Page 19 of 129 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969119 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 1290

Thread: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

  1. #181
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,301

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    No, I didn't. There is a difference between singular and plural pronouns, and "my" is very different from "our." Further, "we, the people" is a commonplace; if that were your intended meaning, you would've used "our."
    It would be rather difficult for me to own the government now wouldn't it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    You have no empirical evidence backing up your false assertion. You are simply conjecturing based on a whim...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Or maybe "We now understand why women provoke men into hitting them".
    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    . Losing insurance does not mean losing healthcare. .

  2. #182
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    I posted a direct link detailing the history of the individual mandate for anyone to see.
    First, let's get this issue straight. No where am I suggesting that the individual mandate wasn't originally suggested by certain segments of conservatism two decades ago. I acknowledged that the first major presentation of the notion came from the Heritage Foundation in the 80's as a potential alternative idea to universal health care, and was part of a Republican plan in 1993. My disagreement was over this notion that Obama thought, or should've thought, he'd get some conservative support SIMPLE because he "Got it from Conservatives".

    The reason I suggested this was ridiculous is because history suggests that it was an "idea from conservatives".....that was ultimately REJECTED by the majority of the party back in 1994 and since.

    Taking things from a liberal premise perspective....Obama expecting conservatives to get on board because they at one point years ago supported something would be akin to Republicans expecting democrats getting on board with requiring ID to vote since they got the idea to require additional hurdles to vote from Democrats.

    This would of course be silly, because it was years ago that Democrats by and large supported Poll Tests and had in the years since rejected such notions. Well similarly, it's been years ago that Republicans by and large supported the Individual Mandate and had in the years since rejected such a notion.

    Second, my issue is with this broad characterization that a SINGULAR IDEA is meant to be enough to get someone on board with a law.

    Now, your link indicates that SOME Republicans did support the individual mandate over TWO DECADES AGO. However, let's be truthful...you're being as honest and forthright with the facts as many liberals suggest George W. Bush was in regards to WMD's in Iraq, and if Obama actually truthfully believed that would gain conservative votes then he was being as naive and ignorant as many liberals claim GWB was as well.

    The 1993 Bill in Question, the one that built off the idea put forward by a single individual at heritage, quickly lost support from Republicans. The soon to be Presidential nominee, Bob Dole, who originally cosponsored the bill...along with a number of other senators...were the first to abandon the idea in part due to the individual mandate in 1994 (SOURCE). It was during that year that Senate Republicans completely abandoned the Chafee bill and instead focused on one that expand access to insurance while stopping short of requiring everyone to have insurance (SOURCE). Within short order enough Republicans opposed the Chafee Plan to kill it in the 103rd congress completely (SOURCE).

    Shortly after Forty of the Forty-Four Republican Senators supported the Dole-Packwood health care plan that rejected the notion of an individual mandate (SOURE). In the wake of his new bill, supported by the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate, Bob Dole explained well the thought of Conservatives regarding the notion of universal coverage via the individual mandate:

    "I think I agreed that was certainly a goal. I didn't object to everybody being covered. But I did object on how we were going to do it and how we were going to get there and how they defined it." (SOURCE)

    As you can see, as early as 1994....TWENTY YEARS AGO...it was clear that by and large conservatives had abandoned the notion that the "individual mandate" was a legitimate means of going about attempting to get people covered for health care. Liberals keep pointing back to something that occurred in 1993 as a means of expecting Conservatives to have gotten on board 15 years later...all while ignoring that ONE YEAR later they already had rejected the notion. Why in the world would Conservatives...fourteen years after they by and large began to reject the individual mandate...jump on board with a bill simply because it had an individual mandate?

    Additionally, to my second point, once again Obama and his supporters are either naive or ridiculously dishonest in their presentation. EVEN if we're to assume Republicans still supported the individual mandate, despite them abandoning it in 1994, the differences between the 1993 bill and the ACA are still STAGGERING enough to both legitimatize opposition despite a token "conservative idea" AND to suggest that said token would be made impotent by the other factors.

    From another thread where I had to deal with someone's continual spew of propaganda:

    Such as the current law mandating that businesses help pay for premiums for some employees where as the 1993 plan not requiring it. The 1993 plan had malpractice reform, a big thing for republicans, this one didn't. 1993's didn't make 26 year olds children "dependents". 1993 took steps to equalize the taxes for those that are self employed. This plan bans lifetime spending caps, 1993's doesn't.

    Then lets go deeper. The current bill has a large medicare expansion that could potentially end up covering more people through its expansion, due to the amount of uninsured that would fall under the 133 percent poverty line, than through any other provision. This is a rather substantial thing in and of itself, and is something completely missing from the 1993 bill. The current Bill puts greater taxes on very expensive plans where as 1993 had a tax cap. Again, another large issue for Republicans.
    EVEN if we're to believe what is patently foolish to believe...that because Republicans agreed with the individual mandate 15+ years prior that they MUST still have believed in it in 2009/10...there are still a plethora of reasons why someone shouldn't have expected Republicans to get on board with due to one particular token bone thrown their way.

    But when one realizes that said bone was rejected 15 years prior by Republicans, and that the only reason people don't realize that is because the propaganda machine is drumming along wonderfully well on the part of the liberals showing only a short segment of history and praying people don't do this crazy thing called "Research" (that funny thing you'd expect media members to do...), it looks even more foolish to think that they were going to get on board with any major way.

    So no....

    There is no reason why Obama should've thought he was HONESTLY putting forth a "conservative idea", nor that he should've thought he'd had gained conservative support, unless he was an utter buffoon with an inability to research any form of history beyond 1993. Wide spread conservative support for the Individual Mandate vanished 15 years before the Obama Administration put forward the ACA as a potential means of health care reform. Expecting Conservatives to have just teleported back in time to 1993, ignoring the 15 years since where the idea had been rejected and the context of the situation changed, would be pure idiocy.

  3. #183
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Newt Gingrich != "Conservatives"

    Newt Gingrich = Newt Gingrich

  4. #184
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Interesting quote in this video from Newt: "We don't have 500 hiding in a room trying to write the 'magic bill', that's going to go through on an Up or Down vote... we actually have a process underway where lots and lots of different players have an opportunity to have input... this is a healthier process than we saw in 1993."

  5. #185
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    I did watch it, but if that's not clear, here's a better one.


    What you don't seem to understand is the term mandate and how it is funded or implemented. Newt supported an individually funded voucher system administered by the states not the Federal Govt. Further Newt is FORMER Speaker of the House who is for each individual having health insurance but that system being funded by a voucher system and tax credits. Not what Obama has implemented.

  6. #186
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    You are absolutely correct...and its not a matter of using as an argument for/against. Its simply just stating the facts. Roe v. Wade absolutely resulted in an increase in abortions the same as this latest decision will result in an increase in abortions.
    Doubtful. Abortion was at it's lowest rate since legalization before the mandate kicked in. Meaning less women were getting abortions even when they had to pay for contraception out of their own pocket.
    From the ashes.

  7. #187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    This is a clear victory for Barrack Obama, halting his streak of 9-0 losses at just 13.

  8. #188
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    First, let's get this issue straight. No where am I suggesting that the individual mandate wasn't originally suggested by certain segments of conservatism two decades ago. I acknowledged that the first major presentation of the notion came from the Heritage Foundation in the 80's as a potential alternative idea to universal health care, and was part of a Republican plan in 1993. My disagreement was over this notion that Obama thought, or should've thought, he'd get some conservative support SIMPLE because he "Got it from Conservatives".

    The reason I suggested this was ridiculous is because history suggests that it was an "idea from conservatives".....that was ultimately REJECTED by the majority of the party back in 1994 and since.

    Taking things from a liberal premise perspective....Obama expecting conservatives to get on board because they at one point years ago supported something would be akin to Republicans expecting democrats getting on board with requiring ID to vote since they got the idea to require additional hurdles to vote from Democrats.

    This would of course be silly, because it was years ago that Democrats by and large supported Poll Tests and had in the years since rejected such notions. Well similarly, it's been years ago that Republicans by and large supported the Individual Mandate and had in the years since rejected such a notion.

    Second, my issue is with this broad characterization that a SINGULAR IDEA is meant to be enough to get someone on board with a law.

    Now, your link indicates that SOME Republicans did support the individual mandate over TWO DECADES AGO. However, let's be truthful...you're being as honest and forthright with the facts as many liberals suggest George W. Bush was in regards to WMD's in Iraq, and if Obama actually truthfully believed that would gain conservative votes then he was being as naive and ignorant as many liberals claim GWB was as well.

    The 1993 Bill in Question, the one that built off the idea put forward by a single individual at heritage, quickly lost support from Republicans. The soon to be Presidential nominee, Bob Dole, who originally cosponsored the bill...along with a number of other senators...were the first to abandon the idea in part due to the individual mandate in 1994 (SOURCE). It was during that year that Senate Republicans completely abandoned the Chafee bill and instead focused on one that expand access to insurance while stopping short of requiring everyone to have insurance (SOURCE). Within short order enough Republicans opposed the Chafee Plan to kill it in the 103rd congress completely (SOURCE).

    Shortly after Forty of the Forty-Four Republican Senators supported the Dole-Packwood health care plan that rejected the notion of an individual mandate (SOURE). In the wake of his new bill, supported by the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate, Bob Dole explained well the thought of Conservatives regarding the notion of universal coverage via the individual mandate:

    "I think I agreed that was certainly a goal. I didn't object to everybody being covered. But I did object on how we were going to do it and how we were going to get there and how they defined it." (SOURCE)

    As you can see, as early as 1994....TWENTY YEARS AGO...it was clear that by and large conservatives had abandoned the notion that the "individual mandate" was a legitimate means of going about attempting to get people covered for health care. Liberals keep pointing back to something that occurred in 1993 as a means of expecting Conservatives to have gotten on board 15 years later...all while ignoring that ONE YEAR later they already had rejected the notion. Why in the world would Conservatives...fourteen years after they by and large began to reject the individual mandate...jump on board with a bill simply because it had an individual mandate?

    Additionally, to my second point, once again Obama and his supporters are either naive or ridiculously dishonest in their presentation. EVEN if we're to assume Republicans still supported the individual mandate, despite them abandoning it in 1994, the differences between the 1993 bill and the ACA are still STAGGERING enough to both legitimatize opposition despite a token "conservative idea" AND to suggest that said token would be made impotent by the other factors.

    From another thread where I had to deal with someone's continual spew of propaganda:



    EVEN if we're to believe what is patently foolish to believe...that because Republicans agreed with the individual mandate 15+ years prior that they MUST still have believed in it in 2009/10...there are still a plethora of reasons why someone shouldn't have expected Republicans to get on board with due to one particular token bone thrown their way.

    But when one realizes that said bone was rejected 15 years prior by Republicans, and that the only reason people don't realize that is because the propaganda machine is drumming along wonderfully well on the part of the liberals showing only a short segment of history and praying people don't do this crazy thing called "Research" (that funny thing you'd expect media members to do...), it looks even more foolish to think that they were going to get on board with any major way.

    So no....

    There is no reason why Obama should've thought he was HONESTLY putting forth a "conservative idea", nor that he should've thought he'd had gained conservative support, unless he was an utter buffoon with an inability to research any form of history beyond 1993. Wide spread conservative support for the Individual Mandate vanished 15 years before the Obama Administration put forward the ACA as a potential means of health care reform. Expecting Conservatives to have just teleported back in time to 1993, ignoring the 15 years since where the idea had been rejected and the context of the situation changed, would be pure idiocy.
    You're totally right, but that's not a good thing. Because it really wasn't a conservatives alternative. It was a predominantly a politically motivated gimmick by the GOP to let them pretend that they had an alternative to "Hillary Care". And that is what's wrong with the last 20 years of national conservatism. There are no actual ideas, no actual policies. They don't try to make anything work. It's just marketing gimmicks and re-branding efforts. If pushed far enough they'll hold up a high school level power point presentation with some graphs that point up. Maybe they'll even add a slogan or two.

    They're sort of like Statler and Waldorf on the Muppets... without the wit.

  9. #189
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Newt Gingrich != "Conservatives"

    Newt Gingrich = Newt Gingrich
    I'm not saying he speaks for all conservatives. He spoke for the Heritage Foundation: Conservative Policy Research and Analysis

    Despite your essay response to my original point (which I appreciate, it was a good read), it really doesn't change the legitimacy of what I said. I don't think an idea of conservative origin should have been met with such vitriol -- such that it has been compared unfavourably to slavery and tyranny. It was a moderate conservative idea that was adopted with some success by Romney.

    As Gingrich said, there was plenty of room for discussion during the healthcare reform process. Seems to me that would have been a good time to sit at the table for Republicans (unless Gingrich was lying; I can't vouch for him).

  10. #190
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,320

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    This is what Obama gets for trying to compromise. He should have gone with true Socialized Medicine, which would have avoided this situation.
    He only was interested in Constitutional "compromise ".

Posting Permissions

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