What national healthcare system did the Heritage Foundation pass into law, again?
14 thoughts on “Question For Madly-Spinning Democrats”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Shot in the Dark
Cranking Open The Big Brass Nozzle Of Truth Since 2002
Sort of related thread…. Balance in your mind this doublethink:
A. Earlier today, I heard a report on State Radio that Dallas was ‘seething’ this day fifty years ago. Why no one was shocked that Lee Harvey dropped the hammer on President Kennedy in Dallas; Dallas pretty much put that cheap Italian rifle (that he brought through the mail from somewhere else) in his hand; Dallas helped him practice (in New Orleans where he was living while trying to figure out a way to get to Cuba to join his fellow Commies) getting three shots off in rapid succession and Dallas put that book depository right where it needed to be on Dealey Plaza.
B. MSNBC had a tape (or film) of President Kennedy speaking and as always, being charming as hell in front of a large group of people earlier that day in Dallas. The presenter came on after the tape ended and said “This is why he is so missed, he was so beloved”.
These people believe both – Dallas was nothing but pro-segregation, right wing zealots fueling Oswald’s aggression to kill the President… and Kennedy himself was beloved by all, including the people of Dallas. George Orwell, call your office.
This document: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf
Yes, it’s from 1989. And no one seems to have heard of it other than liberal bloggers and journalists, who cherry-pick a sentence or two from it (like this guy: http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-heritage-foundation-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html).
Wait, didn’t Hillary! propose a mandate when she was running in 2008? Why, yes, she did. So did Edwards. Obama criticized both of their plans for requiring a health insurance mandate. Down the memory hole with those inconvenient facts! But an obscure report from 1989? That’s gospel.
Just for laughs:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/20/barack-obama/obama-flip-flops-requiring-people-buy-health-care/
/In 1992 and 1993, some Republicans in Congress, seeking an alternative to Hillarycare, used these ideas as a foundation for their own health-reform proposals. One such bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R., R.I.) and co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time. The HEART Act proposed health insurance vouchers for low-income individuals, along with an individual mandate./
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/
Great story, Emery. Read Mitch’s question again. When was that passed into law?
Mr. D: I should have made clear I was responding to PM’s comment.
The Heritage Foundation and the GOP find themselves to be having a John Kerry like moment. They were “for it [the individual mandate] before they were against it”.
Please don’t mistake this as a defense for the ACA. As I’ve written before, the ACA is a huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old.
Emery said: the ACA is a huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old.
The ACA is a huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old, from male to female, from married to unmarried, from gay to straight, from old to young and from black to white. Yes Emery all these things are true, so drop your ageist bigotry.
It’s possible to control health care spending by making the state the single payer and using that power to both ration health care and limit fees. It’s also possible to control health care spending by creating a system of subsidies of individually purchased health care. The Swiss all pay the same amount, the government subsidizes different people with different conditions differently, and private providers compete for their business by offering more and better services than the next guy. Both systems beat what we have coming under Obamacare, as they move healthcare out of the control of employers. But my point is that you could have those two very different systems in adjacent states, and there would still be little migration because of it. Every state will have its cystic fibrosis patients, and one way or another we will all subsidize their care. I’d rather be paying for those girls next door than be paying for cancer treatments for a 75-year-old, and that’s the sort of hard choice we need to start making if we are to sensibly control health care costs.
Health care should progressively aim for comfort over cure as age increases.
Why are we keeping people alive once their minds are gone? Who does it benefit?
Welfare is welfare. The government is there to step in and help the poor and indigent. What moral imperative dictates that old people should be able to retain their wealth while the government covers their costs? None, but there is a political imperative. Let’s give extra votes to parents of children under the voting age. Maybe that new voting block will capture the interest of the politicians and provide a little balance to the codger block.
gee emery you really buy into that Malthusian-Benthamite eugenics crap don’t you? Never mind the argument of faux-expediency you are a morally bankrupt ageist bigot or in plain English, a so@ialist!
No American mass market magazine or newspaper reads at higher than an 8th grade level. If you wish to be spoken to as one addresses a child, there are lots of other publications to cater to your needs. I prefer SiTD to address me as a well-educated adult.
This allows us to get back to the heart of what health care reform really means. It is a massive tax increase on young people and small business to pay for health care for old and poor people. The unpopularity of the mandate will translate into relatively small penalties for not joining. Companies will abandon their health plans, pay the penalty, and leave everyone to the exchanges, the subsidies for which will overwhelm the government in excess cost.
And then we’ll see the real reform. It’ll probably look a lot more like Paul Ryan’s plan than Obama’s.
Cut spending! just not my benefits, or my parents’, or my children’s
Raise taxes! just not mine, those other people, you know, the rich, the lazy poor, businesses.
Kel, ask a hard question. How about: “Would you support denying cancer treatments that average less than a 3 month extension on life to Medicare patients if that would lower your payroll taxes by 5%?” That’s a practical and honest question I’d like to see the answer to, as that’s the sort of question we need to answer to keep health care spending under control.
Pingback: LIVE AT FIVE: 11.25.13 : The Other McCain
QUOTE: Kel, ask a hard question. How about: “Would you support denying cancer treatments that average less than a 3 month extension on life to Medicare patients if that would lower your payroll taxes by 5%?” That’s a practical and honest question I’d like to see the answer to, as that’s the sort of question we need to answer to keep health care spending under control.
Which is why healthcare has to be rationed way more bottom up and EARLY in the cycle and ACTUARIALLY RESERVED FOR PROPERLY, EARLY ON.
FIX THE ECONOMY SO WE CAN AFFORD THIS STUFF. http://onforb.es/I9wvaT
Unless Penigma and RICK___DFL can get the lemming conjure up another round of something for nothing, graft, and intergenerational theft.
It’s possible to control health care spending by making the state the single payer and using that power to both ration health care and limit fees.
And pray tell how well that works in Canada and Britain? Add that to your homework, EmeryTheUSAHater, of citing examples of successful soci@list havens.