RNC Shoots Itself in the Mouth

[Jroc]

well, it was a work of fiction

as was Obamacare.

tell it to the heritage foundation. they disagreed... before they agreed.

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

Stuart Butler
Director, Center for Policy Innovation, The Heritage Foundation


The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

But 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

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

 

[Lumpy 1]

RNC Shoots Itself in the Mouth

Gads.. that's pretty violent from a balanced point of view....



Anyone that thought that article was non-partisan, could only be a leftist Troll or an idiot..or both I suppose.

 

[auditor0007]

man, the violent rhetoric is sure heating up

shoots themselves in the mouth?

How funny you find it, that everything is now "supposedly doctored" by everyone but the DNC..

I'd have to say this article just about made me vomit

waaaaaaaa waaaa waaaaaa

Staph, everything rational makes you vomit. You should get that looked at. Maybe Medicare will pay.

do you think she refuses her social security check?

Of course not, but she's not one of those lazy fucks. She worked for it.

 

[BluePhantom]

this isn't the "left" honey. it's a non partisan blogger for SCOTUS junkies.

try looking at what he's saying without pre-judging.

this is a great blog, btw... they did a bang up assessment of the argument the past three days. go look if you don't believe me.

Ok but you are generally of the left and you saw fit to post this as a legitimate argument...one would assume to bolster your usual position, which is usually (but not always) leaning toward a left wing point of view. You chose the title "RNC Shoots Itself in the Mouth" which suggests you are taking a shot at Republicans.

If your motivation was purely informative instead of aggressive then I certainly stand corrected and offer my apologies for being presumptive. In such a case I would direct my comments not at you but at the author of the article you posted.

But that being said I will take some time and read through the blog a bit.

i posted it for multiple reasons. first, i thought it was interesting. second, i thought it was accurate in it's view of both the positives and negatives of what happened at oral argument this week. if pushed to a third, i have to admit a little aggression because i knew his objective assessment wouldn't make the righties unhappy who were already going to buy liquor to celebrate us not being covered for pre-existing conditions, and our kids' insurance coverage being terminated. but not a lot of aggresssion.

but that doesn't change the fact that the reason i liked it was because it was from a non-partisan source.

touche

 

[jillian]

Well, if the health care reform gets shot down a lot of people will be upset. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions? No keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own?

Sounds like a Democrat majority in the making.

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

 

[Sallow]

Well, if the health care reform gets shot down a lot of people will be upset. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions? No keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own?

Sounds like a Democrat majority in the making.

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

I found it amazing that the judges of the highest court in the land..where making silly Broccoli arguments. Every conservative judge asked that question. And it's straight out of the Tea Party..they didn't even try to change it. It's an incredibly simplistic and ignorant argument. It's hard to believe any of these guys are serious lawmakers.

It was shameful. I was especially dissappointed in Judge Roberts..who I use to have a good deal of respect for...

 

[zzzz]

It will be interesting to see that if it is thrown out what the effect on health care will be. The price increases already foisted on consumers will not be rolled back and since people will not have to have health care many will start dropping it, including companies that do not want to pay their share. I can foresee many more Americans living without insurance than before the law. Its a mess.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Well, if the health care reform gets shot down a lot of people will be upset. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions? No keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own?

Sounds like a Democrat majority in the making.

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

I have no problem with coverage for pre-existing conditions or keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own but do you really believe that's what it all comes down to, come on.

 

[Sallow]

Well, if the health care reform gets shot down a lot of people will be upset. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions? No keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own?

Sounds like a Democrat majority in the making.

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

I have no problem with coverage for pre-existing conditions or keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own but do you really believe that's what it all comes down to, come on.

YES.

That's REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TOO.

Holy Crap.

 

[Lumpy 1]

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

I have no problem with coverage for pre-existing conditions or keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own but do you really believe that's what it all comes down to, come on.

YES.

That's REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TOO.

Holy Crap.

2,700 pages of government regulations, mandates, taxes and such and that's what you believe it comes down to.. ...sheesh

 

[The Rabbi]

It would have been far less verbose to just call, "cheap shot."

And that ad is kind of a cheap shot.

But, as bad-pun / cheap shots go, it's at least accurate.

ObamaCare is a hard sell.

In fact, I think it's toast.

One is surpirsed the justices didn't laugh the gov'ts lawyer out of the courtroom. I pity the man. He is a bright guy and very accomplished. But he got handed a shit sandwich and had to eat every bite.

did he not expect the questions he got? if he wasn't properly mooted, that's on him. if he froze...well, it happens, but it shouldn't have happened.

the answer to their questions was all of the reasons that the heritage foundation wanted the individual mandate in the first place when hillary was working on health care.

he should have been able to do it in his sleep.

*edit* and what really ticked me off about the argument...what's really inexcusable... was him conceding that if they could do this they could do "anything". but aside from the fact that it isn't the case, and health care is uniquely suited to a commerce clause argument, you never ever concede a sweeping point like that. the answer is "your honor, "everything" isn't before this Court, and we can trust in the wisdom of the court to address future issues as they come along"...

and then he should have gone back to what he needed to say.

No, he was asked for a limiting principle. It wasn't like he didnt expect the question. But he hemmed and hawed because--surprise--there is no limiting principle. You can't answer what isnt there. That is why he couldn't give the answer you just gave. There must be a limiting principle, and there isn't in this case. That is why he answered as he did. And probably killed his case in the process.

More interesting is the idea that in killing only the mandate the Supreme Court would be acting far more radically than if they killed the entire legislation.

 

[Katzndogz]

Clever democrats to lay this health care trap for republicans to walk into!

I don't blame them from trying to put the best spin on this that they can. They have no choice. obamacare was opposed by a huge majority. Keeping adult children on parental insurance until they were nearly 30 wasn't one of the more palatable provisions.

 

[Claudette]

RNC Shoots Itself in the Mouth

Gads.. that's pretty violent from a balanced point of view....



Anyone that thought that article was non-partisan, could only be a leftist Troll or an idiot..or both I suppose.

Barry must have known, being a super duper Law Professor and all, that his Obamacare was going to end up in front of the SC??

I wonder if he really believes that they are gonna approve it?? Of course they might but given what I've been hearing and reading its not lookin good for that clusterfuck.

I sure wouldn't want to be the guy up there trying to defend it.

That guy deserves a medal for just trying.

 

[Jroc]

Well, if the health care reform gets shot down a lot of people will be upset. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions? No keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own?

Sounds like a Democrat majority in the making.

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

It's an "insane fervor" for liberty. Something liberals don’t seem to comprehend. This bill is an insane power grab, no one person really knows all that is in it, but liberals seem to want to believe that it's all good, it's just plain craziness Yes if this thing is stricken down I'll be partying

 

[jillian]

RNC Shoots Itself in the Mouth

Gads.. that's pretty violent from a balanced point of view....



Anyone that thought that article was non-partisan, could only be a leftist Troll or an idiot..or both I suppose.

so spaketh the creeper rep ho troll who couldn't even understand the article...

creeper...

 

[jillian]

Well, if the health care reform gets shot down a lot of people will be upset. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions? No keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own?

Sounds like a Democrat majority in the making.

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

It's an "insane fervor" for liberty. Something liberals don’t seem to comprehend. This bill is an insane power grab, no one person really knows all that is in it, but liberals seem to want to believe that it's all good, it's just plain craziness Yes if this thing is stricken down I'll be partying

that's what rightwingnuts said about social security, too...

i'm not impressed.

but then again, it doesn't shock me coming from an ignorant neocon.

although, as always, i appreciate your being living proof that stereotypes saying all jews are smart are misguided.

keep on keeping on.

 

[Full-Auto]

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

It's an "insane fervor" for liberty. Something liberals don’t seem to comprehend. This bill is an insane power grab, no one person really knows all that is in it, but liberals seem to want to believe that it's all good, it's just plain craziness Yes if this thing is stricken down I'll be partying

that's what rightwingnuts said about social security, too...

i'm not impressed.

but then again, it doesn't shock me coming from an ignorant neocon.

You should have listened because there isnt a single dime in the fund.

In fact it has become standard fare that democrats threaten seniors with with holding those checks unless the debt ceiling is increased.

 

[naturegirl]

it might be... but more than that, how low do people have to be to celebrate this? that's what i find so perplexing. it's not even.. ."ok i disagree with this"... it's an insane fervor.

bizarre...

would you drink champagne if someone suddenly couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

i don't know...there seems to be something deranged about it.

It's an "insane fervor" for liberty. Something liberals don’t seem to comprehend. This bill is an insane power grab, no one person really knows all that is in it, but liberals seem to want to believe that it's all good, it's just plain craziness Yes if this thing is stricken down I'll be partying

that's what rightwingnuts said about social security, too...

i'm not impressed.

but then again, it doesn't shock me coming from an ignorant neocon.

Yea and let's realistically look where SS is today. And you and your cronies want to trust our health care funds and management to the government.

 

[jillian]

Yea and let's realistically look where SS is today. And you and your cronies want to trust our health care funds and management to the government.

social security needs the minimum age raised a little. that's about it.

it's been the most successful program in the history of our country.

i'm sure you'll be returning your checks to the government, though.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yea and let's realistically look where SS is today. And you and your cronies want to trust our health care funds and management to the government.

social security needs the minimum age raised a little. that's about it.

it's been the most successful program in the history of our country.

i'm sure you'll be returning your checks to the government, though.

You obviously are not up to speed if you think a little age tweaking solves the problem.

No surprise there.