Page 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647
Results 461 to 466 of 466

Thread: House Bill Defunds Health Care

  1. #461
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    01-14-18 @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    42,013

    Re: House Bill Defunds Health Care

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    I think you confuse my resistance against who I'm paying with having to pay at all. I have insurance. I get it through my wife now but there was a time not too long ago I was paying 100% out of pocket for it. So I'm not sitting here like some Randian school boy talking out his Atlas...

    I don't see a law chocked full of loopholes, exemptions, kickbacks, twists, turns, bobs and weaves as being a pragmatic solution. And last I checked we elect our government, we can make them set up any type of HCR we want...
    Excellent. Let's make them set up one that isn't chocked full of loopholes, exemptions, kickbacks, twists, turns, bobs and weaves.

    Meanwhile, let's not go back to the pre Obamacare system. That one just doesn't work.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #462
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,406

    Re: House Bill Defunds Health Care

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Dont you get tired of that talking point?



    http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...f-05-11-11.pdf
    Let me start by reiterating my appreciation for your intelligent response in that you supported your position. This is unlike some other yahoo on this board who simply chose to call me ignorant to the claim that the Heritage Foundation had nothing to do with the individual mandate. Of course, he chose not to even attempt to back up his claim. Like far too many DP posters, he simply chose to substitute insults, anger and arrogance for competent evidential matter proving only that he is a weak debater. You did not. Thank you.

    Though I doubt you will agree with my conclusions, hopefully you can respect what I have to say as an intelligent response.

    Given the audience of this Friend of the Court Brief, I assume (I think rightfully) this is the Heritage Foundation's best argument in distancing itself from the notion that it endorsed the individual mandate. As I suspected, however, their argument is nuanced. As I did not expect, their argument was remarkably weak.

    As to the nuance, pages 8 and 9 of their Brief says that unlike the PPACA, they only supported the mandate for catastrophic coverage and only to the extent there were tax credits. Sorry, but this is an argument of form, not substance. I am not sure what the substantive distinction is between forcing someone to buy catastrophic coverage vs. broadening that to essential coverage (with the argument about what is essential); nor to I find substantive distinction between tax credits vs. other tax benefits afforded participants in the PPACA.

    As to how weak the argument is, they never deny that the mandate was their idea. In fact, The Heritage Foundation admits it. Instead, they are forced to diminish its significance by trivializing it. Instead offering of litany of papers, speeches or other documents that refute the original idea since 1989, they instead fall on saying that the idea of a mandate was derived from an individual speech by, what they almost imply as a low level staffer and ,by the way, taken out of context and occurred 21 years ago. Their whole argument is to downplay the introduction of the mandate. In that, they admit it. They can not deny the fact, so they are forced to deny its significance. Then, when telling us they have long-since changed their position, their argument here is also very weak. It seems the earliest cite for this change of way was 2006, some 17 years after it was introduced. Contrary to what many would have you believe, there is NO evidence that they retracted their position for 17 years. Curiously, the first evidence for their backpeddling was in 2006, curiously, is the year it was actually implemented in Massachusetts.

    Meanwhile, during the time the Heritage Foundation did not deny the mandate, the Republicans chose to embrace it. In 1993, Senators Hatch and Chafee introduced legislation to reform the healthcare industry the individual mandate as its central tenant.

    Hatch supported individual health mandate until Obama did
    Understanding health care reform: The individual mandate | ksl.com
    Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News

    Then, of course, in 2006, Massachusetts, under the leadership of then Republican governor Mitt Romney, actually implemented a healthcare reform with the mandate as its core.

    All in, this Friend of the Court brief is extremely weak. It does a better job of affirming my original assertion than it does to deny it. To recap, the Heritage Foundation admits it was behind the idea, and is asking for forgiveness of its sin having become enlightened 17 years later (and 13 years after it was a centerpiece of Republican led legislation). The first evidence within their brief that they challenged the constitutionality of it was in 2009, curiously as the PPACA was in its final stages of legislative approval.

    Again, it safe to assume this is the Heritage Foundation's best argument to say it had nothing to do with the current PPACA. Given the dates that the Heritage Foundation cites in its cross references, the Brief is remarkably transparent. Collectively, the document is so weak that it better serves to affirm that they were, in fact, a part of the PPACA family tree.

    Again, thank you. Next time someone tells me (the other guy) how it is widely known the the Heritage Foundation dismissed its own creation of the mandate as unworkable, I have good evidence that was not so, and that they are simply changes colors like the rest of the Conservative chameleons.

    If the PPACA is a crime, the Republicans fingerprints all over it make them at least an accessory.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 10-04-13 at 03:16 AM.

  3. #463
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,406

    Re: House Bill Defunds Health Care

    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe View Post
    There's a downside to those Medicare Advantage Plans. It's very confusing and sometimes it's difficult for the healthcare providers to get paid because of all the plans they have to keep track of.
    Yes, doctors having to deal with multiple health insurance companies can be very confusing and difficult. We appreciate your excellent argument in favor of single payor.

  4. #464
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: House Bill Defunds Health Care

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Yes, doctors having to deal with multiple health insurance companies can be very confusing and difficult. We appreciate your excellent argument in favor of single payor.
    Or even better the free market with no government involvement whatsoever.

  5. #465
    double secret probation AngryOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phx,Az
    Last Seen
    03-31-14 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,917

    Re: House Bill Defunds Health Care

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Or even better the free market with no government involvement whatsoever.
    hells yeah do it

    do it today!!!!
    Imagine if you just went and paid for stuff at the doctor yanno like at the grocery store?
    New Hope for the Wretched era

  6. #466
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    01-12-18 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,213

    Re: House Bill Defunds Health Care

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Let me start by reiterating my appreciation for your intelligent response in that you supported your position. This is unlike some other yahoo on this board who simply chose to call me ignorant to the claim that the Heritage Foundation had nothing to do with the individual mandate. Of course, he chose not to even attempt to back up his claim. Like far too many DP posters, he simply chose to substitute insults, anger and arrogance for competent evidential matter proving only that he is a weak debater. You did not. Thank you.

    Though I doubt you will agree with my conclusions, hopefully you can respect what I have to say as an intelligent response.

    Given the audience of this Friend of the Court Brief, I assume (I think rightfully) this is the Heritage Foundation's best argument in distancing itself from the notion that it endorsed the individual mandate. As I suspected, however, their argument is nuanced. As I did not expect, their argument was remarkably weak.

    As to the nuance, pages 8 and 9 of their Brief says that unlike the PPACA, they only supported the mandate for catastrophic coverage and only to the extent there were tax credits. Sorry, but this is an argument of form, not substance. I am not sure what the substantive distinction is between forcing someone to buy catastrophic coverage vs. broadening that to essential coverage (with the argument about what is essential); nor to I find substantive distinction between tax credits vs. other tax benefits afforded participants in the PPACA.

    As to how weak the argument is, they never deny that the mandate was their idea. In fact, The Heritage Foundation admits it. Instead, they are forced to diminish its significance by trivializing it. Instead offering of litany of papers, speeches or other documents that refute the original idea since 1989, they instead fall on saying that the idea of a mandate was derived from an individual speech by, what they almost imply as a low level staffer and ,by the way, taken out of context and occurred 21 years ago. Their whole argument is to downplay the introduction of the mandate. In that, they admit it. They can not deny the fact, so they are forced to deny its significance. Then, when telling us they have long-since changed their position, their argument here is also very weak. It seems the earliest cite for this change of way was 2006, some 17 years after it was introduced. Contrary to what many would have you believe, there is NO evidence that they retracted their position for 17 years. Curiously, the first evidence for their backpeddling was in 2006, curiously, is the year it was actually implemented in Massachusetts.

    Meanwhile, during the time the Heritage Foundation did not deny the mandate, the Republicans chose to embrace it. In 1993, Senators Hatch and Chafee introduced legislation to reform the healthcare industry the individual mandate as its central tenant.

    Hatch supported individual health mandate until Obama did
    Understanding health care reform: The individual mandate | ksl.com
    Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News

    Then, of course, in 2006, Massachusetts, under the leadership of then Republican governor Mitt Romney, actually implemented a healthcare reform with the mandate as its core.

    All in, this Friend of the Court brief is extremely weak. It does a better job of affirming my original assertion than it does to deny it. To recap, the Heritage Foundation admits it was behind the idea, and is asking for forgiveness of its sin having become enlightened 17 years later (and 13 years after it was a centerpiece of Republican led legislation). The first evidence within their brief that they challenged the constitutionality of it was in 2009, curiously as the PPACA was in its final stages of legislative approval.

    Again, it safe to assume this is the Heritage Foundation's best argument to say it had nothing to do with the current PPACA. Given the dates that the Heritage Foundation cites in its cross references, the Brief is remarkably transparent. Collectively, the document is so weak that it better serves to affirm that they were, in fact, a part of the PPACA family tree.

    Again, thank you. Next time someone tells me (the other guy) how it is widely known the the Heritage Foundation dismissed its own creation of the mandate as unworkable, I have good evidence that was not so, and that they are simply changes colors like the rest of the Conservative chameleons.

    If the PPACA is a crime, the Republicans fingerprints all over it make them at least an accessory.
    Whatever.

Page 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •