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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The individual mandate, a Republican idea which shows how far to the right the Dems have gone [View all]You said it, not me
By every objective view, put forth by every objective expert, the ACA is directly descended from the Republican Romneycare, which is in turn descended from the Republican Nixon proposal. So yeah, the ACA is a Republican plan, despite the fact that a nominal Democrat named Obama pushed it and signed it.
Oh, and if you think I'm picking on Obama because I'm a former Clinton or Edwards supporter, I suggest that you check out my past posts. Personally, I think that the only way to go is single payer UHC, much like they have in Canada and Europe.
By every objective view, put forth by every objective expert, the ACA is directly descended from the Republican Romneycare, which is in turn descended from the Republican Nixon proposal. So yeah, the ACA is a Republican plan, despite the fact that a nominal Democrat named Obama pushed it and signed it.
Oh, and if you think I'm picking on Obama because I'm a former Clinton or Edwards supporter, I suggest that you check out my past posts. Personally, I think that the only way to go is single payer UHC, much like they have in Canada and Europe.
...I didn't. I also have no problem with the health care law's similarity to "RomneyCare."
Legislation
In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.
On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[18] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[19] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[20] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation
In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.
On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[18] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[19] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[20] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation
There is a reason Romney is running away from it.
Did you support Kucinich? He voted for the health care law.
Kucinich: Supreme Court Ruling will be the Next Step toward Single-Payer Health Care
Washington, Mar 26 -
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who provided the pivotal vote in the House to pass the Affordable Care Act, today explained the Supreme Courts ruling will simply be the next step in the inevitable path towards single-payer health care. Today, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments as it considers the landmark health care reform bill passed in the previous Congress.
The Supreme Court has begun its review of the Affordable Care Act, and I hope the law is upheld. I voted for the bill, even as the coauthor of the single-payer solution, because it provided immediate relief [1] for my constituents. It also demonstrated that reform is possible within the context of the for-profit system. However, in the current for-profit system, one out of every three dollars spent on health care goes toward things other than providing health care. The cost of health care continues to grow because the costs cannot be constrained within the context of that for-profit system. Whether the Supreme Court upholds the law or strikes it down, single-payer is the only alternative that can meet our nations needs, said Kucinich.
Congressman Kucinich is the coauthor, along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), of H.R. 676, Medicare for All. H.R. 676 would cover everyone in the U.S. for all medically necessary services with no copayments, premiums or deductibles, for the same amount we currently pay for health care.
The fundamental question for Americans is whether health care is only for those who can afford it or whether health care is human right. I believe health care is a fundamental right of every American and we have found that when we treat it as such, it becomes more affordable for everyone.
Congress has shown an appetite for single-payer. I introduced an amendment to the Affordable Care Act in 2009 in the Education and Labor Committee. The amendment, passed on a bipartisan vote but stripped from the bill, would have helped states pursue single-payer if that is what their residents wanted. My amendment was one of the first single-payer legislative victories in Congress. It wont be the last.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=287135
Washington, Mar 26 -
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who provided the pivotal vote in the House to pass the Affordable Care Act, today explained the Supreme Courts ruling will simply be the next step in the inevitable path towards single-payer health care. Today, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments as it considers the landmark health care reform bill passed in the previous Congress.
The Supreme Court has begun its review of the Affordable Care Act, and I hope the law is upheld. I voted for the bill, even as the coauthor of the single-payer solution, because it provided immediate relief [1] for my constituents. It also demonstrated that reform is possible within the context of the for-profit system. However, in the current for-profit system, one out of every three dollars spent on health care goes toward things other than providing health care. The cost of health care continues to grow because the costs cannot be constrained within the context of that for-profit system. Whether the Supreme Court upholds the law or strikes it down, single-payer is the only alternative that can meet our nations needs, said Kucinich.
Congressman Kucinich is the coauthor, along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), of H.R. 676, Medicare for All. H.R. 676 would cover everyone in the U.S. for all medically necessary services with no copayments, premiums or deductibles, for the same amount we currently pay for health care.
The fundamental question for Americans is whether health care is only for those who can afford it or whether health care is human right. I believe health care is a fundamental right of every American and we have found that when we treat it as such, it becomes more affordable for everyone.
Congress has shown an appetite for single-payer. I introduced an amendment to the Affordable Care Act in 2009 in the Education and Labor Committee. The amendment, passed on a bipartisan vote but stripped from the bill, would have helped states pursue single-payer if that is what their residents wanted. My amendment was one of the first single-payer legislative victories in Congress. It wont be the last.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=287135
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
156 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The individual mandate, a Republican idea which shows how far to the right the Dems have gone [View all]
MadHound
Apr 2012
OP
You know what? There are those of us who feel we are not allowed to say that the mandate is LEFT,
patrice
Apr 2012
#26
Just maybe it's Obama's way of ensuring that the individual mandate is off the table forever?
nanabugg
Apr 2012
#80
Or it could be used to provide "universal" health care through health savings accounts or some
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#85
Well, that is a telling statement about how far to the right you and a lot of this country have gone
MadHound
Apr 2012
#86
The PCORI doesn't do that for gov't; It's the tool by means of which CONSUMERS affect the exchanges.
patrice
Apr 2012
#24
Why do you discount the fact that the PCORI is built out of actual empirical PATIENT CENTERED data?
patrice
Apr 2012
#57
With 1/2 a trillion of taxpayer money and ongoing premiums from vast numbers of captured customers
Uncle Joe
Apr 2012
#25
Supposedly from cutting "waste and fraud". But I think that is BS. I think it's more along the
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#87
Don't forget that the Republicans now rejecting the mandate have moved even further to the right
libinnyandia
Apr 2012
#3
I'm not sure how it follows that the existence of AIM (founded 1968) means that Nixon
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#102
I think wonkette leans left, and I believe her column was tongue in cheek. The nixon library,
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#108
Nixon's proposal was better, and didn't include a mandate. I believe this is descended from the
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#93
I don't understand: If you don't stand-up for a LEGAL mandate, HOW can you get to Single Payer?
patrice
Apr 2012
#21
Also a big, big similarity: Government REQUIRED to implement Health Care, ergo a mandate of somekind
patrice
Apr 2012
#43
And you are not stretching far enough, in an extremely complex & dynamic REALITY. nt
patrice
Apr 2012
#52
Nixon's plan *didn't* have a mandate. Like I told you before. Why do you keep saying it did?
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#91
Because while the "progressive" judges are indeed progressive on social issues,
MadHound
Apr 2012
#49
Why did the Medicare Part D program get by with making us choose an insurance company for that
jwirr
Apr 2012
#13
Because the huge corporations own all the politicians. It is called Corporatism.
CAPHAVOC
Apr 2012
#17
Medicare Part D is a big fat boondoggle because of the corporate welfare factor.
Zalatix
Apr 2012
#82
Agreed but what I was asking is why it was constitutional and the HCR may not be?
jwirr
Apr 2012
#113
the notion that ins. cos. won't immediately start working to bypass any regulations in the ACA
KG
Apr 2012
#19
And there will be NO grounds to defend against those attacks if we yeild the Constitutionality of
patrice
Apr 2012
#22
Stereotypical characterizations don't include minimal hypothetical analysis of any other factors.
patrice
Apr 2012
#37
You know, it really is insulting when you accuse people of being tools, or victims, of the media
MadHound
Apr 2012
#46
What is not insulting about the assumptions which YOU make???? I will not attack your right to make
patrice
Apr 2012
#53
I think it's very interesting how so many assume that O yeilded to the mandate out of some kind of
patrice
Apr 2012
#30
Given that he went from supporting single payer, then promising a public option,
MadHound
Apr 2012
#39
Well, he as sure as fuck wasn't going to be able to go anywhere with any of it unless he was elected
patrice
Apr 2012
#50
The "Liberal" (ha!) justices are establishing Constitutional authority for gov't implemented HC. nt
patrice
Apr 2012
#60
I predict that they will uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate. And will do so
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#96
And it's a nice set-up for the Republicans' return in 2016, maybe with Jeb.
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#101
"Appeal to authority" = logical fallacy. Debate the argument or the information.
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#92
Agreed. Heritage came out for the mandate in 1989. Now they're against it. (Wink, wink)
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#97
The amicus briefs to the SCOTUS to shoot down the law tell you which side is REALLY right wing.
joshcryer
Apr 2012
#79
So why are Democrats such as yourself now pushing a plan that has its origins
MadHound
Apr 2012
#126
With the MLR cap on the insurance companies a sure fire way for them to make more profits is..
Fumesucker
Apr 2012
#105
One of the prime reasons I preferred Barack to Hillary was Hillary's support for a private mandate..
Fumesucker
Apr 2012
#107
I post a link to a Media Matters article that references a Drudge talking point and you ... use it?
joshcryer
Apr 2012
#143
My point being that "personal responsibility" has been a Republican talking point for quite a while.
Fumesucker
Apr 2012
#153
Now that I look more closely I think I better read up before I shoot off my mouth.
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#94
I don't really care that much about it, but I do not like being framed as a right winger...
joshcryer
Apr 2012
#135