I believe the Republicans wanted this healthcare bill. They have been fighting against it ever since President Obama was elected. They have rallied up their base against it, demonized it, called it unconstitutional and have vowed to replace it. I am calling their bluff.
After having an online disagreement with one of these conservatives to a post I made about what I referred to as The Heritage Foundation Care plan and their part in the individual mandate, I decided to look a little further. What I found out kind of shocked me. I found this video of a Heritage Foundation representative at the signing ceremony for Romneys ‘ healthcare bill in Massachusetts. He does a lot of talking about portability and being able to take your healthcare with you if you switch jobs. Sounds nice. COBRA is expensive when you have just been laid off or have to wait any amount of time before you are offered insurance at your next job, usually at 90 days or so. But isn’t that what the Republicans are complaining about the most?
This is the original post and what it resulted in.
It seems that some of the conservatives have misplaced the true origination of Obama care. If the American people had a memory better than a fish, or paid attention they would know the facts.
Fact: The dems started out wanting medicare for all. An immediate no go.
Fact: The dems then went to single a single payer plan. A small VAT tax on sales. NO GO AGAIN!
Fact : The dems then went and capitulated to the reps on almost all of their demands. Including the UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE. That just happens to be a Republican idea.
Please be honest with yourselves and quit lying to the American populace. If you can’t own up to your own parties policies, ………. well then that is not our fault.
You are trying to dodge the point of my first post. This terrible bill that was passed by the evil Nanceee Pelossiiiii IS A HERITAGE FOUNDATION, MITT RAWMONEY, NEWT GINGRICH backed plan. There is video and audio
See Lyndsey Graham shaking his head yes? I do. Oops! But just like the Amnesty bill, you on the right can’t understand that the politicians on the right no longer work for you. With Citizens United passed and Montana having lost their “states rights” (funny how that only works when the states rights argument doesn’t cut it with the corporatists) having been shut down, the right now only answers to the “people”, the chartered people. You see, if you have a corporate charter, and a mufti-national one at that, then your voice matters.
Take the amnesty bill. Why would law and order republicans back a giveaway to non – citizens? They didn’t? They knew the base would be all riled up and the bill would fail. Yet they still won. How? They still get to keep all their illegal workers with no rights, and get to drive down wages and drive up unemployment among the citizenry. Then when you all see that the unemployment rate is high, and illegals are “raiding” our country, you all show up in droves at the polls and hopefully they win office. And then they quietly go back to the status quo, their base quiets down ( because you can’t blame them for doing nothing when they are in office) and nothing changes. Hey good job! You really made a difference! Wait, no you didn’t.
As for the Heritage Foundation Care, this is amazing. Your party put forth the plan, and now the democrats are the ones praising and trying to justify the plan, while the republicans are demonizing their own plan for your benefit, yet their special interests are the ones that will benefit from it. This is the most inefficient and costly way to go about providing access to health care possible. The funny thing is that I hear from people on the right about how they are poe’d about having to buy health insurance, yet they are poe’d about not being able to visit a doctor. I have taken friends to clinics while they were having heart pains and they were turned away. I wonder if the Government agent at the door was the one that turned them away. These same people were mad at people on disability, social security, and other programs because the “Government doesn’t help me, why should it help them” Well, if you are on disability or social security, you paid into those programs. Why didn’t you? Aren’t your kids covered by the state? How much do you pay to have your kids educated?
Anyway, you ask these people if they would be willing to pay a 3% sales tax if it would allow you to see a doctor and do you know what they say? GLADLY! Now who was duped?
Since you think I am a stupid conniving, democrat politician who does nothing but lie and distort despite the fact that I have shown visual, audible and printed proof of the fact that the individual mandate is a conservative idea, I will show you by using your own words and your elected leaders own words.. Please follow every word I type and you can read as slowly and as many times as you need..
First: I will state that you are right about the whole plan being nothing like the conservatives have proposed. The fact that 80% of OUR premiums will go toward OUR health care instead of CEO and shareholder profit. That is NOT a conservative proposal.
Second: The fact that insurers can no longer deny coverage to those who have “pre-existing conditions”, and if you end up with a disease or debilitating condition you can not be kicked out of a healthcare plan you have been paying into for years, IS NOT a conservative proposal.
Those are things to be proud to defend, right? If your argument is here, that is just semantics.
Now I will show you how the dems caved to the demands of the conservatives, in your own words.
“Fact: The dems started out wanting medicare for all. An immediate no go.
Fact: The dems then went to single a single payer plan. A small VAT tax on sales. NO GO AGAIN!
Fact : The dems then went and capitulated to the reps on almost all of their demands. Including the UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE. That just happens to be a Republican idea. ”
Facts are something that are true, and these are not at all true.
During 2009 when Obamacare was being written, the Democrats had complete control of the house and senate. They had a 60 vote majority in the Senate and the Republicans could not stop anything. Single payer was abandond because even the moderate Democrats would not go along. (meaning they supported a more conservative bill, they were siding with the republicans)
“The majority of dems were for single payer. The majority of dems were for medicare for all.” Yes, there right from your post is a FACT and the TRUITH.
The MAJORITY of the dems were for single payer, but not enough to get it through the house or the senate. There was absolutely no way the Senators from Misouri, Montana and Nebraska would vote for single payer. (conservadem fillibuster)
They had to change their bill, not go secure the votes of Republicans, but to get enough of the Democrats.
Now read this carefully and s l o w l y, so that you understand it.
What you have been arguing is that it is all the EVILLLLL DEMONCRATS that passed this UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE on the American people, yet you admit that the democrats original proposal was a VAT tax or medicare, which is single payer.
Yet you say that EVEN THE MODERATE DEMS, AKA DINO’S, Blue dog, or CONSERVADEMS, would NOT GO ALONG with it (meaning in your mind, they were more in agreement with the cons because they were siding with the cons.).Why? “The government is going to take over 1/8 or 20% or 35% (or what ever number you or FOX pulls out of the air ) of the private sector! And they will DESTROY THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY! ” Does that sound familiar to you? So why did the CONSERVADEMS vote for the bill? Because the Dems caved and moved to a more CONSERVATIVE PROPOSAL!
So your argument is proving my point, along with all the prior links which have been intentionally from as non-partisan websites as I could find so as not to have the “wing-nut” card played.
Here is more proof of the conservative healthcare proposals from conservative organizations
As to the Heritage Foundation, another distortion, they never proposed or supported anything like Obamacare.
Wow! That is straight from the mouth of a Rep from the Heritage Foundation! At the signing of Romneycare bill no less! And he is claiming responsibility for the bill? Yes, yes. He. is! Patient centered, consumer based, portability. Sound like familiar talking points. When he described portability, it kind of sounded like he wants to get away from employer based insurance system, doesn’t it? Looks and sounds like Charles Grassley is for mandates and a move away from employer based insurance too.
This explains the fillibuster and Romney backing the mandate for “Free Riders”
So, with all the evidence before you, do you think I am still lying to you? What reason do I have to lie to you?
Are these people lying to you? Or are they like Newt, first he says this,….
Then he has to go and do something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXmrOt9LVm8
But don’t you worry. They are not lying to you….until they are, but really they aren’t; they just didn”t inform you of everything or anything or were confused or uninformed at the time or just did not have all the pertinent information and facts neccessary to propose an informed and educated opinion to speak to the electorate to properly inform and educate them of the pertinent information that blah blah blah blah blah : ) Talk about Newspeak!
Like I said once before, you are entitled to your own opinion, but the facts are something that are verifiable. You have enough links and video of Romney and Newt saying themselves that the Heritage Foundation was the author of the individual mandate, Heritage Foundation members saying their bill was what Romney used to base Romney care on.and stating that they are forging a new future in healthcare. There is video of Romney stating that he would like Romney care to be a basis for national healtcare, based on the individual mandate that would get rid of the “moochers” and” leeches”, and Lyndsey Graham nodding in approval. I honestly don’t know what more proof you need to understand what I, and they have been saying to you. This does not mean that you or cons in general support this, but your think tanks and corporate leader DO!
That is why I call the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare/Romneycare, Heritage Foundation Care.
I have recently done some research on this terrible violation of democracy.
Have you heard about the massive amounts of voter fraud? You would have to live under a rock at the bottom of the Mariana trench to not have. Have you wondered how much voter fraud actually effects elections? I have. So I started looking into it. This is what I found.
According to truthout.org nation wide since 2000 there have been 2068 total cases of alleged voter fraud,which includes registration fraud, impersonation, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an inelligible vote, voting twice and voter intimidation. Of those cases there were 10 cases of voter impersonation. Voter ID would NOT prevent most of election fraud.
Speaking of ID, who is for this? I always thought that conservatives were against “big brother” having an easier way of tracking you. But it seems that they now want everyone to provide “papers please”. So what type of ID should we use? How can we prevent counterfeiting? Hey, here is an idea. How about biometrics? This could be a card with your personal ID number and other “pertinent” information regarding your actual identification. Or we could just put one of those RFID chips implanted right into your body, and that would make counterfeiting almost impossible. Ooohhh, that almost sounds NWO like, doesn’t it?
To make sure that the incompetent, over bloated, bureaucratic, inept and inefficient “big brother” Government doesn’t all of a sudden become devious, nefarious, conniving or sociopathologically intelligent enough to track all of our actions, we could privatize these functions. We all know that Google or Facebook are responsible private companies that respect the users of their services and would never think of collecting or selling this information. Why would anyone else?
On with the rest of the story.
What are all these voter ID laws really all about? Lets have a look.
It seems a good portion of the voter fraud comes in the form of absentee ballot tampering and those actually doing the campaigning or counting.
And to that point, I will provide proof that this is what is happening. In our own state. By the very people that are crying about “voter fraud” the loudest. Imagine that.
Wha Wha Wha What?! .
Now, before our Angry conservative friends blow their lids, there was this from the democrats in Michigan.
But I am not sure that lives up to the moniker “voter fraud” They were simply trying to get the tea party on the ballot as a separate party from the republicans. Why wouldn’t the tea party want to be separate? I thought they were an independent, unaffiliated, grass roots movement, unbeholden to any party or philosophy.
Also note that this story made it into the “lame stream liberal media”, where as the other stories above are barely covered here in the state.
And that is just in our state. Next will be news from across the country, and the real reason for all these “voter ID” laws, obstruction of voting hours and different poll location times. Just F’n amazing isn’t it?
Here we have a representative from Pennsylvania telling us that the voter laws just pushed through will secure the nomination for Mittens in that state. Wonder if that is what ALEC had in mind? I wonder if that is why all the current Republicans are pushing these laws? In my experience, if someone is telling you someone is coming for you, you better watch the person doing the accusing. They may be trying to distract you from something.
Here are some articles on voter registration fraud and changing of party registration.
And here is Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and ALEC stating his beliefs on who should vote.
As one of the key figures of the New Right, Weyrich positioned himself as a defender of traditionalist sociopolitical values of states’ rights, dominionism, traditional marriage, heterocentrism, ethnic nationalism, anti-communism and class hierarchy, a staunch opponent of the New Left’s attempts at integrating social progress and diversity into American politics. Consequently, many of his views were seen as controversial by Americans who were not on the political right.
“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
“We are different from previous generations of conservatives… We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this country.” — Soloma, John. Ominous Politics: The New Conservative Labyrinth (1984), Hill and Wang Publ., New York
Second, there is a basic contradiction between the structure of our government and our role as a great power. Our government was designed not to play great-power politics but to preserve domestic liberty. To that end — at which it has been remarkably successful — it was structured so as to make decisions difficult. Separation of powers, congressional checks on executive authority, the primacy of law over raison d’tat (national interests) — all of these were intentionally built into our system. The Founding Fathers knew a nation, with such a government could not play the role of great power. They had no such ambition for us — quite the contrary.
For about 20 years after World War II, we were able to act as a great power without running into this contradiction. We could do so because we had only one serious rival, and even over that rival, our superiority was immense. Now, we have to play on a much more crowded and competitive field. Our institutions are not adequate to the game. If the executive does what it must in the international arena, it violates the domestic rules. If the Congress enforces those rules, as it is supposed to do, it cripples us internationally.
Since Watergate, some 140 measures have been passed by Congress to restrict the president’s power to conduct foreign policy
If we are going to be a serious nation, we need a serious system for selecting our leaders and advisors. We need some type of shadow government, in which leaders and top advisors can be identified and developed, and through which our politics can be better focused on policy choices. The world is a professional league, and we cannot win fielding amateur teams.
Wow. Sounds like this guy really likes the Constitution, doesn’t it? Do you think that may be why he started this :http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/ghost-writing-the-law-alec-and-the-conservative-legislative-agenda/
Is this the “constitutional republic” you want? Is it the “constitutional republic” our founders started? Not according to Paul Weyrich.
Why do conservatives who espouse “family values” and “rule of law” have to find ways to “reason” away “family values” in the name of “the ends justify the means” or “it’s not personal, it’s just business” and find ways to “skirt the law” and lie and deceive others to sway them to their side?
Why again, do the “averages” need rules for voting when barely 50% of the population even bothers to vote, but the politicians and those conducting and overseeing the elections do not need similar rules? Can you say hypocrites?
And why can’t conservatives come back with evidence that proves me wrong? Instead you come back with wise cracks and smart @ss comments. Ohhhh that will prove me wrong. Are we still in elementary school?
Just shows you are full of wind.
I have to wonder why the dims are so against voter ID when they say all the voter fraud is in the repubs camp. Just saying, can you say hypocrite.
The real question is why is someone against voter ID when they have to have it for almost every other aspect of their lives.
Here is the answer to your question, with a question in return.
I don’t think anyone is against the idea of having to show proof of citizenship with a picture ID. I think what concerns people is the timing of the laws, if they were passed in an off year, or during the winter months when the citizens that would be affected by the new requirements would have enough time to learn of the new law and be able to comply with the law. The timing of these laws are, to say the least, “suspicious”.
The question I have is: Why did they wait until the last minute to pass these laws? Too busy regulating womens private parts? Or screwing teachers and firefighters and police and workers and retirees and poor folks and the middle class and well, the timing turned out just right for it though, didn’t it? Coincidence? Yeah right.
I have heard the talking point that the wealthy are the biggest contributors to charity and charitable causes. I have also heard that conservatives are a larger donation base then so called “bleeding heart liberals” So I decided to do some research on this subject. This is what I found.
There were and are, of course, many other ways for the upper class to preserve its privilege. “High culture” is often purchased through large-scale philanthropic donations to symphonies, art museums, and historical organizations (some historical sites are nothing more than lavish mansions devoted to the acquisitions of one family, such as the Vanderbilts or Hearsts). In the realm of private philanthropy, about half of all money donated comes from multimillionaires. Although some charitable programs help the needy and neglected, the fact is that American philanthropy is not primarily devoted to such causes.
Charitable philanthropy directly serves the rich. Teresa Odendahl, in her book Charity Begins at Home, calculated that over two thirds of philanthropic giving goes to “elite non-profit institutions-Ivy League universities, museums, symphonies, think tanks, private hospitals, prep schools, and the like.” Through such donations, which are invariably tax-deductible, “the wealthy end up funding their own interests.” Of the $124 billion spent on private philanthropy in 1991, only 10 percent went for “human service” projects that serve the poor. Furthermore, as the richest citizens began making more money they began giving away less of it. In 1979 individuals who earned more than $1 million gave away about 7 percent of their after-tax income; by 1996, that figure had fallen to just 4 percent. Likewise, it should come as no surprise that in 1995, when corporate profits jumped a record of 30 percent to over $600 billion, corporate philanthropy went up only 8 percent, accounting for just $7 billion of the $144 billion given by all sources.
The staying power of great industrial fortunes has been formidable when they’ve been invested in such places as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation. These organizations are devoted to exploring and recommending new directions in public policy; while they generally support the agenda of the corporate world in business matters, they are often liberal on social issues regarding race and gender, a point of great consternation to many conservatives.
Hmmmm. I wonder if that is why such “charitable foundations” such as the Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity, The Koch Foundation, American Enterprise Institute are all considered 501c4 charitable foundations. How much of their “donations” do you think go toward helping or promoting policies that help the less fortunate? I wonder how many of these “donations” would even be made if they were not allowed to deduct the “contributions” on their taxes?
Looks as if we will find out soon enough.
The funny thing is that most of true charitable giving is not even measurable. Most people who give to charity are not able to “itemize” their deductions or giving. Therefore it is not shown where the giving came from. Canned food drives, local stores asking you to purchase some non-perishables for local food bank.. Not measured. I would guess this is where the bulk of giving for those less fortunate come from, other than food stamps and State and Federal programs. Most Churches are not even giving that much. It would probably be less than two weeks worth of the passing of the plate, and that only goes to those in the Church, Not the community as a whole.
Here is another recent article showing that contributions to “charity” are more or less donations to Universities, museums and other “policy” type foundations.
This year’s top donors gave to 21 different hospitals or health groups, and 33 different universities or other educational establishments. Arts, freedom, and religious groups rounded out the remainder. Foreign aid and assistance charities received relatively little of the pot.
To the conservatives : I have a hard time believing that people who have the attitude as shown below would help much, if at all.
Typical of the left. The “poor” and middle- class in this country have more than any generation anywhere, ever on earth benefitting from the innovation and ingenuity of the “rich.” Yet, people like Lowrey think the rich owe them more as if the pie is finite and the more Gates has the less it leaves everyone else. Get a clue! The pie gets bigger and everyone’s piece has gotten bigger (in the last 30 years). Who’s the greedy ones here? By the way, I make $40,000 a year because of choices and decisions I’ve made, not because somebody else controlled my life. Why don’t you people get one?
Aren’t you the party that calls those who do not make millions, moochers and leeches and parasites? BURDENS ON SOCIETY?
Wouldn’t you tell them, “if they won’t work, they shouldn’t eat”? Despite the fact that you wouldn’t offer them a job, even if they begged you for one, saying, “you should support yourself.”