrated electronic health care data interchange system.
(Sec. 3304) Sets forth requirements for such system including: data and transaction standards, uniform working files, code sets, unique identifiers, standards for confidentiality, rules for the transfer of information, and periodic reviews.
(Sec. 3313) Establishes the Health Care Data Panel and a National Health Informatics Commission to advise the Panel on its activities.
Title IV: Judicial Reforms - Subtitle A: Medical Liability Reform - Requires a qualified health plan to provide effective mediation procedures for hearing and resolving health care malpractice claims.
(Sec. 4013) Requires each State to adopt an alternative dispute resolution method for the resolution of health care malpractice claims and consumer grievances.
(Sec. 4021) Establishes provisions with respect to liability under health care malpractice actions brought in State or Federal courts.
(Sec. 4022) Limits attorney contingency fees and award amounts for noneconomic damages.
(Sec. 4024) Establishes a two-year statute of limitations for health care malpractice claims, except in the case of minors.
(Sec. 4025) Requires each State to establish a set of specialty clinical guidelines. Allows the use of such guidelines as a rebuttable presumption in a claim or action, if the service provided was the appropriate standard of medical care.
(Sec. 4026) Prohibits the award of punitive damages against the producer of a drug or device that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
(Sec. 4027) Requires a report to the appropriate congressional committees on the operation of this subtitle.
Subtitle B: Anti-Fraud and Abuse Control Program - Requires the Secretary to establish in the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services a program to control fraud and abuse under the universal health care plan. Establishes the Anti-Fraud and Abuse Trust Fund.
(Sec. 4102) Amends title XI of the Social Security Act (SSA) to provide for the application of the penalties for Medicare and Medicaid fraud to all health care programs.
(Sec. 4103) Requires the Secretary to establish a program through which Medicare-eligible individuals may report instances of suspected fraud under Medicare.
(Sec. 4111) Revises current SSA title XI sanctions for fraud and abuse involving Medicare and State health care programs, with changes providing for: (1) program exclusion for individuals convicted of a felony relating to fraud or the unlawful manufacture or dispensing of a controlled substance; (2) new offenses under civil monetary penalty provisions, such as the offering of inducements to program-eligible individuals; (3) establishment of a minimum period of exclusion for practitioners and persons who fail to meet statutory obligations; (4) intermediate sanctions on eligible health maintenance organizations for program violations; and (5) procedures for imposing such sanctions.
(Sec. 4121) Directs the Secretary to establish a national health care fraud and abuse data collection program for the reporting by each government agency and health care plan of final adverse actions against health care providers, suppliers, and practitioners. Requires program information to be made available to the public for a reasonable fee.
(Sec. 4122) Amends SSA title XI to require the Secretary to publish in the Federal Register a listing of all final adverse actions taken during the quarter.
(Sec. 4131) Amends the Federal criminal code to set penalties for knowingly executing a scheme or artifice to: (1) defraud any health care plan in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, health care benefits, items, or services (benefits); and (2) obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care plan or person in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, health care benefits.
(Sec. 4132) Directs the court, upon a finding that a Federal health care offense is of a type that poses a serious threat to the health of any individual or has a significant detrimental impact on the health care system, to order a person convicted of that offense to forfeit property that was used in the commission of the offense or that constitutes or was derived from proceeds traceable to the offense that is of a value proportionate to the seriousness of the offense.
(Sec. 4133) Authorizes the Attorney General to commence a civil action in Federal court to enjoin a violation constituting a Federal health care offense.
(Sec. 4134) Makes commission of a Federal health care offense a predicate to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
(Sec. 4141) Makes provisions of the Civil False Claims Act applicable to the use of false records or statements made to a health care plan. Includes within the definition of "claim" for purposes of such Act any request or demand for money or property which is made or presented to a health care plan.
Subtitle C: Treatment of Certain Activities Under the Antitrust Laws - Exempts from the antitrust laws specified "safe harbor" activities related to the provision of health care services. Sets forth provisions regarding the award of attorney fees and costs of suit to the prevailing party in an action based on a claim involving activity found to be exempt.
(Sec. 4202) Lists as safe harbors specified: (1) activities relating to health care services of combinations of health care providers with market share below a specified threshold; (2) activities of medical self-regulatory entities relating to standard setting or enforcement activities not conducted for purposes of financial gain; (3) participation of a health care provider in a written survey of the prices of services, reimbursement levels, or the compensation and benefits of employees and personnel; (4) activities relating to health care joint ventures for high technology and costly equipment and services; (5) activities relating to hospital mergers; (6) joint purchasing arrangements; and (7) negotiations.
(Sec. 4203) Directs the Attorney General to publish a notice in the Federal Register soliciting proposals for additional safe harbors and to review and report to the Congress on proposed safe harbors. Sets forth criteria in establishing safe harbors, including: (1) the extent to which a competitive or collaborative activity will accomplish an increase in health care access and quality, the establishment of cost efficiencies, and increased ability of health care facilities to provide services in medically underserved areas or to underserved populations; and (2) whether designation as a safe harbor will result in specified desirable outcomes.
(Sec. 4204) Directs the Attorney General to issue certificates of review for providers of health care services and assist persons in applying for such certificates. Sets forth provisions regarding applications for, revocation of, and review of determinations regarding such certificates. Limits the disclosure of information.
(Sec. 4205) Sets forth provisions regarding notifications providing for a reduction in certain penalties under the antitrust laws for health care cooperative ventures.
(Sec. 4206) Directs the Attorney General to: (1) review the safe harbors and certificates of review periodically; and (2) promulgate such rules, regulations, and guidelines as necessary to carry out provisions of this subtitle.
(Sec. 4208) Establishes within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of Health Care Competition Policy.
Title V: Special Assistance for Frontier, Rural, and Urban Underserved Areas - Subtitle A: Frontier, Rural, and Urban Underserved Areas - Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish a program of allotments to States for grants for community-based primary health services to low-income or medically underserved populations regarding infant mortality and referrals for the health management of infants and pregnant women. Earmarks for the allotments specified percentages of appropriations under certain provisions added by this Act.
(Sec. 5002) Mandates grants to federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and other entities for providing access to services for medically underserved populations or in high impact areas not currently being served by a FQHC. Authorizes appropriations. Directs the Secretary to report to the appropriate congressional committees on the relationship and interaction between community health centers and hospitals in providing services to such populations.
(Sec. 5003) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow a nonrefundable credit for certain primary health services providers for mandatory service periods in health professional shortage areas; (2) exclude from gross income qualified loan repayments to the National Health Service Corps; (3) increase the dollar limitation allowed for expensing medical equipment used in rural health shortage areas; and (4) allow a deduction for student loan payments by medical professionals practicing in rural areas.
(Sec. 5004) Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to provide for: (1) establishment of rural emergency access care hospitals under Medicare; and (2) coverage of and payment for rural emergency access care hospital services under Medicare part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance).
(Sec. 5005) Amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary to make grants to States to assist in the creation or enhancement of air medical transport systems that provide victims of medical emergencies in rural areas with access to treatments. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) application and State plan requirements; (2) considerations in awarding grants; (3) State administration and use of grants; (4) the number of grants; and (5) reporting requirements. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 5006) Authorizes the Secretary to conduct a demonstration project and grant program to encourage the development and operation of rural health networks. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 5007) Requires the Secretary to report to the Congress on improving access to benefits under qualified health plans for individuals residing in rural areas.
Subtitle B: Primary Care Provider Education - Requires the Secretary to provide for the establishment of demonstration projects to evaluate mechanisms to increase the number and percentage of medical students entering primary care practice through funds otherwise available for direct graduate medical education costs under the Medicare program.
(Sec. 5102) Allows funding under Medicare for training in nonhospital-owned facilities.
(Sec. 5103) Increases authorized funding for the National Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs. Authorizes funding through FY 1998.
(Sec. 5104) Increases and extends through FY 1997 authorized funding for training for certain health service providers.
Subtitle C: Programs Relating to Primary and Preventive Care Services - Authorizes appropriations for a grant program to improve coordination of maternal and infant care.
(Sec. 5202) Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to authorize appropriations to carry out a comprehensive school health education and prevention program for elementary and secondary school students.
(Sec. 5203) Allows frontier States (including Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana) to implement proposals and participate in demonstration projects which give special consideration to their diverse needs.
Title VI: Treatment of Existing Federal Programs - Subtitle A: Medicaid Program - Gives States the option of allowing the enrollment of Medicaid-eligible individuals (including a limited number of AFDC- and SSI-eligible individuals) in the standard benefit package under a qualified health plan, instead of enrollment in the State's Medicaid program.
(Sec. 6001) Sets forth requirements for States exercising such option. Places a cap on Federal payments for acute medical services furnished under a State's Medicaid programs.
(Sec. 6011) Discontinues reimbursement standards for inpatient hospital services.
Revises the Federal medical assistance percentage for certain States.
Modifies Federal requirements to allow States more flexibility in contracting for coordinated care services under Medicaid.
(Sec. 6021) Provides for waivers from requirements on coordinated care programs.
Gives States the option to guarantee the continued Medicaid eligibility of individuals enrolled with risk contracting and other managed care entities.
(Sec. 6031) Provides for phased-in elimination of Medicaid hospital disproportionate share adjustment payments.
Subtitle B: Medicare - Requires the Secretary to: (1) submit to the Congress a proposal for legislation which provides for the enrollment of Medicare beneficiaries in qualified health plans; and (2) provide for a monthly payment to a qualified health plan on behalf of enrolled Medicare beneficiaries.
(Sec. 6111) Amends the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OMBRA '90) to revise provisions for a modified payment methodology for risk contractors.
(Sec. 6112) Requires the Secretary to provide for adjustment in Medicare capitation payments to take into account secondary payer status.
Authorizes the Secretary to make additional payments to eligible organizations with risk-sharing contracts.
(Sec. 6121) Amends OMBRA '90 to: (1) make permanent the Medicare select policy program; and (2) allow access to Medicare select policies in all States.
Amends Medicare to revise the Medicare select policy program and provide for a civil penalty for misrepresentations made in connection with such a policy.
(Sec. 6131) Makes specified changes with regard to monthly Medicare part B premium determinations for part B enrollees.
(Sec. 6132) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide for an increase in the Medicare part B premium for individuals with high income.
(Sec. 6133) Makes permanent certain payment reductions relating to outpatient hospital services furnished under Medicare.
(Sec. 6135) Imposes copayments for laboratory services and certain home health visits provided under Medicare.
(Sec. 6137) Provides for phased-in elimination of Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments.
(Sec. 6138) Directs the Secretary to discontinue hospital reimbursements for costs relating to the recovery of bad debts.
(Sec. 6139) Makes specified changes with regard to Medicare as a secondary payer.
Title VII: Patient's Right to Self-Determination Regarding Health Care - Provides for the treatment of advance directives and other measures, including a study by the Secretary on issues relating to health care decisions by the patient, in addressing the patient's right to self-determination regarding health care.
COSPONSORS(20), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 11/22/1993
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 11/22/1993
Sen Boren, David L. [OK] - 5/17/1994
Sen Cohen, William S. [ME] - 11/22/1993
Sen Danforth, John C. [MO] - 11/22/1993
Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] - 11/22/1993
Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 11/22/1993
Sen Durenberger, Dave [MN] - 11/22/1993
Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/22/1993
Sen Gorton, Slade [WA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 11/22/1993
Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR] - 11/22/1993
Sen Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [KS] - 11/22/1993
Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE] - 5/17/1994
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 11/22/1993
Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY] - 11/22/1993
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 11/22/1993
Sen Warner, John [VA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Brown, Hank [CO] - 11/22/1993 (withdrawn - 10/4/1994)
source: The Library of Congress
And a little more history.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein
Unpopular Mandate
Why do politicians reverse their positions?
by Ezra Klein June 25, 2012
...The Republicans have made the individual mandate the element most likely to undo the President's health-care law. The irony is that the Democrats adopted it in the first place because they thought that it would help them secure conservative support. It had, after all, been at the heart of Republican health-care reforms for two decades.
The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation's health-care expert, argued, "Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts 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." The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act—the Republicans' alternative to President Clinton's health-reform bill—which was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.
After the Clinton bill, which called for an employer mandate, failed, Democrats came to recognize the opportunity that the Chafee bill had presented. In "The System," David Broder and Haynes Johnson's history of the health-care wars of the nineties, Bill Clinton concedes that it was the best chance he had of reaching a bipartisan compromise. "It should have been right then, or the day after they presented their bill, where I should have tried to have a direct understanding with Dole," he said.
Ten years later, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, began picking his way back through the history—he read "The System" four times—and he, too, came to focus on the Chafee bill. He began building a proposal around the individual mandate, and tested it out on both Democrats and Republicans. "Between 2004 and 2008, I saw over eighty members of the Senate, and there were very few who objected," Wyden says. In December, 2006, he unveiled the Healthy Americans Act. In May, 2007, Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican, who had been a sponsor of the Chafee bill, joined him. Wyden-Bennett was eventually co-sponsored by eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, receiving more bipartisan support than any universal health-care proposal in the history of the Senate. It even caught the eye of the Republican Presidential aspirants. In a June, 2009, interview on "Meet the Press," Mitt Romney, who, as governor of Massachusetts, had signed a universal health-care bill with an individual mandate, said that Wyden-Bennett was a plan "that a number of Republicans think is a very good health-care plan—one that we support."
Wyden's bill was part of a broader trend of Democrats endorsing the individual mandate in their own proposals. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton both built a mandate into their campaign health-care proposals. In 2008, Senator Ted Kennedy brought John McDonough, a liberal advocate of the Massachusetts plan, to Washington to help with health-care reform. That same year, Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, included an individual mandate in the first draft of his health-care bill. The main Democratic holdout was Senator Barack Obama. But by July, 2009, President Obama had changed his mind. "I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it. It's because they can't afford it," he told CBS News. "I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate."
This process led, eventually, to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—better known as Obamacare—which also included an individual mandate. But, as that bill came closer to passing, Republicans began coalescing around the mandate, which polling showed to be one of the legislation's least popular elements. In December, 2009, in a vote on the bill, every Senate Republican voted to call the individual mandate "unconstitutional."
This shift—Democrats lining up behind the Republican-crafted mandate, and Republicans declaring it not just inappropriate policy but contrary to the wishes of the Founders—shocked Wyden. "I would characterize the Washington, D.C., relationship with the individual mandate as truly schizophrenic," he said...
Quote from: me on August 25, 2013, 06:30:34 AM
Ok let me say this slowly. Did the conservative HCB get passed? No. Would the people have objected to it? Yes, especially if it was similar to the one that did pass.
Did the "Obama" HCB get passed? Yes Did he write it? No. Was it Pelosi and Reid who forced it through? Yes
Did Hillary's HCB pass? No Did people object to it? Yes
How does that add up to having anything to do with the color of Obama's skin? It doesn't but it sure is a convenient thing for the liberals to use to cause upheaval and blame it on anything but the truth.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/fieldclinic/Obamacare-vs-Romneycare-Is-there-a-difference.html
Obamacare vs. Romneycare: Is there a difference?
Robert I. Field, Ph.D., J.D., M.P.H., Professor, Earle Mack School of Law & Drexel School of Public Health
Mitt Romney says his Massachusetts health reform plan is much better than Obama's. He claims it's different in important ways.
If there are big differences, it's difficult to find them.
In an interview last week with a Denver TV station, Romney cited the key features that differentiate his reform approach from Obama's.
He declared, "My health care plan I put in place in my state has everyone insured, but we didn't go out and raise taxes on people and have a unelected board tell people what kind of health care they can have."
Let's do some quick fact checking.
Does Romneycare have everyone insured? Close, but not fully there. The plan cut the state's rate of uninsurance by almost half. As of 2010, the rate was just over 6% for the nonelderly population, the lowest of any state. That's a huge accomplishment, but there is still a ways to go before everyone has coverage.
Did Romneycare raise taxes? No, but the state didn't need to. It covered the cost of reform with larger payments that it negotiated from the federal government for its Medicaid program.
Does Romneycare have an unelected board that tells people what kinds of health care they can have? It does. The Massachusetts Connector Authority serves as the state's insurance exchange. It sets standards for the types of plans that may be sold, thereby determining the kind of access residents will have to health care services.
Is Obamacare any different? Not really.
It will extend coverage to 30 million more people, which will reduce the country's rate of uninsurance by about half to roughly 8 percent. Not too different from Romneycare.
It does raise taxes in a number of ways, including new levies on tanning salons, medical devices, and high-end insurance policies. But, unlike Massachusetts, it doesn't have a higher level of government to turn to for help, so it needs a new source of revenue to cover the cost.
It does let unelected officials determine what kind of insurance people can receive by setting standards for coverage under the state exchanges that will sell it. Just like Romneycare.
Romney's comment about an unelected board was probably also a reference to a new board that Obamacare created called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It recommends cost-cutting measures under Medicare. Romney, along with several fellow Republicans, has complained about the scope of its power. But Romneycare is a state-based program while Medicare is purely federal. It couldn't have included an IPAB or any other measure concerning Medicare, even if Romney had wanted it to.
After all is said and done, these aspects of the plans are relatively minor, anyway. In their underlying structure, Obamacare and Romneycare are almost identical.
Both expand coverage in the same three ways. They reform the market for individual insurance by creating exchanges to sell it, subsidizing those with low incomes, and mandating that everyone maintain coverage in some form. They expand Medicaid to cover more people. And they penalize employers who don't offer coverage to their workers.
Romney and his fellow Republicans should be proud that Obama copied their health reform approach. Instead of drawing false distinctions between the two plans, they should boast of leading on health reform and leaving Obama and Democrats to follow.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Quote from: Y on August 26, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
So Me and Hank can educate themselves.
So Y can educate Himself:
Supporters of the individual mandate have harped on the point that it was "originally a conservative idea." (Here's a news story elaborating this view.) It is certainly true that the Heritage Foundation and many Republican politicians supported it. Although this fact hardly establishes that it is a good idea or, when imposed at the federal level, a constitutional one, it is a fact, and it's worth noting. Conservatives were not always as dead-set against the mandate as they are now, and some influential conservatives supported it.
But we shouldn't overstate the case. I think an accurate description of the history of rightist opinion on this question would look at three separate groups: politicians, think tanks, and grassroots conservatives. This last group never really focused on the individual mandate, and never really had any reason to. I doubt that it would ever have been popular with this group.
The think tankers were divided, with the Heritage Foundation an outlier. It was an outlier, too, in the broader right-of-center intellectual world. (For whatever it's worth, I was reading NR pretty closely in the mid-'90s and do not recall its ever endorsing the mandate.)
The politicians were the group most likely to embrace the individual mandate. Most of them gave no serious thought to the issue but thought it would be helpful in resisting various liberal health-care plans, and knew that the Heritage Foundation favored it.
So yes, conservative opinion on the mandate has changed. But I don't think it's right to suggest that most conservative voters or conservative policy thinkers ever supported it. I think what happened is that as soon as grassroots conservatives focused on the mandate, they hated it—and they were right to hate it, in my view–and both the politicians and that one outlier think tank responded to their sentiment. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294585/history-individual-mandate-ramesh-ponnuru (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294585/history-individual-mandate-ramesh-ponnuru)
Quote from: me on August 25, 2013, 06:30:34 AM
Ok let me say this slowly. Did the conservative HCB get passed? No. Would the people have objected to it? Yes, especially if it was similar to the one that did pass.
Did the "Obama" HCB get passed? Yes Did he write it? No. Was it Pelosi and Reid who forced it through? Yes
Did Hillary's HCB pass? No Did people object to it? Yes
How does that add up to having anything to do with the color of Obama's skin? It doesn't but it sure is a convenient thing for the liberals to use to cause upheaval and blame it on anything but the truth.
Now to point out the ridiculousness of the above.
When comparing to find the different underlying factor(s) between the support and resistance from the RW/Republicans, one should look at:
1. Was 'Obamacare' essentially the same as the RW/Republican think tank proposals, the Republican's own plan, and the Republican Mitt Romney's plan?
The answer is a resounding YES!
2. Did the RW/Republicans support the RW/Republican think tank proposals, the Republican's own plan, and the Republican Mitt Romney's plan?
Again, the answer is a resounding YES!
3. Were there Democrats who supported the RW/Republican health care ideas?
The answer is again a resounding YES!
So now, let's look at what IS different since 'Obamacare' is essentially the Republican's plan which always had Democratic support.
1. As the Democrats who wrote 'Obamacare' essentially copied the Republican's plan, the RW/Republican's sudden rejection of their own plan can't be that Democrat's 'wrote' it.
2. Since the RW/Republican's never brought their plan up for debate or hearings nationally, but the RW/Republican plan was passed by a state Democratic legislature and signed into state law by a Republican governor, the RW/Republican's sudden rejection of their own plan can't be due to bi-partisan support or that the plan doesn't work.
Now apply Occam's Razor, and logic arrives at one pronounced difference.
The difference is that the President of the United States is now a 'black' man...
...and folks, THAT means the RW/Republican rejection and resistance to their own plan has its roots in RACISM.
Just to show you that you don't read what you post, OR apply ANY critical analysis to it before you post it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 26, 2013, 04:48:38 PM
So Y can educate Himself:
Supporters of the individual mandate have harped on the point that it was "originally a conservative idea." (Here's a news story elaborating this view.) It is certainly true that the Heritage Foundation and many Republican politicians supported it. Although this fact hardly establishes that it is a good idea or, when imposed at the federal level, a constitutional one, it is a fact, and it's worth noting. Conservatives were not always as dead-set against the mandate as they are now, and some influential conservatives supported it.
But we shouldn't overstate the case. I think an accurate description of the history of rightist opinion on this question would look at three separate groups: politicians, think tanks, and grassroots conservatives. This last group never really focused on the individual mandate, and never really had any reason to. I doubt that it would ever have been popular with this group.
The think tankers were divided, with the Heritage Foundation an outlier. It was an outlier, too, in the broader right-of-center intellectual world. (For whatever it's worth, I was reading NR pretty closely in the mid-'90s and do not recall its ever endorsing the mandate.)
The politicians were the group most likely to embrace the individual mandate. Most of them gave no serious thought to the issue but thought it would be helpful in resisting various liberal health-care plans, and knew that the Heritage Foundation favored it.
So yes, conservative opinion on the mandate has changed. But I don't think it's right to suggest that most conservative voters or conservative policy thinkers ever supported it. I think what happened is that as soon as grassroots conservatives focused on the mandate, they hated it—and they were right to hate it, in my view–and both the politicians and that one outlier think tank responded to their sentiment.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294585/history-individual-mandate-ramesh-ponnuru (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294585/history-individual-mandate-ramesh-ponnuru)
1. Mr. Ponnuru starts out by proving his own 'opinion' isn't credible.
2. He then makes an assumption with absolutely NO evidence to support it.
3. He then makes a statement of fact with absolutely NO evidence to support it.
4. He then takes his unsupported assumption and his unsupported 'fact' and goes on to a TOTALLY unwarranted and unsupported conclusion!
Your 'educational' post is just more evidence that you cannot get away from stroking your own pud - in other words, you can only accept and look for things that self-validate.
Did either of those bills pass? No. Would I have or did I object to either of them? Yes. Just because it was proposed doesn't mean a thing it wasn't forced on us like this one was and there is a difference. You are arguing over something that is a moot point here and proves nothing except people are objecting to the one that did get passed and had the others been ramrodded like this one was they would have been just as objectionable. What does something that didn't happen have to do with something that did happen? Those type of mind games may work on you for arguments but it won't wash with me. :no:
Quote from: Y on August 26, 2013, 05:19:10 PM
Just to show you that you don't read what you post, OR apply ANY critical analysis to it before you post it.
YOU, sir, A un-freakin, believable! THIS, is why it is useless to TRY to have a decent exchange on here. And, therefore, why I do not worry about remotely trying to prove anything on here. I can say with 100% certainty, I am indeed on the right side of logic, when it comes to political issues.
You are absolutely able to "twist and spin" issues, like the HC bill and such, and MAKE them whatever YOU want them to be.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of Americans and all logical thinking Conservatives KNEW, this HC Bill was going to be BAD for America. It has surfaced to be EXACTLY as they claimed. So spin all you want, you are NOT fooling anybody who KNOWS better. ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 27, 2013, 07:50:50 AM
YOU, sir, A un-freakin, believable! THIS, is why it is useless to TRY to have a decent exchange on here.
Read: "because I can't keep up and I'm tired of having my ass handed to me."
QuoteI can say with 100% certainty, I am indeed on the right side of logic, when it comes to political issues.
Punctuation, on the other hand, continues to elude me. :rolleyes:
QuoteThe bottom line is that the vast majority of Americans and all logical thinking Conservatives KNEW, this HC Bill was going to be BAD for America.
Excuse me but racist rednecks are not the vast majority of the population...yet. In case you didn't notice, the
majority of Americans re-elected Obama.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 27, 2013, 10:38:35 AM
In case you didn't notice, the majority of Americans re-elected Obama.
What is your Point? My statement is still true.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbcpoll_july2013.pdf (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbcpoll_july2013.pdf)
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/july-2013-washington-post-abc-news-national-poll-trayvon-martin/327/ (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/july-2013-washington-post-abc-news-national-poll-trayvon-martin/327/)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57595297/poll-americans-still-dissatisfied-with-washington-economy/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57595297/poll-americans-still-dissatisfied-with-washington-economy/)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/07/24/fox-news-poll-voters-are-unhappy-with-economy-say-repeal-obamacare/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/07/24/fox-news-poll-voters-are-unhappy-with-economy-say-repeal-obamacare/)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164078/americans-wary-not-familiar-health-law.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/164078/americans-wary-not-familiar-health-law.aspx)
Here's a poll for you. (http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/25/hillary-clinton-posts-crushing-leads-ohio-buckeye-state-swings-solid-blue-state.html) Now suck it! LOL! :biggrin:
Quote from: Y on August 26, 2013, 05:04:51 PM
Now to point out the ridiculousness of the above.
When comparing to find the different underlying factor(s) between the support and resistance from the RW/Republicans, one should look at:
1. Was 'Obamacare' essentially the same as the RW/Republican think tank proposals, the Republican's own plan, and the Republican Mitt Romney's plan?
The answer is a resounding YES!
2. Did the RW/Republicans support the RW/Republican think tank proposals, the Republican's own plan, and the Republican Mitt Romney's plan?
Again, the answer is a resounding YES!
3. Were there Democrats who supported the RW/Republican health care ideas?
The answer is again a resounding YES!
So now, let's look at what IS different since 'Obamacare' is essentially the Republican's plan which always had Democratic support.
1. As the Democrats who wrote 'Obamacare' essentially copied the Republican's plan, the RW/Republican's sudden rejection of their own plan can't be that Democrat's 'wrote' it.
2. Since the RW/Republican's never brought their plan up for debate or hearings nationally, but the RW/Republican plan was passed by a state Democratic legislature and signed into state law by a Republican governor, the RW/Republican's sudden rejection of their own plan can't be due to bi-partisan support or that the plan doesn't work.
Now apply Occam's Razor, and logic arrives at one pronounced difference.
The difference is that the President of the United States is now a 'black' man...
...and folks, THAT means the RW/Republican rejection and resistance to their own plan has its roots in RACISM.
Quote from: me on August 27, 2013, 03:31:51 AM
Did either of those bills pass? No. Would I have or did I object to either of them? Yes. Just because it was proposed doesn't mean a thing it wasn't forced on us like this one was and there is a difference. You are arguing over something that is a moot point here and proves nothing except people are objecting to the one that did get passed and had the others been ramrodded like this one was they would have been just as objectionable. What does something that didn't happen have to do with something that did happen? Those type of mind games may work on you for arguments but it won't wash with me. :no:
Quote from: Exterminator on August 27, 2013, 11:10:13 AM
Here's a poll for you. (http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/25/hillary-clinton-posts-crushing-leads-ohio-buckeye-state-swings-solid-blue-state.html) Now suck it! LOL! :biggrin:
well yeah, if you want to believe in Polls.....
(https://sphotos-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1233473_567236960004883_1745904614_n.jpg)
Like fish in a barrel.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 27, 2013, 12:23:11 PM
(https://sphotos-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1233473_567236960004883_1745904614_n.jpg)
Guess I'm gonna have to start posting all the stupid crap the liberal's sign and agree with. I have refrained thus far but you opened the can of worms up. Thing is it's on video and can't be denied. Liberals are really gullible.
Quote from: me on August 27, 2013, 03:26:43 PM
Guess I'm gonna have to start posting all the stupid crap the liberal's sign and agree with. I have refrained thus far but you opened the can of worms up. Thing is it's on video and can't be denied. Liberals are really gullible.
Cannot be any worse than the smorgasbord of shite you've been shoveling around this year!
Quote from: me on August 27, 2013, 03:31:51 AM
Did either of those bills pass? No. Would I have or did I object to either of them? Yes. Just because it was proposed doesn't mean a thing it wasn't forced on us like this one was and there is a difference. You are arguing over something that is a moot point here and proves nothing except people are objecting to the one that did get passed and had the others been ramrodded like this one was they would have been just as objectionable. What does something that didn't happen have to do with something that did happen? Those type of mind games may work on you for arguments but it won't wash with me. :no:
Quote from: Y on August 26, 2013, 05:04:51 PM
Now to point out the ridiculousness of the above.
When comparing to find the different underlying factor(s) between the support and resistance from the RW/Republicans, one should look at:
1. Was 'Obamacare' essentially the same as the RW/Republican think tank proposals, the Republican's own plan, and the Republican Mitt Romney's plan?
The answer is a resounding YES!
2. Did the RW/Republicans support the RW/Republican think tank proposals, the Republican's own plan, and the Republican Mitt Romney's plan?
Again, the answer is a resounding YES!
3. Were there Democrats who supported the RW/Republican health care ideas?
The answer is again a resounding YES!
So now, let's look at what IS different since 'Obamacare' is essentially the Republican's plan which always had Democratic support.
1. As the Democrats who wrote 'Obamacare' essentially copied the Republican's plan, the RW/Republican's sudden rejection of their own plan can't be that Democrat's 'wrote' it.
2. Since the RW/Republican's never brought their plan up for debate or hearings nationally, but the RW/Republican plan was passed by a state Democratic legislature and signed into state law by a Republican governor, the RW/Republican's sudden rejection of their own plan can't be due to bi-partisan support or that the plan doesn't work.
Now apply Occam's Razor, and logic arrives at one pronounced difference.
The difference is that the President of the United States is now a 'black' man...
...and folks, THAT means the RW/Republican rejection and resistance to their own plan has its roots in RACISM.