Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

solarhydrocan

(551 posts)
18. Yes it was
Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:20 AM
Dec 2013
The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[21] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation#Policy_influence


Here's the original paper by Stewart Butler, Heritage foundation.

Notice how they used the Auto insurance argument so popular with third way "liberals"

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have li a bility insurance.

But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This man d ate is based on two important principles.

First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.

If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans


Why is anyone surprised? Obama told us all his policies are republican ones from the 80's


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That sure isn't our families experience OKNancy Dec 2013 #1
Right wing crapaganda (R) to pollute American brainpans Berlum Dec 2013 #2
I am relatively certain that some of their assumptions are false. Mass Dec 2013 #3
Heritage Foundation? GoldenOldie Dec 2013 #4
Independence Blue Cross Freddie Dec 2013 #5
They can afford to play both sides of the coin. onehandle Dec 2013 #6
Looking forward to it Freddie Dec 2013 #17
Actually, they are correct, that's the point of the mandate... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #7
This is pure ProSense Dec 2013 #9
Yeah, but that's crap Prosense, and you know it... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #12
No, it's not "crap." The Heritage Foundation is spewing crap ProSense Dec 2013 #13
Then there is nothing to worry about and we don't need any mandates. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #16
What does that have to do with the fact that the OP is nonsense? ProSense Dec 2013 #19
As I said, it's not, but that's okay. I am not interested in debating the self-evident. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #24
A tax-funded single-payer system would do exactly the same thing. Nye Bevan Dec 2013 #10
The NHS is funded through general taxation. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #14
Not with a progressive income tax it wouldn't, since older workers are wealthier, and earn more. Romulox Dec 2013 #15
I think quite a few DUers would dispute your "older=wealthier" theory. Nye Bevan Dec 2013 #29
It's statistically true, even as there are many individual exceptions. Romulox Dec 2013 #31
Another reason ProSense Dec 2013 #23
That's paying for the subsidy/tax credit side of things. The other larger half... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #27
There you go again ProSense Dec 2013 #30
+1 mmonk Dec 2013 #34
Wasn't the ACA ... sendero Dec 2013 #8
Krugman explained ProSense Dec 2013 #11
Was that after Krugman recently explained his support for the Trans Pacific Partnership? Romulox Dec 2013 #21
You're knocking Krugman and agreeing with BS from the Heritage Foundation? ProSense Dec 2013 #26
Nonsense. Obamacare ("Romneycare") is *also* from the Heritage Foundation. YOU agree with them. nt Romulox Dec 2013 #28
Yes it was solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #18
Yes, and almost exactly in the form it was enacted--e.g. no drug reimportation, no public option. nt Romulox Dec 2013 #20
The idea that the youngest workers could bail out the healthcare industry is bizarre, to begin with. Romulox Dec 2013 #22
that's my paper and here's the funny part: PCIntern Dec 2013 #25
Your posting this here why? Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #32
Welcome to ignore. onehandle Dec 2013 #33
How immature of you Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #35
Of course it is... hughee99 Dec 2013 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In The Philadelphia Inqui...»Reply #18