• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263:617]

And its difficult to argue with anyone who doesn't understand demographics. In an aging population there are fewer people to pay for the programs expected by the older people. The USA is almost $18 trillion in debt and there are still people still expect to be paid when they reach old age. Who will pay them?

Besides housing, that's also what demographics are all about.

Relax, guy. If you'll recall, O-care is not 'government health care' - it is privatized health care that has to meet certain standards set by the government.

And anyone who claims to understand demographics should realize right away that the GOP is in danger of marginalizing itself over the next decade or so, thanks to its general unfriendliness to those who aren't as white as Reagan.
 
There should't have been a need. If all of the money that these people put into the system throughout their careers hadn't been stolen by the criminals in Washington, there would have been plenty of money available. Unfortunately, that's not how the government has worked, they've pilfered the money for decades, figuring they'd be out of office and likely dead before the poop hit the fan and we, as taxpayers and voters, have allowed them to do so instead of holding them responsible.

Exactly! The problem is that people genuinely expect that money to be waiting for them and that is doubtful. Reform was tried during the early years of the Bush Administration but failed.
 
Relax, guy. If you'll recall, O-care is not 'government health care' - it is privatized health care that has to meet certain standards set by the government.
Many people seem to think that the IRS is involved somehow. Is it they who are setting health care standards?

And anyone who claims to understand demographics should realize right away that the GOP is in danger of marginalizing itself over the next decade or so, thanks to its general unfriendliness to those who aren't as white as Reagan.
'Unfriendly' in what way? Do you think the USA will be a better country when it is run by Democrats?
 
Many people seem to think that the IRS is involved somehow. Is it they who are setting health care standards?

'Unfriendly' in what way? Do you think the USA will be a better country when it is run by Democrats?

1. You'll find that most of the standards were suggested by the Heritage foundation when they first proposed what we today call Obamacare.

2. A growing percentage of those on the Right support the "right" of a business to serve someone because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual gender/preference/identity...and this is personified in the growth of the libertarian sector of the GOP. In fact, legislation was just passed in Mississippi affirming just such a 'right' for business against those in the LGBT community.

In other words, a growing percentage of the Right wants to legitimize - or regain - their "right" of prejudice, of discrimination against others. On the other hand, most who are not white have experienced discrimination first-hand, and there's a great many older blacks who remember Jim Crow...

...so to them, the Right is trying to bring back Jim Crow...and that in their eyes is certainly unfriendly to them.
 
1. You'll find that most of the standards were suggested by the Heritage foundation when they first proposed what we today call Obamacare.
I've never heard BHO offer them any credit for this. Perhaps it should be called Heritage Care. Othrs have claimed it was based on Mitt Romneycare. What seems to be happening is that the left is trying to blame this shambles on others.

2. A growing percentage of those on the Right support the "right" of a business to serve someone because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual gender/preference/identity...and this is personified in the growth of the libertarian sector of the GOP. In fact, legislation was just passed in Mississippi affirming just such a 'right' for business against those in the LGBT community.
And how does this relate to Obamacare?

In other words, a growing percentage of the Right wants to legitimize - or regain - their "right" of prejudice, of discrimination against others. On the other hand, most who are not white have experienced discrimination first-hand, and there's a great many older blacks who remember Jim Crow..so to them, the Right is trying to bring back Jim Crow...and that in their eyes is certainly unfriendly to them.
. Learn your history. It was the Democrats who supported the Jim Crow laws.

.
 
. Learn your history. It was the Democrats who supported the Jim Crow laws.

.

We've gone over this, before, Grant. You got shredded the last time you tried this approach. It wasn't Democrats who supported the Jim Crow laws. It was SOUTHERNERS. It happened to be that many southerners at the time were Democrats because of long-standing anger towards Lincoln... who supported the blacks. Of course, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got passed, we saw the shift. Now, Southerners tend to be Republicans. It's about regionalism. Must I keep reminding you of this?
 
We've gone over this, before, Grant. You got shredded the last time you tried this approach. It wasn't Democrats who supported the Jim Crow laws. It was SOUTHERNERS. It happened to be that many southerners at the time were Democrats because of long-standing anger towards Lincoln... who supported the blacks. Of course, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got passed, we saw the shift. Now, Southerners tend to be Republicans. It's about regionalism. Must I keep reminding you of this?

It was Democrats, and no running away will change that. Bill Whittle - Racism - Democrats and Republicans switch sides? - YouTube
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

This 'take a while' certainly wasn't expected by the White House
When did the White House come out and say every American (or simply uninsured American) would be signed up on Obamacare in the first six months?

which is why they kept giving extensions and changing the rules.
The individual mandate extensions (which is what we're discussing) have been granted because the rollout was so terrible.
 
1. You'll find that most of the standards were suggested by the Heritage foundation when they first proposed what we today call Obamacare.

.

It was a man named Stuart Butler from The Heritage Foundation, Glen, and he only suggested the individual mandate. Obamacare isn't just about the individual mandate, is it?
 
I've never heard BHO offer them any credit for this. Perhaps it should be called Heritage Care. Othrs have claimed it was based on Mitt Romneycare. What seems to be happening is that the left is trying to blame this shambles on others.

And how does this relate to Obamacare?

. Learn your history. It was the Democrats who supported the Jim Crow laws.

.

1. Guy, Obama himself credited Romneycare:

“Governor Romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis – this was a bipartisan idea, in fact it’s a Republican idea and Governor Romney at the beginning of this debate wrote and said what we did in Massachusetts could be a model for the inauguration and I agree that the Democrat legislators in Massachusetts might have given some advice to Republicans in Congress about how to cooperate but the fact of the matter is we used the same advisors and they say it’s the same plan.” (boldface mine)

2. Obamacare and the new Jim Crow are two different things...but if you'll look back at your post #779, you'll see that YOU said two different things, and that my reply #780 answered your two different things by separating them into answers 1 and 2.

3. Learn your own history - we're not discussing Democrat and Republican as much as we are liberal and conservative...because while the political parties switched social philosophies a full 180 degrees - Dems used to be the conservative party and the Republicans used to be the liberal party - it was ALWAYS the conservatives who supported Jim Crow, and it was ALWAYS the liberals who fought for equal rights. I grew up in the very deepest of the Deep South - a family acquaintance was a guy named James O. Eastland, a Democratic U.S. senator who was twice president pro tem...and who was for a generation the most powerful racist in America...and when one grows up white where I did, one is almost always at least moderately racist, as I was.

Back before the civil rights struggle both parties had liberals and conservatives - indeed, the Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without liberal Republicans in Congress. But since it was the Dems who led the charge to pass the CRA, the South - which was called the "Solid South" since it was completely Democratic and had been for generations - essentially rebelled against the Democratic Party. Nixon took advantage of this as a part of his Southern Strategy. Here's what his political strategist said:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

So don't tell me I need to learn history - I LIVED it, was a part of it. Nixon's Southern Strategy is why the South is the strongest part of the GOP base today...and why there's so many in the GOP who are racist, and who are eager to legitimize their racism by giving businesses the "right" to discriminate by bringing Jim Crow laws back to life.
 
It was a man named Stuart Butler from The Heritage Foundation, Glen, and he only suggested the individual mandate. Obamacare isn't just about the individual mandate, is it?

That's not entirely true

HF also proposed state based markets, selling insurance across state lines and a few other ideas that are incorporated in ACA.
 
That's not entirely true

HF also proposed state based markets, selling insurance across state lines and a few other ideas that are incorporated in ACA.

I was talking about Stuart Butler's opinion piece, not the HF.
 
What opinion piece? This discussion is not limited to one opinion piece that he wrote

Once again, your attempt to define the limits of a discussion has failed

I wasn't having the discussion with you. I was having it with Glen. I posted to him and quoted one part of his post.
 
This discussion is open to any member of DP

Another of your attempts to control the discussion has failed

Of course it is. But I wasn't having the discussion with you; it was with Glen. You're free to butt in every time. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't answer to you on what I post to other people. You aren't a moderator, are you, sangha?

Now, what would you like to talk about now that you've gotten my attention, which I assume is what you were looking for? I've only read bits and pieces of the piece that Butler published in 1989. Do you have a link that neatly summarizes the plan that The Heritage Foundation published (not the Butler piece)? The one Butler published in 1989 which was actually a lecture he gave as I recall was published with the statement that nothing written in it were to be construed as reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation, or words to that effect.
 
It was a man named Stuart Butler from The Heritage Foundation, Glen, and he only suggested the individual mandate. Obamacare isn't just about the individual mandate, is it?

Perhaps you should research a little more. Here's from another member of the Heritage Foundation, in a 2006 article supporting the idea of health insurance exchanges:

Short of congressional action to reform the tax code, the burden to improve health coverage rests with state officials. The best way to enable individuals and families to buy, own, and keep health insurance from job to job-without losing the tax advantages of the employment-based coverage-is to transform the balkanized and dysfunctional state health insurance market into a single health insurance market. This new market would function well for all sorts of individuals and small businesses, not just workers employed by large companies.

And how about those "pre-existing conditions? Here's a link to a page that links to "The Bush Plan" (from George H. W. Bush):

Less than two decades later, in what remains an unexplored chapter of health care history, a surprising supporter of the individual mandate was George H.W. Bush. According to contemporaneous reporting, Bush used "the tax system to 'encourage and empower' individuals to buy health insurance and would enact insurance market reforms that make it possible for everyone -- even if they have pre-existing health problems -- to get insurance." In short: individuals would be mandated to buy catastrophic health insurance. The cost of that coverage would be tied to income, meaning that the poorer you were, the less expensive your policy would be.

Here's a link to the .pdf file itself - the pertinent quote is found at the bottom of page 25 of the document.

So...that's the individual mandate, the health insurance exchanges, the coverage of pre-existing conditions all supported by the cognoscenti of the GOP long before any of us ever heard of Obama. Got anything else?
 
Exactly! The problem is that people genuinely expect that money to be waiting for them and that is doubtful. Reform was tried during the early years of the Bush Administration but failed.

It should be waiting for them, that's the issue. It's really too late to fix the problem without incurring massive debt replacing all the funds that the government has stolen from Social Security, that's why we have to keep a vigilant eye on our elected representatives and punish them severely for violating the public trust.
 
Of course it is. But I wasn't having the discussion with you; it was with Glen. You're free to butt in every time. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't answer to you on what I post to other people. You aren't a moderator, are you, sangha?

Avoiding backing up your claims (you avoided responding as to what HF opinion piece you were referring to) is definitely something you are allowed to do. I am merely pointing out how your pitiful whines about who you were responding to won't distract attention from the way you have failed to support your claims

Now, what would you like to talk about now that you've gotten my attention, which I assume is what you were looking for? I've only read bits and pieces of the piece that Butler published in 1989. Do you have a link that neatly summarizes the plan that The Heritage Foundation published (not the Butler piece)? The one Butler published in 1989 which was actually a lecture he gave as I recall was published with the statement that nothing written in it were to be construed as reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation, or words to that effect.

Ahh, finally you are actually responding and it turns out that you haven't read the actual report yet you make claims about what it says and what it does not say.

It's clear that your claim was just something you made up.
 
Perhaps you should research a little more. Here's from another member of the Heritage Foundation, in a 2006 article supporting the idea of health insurance exchanges:

Short of congressional action to reform the tax code, the burden to improve health coverage rests with state officials. The best way to enable individuals and families to buy, own, and keep health insurance from job to job-without losing the tax advantages of the employment-based coverage-is to transform the balkanized and dysfunctional state health insurance market into a single health insurance market. This new market would function well for all sorts of individuals and small businesses, not just workers employed by large companies.

And how about those "pre-existing conditions? Here's a link to a page that links to "The Bush Plan" (from George H. W. Bush):

Less than two decades later, in what remains an unexplored chapter of health care history, a surprising supporter of the individual mandate was George H.W. Bush. According to contemporaneous reporting, Bush used "the tax system to 'encourage and empower' individuals to buy health insurance and would enact insurance market reforms that make it possible for everyone -- even if they have pre-existing health problems -- to get insurance." In short: individuals would be mandated to buy catastrophic health insurance. The cost of that coverage would be tied to income, meaning that the poorer you were, the less expensive your policy would be.

Here's a link to the .pdf file itself - the pertinent quote is found at the bottom of page 25 of the document.

So...that's the individual mandate, the health insurance exchanges, the coverage of pre-existing conditions all supported by the cognoscenti of the GOP long before any of us ever heard of Obama. Got anything else?

Thank you for links, Glen, but they don't support your post:

1. You'll find that most of the standards were suggested by the Heritage foundation when they first proposed what we today call Obamacare.

The first link (from 2006), while interesting, doesn't validate the above. Was what he suggested incorporated into the ACA?

The link showing that GHWB advocated the idea of an individual mandate doesn't have anything to do with The Heritage Foundation.
 
Back
Top Bottom