Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's what I keep saying... the ACA defenders keeps saying it's a "Republican idea" or this mess was because the Democrats were forced to compromise... The ACA was all written by Ds, and passed by all D's.

No, it wasn't.

The fundamental idea of this healthcare package was written by Senate Republicans in the 1990s, during President Clinton's term, as a counter to his proposal for universal health care at the time, which would have been a single-payer system.

 Psienesis wrote:

That's what I keep saying... the ACA defenders keeps saying it's a "Republican idea" or this mess was because the Democrats were forced to compromise... The ACA was all written by Ds, and passed by all D's.

No, it wasn't.

The fundamental idea of this healthcare package was written by Senate Republicans in the 1990s, during President Clinton's term, as a counter to his proposal for universal health care at the time, which would have been a single-payer system.

Doesn't matter who's idea was it... the Republicans were shut out during the drafting process. As in, they had no say.

Thats what we call, a lie.

The LAW THAT WAS ENACTED was written by Democrats, and voted in by Democrats, and signed by a Democrat.

For good or bad Democrats own it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/republicans-were-for-obam_n_515743.html

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120327/news/703279952/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/27/ryan-reintroducing-gop-health-care-reform-bill-today/

http://www.republicansforobama.org/firstterm
.... skip down to the Health Care Reform section.

The idea that the Republicans were "shut out" is a fallacy. They refused to engage. They were invited, they didn't show up. They were elected by their constituents, and paid by the rest of us, to do a job they refused to do.

I wouldn't attend either if I have no avenues of discussion in the Bill to change, influence, or have options to any of the provisions. This sucker all Democrats

 Psienesis wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/republicans-were-for-obam_n_515743.html

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120327/news/703279952/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/27/ryan-reintroducing-gop-health-care-reform-bill-today/

http://www.republicansforobama.org/firstterm
.... skip down to the Health Care Reform section.

The idea that the Republicans were "shut out" is a fallacy. They refused to engage. They were invited, they didn't show up. They were elected by their constituents, and paid by the rest of us, to do a job they refused to do.

Again, it was written by a Democrat. It was passed by Democratic votes. It was signed by a Democratic President. You own it.

Hence I mention earlier. House and Senate was own by the Democrats with a Democrat POTUS. You think if the Republicans "own" the Bill it was going to pass? What's the percentage now in the US of the general pop against this?. The ACA is the Democrats Roller Coaster and there is no Height requirement involve on that ride.

I think Obama should come out for cross-state line insurance purchases, medical tort reform, and mores HSA plans. Then, Republicans would HAVE to be against them.

 Easy E wrote:
I think Obama should come out for cross-state line insurance purchases, medical tort reform, and mores HSA plans. Then, Republicans would HAVE to be against them.

wait... wut?

 Easy E wrote:
I think Obama should come out for cross-state line insurance purchases, medical tort reform, and mores HSA plans. Then, Republicans would HAVE to be against them.

I'm still waiting on the "Death Panel" selection. Frazz will not be included in the selection. Knowing him he be cheap and use the same rope on every cottonwood tree to hang those that cost to much to keep alive. As a Texan he can make "Frontier Justice" excuse sound good and acceptable

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting on the "Death Panel" selection. Frazz will not be included in the selection. Knowing him he be cheap and use the same rope on every cottonwood tree to hang those that cost to much to keep alive. As a Texan he can make "Frontier Justice" excuse sound good and acceptable

Just call me Judge Frazzled, the meanest judge East of the Brazos...

 whembly wrote:
I'm mean, the ACA is so awesome, that everyone loves it so much. Truth is, it's losing popularity (fairly or unfairly)... such that Obama is trying to claim it's now a "Right". It's going to be an interesting next couple of years...

Yeah, it isn't too popular right now. Like any reform before its enacted, people focus on the bits that don't benefit them, and on top of that we've seen a really heavy handed attack campaign from the Republicans.

But then read the section I quoted - "President Obama wants to get as many Americans addicted to the subsidies because he knows that in modern times, no major entitlement has ever been implemented and then unwound."

Read what that's actually saying - they have to get this canned before people start interacting with it and they're not so afraid of it anymore, and start seeing how it benefits them.

Wonder how many here agree or disagree that the ACA is raping the 40 hour work week.....

 djones520 wrote:
You do realize the Democrats, aware of their super majority, largely blocked Republican attempts at participating in the writing of the bill. The bill isn't made when it's voted on. The Dem's wrote it, they voted it in. The Republicans tried to have a say in it, and they were effectively told "I won."

Problematically, that's delusional nonsense.

The bill is largely what Republicans claimed they'd always wanted - remember the HEART bill they once wrote and voted for - the one with universal coverage and an individual mandate? Or the Healthy Americans Act, that also included an individual mandate, which had bi-partisan support including Lyndsay Graham? But then have Obama fresh in to office and leading efforts to get such a bill over the line, and Republicans freak out about it... for reasons that have nothing to do with the content of the bill.

Which is why all of a sudden Republicans, including many who'd supported HEART and the Healthy Americans act, suddenly started claiming it was unconstitutional. It's why, having been part of the original committees developing the bill, they started rejecting every effort to be part of the process, and it's why Mitch McConnell starting telling his party they had to vote against ACA as a unified block.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
That's what I keep saying... the ACA defenders keeps saying it's a "Republican idea" or this mess was because the Democrats were forced to compromise... The ACA was all written by Ds, and passed by all D's.

Yes, but based on ideas that were very similar to ideas that the Republicans had previously put up in the HEART and Healthy Americans Act.

Ideas the Republicans had once supported, but now opposed utterly, and claimed were unconstitutional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats what we call, a lie.

The LAW THAT WAS ENACTED was written by Democrats, and voted in by Democrats, and signed by a Democrat.

For good or bad Democrats own it.

Yes, Democrats do own it. ACA is their's, and Obama's.

But that wasn't claimed by your side, as djones520 claimed Republicans were locked out of the process (which is bs) and that it has nothing to do with Republican ideas on healthcare reform (which is complete fething fantasy, with a universal coverage component balanced against an insurance mandate being the cornerstone of GOP healhcare reform right up until Obama took the Democratic controlled congress in that direction).

The actual story is that despite being invited in to being part of the process, and despite the bill being put up being pretty much what Republicans always claimed they wanted, Republicans walked away from it for blatantly political reasons.

 sebster wrote:

The actual story is that despite being invited in to being part of the process, and despite the bill being put up being pretty much what Republicans always claimed they wanted, Republicans walked away from it for blatantly political reasons.

Where on gods green earth are you getting that?

The Rs were initally invited, but wouldn't play ball because the D's wanted a single payer. That pretty much poison any chance of negotiation between the two parties. So the D's decided to take the ball themselves and do it by themselves... (they realized single payor wasn't going to happen, so the landed on what we have now).

Heck Seb, the D's had a hard time getting all of the D's on board w/o the R's. They had to do things like the Corn Husker kickback and such to bring all the D's to the "yea" side.

Let me repeat. What we ended up with IS NOTHING LIKE that old Republican plan in the '90s.

The D's fought tooth and nail for it, drafted it themselves, passed it themselves, and at the same time painted the R's as trying to obstruct its passage. (which is true, no R's voted for it). And now they want to try and spin "all the bad stuff" as the R's fault?

This was nothing more than a vanity project from someone obsessed about his legacy. Now it has his name all over it. Go figures.

 sebster wrote:

The bill is largely what Republicans claimed they'd always wanted - remember the HEART bill they once wrote and voted for - the one with universal coverage and an individual mandate? Or the Healthy Americans Act, that also included an individual mandate, which had bi-partisan support including Lyndsay Graham?

 whembly wrote:


Let me repeat. What we ended up with IS NOTHING LIKE that old Republican plan in the '90s.

I keep hearing both sides discussing this (that it is either the same/completely different), and obviously one side is bound to be more right than the other, unless it is a perfect 50/50 split of old and new, but what are the odds of that.

Is there anywhere that has a summary of the old Republican plans and the ACA side by side?

 motyak wrote:

 sebster wrote:

The bill is largely what Republicans claimed they'd always wanted - remember the HEART bill they once wrote and voted for - the one with universal coverage and an individual mandate? Or the Healthy Americans Act, that also included an individual mandate, which had bi-partisan support including Lyndsay Graham?

 whembly wrote:


Let me repeat. What we ended up with IS NOTHING LIKE that old Republican plan in the '90s.

I keep hearing both sides discussing this (that it is either the same/completely different), and obviously one side is bound to be more right than the other, unless it is a perfect 50/50 split of old and new, but what are the odds of that.

Is there anywhere that has a summary of the old Republican plans and the ACA side by side?

I had a book describing the proposal in the 90's. There were two main components. 1) A mandate that everyone had to buy one (like the ACA). 2) A tax credit to everyone regardless of income (not like ACA, but close enough.)

The devil is in the "details". I'll see if I can find the old 80's/90's plan electronically. There was a dude in the 80's who I think was in that ultra conservative thinktank (Heritage?) who championed that premise. But, that plan ain't nothing like the current plan... that plan actually deregulated some parts of the healthcare industry (one comes to mind is allowing insurance plans/groups across state line). It's the detail.

The argument defending the ACA that it was a "Republican Idea" is a classic Fallacy... It's like someone took a Lamborghini and replaced it's engine with a Yugo engine block, and still claim that the car is still an authentic Lamborghini.

 whembly wrote:
Where on gods green earth are you getting that?

From following the debate at the time.

The Rs were initally invited, but wouldn't play ball because the D's wanted a single payer.

Some Democrats wanted single payer. It was believed very early on that that would never be possible, and there's debate over whether Obama ever even wanted that.

Meanwhile you have freedomworks putting out memos that this was to be the issue on which to rebuild the Republican party (after the 2008 hammering and their toxic brand post Bush).

That pretty much poison any chance of negotiation between the two parties. So the D's decided to take the ball themselves and do it by themselves...

So, when a proposal is listed that you don't like, you don't stay at the table and state what you will commit to, instead you just refuse to talk about the issue at all? "Oh, I was invited to the party but they suggested we make it a costume party so I refused to talk about it anymore. Even when everyone decided a costume party was never going to happen and started talking about the blacktie event I always said I wanted I just kept refusing to talk to them about it. And now it's their fault for not letting me be part of the conversation." I mean, for feth's sake.

Heck Seb, the D's had a hard time getting all of the D's on board w/o the R's.

Of course they did. Because instead of needing 60 votes from between the Ds and Rs, they now needed absolutely everyone of the Ds. Ever see what happens when a property developer has to purchase every single house in an area in order to get his shopping centre built? You get hold outs that are smart enough to know that even when the deal is good, they can charge a nice premium by being the last to sign on.

Let me repeat. What we ended up with IS NOTHING LIKE that old Republican plan in the '90s.

There are differences. There was no lower income subsidy, nor any taxes on high end schemes, and they weren't anywhere near as ambitious about expanding the scheme. But it was about guaranteed coverage balanced against a mandate.

The D's fought tooth and nail for it, drafted it themselves, passed it themselves, and at the same time painted the R's as trying to obstruct its passage. (which is true, no R's voted for it). And now they want to try and spin "all the bad stuff" as the R's fault?

No, you're misreading it totally. It isn't "oh the bad stuff in this bill is all R stuff". It's "the stuff in here that Republican's claim is bad is actually stuff they used to be completely in favour of, until the Democrats put it in a bill, at which point they become intensely opposed to it. This kind of political hackery shows that all the scary stuff the Republicans have claimed about the bill is, to be honest, total and utter bs."

 whembly wrote:
The Rs were initally invited, but wouldn't play ball because the D's wanted a single payer.

And what's the excuse for why they didn't participate after single payer was dropped?

Look, you can make a lot of very valid arguments against the ACA itself; but the fact remains that Republicans, as a block, refused to participate in any part of it because they didn't want Obama to have any sort of a legislative victory, not with their help. I mean, they flat out said it, so I'm not sure why all these attempts at revisionism now. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." - Mitch McConnell. ""If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said." Jim DeMint. And so forth. These guys are Republican leadership. They're not speaking in codes, they're not being ambiguous.

Well, it was Waterloo, all right.

I am still trying to figure out how the party of Birthers managed to get behind the guy that is actually everything they claimed Obama to be.

ACA debate aside. Anyone else see the article on the scammers getting into the implementation of it?

 d-usa wrote:
I am still trying to figure out how the party of Birthers managed to get behind the guy that is actually everything they claimed Obama to be.

Don't worry bro, nothing to see here

Damn Canadians, coming to 'Murica and taking our jobs. Now some hardworking 'Murcan is out bagging our leaves or picking tomatoes or something instead of being a senator.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I am still trying to figure out how the party of Birthers managed to get behind the guy that is actually everything they claimed Obama to be.

Don't worry bro, nothing to see here

Damn Canadians, coming to 'Murica and taking our jobs. Now some hardworking 'Murcan is out bagging our leaves or picking tomatoes or something instead of being a senator.

You know what I think is hysterical... in the '08 election, the birtherism tactic started with the Hillary Clinton crowd.

But, yeah... I find that fething ironic that Ted Cruz is now the "new shiny" thing now.

What's next? That a single-term Senator doesn't have enough experience to run for President? Oh...what!

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I am still trying to figure out how the party of Birthers managed to get behind the guy that is actually everything they claimed Obama to be.

Don't worry bro, nothing to see here

Damn Canadians, coming to 'Murica and taking our jobs. Now some hardworking 'Murcan is out bagging our leaves or picking tomatoes or something instead of being a senator.

So "I don't wanna be Canadian anymore" is all you have to do?

I would have thought that there is a process for that kind of thing...

Thinking that Obama was born outside the US was all the rage and Republicans in office are still pandering to the Birther crowd.

But it's okay for the guy that everybody knows was born outside of the country.

Or course it was also okay for McCain, but at least he had two US Parents, unlike Cruz.

It's nice to know that the GOP will embrace my run for office someday!

 d-usa wrote:

It's nice to know that the GOP will embrace my run for office someday!

So you're running in the GW-fanboi party? I'd vote for ya!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Rs were initally invited, but wouldn't play ball because the D's wanted a single payer.

And what's the excuse for why they didn't participate after single payer was dropped?

Their constituents didn't want it AT.ALL. As indicative to the '10 curb stomping.

Look, you can make a lot of very valid arguments against the ACA itself; but the fact remains that Republicans, as a block, refused to participate in any part of it because they didn't want Obama to have any sort of a legislative victory, not with their help. I mean, they flat out said it, so I'm not sure why all these attempts at revisionism now. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." - Mitch McConnell. ""If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said." Jim DeMint. And so forth. These guys are Republican leadership. They're not speaking in codes, they're not being ambiguous.

Right... these guys weren't objecting to any plans from Obama/Democrats in a vacuum Ouze... it was wildly unpopular to their base.

What do you want them to do? Thumb their nose to the very people who voted for them?

Well, it was Waterloo, all right.

Yep.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
ACA debate aside. Anyone else see the article on the scammers getting into the implementation of it?

Yep. Because, you know, we trust everyone. No one would ever, EVER lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


So, when a proposal is listed that you don't like, you don't stay at the table and state what you will commit to, instead you just refuse to talk about the issue at all? "Oh, I was invited to the party but they suggested we make it a costume party so I refused to talk about it anymore. Even when everyone decided a costume party was never going to happen and started talking about the blacktie event I always said I wanted I just kept refusing to talk to them about it. And now it's their fault for not letting me be part of the conversation." I mean, for feth's sake.

Right... when Obama said "I Won (TM)", that's really conducive to have any meaningful say to the table.

 d-usa wrote:
Or course it was also okay for McCain, but at least he had two US Parents, unlike Cruz.

It was actually at least a little headache for Mr. McCain, as well.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Or course it was also okay for McCain, but at least he had two US Parents, unlike Cruz.

It was actually at least a little headache for Mr. McCain, as well.

Yeah... I remember that. Still rolled my eyes as much as I did when it came up for Obama... All the attention focused on Obama's was just as ridiculous. If you wanted to stop Obama, there were other easier things to shine the spotlight rather than this stupid thing.

As to Cruz, according to Customs and Immigration Services:

One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is before November 14, 1986 but after October 10, 1952 The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14thbirthday.If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:
Serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces;
Employed with the U.S. Government; or
Employed with certain international organizations.
Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

If the child was born out of wedlock, see N-600: FAQ.

Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 so that’s the part of the law that applies to his case.

Cruz’s mother was born in Delaware and grew up in the US. That covers the 10 years. She graduated from Rice University in Texas, so that would cover the 5 years after age 14 requirement. She didn’t move to Canada until the 60s so she spent more time than that in the US.

Cruz acquired his citizenship, at birth, through his mother. He is a natural born US citizen and eligible to be President of the United States.

Much the same way as Obama... but, folks are idjits and this will keep coming up.

 whembly wrote:
Cruz’s mother was born in Delaware and grew up in the US.

Yeah I think this is really the only salient part; he could have been born on Mars and be eligible.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Rs were initally invited, but wouldn't play ball because the D's wanted a single payer.

And what's the excuse for why they didn't participate after single payer was dropped?

Look, you can make a lot of very valid arguments against the ACA itself; but the fact remains that Republicans, as a block, refused to participate in any part of it because they didn't want Obama to have any sort of a legislative victory, not with their help. I mean, they flat out said it, so I'm not sure why all these attempts at revisionism now. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." - Mitch McConnell. ""If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said." Jim DeMint. And so forth. These guys are Republican leadership. They're not speaking in codes, they're not being ambiguous.

Well, it was Waterloo, all right.

I do often wonder to myself, if today's politicians even know what compromise is anymore. That closing bit from that article is very telling.

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

I don't think either party really truly cares anymore that they're running this country into the ground. They're all rich jerks that can easily survive while the rest of us have no jobs, no money, no healthcare, etc, so it truly doesn't affect them. I think both sides are simply willing to toss that coin to see which side comes out on top after it all ends. Quite a lot to gamble on a coin toss. I just hope it lands on the edge and both sets of fethwads lose.

 whembly wrote:


Much the same way as Obama... but, folks are idjits and this will keep coming up.

It'll keep coming up for the exact reasons mentioned in the quoted article. It mobilizes voters who care less about facts and more about blind outrage.