The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: notaDUmmie on November 12, 2012, 12:54:58 PM

Title: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: notaDUmmie on November 12, 2012, 12:54:58 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1798445

Quote
nadinbrzezinski (111,466 posts)

Compromise...I know it is verboten round these parts to speak of thee [View all]
But here is the thing, a working political system in the US requires it.

Now there was mandate. This is basically for three things, where there is no room for it.

1.- Social Security/ Medicate...they have to be protected, if not out right strengthen.

2.- Taxes on the rich are on the table now, sorry Mitch.

3- believe it or not women's rights and immigration reform are part of it.

But it is time people get it...you want a functional Congress? The C word is not a four letter word. We do not live in a parliamentary system, we just don't. If you want to blame anybody for it, look at the who's who of the drafters of the Constitution. Do we probably need to change it? Yes, but a functioning government still requires that four letter word. Even one running under Parliamentary rules.

Oh and please stop it as to conservatives never having ideas, Obamacare had it's humble beginnings at the Heritage foundation and was first implemented by one version of Romney.

I disagree with a lot of what they believe in, and the loons have taken over the asylum, but damn it people, republicans are not less than human. Nor are they evil incarnate...that road leads to a very dark place where real people actually die.

Sore winners are just as annoying as sore losers and help nobody.

Oh and given the reaction to this recognition of their humanity before the election, I hope there is more civility now, though don't expect it. 

She's going to get thrown off of Skin's Island...although I do agree with one line in her post:

Quote
the loons have taken over the asylum

Right sentiment, wrong party.
Title: Re: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: Skul on November 12, 2012, 01:05:21 PM
Quote
Response to leftstreet (Reply #1)
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:10 PM
 nadinbrzezinski (111,466 posts)
4. The vote repudiated their ideas on women

As retrograde as they are...even Rush got it. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #4)
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:13 PM
leftstreet (20,937 posts)
6. Lowest voter turnout since 2004, maybe even lower

The 'vote' repudiated nothing

Obama has gazillions more brand recognition than Romney. Of course he'd win a 2nd term

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to leftstreet (Reply #6)
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:22 PM
 nadinbrzezinski (111,466 posts)
19. You work for CNN ?

Anybody sophisticated in electoral politics sees this for what it was, a mandate. No it isn't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #19)
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:24 PM
leftstreet (20,937 posts)
23. Are you familiar with Google? n/t   <-----  :lmao:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to leftstreet (Reply #23)
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:25 PM
 nadinbrzezinski (111,466 posts)
24. Yep, I am also familiar with the ignore list

Good bye. 
Going to get good.  :rotf:
Title: Re: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: Gina on November 12, 2012, 01:59:22 PM
Quote
nadinbrzezinski (111,466 posts)

Compromise...I know it is verboten round these parts to speak of thee [View all]
But here is the thing, a working political system in the US requires it.

Now there was mandate. This is basically for three things, where there is no room for it.

1.- Social Security/ Medicate...they have to be protected, if not out right strengthen.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: JohnnyReb on November 12, 2012, 02:06:51 PM
Compromise....to liberals that means they get some of what they want and will come back later for the rest of it.....creeping socialism.

COMMUNIST: That's a socialist that's in a hurry.
Title: Re: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: Freeper on November 12, 2012, 02:12:34 PM
Quote
Oh and please stop it as to conservatives never having ideas, Obamacare had it's humble beginnings at the Heritage foundation and was first implemented by one version of Romney.

It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now, it will be a bad idea in 20 years.
Title: Re: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: Chris_ on November 12, 2012, 02:13:50 PM
I doubt what the Heritage Foundation had in mind resembles ObamaCare in any way, shape, or form.  Not that I would expect The Nads to come up with a source for her claim.

Given the alternatives Heritage and the GOP suggested while the bill was being written (and were ignored completely), it seems they've come up with something better than what we got.
Title: Re: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: formerlurker on November 12, 2012, 02:16:21 PM
Quote
Oh and please stop it as to conservatives never having ideas, Obamacare had it's humble beginnings at the Heritage foundation and was first implemented by one version of Romney.

Uh, no it didn't misfit.  

MA was paying over $1 billion yearly to bailout hospitals which provided free care (as is required by law).    That number was growing yearly with no means to cap it, and most of the folks seeking tx were illegal.  

He came up with a plan whereas instead of having money go to unchecked free healthcare, he would subsidize insurance premiums so that everyone had access to healthcare and we would eliminate free care at emergency rooms.

His plan entailed removing costly insurance mandates so that insurance carriers could afford to offer low premium plans.   The state would subsidize the premium for the plan based on income.   Romney's original plan had a personal responsibility clause, where citizens could opt out and be financially responsible for treatment.   The cost to implement this plan?   about $500 million or so.  

The Heritage foundation, and Paul Ryan for that matter both praised it as an innovative way to address a problem that was bankrupting the Commonwealth of MA.   Alas, like most great ideas that meet with up with a super-super-super liberal majority statehouse, it all went by the wayside when they piled on the mandates, and expanded coverage etc.   By the time Deval Patrick got a hold of it (by including illegals) it is now not even a shadow of what the original intent of this program was going to be.

That said - this plan all along was created for the Commonwealth of MA.   Never at any time did the Heritage Foundation or Paul Ryan approve this as some type of federal model that should be implemented.  They would never support a federal program such as Obamacare.    

Stop with the bullshit on this already.  Either admit you lie or just admit you don't have a blessed clue and no chance of getting one.

Title: Re: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: formerlurker on November 12, 2012, 02:28:13 PM
Heritage commentary piece on it, but there is a white paper they did on it also (will try to locate when I have time later):

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/01/mitts-fit
Title: Re: Nads calling for compromise
Post by: formerlurker on November 12, 2012, 02:32:55 PM
All the white papers written on it by Heritage are located at this link:

http://www.heritage.org/search?query=romney+health+plan&page=2&=nomobile