In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Government, if Obamacare holds, will eliminate options of high-deductible policies, and will be creating a situation where all private insurance plans will implode due to the combination of the pre-existing conditions clause and limits/restrictions on premiums/payouts. The only thing that will be left are the government exchanges, which will then be expanded to full, universal, socialized medicine. The politicians either intentionally created that situation, or they are more incompetent than possibly imaginable. I do not believe the latter to be possible, particularly when many/most of the founders of Obamacare have in the past voiced their preference for single-payor (socialized) medicine, and/or that Obamacare is absolutely a step toward that.
And later repudiated by that same think tank. Sometimes the best experts on a policy are those that previously supported it.
First, people wanting it or not does not make it conservative or liberal. Second, Romney, on two occasions, wrote op-eds asking Obama to adopt it on a national level. Third, you are forgetting that Romney/Obamacare was first developed by a conservative think tank for national use. Nice try, but history calls bullshit.
And sometimes, including this case, the most hypocritical are those with a political agenda. Why didn't the think tank reject it when Romney adopted it? Why didn't the think tank respond to Romney's two op-eds? If Bush, not Obama, had adopted the plan, the think tank would still be supporting it.
Simple questions for you:
Do Conservatives promote limited government spending AND control/intrusion on liberties and economic dynamics?
Does a mandate for people to buy insurance relate to more or less government intrusion/control?
What seems more consistent with Conservative principles, the earlier position of the Heritage Foundation to promote mandates, or the current one against mandates?
Do people make mistakes, and if they do, are they obliged to continue pursuing them?
Agreed on all points.
Conservative have paid lip service to limited government spending and control/intrusion on liberties, but they do not act in accordance with their lip service. I do not know what you mean by economic dynamics here.
The mandate is more government control/intrusion (so are the laws against murder).
One can argue either way as to which position by the Heritage foundation is more conservative.
Obviously people are not obligated to pursue mistakes. However, the timing of the Heritage Foundation's change of heart is extremely suspect.
"Conservative have paid lip service to limited government spending and control/intrusion on liberties, but they do not act in accordance with their lip service. I do not know what you mean by economic dynamics here. "
First of all, CONSERVATIVES have not been the problem, mush Republicans and the insane opposition by Democrats have been the block to Fiscally Conservative policy. The definition of Fiscally Conservative is for limited government spending and regulation, regardless of what some Republicans have done. YOU KNOW THAT. If you want an honest debate, deal with that. True Fiscal Conservatives like Demint, Paul, Ryan, et al, have not been the problem.
"The mandate is more government control/intrusion (so are the laws against murder). "
Thank you. - Therefore, the mandate, and therefore the foundation of Obamacare, involves more government intrusion. By the way, laws against murder do not implement government control/intrusion, they simply help to ensure the preservation of personal rights/liberties. No one has the right to murder someone else, and so, laws against that are not an intrusion on someone's life.
"One can argue either way as to which position by the Heritage foundation is more conservative. "
This is patently false. The more Conservative position is absolutely the one involving less government intrusion/regulation/taxation. There are some policies that are not consistent with pure Conservative principle that Conservatives may support, but it does not make them Conservative.
"Obviously people are not obligated to pursue mistakes. However, the timing of the Heritage Foundation's change of heart is extremely suspect."
Again, this is simply not an indication they are acting politically. It has been a long time since the Heritage Foundation supported the mandate. The Heritage Foundation stopped promoting anything like this LONG before Obama started campaigning for office or Obamacare was crafted.
Every single conservative, including Reagan, has expanded government and spending. Of course, conservatives cease being conservatives once they are elected to office and have the ability to stop extra spending.
Wait. If a law to stop murder is not a government intrusion, because it ensures (actually, it ensures nothing; people are murdered daily) liberties/rights, then I change my answer. One can easily argue that Obamacare "ensures" the liberty/right to health.
Conservatives pass laws deciding who you may marry. That is intrusive and larger government. Conservatives want to get involved in the medical decisions regarding abortion and birth control. That is intrusive and bigger government. Conservatives imposed vaginal probes. That is larger government and literally intrusive. Conservatives want to tell you what you may put in your body (drugs). That is intrusive and bigger government.
As far as the Heritage Foundation stopping its support, why didn't it speak out against the law in MA? Why didn't it speak out against Romney when he promoted it nationally? If you do not believe this is political, would you like to buy a unicorn?
What is the point of this argument. You claimed to have a few simple questions. Answering them has led us down a path of a stupid argument over irrelevant stuff. Is that your goal? If not, what is?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Morethanafan 2 years ago
"Every single conservative, including Reagan, has expanded government and spending. Of course, conservatives cease being conservatives once they are elected to office and have the ability to stop extra spending. "
First of all, TOTAL BULLSHIT that "every single conservative" has expanded government. Want to go through the litany of Conservative Congressmen, governors, and major city mayors who have actually reduced the role of government? Reagan only expanded spending on military. The Democratic Congress were the ones who expanded domestic spending, with Reagan only agreeing to it on a temporary basis in order to compromise with them. It was certainly not any of his own policy promotions that increased spending anywhere other than on the military.
Wait. If a law to stop murder is not a government intrusion, because it ensures (actually, it ensures nothing; people are murdered daily) liberties/rights, then I change my answer. One can easily argue that Obamacare "ensures" the liberty/right to health. "
Hardly. My liberty to hold a high-deductible major medical policy has been stripped. Obamacare has led to MANY MANY MANY employees to lose their prior plan, despite Obama's promises that we would all be able to keep our "current" plan if we wanted. Obamacare also strips our liberty to spend nothing at all, if we so chose. Obamacare does not ensure anyone get anything, but gives the false promise that there will be some magic policy out there that will survive against economic reality to offer policies regardless of pre-existing conditions. On the other hand, as said, no one has the right to kill someone else. Prohibiting such is not taking away anyone's rights.
"Conservatives pass laws deciding who you may marry. That is intrusive and larger government. Conservatives want to get involved in the medical decisions regarding murder and birth control. That is intrusive and bigger government. Conservatives want to tell you what you may put in your body (drugs). That is intrusive and bigger government. "
No one's rights are taken away by retaining the definition of marriage as between man and woman. No gay person ever had the right to marry someone of their own gender, as it conflicts with the definition of marriage. Laws against abortion are based on the rights of the child, not on the rights of the mother. Your points about drugs is valid, and a big reason why the overwhelming majority of the Conservatives on this board are in favor of legalizing drugs.
"As far as the Heritage Foundation stopping its support, why didn't it speak out against the law in MA? Why didn't it speak out against Romney when he promoted it nationally? If you do not believe this is political, would you like to buy a unicorn?"
The Heritage Foundation has no problem with States enacting their own policies, particularly when the overwhelming majority of the populace supports it. I'm not sure if why the Heritage Foundation did not speak up, or whether they did or not. As for your last stupid point, you have ignored all the earlier points that would tell you why it is not political. You can bet your ass True Conservatives overwhelmingly do not want the Government telling us more and more what we can't have or what we MUST have.
This post was edited by GauchoGreg 2 years ago
Why didn't they speak out when Mitt Romney publically suggested Obama use Romney's plan on a federal level? He doesn't speak directly for the Heritage Foundation, but Newt Gingrich supported a mandate as late as the spring of 2011.
As I correctly stated earlier, the idea of an individual mandate being described as "far left" did not happen until Obama supported the idea.
Heritage has long been the armed wing of the GOP. CATO is more ideologically motivated, to their credit.
In other crazy news, Mitt Romney is now trying to take some of the credit for the rebound of the American auto industry. Last week when one of Romney's top aides said this, I thought it was a gaffe. It doesn't look like it was a gaffe.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney says his call for managed bankruptcies at GM and Chrysler is what saved the auto industry, but others say it wouldn't have worked without federal bailout he opposed.
They should remake 'the Talented Mr Ripley' with Mitt Romney as the chameleon sociopath. Or he could just be in Zelig. Seriously, he should leave this issue well alone if he knows what's good for him politically.
Just to highlight and simplify this for those that have a hard time digesting the hard facts...
Since Obama took office FEWER Americans are working than when he took office...and the "workforce" (people with jobs or looking for jobs) is at its lowest in 30 years.
Mind you, that we see approximately 1-2% population growth each year...yet these numbers are at unprecedented lows.
Things are better today?
Not bad..upvote. It is a pretty country. I thought it was alright. Many rude people( mostly dudes) in France ( especially Paris) seemingly for no reason, some were pretty cool though I recall. Girls were pretty cool there.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by icky trojan 2 years ago
Feelings get hurt, best not to have any!
That's not the question, though, is it? There are two counter-factuals: what would have been the result if Obama did not take the action he did? And what is the choice on policies going forward between Obama and Romney?
On those two questions Obama fares pretty well.
Spending on defense is far different than spending on entitlements and social programs.
Defense spending (something that is required by the Constitution) is predominately done in the private sector (with the exception of military itself). Like the space program, it supports an entire industry dominated by private sector companies and jobs, creates jobs and fuels the "money machine" through the salaries of the workers in the industry.
Additionally, assets are purchased and technologies are developed that end up flowing into consumer products and advancements.
Entitlements and welfare programs generate none of that...they are just handouts.
This post was edited by deetj13 2 years ago
We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
The Mandate, regardless of who proposes it, is an idea that involves major Government intrusion. As such, it is certainly more Left than Right. It is compounded when Government also restricts options such as high-deductible major medical insurance.
As I said earlier, there are many policies that are more Left than Right as far as ideology, expansions of Government intrusion/control, but are still supported by Republicans and even Conservatives. Clean air and water policy, and land use zoning, are good examples of this. The Heritage Foundation's earlier position on the Mandate was likely similar to such positions, always understood as increase in Government control, but initially thought of as worth the intrusion (at the time they supported a mandate, it was limited only to holding a catostrophic major medical policy, not forcing people into a comprehensive full-blown health management plan). However, it has been a long time since the Heritage Foundation supported the mandate, which they have long-since fond to be contrary to the Constitution, as shown in the following:
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional. In short, The Heritage Foundation opposes the PPACA individual mandate as unwise policy and as unconstitutional legislation."
The document goes on to say, "It is difficult to understand why the United States would, in a brief putatively discussing the constitutionality of the insurance mandate, quote a 21-year-old policy statement which was abandoned and subsequently called a "serious mistake" by the institutional issuers of that statement, and which, far from answering the question presented to this Court, did not in 1989 consider any constitutional question. Whatever the government's purpose, Heritage thinks resorting to abandoned and empirically repudiated ideas from another era is a sign of desperation and highlights the impotence of Appellants' current policy argument.
Big Sky Business Journal, ©2011 Big Sky Business Journal. All Rights Reserved. http://www.bigskybusiness.com/index.php/editorials/guest-commentary/2471-did-heritage-foundation-endorse-the-individual-mandate
Stuart Butler was the author of the Heritage Foundation's alternative to Clinton's universal health care plan, and he had this to say about the Heritage Foundation's proposal in the early 1990s:
the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.
Butler went on to say:
So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?
First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.
Also, advances in "risk adjustment" tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees' coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That's why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.
Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.
Fact of the matter, the Heritage Foundation has not supported a mandate for many many many years, not since Barry was likely still organizing thugs, er, um, I mean the community, back in Chicago.
I'm not going to read all of that, but my point still stands.
The mandate did not start to be characterized as "far left" until it was picked up by Obama and the dems in Congress. We both no that to be true. That is the statement that I made earlier.
As much as the French get a bad wrap for being rude, I found the country to be quite hospitable -- even Paris.
I discovered quite quickly that simply making an effort to speak French, instead of bong a "typical" American that expects eveyone to speak English, went a really long way. Almost every person I encountered spoke English, but the mere fact that I tried to speak their language engendered goodwill. They would stop me and speak English (as I imagine they could not stand the way thai I was butchering a beautiful language), but the difference in attitude than my expectation was pretty shocking.
What I thought would be a pretty unpleasant trip through France turned into some really good memories...it just required a bit of effort and understanding on my part.
For those partisans that need things simplified for them, because they have a hard time understanding reality, despite the economy being on a free fall after it was shoved off a cliff before Obama took office, more people are working in the private sector today than when Obama took office. The lower employment is in public sector jobs. Are you blaming Obama for smaller government? Smaller government has its consequences.
Of course, let's not discuss what would have happened under conservative leadership.
What would have happened had conservatives allowed the car companies and banks fail? The Great Depression would have seemed like the good ol' days.
Regardless of right or left, the SCOTUS will let us know if it is Constitutional, or not.
I find it interesting that the left is so intent on telling us that the right were the ones who initially proposed the mandate, yet are not so quick to point out that they, themselves were against it when initially proposed.
In fact, Obama campaigned on the premise that he did not believe a mandate was the right thing to do.
So, as soon as the lefty is willing to get off their high-horse and admit that they are also a bunch of hypocrites on teh issue, then maybe we can actually have a meaningful discussion on the topic of heathcare and the BEST way to address the issue TOGETHER.
Of course spending on defense if very different than spending on entitlements. It is spending that conservatives like.
Spending more than the next 14-15 countries combined is not required by the Constitution.
How does spending on defense fuel the economy any more than entitlements? Economists (people that conservatives hate, along with scientists) agree almost universally that money given to the poor does more to spur the economy than virtually anything else.
Are you making the argument that the government should fund technologies? Some that work and some that do not? Isn't Obama being slammed for doing that?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports