Obamacare just got $111 BILLION more expensive..WTF???

[Greenbeard]

....you just don't like being called on your BS. OC has gotten more expensive and keeps requiring tweaks here there everywhere and the rcie will rise incrementally under the radar or with huge swings like this one buried item, and like the good little boiler room drone you are, you'll squirm with endless palaver, bury yourself is barely comprehensible detail, till you are once again, boxed in.

Cue the incoherent sputtering. I assumed that was where you'd end up after running out of bullshit.

The CMS Actuaries' estimates for national health spending in the year 2020 are now $275 billion below their pre-reform estimates. Put on your thinking hat, I know how those kinds of "barely comprehensible details" confuse you.

I also question the costs part. Competition lowers the cost of products unless there is collusion in the pricing which may be the case here, as also may be government regulations among other things.

If it is simply competition the prices are lower than they would be if we only had one insurer for us all: a lot lower.

Prices of the services insurers are reimbursing for or the premiums insurers charge their enrollees?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Now we really are "saving " some money



8/1/2011
CMS' actuaries: Healthcare spending will continue to increase, despite reform law promises

The landmark 2010 healthcare law will not slow the nation's ballooning healthcare spending in the coming decade, and it will drive spending away from hospitals and toward physicians and pharmaceuticals, according to projections from the government's healthcare actuaries.

The latest estimates of the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act indicate that healthcare spending will continue to increase markedly in almost every respect through 2020. Those increases run contrary to one of the central promises of the law's advocates, including President Barack Obama: that it would slow the rise of ever-higher healthcare costs. The findings, calculated by the CMS' Office of the Actuary, were published last week in the journal Health Affairs.

“Many people would argue, and I'm one of them, that this law hasn't had a very significant effect in bending the cost curve in any direction,” Richard Foster, chief CMS actuary, said in an interview Wednesday following a news conference on the report.


​

 

[Bfgrn]

Saying PapaObama Care is "free market"

is like one saying they are "a little pregnant"

It is absolutely 'free market', so much so that scholars at the American Enterprise Institute were ordered to not to speak to the media or comment on health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

The Affordable Health Care Act is part and parcel the Responsible National Health Insurance bill Republicans proposed back in the early 1990's.

Including the BIG GOP idea...the Individual Mandate

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

What is amazing how bad Papa Obama care is and what a liability for him....
PapaObama brings it up as little as he can
The Left even gets upset when you say ObamaCare because it has
such large negatives, they want to disassociate Papa Obama's name with it
Good luck with that......


The Left knowing how bad it is, tries to defuse the blame by saying "Republicans
wanted it to ..." or " it is just like your plan.."

We understand that the Party requires you parrot talk their points
but you do need some better left wing websites

------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all mandates are equal, and that the mandate in PapaObamaCare is much different than what they by the right:

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

The version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement​

.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "support" for mandate was for Catastrophic coverage to lower the cost of "free riders" based on loss of tax breaks, not a mandate to buy something because one is a US citizen.
PapaObama Care is federal and forces all Americans to purchase Comprehensive insurance

These mandates go way beyond the power and scoop of anything the right suggested

Your bad comparison is equal to one saying if they support abortion
then they must support forced abortion by the state for population control


So no matter how much the Left wants to run from PapaObama Care

It firmly sits in the hands of the Left
enjoy
this baby is all yours

You really need to educate yourself. Listening is right. Conservatives never had any intent on passing healthcare that would benefit the middle class and the poor.

And it's ironic you chose to post something from Stuart Butler. As I said on another thread about health care, Marketists and Marxist are cut from the same cloth. Stuart Butler is a Marketist whose sole objective is privatization of Social Security and Medicare to line the pockets of the opulent.

Don't think Marketists and Marxist are cut from the same cloth?

"Achieving a Leninist Strategy" by Stuart Butler of Cato and Peter Germanis of the Heritage Foundation. The document is still available at Cato, and select quotes are available at Plotting Privatization? from Z Magazine. If you have time it is worth reading the entire document (in particular the section "Weakening the Opposition") to more fully understand the strategy that has been unfolding in the years since. But if you can't, the following quotes give you an idea:

Title: ACHIEVING A “LENINIST” STRATEGY
Cato Journal, vol. 3, no.2 (Fall 1983) (700kB PDF) xlnk.gif. copyright © Cato Institute.

It began in 1982 at the "Rebuilding Social Security" Conference at the radical-right Heritage Foundation, but the plot against Social Security was fleshed out by Butler (a Cato director) and Germanis (an analyst at Heritage) in the Fall 1983 issue of Cato's journal, summarized through quotes here: [Emphasis added.]

"Lenin recognized that fundamental change is contingent upon ... its success in isolating and weakening its opponents. ... we would do well to draw a few lessons from the Leninist strategy. (p. 547)

"we must recognize that we need more than a manifesto ... we must ... construct ... a coalition that will ... reap benefits from the IRA-based private system Ferrara has proposed but also the banks, insurance companies, and other institutions that will gain from providing such plans to the public." (p. 548)

"By approaching the problem in this way, we may be ready for the next crisis in Social Security." (p. 548)

"From a purely political standpoint, it should be remembered that the elderly represent a very powerful and vocal interest group." (p. 549)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Plan of Action
"The first element consists of a campaign to achieve small legislative changes that embellish the present IRA system, making it in practice a small-scale private Social Security system. ... the natural constituency for an enlarged IRA system must be ... welded into a coalition for political change." (p. 551)

"The second main element ... involves what one might crudely call guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it." (p. 552)

Creating a Private Model
"The reason for designing a “super IRA” law with these restrictions is purely political." (p. 552)

"Social Security reform requires mobilizing the various coalitions that stand to benefit from the change, ... the business community, and financial institutions in particular ... "(p. 553)

"The banking industry and other business groups that can benefit from expanded IRAs ..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... the strategy must be to propose moving to a private Social Security system in such a way as to ... neutralize ... the coalition that supports the existing system." (p. 555)

"The next Social Security crisis may be further away than many people believe. ... it could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible. But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform." (Concluding paragraph, p. 556)

 

[Neotrotsky]

Your point?
Just because you use the word smart
does not may you so ,,,,
Indeed, subtle points of comparison are sometimes lost on the dim-witted
So your confusion is understandable

cliche after cliche about the right
please,,, don't care about the middle class
No of course not

I'm sure that Papa Obama will make sure that poor black kids
have the same opportunity as his kids, because they want to help people....wait
He stopped school vouchers so poor black kids can not go to the same school as his kids
Funny how that works




You are still wrong on the Left's poor attempts to diffuse blame for
Papa ObamaCare

It is all yours
Be proud


(side note when you quote full works from some website
you should quote the source. No matter how wacky of a left website it is,,,)

 

[Bfgrn]

Your point?
Just because you use the word smart
does not may you so ,,,,
Indeed, subtle points of comparison are sometimes lost on the dim-witted
So your confusion is understandable

cliche after cliche about the right
please,,, don't care about the middle class
No of course not

I'm sure that Papa Obama will make sure that poor black kids
have the same opportunity as his kids, because they want to help people....wait
He stopped school vouchers so poor black kids can not go to the same school as his kids
Funny how that works




You are still wrong on the Left's poor attempts to diffuse blame for
Papa ObamaCare

It is all yours
Be proud


(side note when you quote full works from some website
you should quote the source. No matter how wacky of a left website it is,,,)

subtle points of comparison are sometimes propaganda and spin and are sometimes lost on the dim-witted
So your confusion is understandable .

Conservatives suddenly are against what they proposed, supported and articulated WHY. But now that Obama has been able to do what no other President could do going back to Teddy Roosevelt, they have no choice but to use propaganda and spin.

If Obama was so far off track, then please explain WHY scholars at the American Enterprise Institute were ordered to not to speak to the media or comment on health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?

Can you explain THAT?

 

[Full-Auto]

Now we really are "saving " some money



8/1/2011
CMS' actuaries: Healthcare spending will continue to increase, despite reform law promises

The landmark 2010 healthcare law will not slow the nation's ballooning healthcare spending in the coming decade, and it will drive spending away from hospitals and toward physicians and pharmaceuticals, according to projections from the government's healthcare actuaries.

The latest estimates of the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act indicate that healthcare spending will continue to increase markedly in almost every respect through 2020. Those increases run contrary to one of the central promises of the law's advocates, including President Barack Obama: that it would slow the rise of ever-higher healthcare costs. The findings, calculated by the CMS' Office of the Actuary, were published last week in the journal Health Affairs.

“Many people would argue, and I'm one of them, that this law hasn't had a very significant effect in bending the cost curve in any direction,” Richard Foster, chief CMS actuary, said in an interview Wednesday following a news conference on the report.


​

Towards big pharma the very people they invited to the table.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Your point?
Just because you use the word smart
does not may you so ,,,,
Indeed, subtle points of comparison are sometimes lost on the dim-witted
So your confusion is understandable

cliche after cliche about the right
please,,, don't care about the middle class
No of course not

I'm sure that Papa Obama will make sure that poor black kids
have the same opportunity as his kids, because they want to help people....wait
He stopped school vouchers so poor black kids can not go to the same school as his kids
Funny how that works




You are still wrong on the Left's poor attempts to diffuse blame for
Papa ObamaCare

It is all yours
Be proud


(side note when you quote full works from some website
you should quote the source. No matter how wacky of a left website it is,,,)

subtle points of comparison are sometimes propaganda and spin and are sometimes lost on the dim-witted
So your confusion is understandable .

Conservatives suddenly are against what they proposed, supported and articulated WHY. But now that Obama has been able to do what no other President could do going back to Teddy Roosevelt, they have no choice but to use propaganda and spin.

If Obama was so far off track, then please explain WHY scholars at the American Enterprise Institute were ordered to not to speak to the media or comment on health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?

Can you explain THAT?

Having to use my words shows
a lack of creativity and imagination on your part

Indeed, indicating a certain lack of cognitive ability on your part
------------------------------------

Again, you are comparing "apples to oranges" and just parroting what
you read on those crazy left wing websites

Your claim that they are the same is still false
and the Left's attempt to diffuse blame for PapaObama Care
is noted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Even PapaObama said he was against the mandate during his primaries

Ordered not to speak- good taste?
what source is that and how are you taking it out of context?

 

[Bfgrn]

Your point?
Just because you use the word smart
does not may you so ,,,,
Indeed, subtle points of comparison are sometimes lost on the dim-witted
So your confusion is understandable

cliche after cliche about the right
please,,, don't care about the middle class
No of course not

I'm sure that Papa Obama will make sure that poor black kids
have the same opportunity as his kids, because they want to help people....wait
He stopped school vouchers so poor black kids can not go to the same school as his kids
Funny how that works




You are still wrong on the Left's poor attempts to diffuse blame for
Papa ObamaCare

It is all yours
Be proud


(side note when you quote full works from some website
you should quote the source. No matter how wacky of a left website it is,,,)

subtle points of comparison are sometimes propaganda and spin and are sometimes lost on the dim-witted
So your confusion is understandable .

Conservatives suddenly are against what they proposed, supported and articulated WHY. But now that Obama has been able to do what no other President could do going back to Teddy Roosevelt, they have no choice but to use propaganda and spin.

If Obama was so far off track, then please explain WHY scholars at the American Enterprise Institute were ordered to not to speak to the media or comment on health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?

Can you explain THAT?

Having to use my words shows
a lack of creativity and imagination on your part

Indeed, indicating a certain lack of cognitive ability on your part
------------------------------------

Again, you are comparing "apples to oranges" and just parroting what
you read on those crazy left wing websites

Your claim that they are the same is still false
and the Left's attempt to diffuse blame for PapaObama Care
is noted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Even PapaObama said he was against the mandate during his primaries

Ordered not to speak- good taste?
what source is that and how are you taking it out of context?

My cognitive abilities are light years ahead of yours.

HERE is what the prime spokesman for the Heritage Foundation on health care reform said years before President Obama implemented their Individual Mandate.

January 1994

Personal Freedom, Responsibility, And Mandates
by Robert E. Moffit

The national debate on universal health coverage is the latest incarnation of an ancient, enduring question of political philosophy: reconciling personal liberty and the authority of the State. It is the central problem of American political culture and is at the heart of nearly every major constitutional conflict in our history.

Americans-heirs of a classical liberal tradition, grounded in the political philosophy of John Locke and the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, in which personal freedom is paramount-harbor a deep distrust of governmental authority. We do not automatically assume that the individual is or should be subordinate to society, whether the issue is literary censorship or economic regulation. Therefore, any political limitation on personal freedom, regardless of prevailing wisdom, prejudices, or majority interests, must be based on a compelling argument.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal. Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance–even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

Robert E. Moffit
Director, Center for Health Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Under President Reagan, Moffit was Assistant Director of Congressional Relations in the Office of Personal Management and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. He wrote Heritage's critical response to President Clinton's plan to nationalize Health Care.

 

[Neotrotsky]

subtle points of comparison are sometimes propaganda and spin and are sometimes lost on the dim-witted
So your confusion is understandable .

Conservatives suddenly are against what they proposed, supported and articulated WHY. But now that Obama has been able to do what no other President could do going back to Teddy Roosevelt, they have no choice but to use propaganda and spin.

If Obama was so far off track, then please explain WHY scholars at the American Enterprise Institute were ordered to not to speak to the media or comment on health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?

Can you explain THAT?

Having to use my words shows
a lack of creativity and imagination on your part

Indeed, indicating a certain lack of cognitive ability on your part
------------------------------------

Again, you are comparing "apples to oranges" and just parroting what
you read on those crazy left wing websites

Your claim that they are the same is still false
and the Left's attempt to diffuse blame for PapaObama Care
is noted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Even PapaObama said he was against the mandate during his primaries

Ordered not to speak- good taste?
what source is that and how are you taking it out of context?

My cognitive abilities are light years ahead of yours.

Well no doubt, your cut and paste skills are advanced



I do find your rather simplistic approach to reading comprehension to be amusing
If one uses the name Lenin, they must be Marxists or
If one uses the word mandate then it must equate to Papa Obama's mandate
Of course, your use of hearsay as "proof" of some cover-up
May be time to break out your tin-foil hat

Reading your posts reminds me of the expression often attributed to Lenin
about "useful idiots" being good for the communist cause
(that must make me a Marxist now)


I know find some long document (30-40 pages) that uses the word "mandate" and cut and paste
the whole thing in your next post. This will really prove your point ....

The funniest part is no doubt lost on you. A leftist trying to use conservative think tanks
to show they are correct-- Well, we can not blame you; it is not like Democratic think tanks opinions are worth
anything,,,,

Again, *to repeat because you are not worth my time*
and because you bring nothing new to the debate to support your point.

What is amazing how bad Papa Obama care is and what a liability for him....
PapaObama brings it up as little as he can
The Left even gets upset when you say ObamaCare because it has
such large negatives, they want to disassociate Papa Obama's name with it
Good luck with that......


The Left knowing how bad it is, tries to defuse the blame by saying "Republicans
wanted it to ..." or " it is just like your plan.."

We understand that the Party requires you parrot talk their points
but you do need some better left wing websites

------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all mandates are equal, and that the mandate in PapaObamaCare is much different than what they by the right:

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
The version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "support" for mandate was for Catastrophic coverage to lower the cost of "free riders" based on loss of tax breaks, not a mandate to buy something because one is a US citizen.
PapaObama Care is federal and forces all Americans to purchase Comprehensive insurance

These mandates go way beyond the power and scoop of anything the right suggested

Your bad comparison is equal to one saying if they support abortion
then they must support forced abortion by the state for population control


So no matter how much the Left wants to run from PapaObama Care

It firmly sits in the hands of the Left
enjoy
this baby is all yours​

​

 

[Listening]

You really need to educate yourself. Listening is right. Conservatives never had any intent on passing healthcare that would benefit the middle class and the poor.

Maybe you can explain that to dumbass Syphon.

 

[Bfgrn]

Having to use my words shows
a lack of creativity and imagination on your part

Indeed, indicating a certain lack of cognitive ability on your part
------------------------------------

Again, you are comparing "apples to oranges" and just parroting what
you read on those crazy left wing websites

Your claim that they are the same is still false
and the Left's attempt to diffuse blame for PapaObama Care
is noted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Even PapaObama said he was against the mandate during his primaries

Ordered not to speak- good taste?
what source is that and how are you taking it out of context?

My cognitive abilities are light years ahead of yours.

Well no doubt, your cut and paste skills are advanced



I do find your rather simplistic approach to reading comprehension to be amusing
If one uses the name Lenin, they must be Marxists or
If one uses the word mandate then it must equate to Papa Obama's mandate
Of course, your use of hearsay as "proof" of some cover-up
May be time to break out your tin-foil hat

Reading your posts reminds me of the expression often attributed to Lenin
about "useful idiots" being good for the communist cause
(that must make me a Marxist now)



Again, to repeat because you are not worth my time
and because you bring nothing new to the debate to support your point.
I know find some long document (30-40 pages) that uses the word "mandate" and cut and paste
the whole thing in your next post. This will really prove your point ....


What is amazing how bad Papa Obama care is and what a liability for him....
PapaObama brings it up as little as he can
The Left even gets upset when you say ObamaCare because it has
such large negatives, they want to disassociate Papa Obama's name with it
Good luck with that......


The Left knowing how bad it is, tries to defuse the blame by saying "Republicans
wanted it to ..." or " it is just like your plan.."

We understand that the Party requires you parrot talk their points
but you do need some better left wing websites

------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all mandates are equal, and that the mandate in PapaObamaCare is much different than what they by the right:

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
The version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "support" for mandate was for Catastrophic coverage to lower the cost of "free riders" based on loss of tax breaks, not a mandate to buy something because one is a US citizen.
PapaObama Care is federal and forces all Americans to purchase Comprehensive insurance

These mandates go way beyond the power and scoop of anything the right suggested

Your bad comparison is equal to one saying if they support abortion
then they must support forced abortion by the state for population control


So no matter how much the Left wants to run from PapaObama Care

It firmly sits in the hands of the Left
enjoy
this baby is all yours

Well it looks like your c&p skills are equal. But at least I didn't c&p what I posted before. I read it the first time, it is still bullshit propaganda. And the Heritage Foundation was not the only conservative entity that pushed for the individual mandate...

SO...Let's hear from the conservative who was responsible for the Individual Mandate in 1993:

The individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

In his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.

 

[Syphon]

You really need to educate yourself. Listening is right. Conservatives never had any intent on passing healthcare that would benefit the middle class and the poor.

Maybe you can explain that to dumbass Syphon.

again explain why someone would advocate for something just to vote against it? you keep avoiding the questions over and over again. sack up this time.

 

[Syphon]

how do you know exactly what the founders wanted? did you know them personally? have you spoken to them?

So, I think it 's pretty much been shown that they spoke to us.

It is unfortunate that your tiny brain is being shaped by 5th grade books and that someone is telling you that makes you look like an adult.

When you are done arguing with Madison, let me know.

I need a good laugh from time to time.

Quoting from a poorly written misinformed book for 5th graders....

apparently you cant read, as the website was from Radford University. a much more reliable academic source than you are. if you really cant comprehend a website written for 5th graders, then you have bigger problems than you will admit to yourself. show me how anything in that website is false..... i assume you can provide links and arguments written by other academics to prove me wrong.

 

[Syphon]

how do you know exactly what the founders wanted? did you know them personally? have you spoken to them?

So, I think it 's pretty much been shown that they spoke to us.

It is unfortunate that your tiny brain is being shaped by 5th grade books and that someone is telling you that makes you look like an adult.

When you are done arguing with Madison, let me know.

I need a good laugh from time to time.

Quoting from a poorly written misinformed book for 5th graders....

did you forget federalist #10

This is the theme of Federalist No. 10, sometimes considered the most important of the essays. A strong national government, the Federalists argued, would prevent factions from taking control by forcing debate and compromise

hmmmmmm guess you missed that one in your giant rant..

The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)

Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

 

[Neotrotsky]

My cognitive abilities are light years ahead of yours.

Well no doubt, your cut and paste skills are advanced



I do find your rather simplistic approach to reading comprehension to be amusing
If one uses the name Lenin, they must be Marxists or
If one uses the word mandate then it must equate to Papa Obama's mandate
Of course, your use of hearsay as "proof" of some cover-up
May be time to break out your tin-foil hat

Reading your posts reminds me of the expression often attributed to Lenin
about "useful idiots" being good for the communist cause
(that must make me a Marxist now)



Again, to repeat because you are not worth my time
and because you bring nothing new to the debate to support your point.
I know find some long document (30-40 pages) that uses the word "mandate" and cut and paste
the whole thing in your next post. This will really prove your point ....


What is amazing how bad Papa Obama care is and what a liability for him....
PapaObama brings it up as little as he can
The Left even gets upset when you say ObamaCare because it has
such large negatives, they want to disassociate Papa Obama's name with it
Good luck with that......


The Left knowing how bad it is, tries to defuse the blame by saying "Republicans
wanted it to ..." or " it is just like your plan.."

We understand that the Party requires you parrot talk their points
but you do need some better left wing websites

------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all mandates are equal, and that the mandate in PapaObamaCare is much different than what they by the right:

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
The version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "support" for mandate was for Catastrophic coverage to lower the cost of "free riders" based on loss of tax breaks, not a mandate to buy something because one is a US citizen.
PapaObama Care is federal and forces all Americans to purchase Comprehensive insurance

These mandates go way beyond the power and scoop of anything the right suggested

Your bad comparison is equal to one saying if they support abortion
then they must support forced abortion by the state for population control


So no matter how much the Left wants to run from PapaObama Care

It firmly sits in the hands of the Left
enjoy
this baby is all yours

Well it looks like your c&p skills are equal. But at least I didn't c&p what I posted before. I read it the first time, it is still bullshit propaganda. And the Heritage Foundation was not the only conservative entity that pushed for the individual mandate...

Well you being a lump head
it make take a few times to get through to you

You have offered the same material, over and over again
and have not shown my points to be wrong.

Really, how much effort do you expect me to waste on you and
your stupid talking points.... No offense, but you are just another left loon
parroting the same old song and dance- nothing of real interest here

Again, reading comprehension does not seem to be your best skill
No doubt a successful public school graduate

Your logic is flawed because they are different for the reasons stated
above

I know following your simplistic logic of.... word mandate must equal Papa Obama's mandate.... supports party line. Of course the Left is desperate to spread blame around for Papa Obama care, but it is all yours - be proud or it

But it is just not so......

Go ahead cut and paste some other pages with the word "mandate" in it
the more the better

 

[Conservative]

apparently you cant read, as the website was from Radford University...

Coming from the man whose very first post in this thread was a slam on FOX NEWS as the source, even though it was simply a posting of an AP piece?

FAIL

 

[Bfgrn]

Well no doubt, your cut and paste skills are advanced



I do find your rather simplistic approach to reading comprehension to be amusing
If one uses the name Lenin, they must be Marxists or
If one uses the word mandate then it must equate to Papa Obama's mandate
Of course, your use of hearsay as "proof" of some cover-up
May be time to break out your tin-foil hat

Reading your posts reminds me of the expression often attributed to Lenin
about "useful idiots" being good for the communist cause
(that must make me a Marxist now)



Again, to repeat because you are not worth my time
and because you bring nothing new to the debate to support your point.
I know find some long document (30-40 pages) that uses the word "mandate" and cut and paste
the whole thing in your next post. This will really prove your point ....


What is amazing how bad Papa Obama care is and what a liability for him....
PapaObama brings it up as little as he can
The Left even gets upset when you say ObamaCare because it has
such large negatives, they want to disassociate Papa Obama's name with it
Good luck with that......


The Left knowing how bad it is, tries to defuse the blame by saying "Republicans
wanted it to ..." or " it is just like your plan.."

We understand that the Party requires you parrot talk their points
but you do need some better left wing websites

------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all mandates are equal, and that the mandate in PapaObamaCare is much different than what they by the right:

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
The version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "support" for mandate was for Catastrophic coverage to lower the cost of "free riders" based on loss of tax breaks, not a mandate to buy something because one is a US citizen.
PapaObama Care is federal and forces all Americans to purchase Comprehensive insurance

These mandates go way beyond the power and scoop of anything the right suggested

Your bad comparison is equal to one saying if they support abortion
then they must support forced abortion by the state for population control


So no matter how much the Left wants to run from PapaObama Care

It firmly sits in the hands of the Left
enjoy
this baby is all yours

Well it looks like your c&p skills are equal. But at least I didn't c&p what I posted before. I read it the first time, it is still bullshit propaganda. And the Heritage Foundation was not the only conservative entity that pushed for the individual mandate...

Well you being a lump head
it make take a few times to get through to you
Really, how much effort to you expect me to waste on you and
your stupid talking points....

Again, reading comprehension does not seem to be your best skill
No doubt a successful public school graduate

Your logic is flawed because they are different for the reasons stated
above

I know following your simplistic logic of.... word mandate must equal Papa Obama's mandate.... supports party line. Of course the Left is desperate to spread blame around for Papa Obama care, but it is all yours - be proud or it

But it is just not so......

Go ahead cut and paste some other pages with the word "mandate" in it
the more the better

Well, liberal will take the Affordable Healthcare Act. It is a major improvement over the Wall Street cartels and the best that could come from a flawed FEE market system. I hope the right wing robes deem it unconstitutional. It will then open the door WIDE for the only alternative...single payer or a public option.

It is a shame America is among the only industrialized nations that is so indentured to corporate lobbyists that it can't do better.

You're insults reveal how insecure you are and intimidated by my superior intelligence. I feel sorry for you...smile!

 

[Neotrotsky]

Intimated by you and your superior intelligence.....
Hey it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want

Insults? I give as good as I get,,,

You guys are like a bad foot fungus that won't go away
No matter how many times it fails

Yes comrade!
We live to fight for a better day

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKH4GHiihg]Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

You guys are like a bad foot fungus that won't go away
No matter how many times it fails

Yes comrade!
We live to fight for a better day

Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik - YouTube

Thanks for proving my point...smile!!

 

[Neotrotsky]

That socialism is a failure
sure

but you already knew that....