White House Tries to Rebrand Mandate

reply to post by antonia

Taranto, who employs the royal “we” in his column, writes that he was there when the Heritage Foundation was promoting the mandate:

“
Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”

As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. “Universal health care” was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of “quality, affordable health care” to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: “I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.”

The plan was introduced in a 1989 book, “A National Health System for America” by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier. We seem to have mislaid our copy, and we couldn’t find it online, but we did track down a 1990 Backgrounder and a 1991 lecture by Butler that outline the plan. One of its two major planks, the equalization of tax treatment for individually purchased and employer-provided health insurance, seemed sensible and unobjectionable, at least in principle.

But the other was the mandate, described as a “Health Care Social Contract” and fleshed out in the lecture.

Stuart Butler’s lecture describes what the Heritage’s mandate would look like:

“
We would include a mandate in our proposal–not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households–to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families. That would have to include, by federal law, a catastrophic provision in the form of a stop loss for a family’s total health outlays. It would have to include all members of the family, and it might also include certain very specific services, such as preventive care, well baby visits, and other items.

Taranto points out that the Heritage mandate was less onerous than the Obamacare one, as it focused on coverage for catastrophic illness, rather than the comprehensive health plans that Obamacare requires. “On the other hand, Butler’s vague language—‘it might also include certain very specific services…and other items’—would seem to leave the door wide open for limitless expansion,” he writes. “Whatever the particular differences, the Heritage mandate was indistinguishable in principle from the ObamaCare one. In both cases, the federal government would force individuals to purchase a product from a private company—something that Congress has never done before.”

Linky poo

I think the whole story needs to be told.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You are talking to a real evil liberal who was for the public option. I'm not for the mandate, but I do think it's rather strange the GOP fights so hard against it when 2 of the current frontrunners either introduced plans like Obama's or said they would have before Obamacare was even passed.

Let's get real-The only reason the GOP is against it is because it was Obama's baby.

reply to post by antonia


Actually we can go back and see how Congress dealt with it, specifically Pelosis comments on the subject.

Secondly as I state there is a difference between a state level plan and a federal level plan that punishes people for not having insurance. That is a huge difference between the Obama plan and the other plans suggested by others.

The health care law is now going to cost double what was originally disclosed, over a trillion dollars now. Attempting to argue the only reason they are against it is because its Obama's plan - a question.

Is that comment to be taken as they are against it because its a bad plan, because its from a democrat, because its from Obama, or because Obama is black? I am not accusing you of that, which is why I am asking. The reason for my question goes back to the documented argument that if anyone questions anything Obama does or states they are somehow a racist.

I am curious as to why being against something is wrong?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by antonia

 

Is that comment to be taken as they are against it because its a bad plan, because its from a democrat, because its from Obama, or because Obama is black? I am not accusing you of that, which is why I am asking. The reason for my question goes back to the documented argument that if anyone questions anything Obama does or states they are somehow a racist.

Oh not this crap. I didn't bring up him being black at all. I'm not even going to lower myself to this.

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives

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)

It's more than 1%. As usual they have low balled that number.

Tort Reform will definitely be part of the - new - solution.

Bye....bye........ObamaCare.

Originally posted by beezzer

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.

It's going to be a long wait for the liberals. June 29, 2012 is a long way away.

Right now it's starting to look like a Saturday Night Live skit at the SCOTUS.

Donald Virrilli is the joke of the week.

At MSNBC they were laughing and said "We should have sent in Joe Pesci."

And Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made a comment to the court:

Even before the justices began to ask Verrilli to defend the arguments he had made in briefs submitted to the court in the past several months, he seemed uneasy. In his opening remarks, Verrilli stammered and appeared either nervous or unwell, stuttering, repeating himself and seeming far less confident than he had on Monday, when he appeared before the justices to argue the court has standing to decide this case in 2012. This is how he began his argument Tuesday:

The Affordable Care Act addresses a fundamental and enduring problem in our health care system and our economy. Insurance has become the predominant means of paying for health care in this country. Insurance has become the predominant means of paying for health care in this country. [color=cyan]For most Americans, for more than 80 percent of Americans, the insurance system does provide effective access. Excuse me.

Source

Is that "80%" figure for real ???????

and this guy is representing the government ??['b]

He must have been talking to Obama before court

Well, if the court decides to strike down the mandate....they will have to strike down the whole thing as the funding for all the other provisions will be gone.

That means parents who have put their kids on their insurance that were already able to up to age 26 will have to immediately drop them. Insurance companies will also be able to deny you again on a pre-existing conditions.

If only the mandate is struck down, it will be essentially impossible to fund the rest without a HUGE HUGE raise to all of our insurance, premiums, deductibles, etc.

IMO...none of these things are going to happen....and the law will stand.

I'd rather have a single payer system myself....Medicare for all....but this is better than nothing.

Originally posted by David9176
Well, if the court decides to strike down the mandate....they will have to strike down the whole thing as the funding for all the other provisions will be gone.

That means parents who have put their kids on their insurance that were already able to up to age 26 will have to immediately drop them. Insurance companies will also be able to deny you again on a pre-existing conditions.

If only the mandate is struck down, it will be essentially impossible to fund the rest without a HUGE HUGE raise to all of our insurance, premiums, deductibles, etc.

IMO...none of these things are going to happen....and the law will stand.

I'd rather have a single payer system myself....Medicare for all....but this is better than nothing.

edit on 29-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)

Can there be "emergency" legislation ?

Or "extensions" or "continuations" of "temporary" programs ?


Like this one .....
Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP)


Is PCIP part of ObamaCare, or is it a separate program ?
Has a similar pre existing program existed before ObamaCare ?

Perhaps all that has already happened will stand ?

Is a "struck down" law similar to a "repealed" law ??
(as far as what can or can not be "undone")

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by antonia

 

That is a huge difference between the Obama plan and the other plans suggested by others.

That's a lie

2nd

The audacity of this administration.
How can Obama even consider using the words "personal responsibility" for anything when he still blames everything on Bush?

Originally posted by Alxandro
The audacity of this administration.
How can Obama even consider using the words "personal responsibility" for anything when he still blames everything on Bush?

Uh, because Bush was the guy who put the economy into the toilet, not Obama.

And might I point out that unemployment is down over 20 months and employment
is up again, so poo poo on you

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


You mean the number of people claiming unemployment has declined. The actual number of those moving out of the labor force is still increasing.
United States Department of Labor - Statistics

Not sure how they're going to mandate people who can't find work to buy insurance. Perhaps they should just mandate that people get a job. That would totally solve the unemployment problem.

reply to post by Alxandro

How can Obama even consider using the words "personal responsibility" for anything when he still blames everything on Bush?

You're right...he should be like Mitt Romney and speak the truth.

Romney: George Bush Saved the Economy

reply to post by dbates


QUOTE OF THE DAY ^

Nothing else needs to be said.

But Ill Say It Anyways-

For real, how are they going to make people pay for insurance
when people are killing each other for bread ?


You know what two things the government lacks most in its efforts? Common Sense and Accountability.

Why else would the strongest nation in the world also be the most indebted and divided?

Its a free for all behind those chamber walls, cept they dont look outside.

Originally posted by Alxandro
The audacity of this administration.
How can Obama even consider using the words "personal responsibility" for anything when he still blames everything on Bush?

Obamas latest pathetic attempt at deflecting blame. -- Solyndra --

- That wasn't me. It was congress."