It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Tries to Rebrand Mandate

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
White House Tries to Rebrand Mandate

The White House is apparently trying to "Rebrand" the Insurance Mandate
by calling it a "Personal Responsibility Clause" !!

I don't know if this was mentioned in court or not.

But the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest made the statement,
along with the emphasis that ObamaCare is constitutional.


March 28, 2012 3:25 pm -- The Washington Free Beacon

Earnest Calls Government Mandate 'Personal Responsibility Clause'



The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.

“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.

No Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act on final passage.

He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.

“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said....

NO! - It's a Personal Responsibility Clause !


Well maybe it is, maybe it isn't....

but what about Congressional "Personal Responsibility" ?







edit on Mar-28-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

"personal responsibility clause" sounds like some kind of buzzword straight out of a socialist hellhole to me

edit on 28-3-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by xuenchen
 

"personal responsibility clause" sounds like some kind of buzzword straight out of a socialist hellhole to me

edit on 28-3-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)


Personal responsibility sounds like the phrase Obama's political opponents use
every time they are trying to disparage social programs and the downtrodden.


edit on 28-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
If this illegal mandate passes, and, it is against the Constitution, don't doubt that. They can not expect me to continue to pay taxes. I refuse to financially support it with my hard earned money. Enough is enough.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The word play with this admin. is simply mind numbing.

First it was renaming the war on terror to an Overseas Contingency Operation

Then calls terrorism a "man caused disaster"

No longer referring to Gitmo inmates as "enemy combatants"

"Non Kinetic and Kinetic military actions" during the recent assault on Libya.

STimulus was replaced with "targeted measures" WTF is that?

Obama's creative use of Euphemisms. How cute!

Personal responsibility clause? Hmm perhaps he can apply that to the occupiers who are protesting the student loans they signed for. The same student loans that Obama is seeking collections for. Obama is actually using Collection Agencies to bring in some much needed money from the student loan delinquents.





edit on 28-3-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I have a feeling, that if the Supreme Court strikes down the "conservative plan" of an individual mandate, that this will ultimately lead to a single payer system. This idea of an "individual mandate" was pushed by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) in the 90's....and it preluded hilary care...it was their alternative to a single payer system....as it kept health care alive and functional...but retained the profitability. It was originally proposed by Nixon...another Republican.

There is no other option to fix the system other than to deny people healthcare who don't have insurance if there is no mandate...otherwise costs will continue to explode and eat this country up alive financially.

It may take years, decades, maybe long after I die....but eventually this country will have some form of universal healthcare.

If the supreme court rules against against this...it paves the way for what liberals really wanted...as the mandate will no longer be feasible....or allowed.

If I were a conservative and didn't want a single payer system...I'd be a bit more "careful" and what it is you really want.

We are a civilized nation...we are supposed to be a first world nation. That kind of nation makes sure it's citizens are healthy.
edit on 28-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

I don't know if this was mentioned in court or not.



As far as I remember, it was not mentioned.....we watched/listened to the whole thing on C-SPAN.

They're rebranding to try to get the public on board....think damage control.

I got the impression the Justices may feel a partial law is worse than no law.
So, if they deem the MANDATE unconstitutional, the ACA is dead.


ETA
What is needed is tort reform....and stopping the spiraling costs of care and drugs. And, some real, normal options for those who need care.
But it should not be an insurance scam.

edit on Wed Mar 28 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
I have a feeling, that if the Supreme Court strikes down the "conservative plan" of an individual mandate, that this will ultimately lead to a single payer system. This idea of an "individual mandate" was pushed by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) in the 90's....and it preluded hilary care...it was their alternative to a single payer system....as it kept health care alive and functional...but retained the profitability. It was originally proposed by Nixon...another Republican.
]


See, this just boogles my mind...If Obama really wanted to go after the GOP he could easily disarm them, but instead he just gives everything they demand. Then the GOP ardents on here whine and cry-Why? You got what your party wanted. Orin Hatch was the first to bring this up. The GOP was behind it. The mandate only came up because the GOP pushed it because they didn't want single payer. There is no intellectual honesty in the GOP today. The Democrats are just a simpering, weak willed excuse for a centrist position.

This is why I think people who call the Democratic party "Liberal" have no damn sense. None of these positions are Liberal. There is next to no liberal representation in the Democratic party. There is no major Leftist party. If there was leftist party we might see less girdlock in government.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 





The mandate only came up because the GOP pushed it because they didn't want single payer. There is no intellectual honesty in the GOP today. The Democrats are just a simpering, weak willed excuse for a centrist position.


Too many Dems....especially in the Senate....were bought and paid for by the health insurance industry and big pharma. Single payer and public option were never on the table.

In 2008, Obama was against a federal mandate....and was for a public option and other alternatives. He changed that position...as we know...as it was the only way to get more people insured and paying into the system and to reign in costs....the votes were simply not there to get it passed.

Those who keep stating that costs can be put under control without getting the 10's of millions of uninsured americans paying into the healthcare system somehow are completely delusional.

Prices will continue to explode unless the vast majority are paying in. There is no way around it.

Striking down the mandates and making them unconstitutional could actually be the death sentence for the for profit healthcare industry.

Really, i find the whole thing crazy. Liberals are defending the mandates because it at least does something to get more people insured and attempts to lower costs....even though this is certainly not what they wanted....it's better than doing nothing.

Conservatives are actually fighting against the one thing that might save the for profit healthcare industry...and against THEIR OWN IDEA of individual mandates for cripes sake.

Romney was all over TV as early as 2009 championing his Massachusetts Mandates as a good model for the whole country. And he's not the only one....not by a long shot.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 





Striking down the mandates and making them unconstitutional could actually be the death sentence for the for profit healthcare industry.


I disagree with you in this regard. As far as the GOP is concerned there is no problem with costs or uninsured people. As long as conservatives remain unopposed on the hill there will be no action on this. Americans are generally conservative. I'm very pessimistic on this subject. I'm pessimistic regarding the future of this country in general, I have told almost every friend I have they are better off in Europe if they are unattached. Every friend I've got has done well there even with their economic issues.

I don't foresee anything approaching a public option for at least 10 years.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

ETA
What is needed is tort reform...


Tort reform won't even dent the cost of annual healthcare costs 1%

All it will do is further limit liability...

Exercise and bananas to cure cancer is effective

edit on 28-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by David9176
 





Striking down the mandates and making them unconstitutional could actually be the death sentence for the for profit healthcare industry.


I disagree with you in this regard. As far as the GOP is concerned there is no problem with costs or uninsured people. As long as conservatives remain unopposed on the hill there will be no action on this. Americans are generally conservative. I'm very pessimistic on this subject. I'm pessimistic regarding the future of this country in general, I have told almost every friend I have they are better off in Europe if they are unattached. Every friend I've got has done well there even with their economic issues.

I don't foresee anything approaching a public option for at least 10 years.


I hope you are wrong... But the truth is a great deal of Americans are truly stupid, arguably
boarder line retarded. There is literally an entire battlefield worth of idiot ideas that corporations
and conservative agents roll out to get their mindless minions up in arms. Last decade it was
them "Terrorists", now it is the "Socialists" - "Freemarkets!" "Tort Reform" "Drill baby Drill!"

It truly is a bleak outlook



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
With all the talk (before and now) about a "public option".....

What exactly IS a "public option" ?

If that means a 100% government managed and administered insurance,
what is/was the plan for all the unemployed private insurance company people ?

Perhaps similar to Medicare/Medicaid ?
(assuming those are 100% government managed and administered without private contractors)

And would a "public option" have limits (like Medicare) that would "require" "supplemental" insurance.
(Medicare "supplemental" policies vary from State to State as it is right now)

The "public" needs a full explanation.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
With all the talk (before and now) about a "public option".....

What exactly IS a "public option" ?

If that means a 100% government managed and administered insurance,
what is/was the plan for all the unemployed private insurance company people ?



It would mean that there is a not for profit option that is funded by contributors and
administered by the federal government. Anyone can opt in or opt out, if you like the
private model have at it.



Perhaps similar to Medicare/Medicaid ?
(assuming those are 100% government managed and administered without private contractors)
Medicare is administered by several private contractors I believe, but the funding and the
price model is negotiated by the government.



And would a "public option" have limits (like Medicare) that would "require" "supplemental" insurance.
(Medicare "supplemental" policies vary from State to State as it is right now)

The "public" needs a full explanation.


Would the public option have limits like private insurance?

Who knows?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


If it looks like a duck....

walks like a duck.,....

and quacks like a duck......

I am surprised the phrase "Arbeit macht frei" is not being used by the President / White House.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
So let me get this straight.

Obama's healthcare boondoggle is actually. . . . . .

Bush's fault?




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


No one brought up Bush.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by beezzer
 


No one brought up Bush.

it's only a matter of time.

They will run from this as fast as Michael Moore runs from diet coke.

Just wanted to be first.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Uh no, i'm not sure if you just have a problem with reading or maybe you just don't want to believe it. The individual mandate was originally a GOP idea. It was first brought up by The Heritage Foundation, first in 89, then again in 92 calling for an individual mandate.


On Nov. 20, 1993, Republican Sen. Don Nickles and 24 Republican co-sponsors introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, which mandated “employers withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages” and “notify employees of their right to claim an advance refundable tax credit for such premiums.



Three days later, Republican Sen. John Chafee and 18 Republican co-sponsors introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. This bill advanced the same goals of universal coverage in President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. “Each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005,” the Republican bill stated.



The sponsors and advocates for those two bills were senators who now oppose the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, namely Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), as well as former Sens. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Christopher Bond (R-Mo.).



“Nobody was saying that it was creeping socialism or unconstitutional at the time. A lot of conservatives were for it,” former Republican Sen. Robert Bennett said. In 2007, Mitt Romney defended the individual mandate in the Massachusetts health reform law as “ultimate conservatism.”


So why is the GOP against it now? It was their idea to begin with.
www.centralpennbusiness.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Under the plan you referenced to the Republicans there is nothing that would punish and individual who does not have health insurance. In that plan it deals specifically with employers... It also did not force the use of one plan over the other.

The current Obama plan does not make the distinction, and clearly punishes and individual who does not have health insurance. Is there anything in the current health care law being challenged that takes into account a persons lack of employment and inability to pay for health care coverage that the government is mandating they have?

Universal health care is a good idea in my opinion, but when its forced instead of being implemented there is an issue.

Secondly health care oversight is handled at the state level, and each state has its own issues, knowing what works and what does not work. When the Federal government attempts to create the same filed for all states / territories, its doomed to fail simply because the needs in South Central Los Angeles California aren't going to be the same in South Central Tippecanoe Indiana.

Even HIPAA, a Federal law that applies to the medical field, is subject to the various state laws that deal with the issue of privacy and mandatory reporting to the state / law enforcement on certain areas (shootings / stabbings / identity theft / fraud etc).

Why not approach universal health care in the same manner? A over all plan that allows the states to tweak to what works best?

Why all or nothing?
edit on 29-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join