I agree with this. The HCR that passed was almost entirely based on Republican ideas dating to the 1990's, and it incorporated more GOP suggested changes than Dem. ones. I would (very honestly) like HCR that incorporated just a few shreds of liberal principles and didn't bend over for the insurance companies.
Interesting, please provide some links for my review. I only know about the current Republican HCR Plan.
This is a pretty neat thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=185036 The current incantation of HCR is similar to Mitt Romney's and Bob Dole's plans within the last two decades.
After further review, I find ZERO hypocrisy with the what the GOP have been saying all along on HCR! http://blogs.unionleader.com/andrew-cline/index.php/archives/1718 "In an interview at the Union Leader this morning, Mitt Romney said President Obama’s health care plan was an unconstitutional violation of the 10th Amendment. Romney has been saying that a key difference between his Massachusetts health care reform and President Obama’s reform is that his was a state plan and Obama’s is a federal plan." Look folks, the GOP have ALWAYS been saying that the states can do whatever they want --this includes even SINGLE PAYER HCR. There is NO inconsistancy here. This is a very recurring theme with the GOP. I have said this numerous times, myself. If your states “entitlement plans” leads to bankruptcy and local economic failure, then its citizens can move to a state with that is more fiscally responsible. This was the intent of the constitution. Why is this concept of State vs. Federal SO, SO difficult for liberals to understand—it is the recurring theme of a lot the GOP’s ideology—which they feel was the original intention of the Constitution?
WHAT HAPPEN?!?! I am so shocked that my world is crumbling into little bitty crumbs of shock. Did you or did you not confirm the Bob Dole plan of the 1990's offered up as a competitor to Clinton's HCR plan? Oh, wait (slaps forehead) am trying dialogue.
So we can assume that you will be endorsing Mr Romney for the Republican presidential candidate in 2012?
As B-Bob said, Dole preceded Romney. Also, you are aware that if an individual federal mandate is unconstitutional, a state one would be as well? States are not allowed to violate the Constitution whenever they feel like it. And if you could point out where the Heritage Foundation warned of the horrors of a Romney plan implemented nationwide, I'd appreciate it. I must have missed it in all the "ultimate conservatism, cost saving, consumer choice" blow job rhetoric they spewed in favor of Romney's plan.
The link I was given was for RommeyCare--I have discredited that already as not being hypocritical to the GOP ideology. Now, provide me the link for the Clinton vs. Dole plan you are referring to and let me review it.
from TPM -- See Mitt Squirm Newsweek interviews Mitt Romney, who's still trying to explain why MittCare and ObamaCare are completely different: Of course it is accurate. --David Kurtz
The current lawsuits against ObamaCare are bringing up this exact issue of the limit of the Fed. has to the commerce clause across state lines--in regards to mandates. I am not up-to-date on this, and it will take some homework. If anyone knows more about the current lawsuits against HCR, please feel free to chime in. This is a moot point for this discussion; I am not discussing any particular HCR plans and their financial viability. I was just pointing out that RomneyCare’s and ObamaCare's fundamental difference--that is State vs. Federal mandates.
more from our man Mitt -- Romney Says He Wouldn’t Repeal The Individual Mandate That He Believes Is ‘Unconstitutional’ (Updated) On April 8th, Mitt Romney told a New Hampshire newspaper that the individual mandate was “unconstitutional” and reiterated his pledge to repeal ObamaCare. “I think it’s unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front,” he said. This week, however, Romney told Kavon Nikrad, a conservative blogger, that he does not support repealing the “unconstitutional” individual mandate or the provision that prohibits insurers from banning coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions. The RightOSphere blog caught up with Romeny and reported the following exchange: “You have stated your intention to spearhead the effort to repeal the ‘worst aspects’ of Obamacare, does this include the repeal of the individual mandate and pre-existing exclusion?” The Governor’s answer: “No.” Gov. Romney went on to explain that he does not wish to repeal these aspects because of the deleterious effect it would have on those with pre-existing conditions in obtaining health insurance.
does it include presidential elections? see bush vs. gore. the GOP sure didnt want florida doing "whatever they want" when it came to ensuring that their election was run properly.
This completely ignores the fact that when Clinton was President, the Republicans put forth a proposal for a NATIONAL health care law that is eerily similar to that which was recently passed. The dissent has little to do with substance and everything to do with who is presently steering the ship.
BrotherFish, Let me first commend you for continuing to respond to the points I bring up. It is that behavior that will keep me engaging with you and puts you head and shoulders above a lot of the conservatives who have posted here in the past. That being said, there are a number of problems with your logic, to be detailed below... As refman pointed out, you are talking about an inordinately small number of people here, around 0.39% of the people who voted in the last election. It might have been a big milestone for the TP, but I think there was a far greater mandate in the 69.5 million people who voted for Obama in 2008 than in the .5 million who voted for this "Contract." Here is where I ask for a link or proof of any kind that the Constitution intended the federal government to be "simple." It is a simple document out of necessity, it sets down the most basic framework for our system of government, but was specifically designed to be flexible so that it could change with the times. There is a logical fallacy in creating legislation and trying to require it to be "simple." Legislation is the very definition of "legalese" (the language spoken by those in the legal profession) and should be comprehensive on the topic being legislated. Ensuring that rich people, those with the means to move at the drop of a tax hike, will pay less than everyone else once they race to the state with the lowest tax burden. Just to clarify, are you saying that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare should all be administered and funded only at the state level? Done, nearly half of the budget is dedicated to national defense. Kind of funny to hear you say that given that there are still many Americans who do not have the same rights as others and that the party you affiliate with has worked diligently to make sure that those people do not get equal rights. In case you are unclear, I am talking about homosexuals. Another area where the party you affiliate yourself with has been seriously deficient. Deregulation and free markets have been touted for a long time as the solution to economic problems, only to lead to abuses by the companies that were deregulated. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on this role of the federal government, just pointing out that you should consider that you are supporting the wrong team. I agree that there are many things that could and should be left to the state governments, but entitlements are not one of them. Personally, I hope that the Tea Party gets some ultra-conservative candidates to replace some of the moderate conservatives. Maybe after the ultras get trounced the GOP will return to moderation so that I can start voting Republican again. There is so much wrong with this statement that I almost don't know where to start... Liberties are directly granted by government. God gave us the ability to do anything, kill, maim, rape, steal, or perform any crime under the sun. Governments have always given and then taken away liberties, the best we can hope for is that there are reasonable checks and balances in place to assure that the government stays relevant for the times we live in. That is the beauty of our Constitution, it set up reasonable checks and balances so that our system of government can continue to evolve as times change. Please, show me a passage in the Bible that refers to all men being created equal. Besides, that passage is in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a theological work, it is a political one. Actually, when confronted by the Civil Rights movement, conservatives had non leg to stand on. BTW, the Bill of Rights has nothing whatsoever to do with Christian principles. Jesus never said anything about the press and was nonviolent, so wouldn't have agreed that all people should be armed. There is also no Christian principle regarding illegal searches, due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain, trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, or the powers at the various levels of government. The only part of the BoR that Jesus might have agreed on was freedom from troop quartering, but there isn't anything in the Bible about that, either. Nobody is claiming that it is, this is a straw man. BTW, slavery is a prominent theme in the Bible and, though the Hebrews were prohibited from killing their slaves, they were specifically allowed to beat them with a rod so long as the slave could return to work within two days. Generalize much? There is no evidence whatsoever that liberals are looser on morals, they may not hold the same values as Christians, but these two things (values and morals) are completely different. This is the biggest reason that our Founders took great pains to exclude God from government, they didn't want the values of one religion to influence government like it had in almost every other government in history. There are a LOT of Christian liberals. That may not compute for you, but it is the truth. I don't give a flying f*** what they call it. From my perspective, the term "married" is a religious term that government should have no part of. If a church wants to recognize a couple or not is their business, but government should not be discriminating against anyone. BTW, discriminating against someone as a result of traits over which they have no control flies in the face of what you claim to be fundamental Christian values. You can choose to avoid the subject if you like, just recognize that you are being somewhat hypocritical here. OK, so you found a blogger who thinks they know when life begins. That blog has just as much credibility as my opinion that life begins when a fetus is viable. So, your opposition is based on what you have been told they plan to do. Gotcha, Faux "News" has a strong grip on you. IIRC, talk of the "Fairness Doctrine" was dropped months ago. Personally, I think they should pass the "Factual Doctrine," which would do far more to choke conservative talk radio and Faux "News" than fairness would. They should be marginalized, they are a televised op-ed page that doesn't even resemble a real news organization. This is untrue, no matter how many times you have heard it on Faux. The general media has pointed out the small number of cases of racism withing the TP and conservative ranks, but hasn't tried to paint with as broad a brush as you seem to feel comfortable with. There have certainly been times when the media has gotten after a racism story, but when someone calls a sitting Congressman who once marched with MLK a "n***er," it is bound to make headlines. I disagree. I believe that only a few idiots within the TP are racists, but the unfortunate part is that the people in the TP seem content to squawk about "proof" rather than weeding out racists in their ranks. As would you. Stop watching Faux and read your news for a change, it will make you smarter. What concensus is this, the one in your mind? Obama hasn't yet pushed a progressive agenda, the HCR bill was made up of primarily Republican ideas and didn't even include a public option. If Obama was truly trying to ram a progressive agenda down the throats of America, the bill he signed would have been for a single payer system that covered every American. No, they didn't. If you polled on the items that were actually in the HCR bill, there was strong support, it was when you were more ambiguous that you lumped in Democrats who wanted single payer with the Republicans who were doing the Nancy Reagan: Just Say No. Do you not pay attention to the news? The next item on the agenda is financial reform, followed by a Supreme Court justice. Keep up. Link or opinion? Link or opinion? So, would you say that Jeff Gannon visiting the Bush White House confirmed that he was only interested in gay prostitutes? That is the logic you are using here and it doesn't make sense. Actually, the single biggest thing that makes it difficult for American businesses to compete is the fact that every other industrialized nation has healthcare that is mostly administered by the government in a single payer system. This system allows their companies to compete without having to pay for health insurance for their workers. No, business classes and MBAs are the main reasons a lot of the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. How exactly is he making unions stronger? By having a union offical to the White House? If this is the basis for your reasoning, see the Jeff Gannon comment again until you understand the fallacy in your "logic." I disagree. He did exactly what he told us he would do. He pushed through an HCR bill even though it was likely to spend his political capital. He did this because he told the American people that he would get it done even if it made him a one term President. That makes him a man of his word in my book. Ummmmm, stimulus, financial reform, ring any bells?
Can we please end the falsehood that most of the jobs created are in the govt. sector and not the private sector? So if roughly 40K of the jobs were govt. census workers that leaves over 100K that were private sector jobs. Do the math.
