WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum WindBag is arguing everything but the OP. Until he does, he is fail here. Bern80 already has.

I am just enjoying myself by pointing out that you are a fool. If that makes me a fail, what does it make you? I would hate to be proved a fool by a total failure.

 

[Bfgrn]

Talk about short term memory.

The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support. The Democrats in the Senate scuttled the Public Option because they did not like it. The Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing if they had any power to influence it, but thanks for giving them credit they do not deserve.

Short term memory loss? WOW!

The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support is almost IDENTICAL to the health care plan REPUBLICANS proposed in 1993, INCLUDING the individual mandate.

Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing, even though they KNEW our health care system was broken and bankrupting American families, but they were MORE concerned about defeating our president, than helping the American people.

Waterloo | FrumForum

I love that almost identical quote. Funny thing, that 1993 bill came from a Republican, but there were other bills also proposed then. The liberals point to the most liberal Republican and use his bill in an attempt to prove that Republicans are hypocrites because they oppose the new law, even though they opposed the bill that Chafee proposed back then. Can I point at a conservative Democrat and use him to prove that Democrats are hypocrites? It would be really easy to find a blue dog Democrat that opposed the health care law, the bailouts, and the stimulus.

Fortunately for me, I am an honest person that does not tar everyone with the same brush. If only more people on both sides were actually true to themselves and their principles.

Honest? Maybe you are just plain stupid then. Chafee's bill was the one of main Republican health overhaul proposals. It had 21 sponsors in the Senate. And, most of the Republican bills called for the individual mandate.

Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980′s

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, 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.”…

“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.”

The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

Mark Pauly didn't move; the center did

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate

By Julie Rovner
NPR
February 15, 2010

For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, 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."

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."

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers 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.

But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.

Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says.

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quantum WindBag is arguing everything but the OP. Until he does, he is fail here. Bern80 already has.

I am just enjoying myself by pointing out that you are a fool. If that makes me a fail, what does it make you? I would hate to be proved a fool by a total failure.

Because you say so (cue laugh track). QWB, that was good material, but whether ownership or operatorship, the requirement to have it was there, was it not?

Thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Short term memory loss? WOW!

The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support is almost IDENTICAL to the health care plan REPUBLICANS proposed in 1993, INCLUDING the individual mandate.

Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing, even though they KNEW our health care system was broken and bankrupting American families, but they were MORE concerned about defeating our president, than helping the American people.

Waterloo | FrumForum

I love that almost identical quote. Funny thing, that 1993 bill came from a Republican, but there were other bills also proposed then. The liberals point to the most liberal Republican and use his bill in an attempt to prove that Republicans are hypocrites because they oppose the new law, even though they opposed the bill that Chafee proposed back then. Can I point at a conservative Democrat and use him to prove that Democrats are hypocrites? It would be really easy to find a blue dog Democrat that opposed the health care law, the bailouts, and the stimulus.

Fortunately for me, I am an honest person that does not tar everyone with the same brush. If only more people on both sides were actually true to themselves and their principles.

Honest? Maybe you are just plain stupid then. Chafee's bill was the one of main Republican health overhaul proposals. It had 21 sponsors in the Senate. And, most of the Republican bills called for the individual mandate.

Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980′s

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, 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.”…

“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.”

The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

Mark Pauly didn't move; the center did

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate

By Julie Rovner
NPR
February 15, 2010

For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, 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."

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."

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers 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.

But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.

Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says.

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR

You must spread some Reputation around before giving rep to Bfgrn again.

Outstanding rebuttal for which no answer logically or honestly really exists (1) other than the GOP is backwalking and (2) that with the House, the Senate, and the President, the GOP did not pass it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Honest? Maybe you are just plain stupid then. Chafee's bill was the one of main Republican health overhaul proposals. It had 21 sponsors in the Senate. And, most of the Republican bills called for the individual mandate.

Some of whom were Democrats. Like I said earlier, be honest.

Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980′s

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, 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.”…

“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.”

The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

Mark Pauly didn't move; the center did

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate

By Julie Rovner
NPR
February 15, 2010

For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, 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."

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."

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers 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.

But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.

Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says.

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR

Which is why Obama claimed that the law was bipartisan. Yet somehow Republicans are the evil people and the hypocrites here, even though Obama opposed the mandate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AOJBiklP1Q]YouTube - Obama v Clinton on the Individual Mandate Mobile[/ame]

Politicians are always hypocrites, and Republicans jumping on the bandwagon against the mandate when it polls so heavily negative only surprises people who think politicians are human.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving rep to Bfgrn again.

Outstanding rebuttal for which no answer logically or honestly really exists (1) other than the GOP is backwalking and (2) that with the House, the Senate, and the President, the GOP did not pass it.

Clinton was a Republican? Who knew.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmmm. QWB, were you still serving time from 2001 to 2006. I will help your memory: the President and Congress was GOP. The failed to pass the type of bills the whiners like McConnell and Boehner and their supporters are yelling about but won't support.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmm. QWB, were you still serving time from 2001 to 2006. I will help your memory: the President and Congress was GOP. The failed to pass the type of bills the whiners like McConnell and Boehner and their supporters are yelling about but won't support.

If you were capable of reading you would have known we were talking about an alternative to HillaryCare from 1993.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We were talking about bills that were being discussed from Clinton to Bush. Pay attention. And the GOP certainly did not follow up during the GOP majority, which tells us that the earlier suggestions were mere politics, that the GOP had no intention of passing any such bills, and were infuriated when the Dems incorporated large portions of it into their own bill that passed in 2010.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We were talking about bills that were being discussed from Clinton to Bush. Pay attention. And the GOP certainly did not follow up during the GOP majority, which tells us that the earlier suggestions were mere politics, that the GOP had no intention of passing any such bills, and were infuriated when the Dems incorporated large portions of it into their own bill that passed in 2010.

And the one we were specifically discussing was proposed under Clinton in 1993. Then you stepped in and said the Republicans could not pass that bill even with a Republican president. This is the last I am going to say on the subject to you though, so feel free to claim victory and prance about like you always do.

 

[Hum Dinger]

A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.

Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.

The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.

Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.

If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We were talking about bills that were being discussed from Clinton to Bush. Pay attention. And the GOP certainly did not follow up during the GOP majority, which tells us that the earlier suggestions were mere politics, that the GOP had no intention of passing any such bills, and were infuriated when the Dems incorporated large portions of it into their own bill that passed in 2010.

And the one we were specifically discussing was proposed under Clinton in 1993. Then you stepped in and said the Republicans could not pass that bill even with a Republican president. This is the last I am going to say on the subject to you though, so feel free to claim victory and prance about like you always do.

Major portions of the GOP bill were ignored by the Bush administration yet passed by the Democratic congress.

Pretending that it did not exist has nothing to with your previous comments. Your ignorance does not preclude the correct inference from the facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.

Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.

The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.

Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.

If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.

The Constitution only is the foundation for American law. The other documents are interesting but have nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to law.

 

[DiveCon]

A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.

Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.

The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.

Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.

If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.

The Constitution only is the foundation for American law. The other documents are interesting but have nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to law.

wrong again
but you will never understand why

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.

Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.

The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.

Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.

If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.

The Constitution only is the foundation for American law. The other documents are interesting but have nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to law.

wrong again
but you will never understand why

It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The other documents have no legal standing in interpreting the Constitution. The documents are interesting but not binding, as well as outdated in an agrarian community with an economic, oligarchic ruling class. Next, please.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So how much have people actually saved by switching to ObamaCare?

 

[jillian]

So how much have people actually saved by switching to ObamaCare?

which has what to do with the constitutional issues, crazy frank?

 

[jillian]

It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.

actually, he's correct.

only certain documents have force of law. documents like the declaration of idependence, while interesting, are not among them.

i find it really funny when peoplelike you who don't know what they're talking about not only state incorrect things, but insult the people who ARE saying the correct things.

it's amusing to watch opposite world.

 

[Bern80]

It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.

actually, he's correct.

only certain documents have force of law. documents like the declaration of idependence, while interesting, are not among them.

i find it really funny when peoplelike you who don't know what they're talking about not only state incorrect things, but insult the people who ARE saying the correct things.

it's amusing to watch opposite world.

Why would anyone think the Declaration of Independence is law? Talk about a red herring. While things like the federalist papers have no legal standing they do tell us what the framers meant by what the wrote in the document that DOES carry weight of law. When there is clear contradiction in the way we are told they intended for us to interpret it, one ought to automatically become rather suspicious.