quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

fr
it's done. Another campaign promise fulfilled. Plus, Obamacare mandate removed in the same bill. Two for one. That last one is especially important to me as a mandated requirement for me to purchase something was an infringement on liberty. It smells of socialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

fr
it's done. Another campaign promise fulfilled. Plus, Obamacare mandate removed in the same bill. Two for one. That last one is especially important to me as a mandated requirement for me to purchase something was an infringement on liberty. It smells of socialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

fr
it's done. Another campaign promise fulfilled. Plus, Obamacare mandate removed in the same bill. Two for one. That last one is especially important to me as a mandated requirement for me to purchase something was an infringement on liberty. It smells of socialism.

You probably don't know this. So, I will let you in on a little secret.

The individual mandate, in fact 90% of Obamacare, was a Republican idea, hatched up by the Heritage Foundation.

Just so you know you are calling a Socialist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

You see how the word 'socialism' has been so bastardized ?

Offering just what CATO and the repubs offered in 92-93, mandating the purchase of anything is hardly socialism...govt. ownership of the means of production.

I would have thought with the culture of greed and rent-seeking, the right would love mandated profits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

fr
it's done. Another campaign promise fulfilled. Plus, Obamacare mandate removed in the same bill. Two for one. That last one is especially important to me as a mandated requirement for me to purchase something was an infringement on liberty. It smells of socialism.

You probably don't know this. So, I will let you in on a little secret.

The individual mandate, in fact 90% of Obamacare, was a Republican idea, hatched up by the Heritage Foundation.

Just so you know you are calling a Socialist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

fr
it's done. Another campaign promise fulfilled. Plus, Obamacare mandate removed in the same bill. Two for one. That last one is especially important to me as a mandated requirement for me to purchase something was an infringement on liberty. It smells of socialism.

You see how the word 'socialism' has been so bastardized ?

Offering just what CATO and the repubs offered in 92-93, mandating the purchase of anything is hardly socialism...govt. ownership of the means of production.

I would have thought with the culture of greed and rent-seeking, the right would love mandated profits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
You probably don't know this. So, I will let you in on a little secret.
The individual mandate, in fact 90% of Obamacare, was a Republican idea, hatched up by the Heritage Foundation.
Just so you know you are calling a Socialist.

like a great number of things the comrades here say, you simply cannot say such things without providing a reference.
so please...
and not just a reference that agrees with your assertion, but that actually SHOWS it.
that is not just a reference that puts the reader in the vicinity, but the actual texts that prove the assertion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
its also tiresome to read your constant use of the word "greed" as a sort of overall criticism of capitalism and people making their way in the world. presumably you have a job, you expect to be rewarded for your efforts in that job in order to provide for yourself and family. that's the simple motivation for most people.
most everyone wants a better life. on another hand---unless youre giving away everything you make except perhaps the most basic necessities for your own subsistence---gee, maybe youre "greedy" too? move to cuba, please.
and much like your fellow comrade with the heritage foundation claim, please show exactly what the cato foundation suggested and the republicans offered in 92-93 that makes your point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
i cant watch video desi, but ive watched friedman before.
if I remember rightly, he reframes "greed", as I said, into something positive that means "striving for a better life" and "taking care of myself and my loved ones." its the foundation by which mutual exchange (capitalism) works.
is that the essence of the clip?

Donahue: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?

Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; its only the other fellow who's greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think - excuse me, if you will pardon me - do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow than economic self interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? Well, I don't even trust you to do that.

quote:

…it never came to a vote and from what we can tell, plenty of conservative Republicans didn’t like it.

In fact, after the bill was introduced, the Senate never took it up again.

Even before Chafee brought his bill forward, some conservatives were trying to scuttle it.

However, to call it the Republican plan, as though a majority of Republicans endorsed it, goes too far. The House Republicans took a different path, and there was opposition from more hard-line members of the Republican coalition. It is telling that the Chafee bill never became a full blown bill and never came up for a vote.

More hard-line senators such as Phil Gramm, R-Texas, House Republicans and the Heritage Foundation saw the Chafee bill as an unacceptable compromise. What they wanted was outright defeat of the president’s approach.

quote:

“Stuart Butler explains his change of heart on the individual mandate”

And Heritage-funded research on federal employees’ coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s.

Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have “invented” has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders...

quote:

As a junior publicist, we weren't being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. "Universal health care" was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of "quality, affordable health care" to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: "I thought we were supposed to be for freedom."…

Taranto points out that the Heritage mandate was less onerous than the Obamacare one, as it focused on coverage for catastrophic illness, rather than the comprehensive health plans that Obamacare requires.

In the multi-state Obamacare constitutional challenge before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the individual mandate was overturned, Taranto points out that the Obama Administration cited the Heritage Foundation in its defense of the individual mandate. Heritage, in response, filed an amicus brief accounting for its “prior support for a qualified mandate” and asserting that Heritage has been “consistent” in its view of the constitutionality of a mandate:

“ If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

"Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.”

[that is, heritage was telling the Obama administration in the courts to knock it off]

quote:

UPDATE: John Goodman says: "Did the ideas behind ObamaCare originate at the Heritage Foundation? I would say 'no.' They originated with [Stanford economist] Alain Enthoven.

quote:

It’s done. The GOP has passed the most extensive tax reform in the past three decades. The $1.5 trillion cut will benefit America’s working and middle classes. Republicans united, stuck to their guns, and passed it without help from the Democrats, who were not going to lift a finger to help the Trump White House get a key part of its agenda passed. In doing so, they betted against the American worker and hoped that millions of families get screwed to score political points. They thought this bill was Armageddon. It was not. It’ll benefit anywhere from 80-90 percent of America’s families. Businesses are increasing employee investment, handing out bonuses, boosting wages, and will increase philanthropic donations.

In Nevada, the tax bill paved way for 11,000 new jobs. Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) will have to explain why she voted against the legislation that helped make this happen...

In their desperation, Democrats and the media have taken their spin to absurd heights, which The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel pointed out in her op-ed. Every key talking point the Left tossed out there was wrong. Everything they’ve said since then has been wrong. Why? Because whether the Democrats can admit it or not, the GOP tax bill offered real policy results and relief to millions of American families. You can’t spin that. In all, the Democrat-media complex remains horrifically out of touch with most of the country...

So, while the Left whines, Americans are getting relief. The economic growth this quarter is at solid four percent. Consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. Unemployment is at a near two-decade low. Every indicator also shows that the biggest bonus this country received this year was Hillary Clinton not being elected president. Bravo to Trump and the Republicans, this is a grade-A legislative achievement. For Democrats, let’s see how they defend their abject abandonment of the people they say they’re champions of on a daily basis.

“They are running with these upside-down-world stories because so far they’ve gotten away with it,” wrote Strassel. “The best way to triumph in this war of spin is to produce real policy results that help real people—as they just did with tax reform, no matter what you read to the contrary.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
i appreciate that, thank you. that's one of the clips ive seen.
while im here, also thank you for some of the links and thoughts above. I read a couple (one i'll quote from) and found some others too.

quote:

…it never came to a vote and from what we can tell, plenty of conservative Republicans didn’t like it.
In fact, after the bill was introduced, the Senate never took it up again.
Even before Chafee brought his bill forward, some conservatives were trying to scuttle it.
However, to call it the Republican plan, as though a majority of Republicans endorsed it, goes too far. The House Republicans took a different path, and there was opposition from more hard-line members of the Republican coalition. It is telling that the Chafee bill never became a full blown bill and never came up for a vote.
More hard-line senators such as Phil Gramm, R-Texas, House Republicans and the Heritage Foundation saw the Chafee bill as an unacceptable compromise. What they wanted was outright defeat of the president’s approach.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

quote:

the guy who at heritage who put forth the idea of an individual mandate had this to say years afterwards:

quote:

“Stuart Butler explains his change of heart on the individual mandate”
And Heritage-funded research on federal employees’ coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s.
Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have “invented” has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/stuart-butler-explains-his-change-of-heart-on-the-individual-mandate/2011/08/25/gIQAnEDptQ_blog.html
some of that is echoed in what's below, heavily quoting a person who worked at heritage at the time:

quote:

As a junior publicist, we weren't being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. "Universal health care" was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of "quality, affordable health care" to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: "I thought we were supposed to be for freedom."…
Taranto points out that the Heritage mandate was less onerous than the Obamacare one, as it focused on coverage for catastrophic illness, rather than the comprehensive health plans that Obamacare requires.
In the multi-state Obamacare constitutional challenge before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the individual mandate was overturned, Taranto points out that the Obama Administration cited the Heritage Foundation in its defense of the individual mandate. Heritage, in response, filed an amicus brief accounting for its “prior support for a qualified mandate” and asserting that Heritage has been “consistent” in its view of the constitutionality of a mandate:
“ If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
"Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.”
[that is, heritage was telling the Obama administration in the courts to knock it off]

quote:

and relevant to the conversation here:

quote:

UPDATE: John Goodman says: "Did the ideas behind ObamaCare originate at the Heritage Foundation? I would say 'no.' They originated with [Stanford economist] Alain Enthoven.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/#7935ff8b6187

quote:

in fact 90% of Obamacare, was a Republican idea, hatched up by the Heritage Foundation.

quote:

John Goodman says: "Did the ideas behind ObamaCare originate at the Heritage Foundation? I would say 'no.' They originated with [Stanford economist] Alain Enthoven

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
i agree, when things are criticized long after the fact, motives can be questioned as being political in nature...it muddies the waters a bit.
some of the quotes/sentiments are after the aca (like butler changing his mind and the heritage amicus brief), but some are retrospective recollections from back in the early 90s.
in this case, im having a hard time understanding how heritage says their version of a mandate passes constitutional muster while the other does not. though im probably not going to go off in search of the definitive answer on that, its still interesting.
im okay with saying the plans shared some similarity as concerns the mandate, but when one of the comrades suggests

quote:

in fact 90% of Obamacare, was a Republican idea, hatched up by the Heritage Foundation.

that's a bridge wayyyy too far and one reason why the quote:

quote:

John Goodman says: "Did the ideas behind ObamaCare originate at the Heritage Foundation? I would say 'no.' They originated with [Stanford economist] Alain Enthoven

is so satisfying.

quote:

and its worth tacking on, that while yes, something was put forth by republicans, it was also ultimately overwhelmingly rejected by them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Right. But, it was rejected when it wasn't their plan, so politics might be more of a reason than not. No way to really tease that out.