General Discussion

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)

70. Pro sincerely believes (for some reason) that all the R's are correct AS LONG AS the POTUS agrees

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:34 PM

Jun 2012

She particularly appears to like to argue the points of the Heritage Foundation, and Most everything involved in the US Chamber of Commerce regarding "job growth", (mostly, it appears by context, because the Democratic leadership tends to agree with them).
Not a liberal, but as with Lieberman and Bauccus, likely registered as a Democrat.

Remember, we had many, many Republicans do such registering when their religious lunatics began their purges and they had to take over, I mean find a new political party that would give power to their voice and business views.

You should know Mad, it is MAD to argue with a third way loyalist that has no problem accepting Republican policy as long as Third-Way can post similar views for triangulation purposes, the goal is to steal Republican issues in order to get elected, such thinking got us welfare deform, bank deregulation, Free Trade, and a general lack of respect for anything Constitutional.

One does not need to wonder about anything when things are clear on the surface.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

229 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"We warned the president -- don't ever, ever agree with the Republicans," [View all] MadHound Jun 2012 OP

It was easier to scapegoat the uninsured.. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #1

Yeah, that poor pooor 38% of uninsured who are in the top 45%... joshcryer Jun 2012 #64

they never even talked about the real solution- remove the middle man insurance company Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #2

Wendell Potter is an all-American hero! He really is because he was the first to bring Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2012 #24

wow, what a great guy! Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #40

and who will pay for it. Social Security and Medicare are paid for by us. It is mandatory, and in still_one Jun 2012 #155

Please stop repeating corporate media manufactured lies Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #161

B.S. I have used free ER to save my life plus more freebees! chknltl Jun 2012 #175

Very interesting use of words there newbie. chknltl Jun 2012 #180

Stop spreading corporate propaganda. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #199

Am I lieing about my medical history chknltl Jun 2012 #202

most people have jobs, where the money can and will be taken from paychecks, tax refunds etc. Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #208

Simple answer: A single change in Medicare. chknltl Jun 2012 #211

and isn't that what I said in the first place? still_one Jun 2012 #215

I defended a different part of what you said AND.... chknltl Jun 2012 #216

Right ProSense Jun 2012 #3

Nice to see you popping up again, MadHound Jun 2012 #5

Want ProSense Jun 2012 #6

Facts, LOL! MadHound Jun 2012 #7

Facts: ProSense Jun 2012 #8

oh jesus. is all this because he's a bitter and jaded smoove johnny supporter? dionysus Jun 2012 #97

Uhm... kenfrequed Jun 2012 #167

best to ingore people who want to put things in your face nt msongs Jun 2012 #11

arguing with a table leg again, MadHound? Skittles Jun 2012 #123

In theory, the individual mandate makes sense. I support a public option, at the very least. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2012 #26

I understand the logic behind the individual mandate Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #133

False equivalency. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2012 #170

Not when you consider the motive is money Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #174

This works in other developed countries because the government DICTATES-- eridani Jun 2012 #135

All other nations which mandate the purchase of health insurance make it illegal to profit from Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #148

Bingo unapatriciated Jun 2012 #217

I would accept being forced to pay for it if quinnox Jun 2012 #4

Does this ProSense Jun 2012 #9

Why are you fighting so hard for a Republican policy? MadHound Jun 2012 #10

Actually ProSense Jun 2012 #12

You are fighting for a Heritage Foundation mandate, MadHound Jun 2012 #13

No ProSense Jun 2012 #15

Yes, you are, MadHound Jun 2012 #17

No, ProSense Jun 2012 #19

unfortunately choie Jun 2012 #72

CORRECT Skittles Jun 2012 #203

I think a lot of liberals supported mandate, especially to get something of value enacted. Hoyt Jun 2012 #78

Face facts, you are going to have to pay for it one way or other Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #136

Let's be real. Of course, everyone decent in health care would provide services to the injured. Hoyt Jun 2012 #144

people fighting in the streets for power. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #173

I guess you've never read any right wing Tbag, gun or "militia" websites. Hoyt Jun 2012 #176

I know of those types Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #182

That's it exactly. Let's hope they fade away someday. Hoyt Jun 2012 #184

That type will never fade away Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #187

MLR has been tried in 15 states and failed abjectly in cost control eridani Jun 2012 #137

I doubt if most states have the ability to monitor and enforce it. Feds do. Plus -- Hoyt Jun 2012 #145

You sound like someone who expects to have access to the exchanges TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #168

I disagree. With no pre-existing exclusion, you can move Hoyt Jun 2012 #177

How do you freely move among plans unless you are allowed exchange access? TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #179

Employer health plans have to meet new federal standards. Small businesses can buy from exchanges. Hoyt Jun 2012 #196

Yes, but the final Senate version stripped this from the feds eridani Jun 2012 #204

Add this to the long list of other right-wing, corporate, and neocon policies woo me with science Jun 2012 #219

Were you unconscious in the 90s? jeff47 Jun 2012 #21

Big difference between the nineties and now MadHound Jun 2012 #27

When ProSense Jun 2012 #29

Oh, when that pendulum swings again, MadHound Jun 2012 #32

Ah ProSense Jun 2012 #36

Or have the individual mandate upheld, MadHound Jun 2012 #37

Utter ProSense Jun 2012 #38

Pro, explain in your own words why you support the only Mandate on Earth to purchase for profit Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #149

Also, in what ProSense Jun 2012 #39

The better idea is to hope it is upheld and work to change it davidpdx Jun 2012 #109

The mandate is forcing the middle class to SHOP. That's a good thing. nt patrice Jun 2012 #171

The mandate is going to create pressure from the Middle Class demanding Long-Term Care coverage. nt patrice Jun 2012 #172

It doesn't matter who wants it or not. The present system cannot sustain for any length TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #102

"The Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act is designed to prop up and perpetuate the insurance cartel woo me with science Jun 2012 #220

The people want a lot of things jeff47 Jun 2012 #34

Sooner or later you're going to have to sell it to red states anyway, MadHound Jun 2012 #35

We can sell it to the red states much more easily when we can point to successes in blue states. jeff47 Jun 2012 #43

How can your idea of "real change" pass the Congress TODAY? You don't live in REALITY. RBInMaine Jun 2012 #154

I agree, that is the true devastation that Obamacare will leave (regardless of the SC decision) stockholmer Jun 2012 #42

Stockholmer, Actually Roosevelt's progressive movement JDPriestly Jun 2012 #47

interesting points stockholmer Jun 2012 #48

Agreed. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #49

Interesting ProSense Jun 2012 #53

I am not singling out Democrats, just pointing out both sides dance to the oligarch's tune, albeit stockholmer Jun 2012 #58

Kolko is a great but forgotten voice. Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #156

a REAL FDR-style jobs/protect Social Secuity-Medicare/rebuild USA/end the banks grip/fair tax Plan stockholmer Jun 2012 #50

Utopia revisited. Well, I'm no expert, and seems like the government JDPriestly Jun 2012 #83

You may be interested in ... Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2012 #186

Also want to add: Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2012 #195

thank you for the links, I will deffo read up stockholmer Jun 2012 #200

"fast track" is an absolutely HUGE assumption. & Have you ever heard of taking someone's game patrice Jun 2012 #166

I'm with you, ProSense, on this one. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #44

Well, first of all, most folks who don't have health insurance can't afford to have it. MadHound Jun 2012 #45

Yeah, it's too bad there wasn't any price-support mechanism in the ACA....oh wait, there was (nt) jeff47 Jun 2012 #46

I think I made it clear that I would prefer a single payer system JDPriestly Jun 2012 #51

The trouble is this interim step, MadHound Jun 2012 #52

The amount of time it takes depends upon the size & composition of the pools. As demand for higher patrice Jun 2012 #164

The big for profit "health" insurance corporations will eat up the small ones as that industry Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #189

The MLR is on the premium dollar, not on the costs of services. It will force prices down. patrice Jun 2012 #190

Most people I know without HC are without it because they cannot afford it. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #62

The plan is to subsidize health care for those who can't afford it. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #84

And do you really feel good about the fact that only some will get fair subsidies? Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #152

I would be interested in the article if you can dig it up. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #108

I wish I could remember where I saw it. If it helps, it stated that Obama was 'encouraged to sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #120

You are so damn right. FedUp_Queer Jun 2012 #117

ROFLMFAO... seriously... SomethingFishy Jun 2012 #212

FYI Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #20

Pro sincerely believes (for some reason) that all the R's are correct AS LONG AS the POTUS agrees Dragonfli Jun 2012 #70

Here is Newt Gingrich supporting the Dokkie Jun 2012 #87

non-profit government backed option- exactly! Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #25

I think adopting a Japanese-style system would be a start Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #122

Well said. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #14

I agree with you on all points but in regards Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #16

Yeah, the Court is in a tough place, MadHound Jun 2012 #18

Obama is a temporary inconvenience, at most only four more years, on the other hand Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #22

That sounds right to me. n/t EFerrari Jun 2012 #54

Why ProSense Jun 2012 #23

Being Republican and white is always their first choice, furthermore Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #28

This message was self-deleted by its author Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2012 #98

I agree with you, Uncle Joe. This Court cannot strike down anything that benefits the Corporations. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #124

Maybe it's a "bait and switch." Thav Jun 2012 #30

Nixon signed into law the creation of the EPA. Should we abolish this Republican program? Freddie Stubbs Jun 2012 #31

Is the EPA a corporate friendly program? MadHound Jun 2012 #33

Yesterday's repub. Today's repub totally different. Kingofalldems Jun 2012 #41

I guess you can't pay attention very well, the topic is health care. just1voice Jun 2012 #57

Nixon would be a Democrat today. More so than a lot of "Democrats" we have Autumn Jun 2012 #88

Rec'd, most Americans want single payer/universal health care, not for-profit hell just1voice Jun 2012 #55

Odd that the Heritage Foundation would support any such thing treestar Jun 2012 #56

this may help explain the support stockholmer Jun 2012 #59

The amicus briefs to the SCOTUS to shoot down the law tell you which side is REALLY right wing. joshcryer Jun 2012 #63

They don't support a mandate, their original plan was a "tax credit." joshcryer Jun 2012 #61

The Heritage Foundation 'mandate' was a TAX CREDIT. joshcryer Jun 2012 #60

You are incorrect. Maven Jun 2012 #65

That's dubious at best. The Heritage Foundations Health guy denies ever supporting it. joshcryer Jun 2012 #66

No he doesn't. What I see there is an elaborate and pained effort to pivot. Maven Jun 2012 #68

A tax credit is not the same thing as a tax penalty. The pivot is on you. joshcryer Jun 2012 #69

Perhaps you missed the part where he used the word "fine" in his paper. Maven Jun 2012 #71

One is a penalty for not doing something. The other is a reward for doing something. joshcryer Jun 2012 #73

Butler's clearly stated intention was to fine people who failed to insure themselves Maven Jun 2012 #79

The "penalty" is not being able to have a tax credit! By law they don't get a tax credit! joshcryer Jun 2012 #80

No, again you are incorrect. Maven Jun 2012 #81

Yep, good old post-partisan Obama. joshcryer Jun 2012 #82

The right didn't really drive the narrative. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #85

I disagree. I've seen the points originate from guys like Timothy P Carney and Avik Roy. joshcryer Jun 2012 #92

Well it's a good thing Maven Jun 2012 #90

The public option was still alive until Scott Brown got seated. joshcryer Jun 2012 #94

Ideologically they wouldn't dig it much but as constituted TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #112

The public option has a 95%+ MLR, so it would be the cheapest by far. joshcryer Jun 2012 #115

There is no public option so I can't say what the MLR might be. TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #178

You're right, it's a disaster of a policy.. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #119

Fascinating. The new Consumer Protection Agency needs to look in to that shit. joshcryer Jun 2012 #121

Obama disagreed with you. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #125

As Krugman pointed out, Obama fed the right wing meme with his Harry and Louise ads. joshcryer Jun 2012 #126

Bs, if he was that naive, he did not belong in the race. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #127

"he did not belong"? Anyone can run. joshcryer Jun 2012 #128

BTW, I have made it clear to you on several occasions that PARTISANSHIP is what we need. joshcryer Jun 2012 #130

You're absolutely right on the partisanship issue. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #138

Can't disagree with anything you said there. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #222

No damn wonder this was trashed re: 'Butler's clearly stated intention was to fine people clang1 Jun 2012 #131

As usual, the right wing lies treestar Jun 2012 #91

It doesn't JUST guarantee profits to a completely parasitic industry. bvar22 Jun 2012 #67

THANK YOU Skittles Jun 2012 #74

I fully support the mandate. It's usu. young, healthy people who don't buy ins. Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #75

And certainly don't lay down with one, it'll eat your face! There are plenty of differences, lonestarnot Jun 2012 #76

Agreed. k&r n/t Laelth Jun 2012 #77

like NAFTA, a Republican could never have pulled this crap off upi402 Jun 2012 #86

That's precisely what worries me about Social Security. (n/t) WorseBeforeBetter Jun 2012 #99

Yep! Wait for it. Come Dec. SammyWinstonJack Jun 2012 #151

Yup. nt Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #100

I disagree. The mandate is essential for the health care act to work. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #89

Sorry, a mandate to pay taxes to pay for a public good eridani Jun 2012 #142

I am not happy with the Affordable Health Care Act rhett o rick Jun 2012 #150

The way to make it better would be to have the feds DICTATE a single comprehensive eridani Jun 2012 #205

Yes I agree with you. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #207

Many nations employ a mandate for health insurance, yet not one of them allows profit from Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #157

I will be glad to discuss if you refrain from putting words into my mouth. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #159

My question is specific and yet you walked around it. Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #160

Your "specific" question was asked in multiple ways. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #162

You realize i hope that the mandate will affect a very small rhett o rick Jun 2012 #163

Rhett, it is very different from the SS tax. That goes into a public fund for the people. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #181

You know, I may have been wrong on this. I think I am beginning to see some light. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #188

It's a very complex situation Rhett, and I always love your posts sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #191

I am still thinking this thru rhett o rick Jun 2012 #206

You make a good point, which is often over-looked, that the mandate covers a relatively sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #209

Pffft clang1 Jun 2012 #93

So, what do you think of a little thing called The Constitution, which was proposed by WEALTHY patrice Jun 2012 #193

i.e. Aristocrats looking to get out from under regulation by the crown. patrice Jun 2012 #194

I am not sure where you are headed with this, but our Constitution rhett o rick Jun 2012 #197

The point was that the mandate should be rejected because it was proposed by the Heritage Fndtn. patrice Jun 2012 #198

Wow that's quite a bit to absorb in one sitting. I am thinking the mandate isnt such a good idea. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #201

he's given in on so many issues it's discouraging Doctor_J Jun 2012 #95

The 'mandate' of course should be an entirely government-run health system Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #96

Agree n/t clang1 Jun 2012 #103

RIGHT FUCKING ON! Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #101

That sure took up a lot of screen space for sarcasm clang1 Jun 2012 #104

Nope. I guess I don't... Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #106

Depends how you look at it is all. But you're right clang1 Jun 2012 #107

It can't be all or nothing... Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #110

Nope. Not even at the top. Maybe with a once in a generation president, clang1 Jun 2012 #113

"Do liberals really believe...whether liberals want to admit it or not". So you're not a liberal? AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #140

Not mine and therein is the whole damn problem to clang1 Jun 2012 #146

You know, though how things APPEAR does depend upon how you look at them, that doesn't make patrice Jun 2012 #192

i disagree veganlush Jun 2012 #105

The mandate is not like auto insurance. No one is forced to buy sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #114

Yes, the existence of health insurance companies is itself the problem. Zalatix Jun 2012 #129

when an uninsured person goes to the er veganlush Jun 2012 #213

You are wrong. When an uninsured person goes to the ER, they must be treated with or without sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #214

Utter nonsense: the idea that there's no difference between D and R PBass Jun 2012 #111

"I would prefer single payer' they all say. Why? Few actual single payer programs exist while Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #158

Crickets. woo me with science Jun 2012 #221

Hatred for all things Obama? How about hatred for all things Romney(Care)2.0? Zalatix Jun 2012 #116

Romney vetoed the mandate in Mass. joshcryer Jun 2012 #118

Wikipedia has it different.. Fumesucker Jun 2012 #134

He vetoed Section 5. Chapter 17, rendering 111M unenforcable. joshcryer Jun 2012 #139

Tax the rich to pay for heathcare for all Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #132

Solution: Nationalize the health insurance companies. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #141

The Republicans hate the ACA. DCBob Jun 2012 #143

would definitely be ironic to have the SC support the mandate. the joke's on us. StarryNight Jun 2012 #147

Here is where you are off base: First, low income folks get a SUBSIDY to pay their premiums, and RBInMaine Jun 2012 #153

Isn't the other thing about the pools, not just downward pressure on premiums, but also upward patrice Jun 2012 #165

But before those funds get to the poor, they now pass through the hands of the Middle Men sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #183

I think you and others like you have a kind of naive idea of what threats accomplish. You help those patrice Jun 2012 #169

Defending the constitutionality of the individual mandate is not defending Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #185

K&R YoungDemCA Jun 2012 #210

DU Rec. Thank you for this post. nt woo me with science Jun 2012 #218

The ACA is good. The mandate is not. Still, I'm reccing this because I HATE the fucking mandate. Zalatix Jun 2012 #223

Everyone who reced this thread has drawn a line. UnrepentantLiberal Jun 2012 #224

Your argument appears to me to be largely based on buzzwords in the form of labels. ZombieHorde Jun 2012 #225

Good thing ProSense Jun 2012 #226

I don't normally rec political posts any more but this one is so clear, bright and linear... Fumesucker Jun 2012 #227

Lol, I'm still looking for the 'line'! sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #228

If you happen upon it UnrepentantLiberal Jun 2012 #229