The "even the Heritage Foundation supported a mandate" argument

132 posts / 0 new
Last post
TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture

The "even the Heritage Foundation supported a mandate" argument may make  fake conservatives and most Republicans look like hypocrits but it doesn't work on me.  The Heritage Foundation is NOT a free market organization.  Small "l" libertarian and truly free market organizations called out Phil Gramm and conservative think tanks in the 90's when they proposed Clinton-lite. 

When fake conservative groups support increased government, clever propagandists like Thom Hartmann use their hypocrisy to paint all free market advocates with a broad brush.  The same was done with NAFTA.  The beltway "free market' types supported it but the Mises Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute opposed it because it wasn't free trade.

Comments

doh1304
doh1304's picture
Now you know what it's like

Now you know what it's like to be a progressive and stuck with things like the ACA.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  TheFirstLeftist wrote:The

 

TheFirstLeftist wrote:
The "even the Heritage Foundation supported a mandate" argument may make fake conservatives and most Republicans look like hypocrits but it doesn't work on me.
So because YOU believe Heritage's call for a individual mandate is "not conservative", that proves what? That the actual GOP is NOT being hypocritical for adopting the idea in 1993, making it the basis of RomneyCare, yet opposes it now? You're comparing apples and oranges... and no one cares about the Libertarian fringe who was not, and is not in power.

 

The point stands that the actual GOP IS being hypocritical. They essentially got their plan and for reasons they refuse to reveal, probably because they don't want the Dems to get credit for dealing with health care, they oppose it now.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
BTW, can you please delete

BTW, can you please delete the duplicate thread?

anonymous green
If you remember, Gingrich

If you remember, Gingrich admitted, on TV, during his 'campaign', that he and other fools like him had put the mandate into HilaryCare, as a sting.

The plan was to use the mandate to screw the deal.

You might also remember the fascists who did the same thing to the New Deals.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
anonymous green wrote:If you

anonymous green wrote:
If you remember, Gingrich admitted, on TV, during his 'campaign', that he and other fools like him had put the mandate into HilaryCare, as a sting.

The plan was to use the mandate to screw the deal.

That doesn't make sense if the GOP's plan also had a mandate.

anonymous green
Of course it makes sense, it

Of course it makes sense, it was the sticking point they thought would be argued to hell and kill the deal.

It was the ATF agent who lied about Fast and Furious.

It was the people who pumped out Solyndra's coffers.

It's a sting.

Politics is subterfuge.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
anonymous green wrote:Of

anonymous green wrote:
Of course it makes sense, it was the sticking point they thought would be argued to hell and kill the deal.
That still doesn't make sense. We know, or should know, the GOP didn't want the Dems to pass health care lest there be another loyal generation of Dems created as happened with the New Deal. Having a mandate was necessary then as now to deal with the freeloader problem. So how would that be a deal breaker when the GOP proposed the same? I don't remember Harry & Louise complaining about that...  but who knows. How could Newt have inserted the mandate into HilaryCare. Have a source?

anonymous green
The source was Newt himself,

The source was Newt himself, in a one on one interview during his campaign.

Seek, and you'll find it.

If you place a poison pill in food, the people who eat it die.

Murder by Numbers, one two three, it's as easy to learn as your a b c d e's.

chilidog
Here's a link to what the OP

Here's a link to what the OP is talking about:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1989/a-national-health-system-for-america

it's a PDF file and I haven't downloaded it.

"In 1989, Stuart Butler also co-authored A National Health System for America with Edmund Haislmaier"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Butler

There are 7 used copies available for sale on Amazon.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
chilidog wrote: Here's a link

chilidog wrote:

Here's a link to what the OP is talking about:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1989/a-national-health-system-for-america

It's not searchable so a few months ago I ran it through an OCR program. Here's the's mandate from page 51 of HERITAGE'S FOUNDATION'S 1989 HEALTH CARE PLAN: A National Health System for America:
Quote:
Under this arrangement, all households would be required to
protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial  protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.

Here's the GOP bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:S.1770:

And a chart comparing the 1993 GOP Bill with ObamaCare: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-Comparison.aspx

The GOP was for ObamaCare before they were against it! ROTF 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
anonymous green wrote: The

anonymous green wrote:

The source was Newt himself, in a one on one interview during his campaign.

Seek, and you'll find it.

It's really bad form to make a claim and not back it up with a source... especially when one is requested. It's not the reader's job to do the claimant's homework.

anonymous green
I don't have to back it up,

I don't have to back it up, Newt does, he said it on TV, not me.

There is no transcript that i know of.

Feel free to continue pretending anything you want to.

It's not the reader's job to educate themselves enough to understand the written word.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Pierpont wrote: anonymous

Pierpont wrote:

anonymous green wrote:

The source was Newt himself, in a one on one interview during his campaign.

Seek, and you'll find it.

It's really bad form to make a claim and not back it up with a source... especially when one is requested. It's not the reader's job to do the claimant's homework.

Go

Political AnimalBlogMay 13, 2011 9:20 AMOf course Gingrich supported a health care mandate

 

By Steve Benen

DiggRedditStumbleUponDelicious

Mitt Romney continues to face all kinds of heat over his support for a health care mandate, in large part because he continues to defend it. But Sam Stein notes this week that disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Romney rival for the Republican presidential nomination, was just as ardent an advocate of the idea.

In his post-congressional life, Gingrich has been a vocal champion for mandated insurance coverage — the very provision of President Obama’s health care legislation that the Republican Party now decries as fundamentally unconstitutional.

This mandate was hardly some little-discussed aspect of Gingrich’s plan for health care reform. In the mid-2000s, he partnered with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to promote a centrist solution to fixing the nation’s health care system. A July 22, 2005, Hotline article on one of the duo’s events described the former speaker as endorsing not just state-based mandates (the linchpin of Romney’s Massachusetts law) but “some federal mandates” as well. A New York Sun writeup of what appears to be the same event noted that “both politicians appeared to endorse proposals to require all individuals to have some form of health coverage.”

Neera Tanden, an aide to Clinton at the time who went on to help craft President Obama’s law, said she couldn’t recall exact speeches, but “strongly” believed that the both Clinton and Gingrich backed the individual mandate. Either way, she added, “Gingrich has been known as a supporter” of the idea for some time.

A simple newspaper archive search bears this out.

 

 

Gingrich endorsed the individual health care mandate over and over again, in public remarks, in media interviews, and in policy proposals. Ironically, he even explained the importance of the mandate in a book entitled, “Winning the Future.” Gingrich didn’t just grudgingly go along with the measure as part of some kind of compromise; he actively touted it as a good idea.

And he was right.

But that was before President Obama decided he also agreed with the idea, at which point the mandate became poisonous in Republican circles.

The point to keep in mind, though, is that Gingrich’s support for the idea isn’t at all surprising. Indeed, it would have been odd if Gingrich didn’t endorse the mandate.

For those who’ve forgotten, this was a Republican idea in the first place. Nixon embraced it in the 1970s, and George H.W. Bush supported the idea in the 1980s. When Dole endorsed the mandate in 1994, it was in keeping with the party’s prevailing attitudes at the time. Romney embraced the mandate as governor and it was largely ignored during the ‘08 campaign, since it was in keeping with the GOP mainstream.

stwo
stwo's picture
Pierpont wrote: It's really

Pierpont wrote:
It's really bad form to make a claim and not back it up with a source... especially when one is requested. It's not the reader's job to do the claimant's homework.
Perhaps Anonymous Green is following Thom Hartmann's example. 

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote: That the

Pierpont wrote:

That the actual GOP is NOT being hypocritical for adopting the idea in 1993, 

The GOP did no such thing.   There were about a 12 congressmen the forwarded the idea,  none of those ideas ever left committee.

Quote:
The point stands that the actual GOP IS being hypocritical.

Bullshit. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
anonymous green wrote: I

anonymous green wrote:

I don't have to back it up, Newt does, he said it on TV, not me.

There is no transcript that i know of.

It's because you didn't bother to do any research before you made your claim. Newt was lying to explain how he could for a mandate in the 90's and against it now.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/newts-big-whopper-individual-mandate

http://www.galen.org/newsletters/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-individual-mandate/

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
    Capital.0 wrote: Pierpont

 

 

Capital.0 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

That the actual GOP is NOT being hypocritical for adopting the idea in 1993,

The GOP did no such thing. There were about a 12 congressmen the forwarded the idea, none of those ideas ever left committee.

Heaven forbid you ever get anything right. The Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 was actually proposed in the Senate, not the House... and there were 21 cosponsors.

Capital.0 wrote:

Quote:
The point stands that the actual GOP IS being hypocritical.

Bullshit.

And your proof is? Oh, that's right... you don't believe you have to present any evidence. You believe in your private Faith Based Reality where you're all-knowing just because you're you.

 http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/Durenberger-1993-gop-bill-q-and-a.aspx

 http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-Comparison.aspx

 

The facts remain that ObamaCare is VERY close to the GOP bill from 1993 which the GOP opposed in 09.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
stwo wrote: Pierpont wrote:

stwo wrote:

Pierpont wrote:
It's really bad form to make a claim and not back it up with a source... especially when one is requested. It's not the reader's job to do the claimant's homework.
Perhaps Anonymous Green is following Thom Hartmann's example.

I'm a fan of Thom's show, but I'm not particularly impressed with many of Thom's posts.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
doh1304 wrote: Now you know

doh1304 wrote:

Now you know what it's like to be a progressive and stuck with things like the ACA.

The American Cattlemens Association?

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote: Heaven forbid

Pierpont wrote:

Heaven forbid you ever get anything right. The Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 was actually proposed in the Senate, not the House... and there were 21 cosponsors.

 

The reason I qualified it with "about"  For I didn't deem it worthy enough to look up.   But WOW..  19  now represents the ENTIRE GOP.   Did it ever leave committee....  No it didn't, so it never even garnered enough actual votes to pass out of committee. 

Quote:
And your proof is? 
 

19 doesn't qualify as the GOP.  Do I need more?  You busting my balls by being off 7.  LOL.. 

You know why iberals can't be hypocrits...   They have no intergity to begin with. 

Quote:
The facts remain that ObamaCare is VERY close to the GOP bill from 1993 which the GOP opposed in 09 
 

So,  Nobody supported it Then,  Nobody supported Now.  I do not see the hypocrite claim you are making, just hyperbole.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Pierpont wrote:Capital.0

Pierpont wrote:
Capital.0 wrote:

The GOP did no such thing. There were about a 12 congressmen the forwarded the idea, none of those ideas ever left committee.

Heaven forbid you ever get anything right. The Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 was actually proposed in the Senate, not the House... and there were 21 cosponsors.
 Of the 21, 19 cosponsors were Republicans... 38% of their caucus.  But to be fair we should look for hypocrisy with the individual Senators some of whom are still in the Senate:

 

 

GOP COSPONSORS

S.1770 Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 11/22/1993
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 11/22/1993
Sen Cohen, William S. [ME] - 11/22/1993
Sen Danforth, John C. [MO] - 11/22/1993
Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] - 11/22/1993
Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 11/22/1993
Sen Durenberger, Dave [MN] - 11/22/1993
Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/22/1993
Sen Gorton, Slade [WA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 11/22/1993
Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR] - 11/22/1993
Sen Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [KS] - 11/22/1993
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 11/22/1993
Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY] - 11/22/1993
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 11/22/1993
Sen Warner, John [VA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Brown, Hank [CO] - 11/22/1993

DEMS
Sen Boren, David L. [OK] - 5/17/1994
Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE] - 5/17/1994  

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote: Of the 21, 19

Pierpont wrote:

Of the 21, 19 cosponsors were Republicans... 38% of their caucus.  But to be fair we should look for hypocrisy with the individual Senators some of whom are still in the Senate:

Let me guess...  you think co-sponsering a bill amounts to voting for a bill.....   38% isn't a majority.   it's a MINORITY.  Sorry if these basic principles elude you. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital.0 wrote: Pierpont

Capital.0 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

Of the 21, 19 cosponsors were Republicans... 38% of their caucus.  But to be fair we should look for hypocrisy with the individual Senators some of whom are still in the Senate:

Let me guess...  you think co-sponsering a bill amounts to voting for a bill.....   38% isn't a majority.   it's a MINORITY.  Sorry if these basic principles elude you. 

Of course, NO retraction from you for all the bad info you posted.

Are you suggesting that cosponsors do NOT support bills they put their name to???? ROTF  And cosponsors alone can NOT be used to gage the overall support for a bill.  For example in the House there were only 40 cosponsors for the original Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
I'm well aware of the shortcomings of this exercise but without a vote, the only measure of GOP support for this bill IS COSPONSORS. And 38% of the GOP members isn't trivial.

As for actual members who cosponsored the 1993 bill yet were still in the Senate to vote against ObamaCare... I can find seven:

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT]  HYPOCRITE

Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO]  HYPOCRITE

Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA]  HYPOCRITE

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] HYPOCRITE

Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO]  HYPOCRITE

Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] HYPOCRITE

Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN]  HYPOCRITE

 

I think there is a clear pattern of hypocrisy here... that these longtime Senators essentialy got what they proposed in 1993 YET STILL VOTED AGAINST IT IN 2009.

 

anonymous green
You would have seen all this

You would have seen all this puffery in '93, but with Clinton's balls in someones teeth it just wasn't necessary to run out the entire scam.

Vote it in like a New Deal, have your friends on the Supreme Court say it's unconstitutional.

Nothing new under the sun, except to those with blinders on.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital.0 wrote:19 doesn't

Capital.0 wrote:
19 doesn't qualify as the GOP. Do I need more? You busting my balls by being off 7. LOL..
no, I'm bustin' ya because you're a person who repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims, never retracts, always makes excuses, gets beat up in debates, then you run away pretending you're just letting your profound wisdom and insights sink in.
 

As for whether 19 cosponsors of 50 represents anything... just remember that the in the House, the original Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only had 40 cosponsors yet it passed with 243 votes.

 

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote: Of course, NO

Pierpont wrote:

Of course, NO retraction from you for all the bad info you posted.

If a retraction was actually needed.....  Which it wasn't. 

Quote:
Are you suggesting that cosponsors do NOT support bills they put their name to???? ROTF And cosponsors alone can NOT be used to gage the overall support for a bill.
 

Clearly you know nothing of Politics.   And yes I would suggest that, 

How bout we gauge the overall support of the Bill by the distance it traveled in the Process.   Died in Committee. 

So now we are down to 7 people that you claim represent the ENTIRE GOP.  Because they co-sponsered a bill 17 years ago that had no support and died in committee.  As I said.... hyperbole..

 

 

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote: no, I'm

Pierpont wrote:
no, I'm bustin' ya because you're a person who repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims, never retracts, always makes excuses, gets beat up in debates, then you run away pretending you're just letting your profound wisdom and insights sink in.

Ik think it safe to say you don't read so well.   I do not need to retract a comment stating  "about 12" when it was 19.  well within reasonable limits..  if it had been 25.  I'd been way off.  But I wasn't way off.   Since 19 is still insignificant by even your math.

Your delusion are still entertaining

Quote:
 As for whether 19 cosponsors of 50 represents anything... just remember that the in the House, the original Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only had 40 cosponsors yet it passed with 243 votes.

Please retract your False information.  You are off by 7.   Only 43 in the senate in 1993.  47 in 1994.  (SEE how I didn't use "About")  that is what a stated fact looks like.  Try not to be so confused in the future. 

Quote:
 just remember that the in the House, the original Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only had 40 cosponsors yet it passed with 243 votes.

You really need to learn to either fact check or use qualifing laungage.  Please retract 243 votes.  It was never orginally voted on.  It passed on the back of the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act"  at 416-16.

So if we are going to keep a running total of who lies the most....  How many is that for you so far? 
 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital.0 wrote: Pierpont

Capital.0 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

Of course, NO retraction from you for all the bad info you posted.

If a retraction was actually needed.....  Which it wasn't. 
THANKS for proving my point. No matter how wrong you are, you're incapable of retracting but instead always make excuses. Pray tell, explain again how Libs and Progressives are the ones who have no integrity? ROTF! 

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote: THANKS for

Pierpont wrote:

THANKS for proving my point. No matter how wrong you are, you're incapable of retracting but instead always make excuses. Pray tell, explain again how Libs and Progressives are the ones who have no integrity? ROTF! 

strange....  I see no retraction....  in this post.

drc2
Cap, once again the ultimate

Cap, once again the ultimate sophist, is quibbling about how many GOP co-sponsors on a bill we need to say that the mandate and Romneycare is essentially a GOP policy alternative to what would have been Medicare for All in a sane political contest.  I am sorry for FL that there are no serious Libertarian policy alternatives that get very far in the real world.  But, I suggest entering the real world anyway.

I am so glad, however, that FL and Cap are so caught up in this nonsense about nothing that they can avoid doing damage elsewhere.

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
drc2 wrote: Cap, once again

drc2 wrote:

Cap, once again the ultimate sophist, is quibbling about how many GOP co-sponsors on a bill we need to say that the mandate and Romneycare is essentially a GOP policy alternative to what would have been Medicare for All in a sane political contest.  I am sorry for FL that there are no serious Libertarian policy alternatives that get very far in the real world.  But, I suggest entering the real world anyway.

I am so glad, however, that FL and Cap are so caught up in this nonsense about nothing that they can avoid doing damage elsewhere.

DRC....  once again trolling about.  Sorry for ruining your hyperbole.  Facts just kill it everytime.... 

Especially the offen told lie of Romneycare. 

anonymous green
The best spies are the ones

The best spies are the ones who don't even know they are spies.

The best lies are the ones which are the truth to those telling them.

Ask Bradley Manning who he thought he was working for.

Ask the ATF agent who lied about gun-running.

Ask the soldiers who volunteered to get paid to go to an Arab shooting gallery.

They all think they were the good ones.

drc2
Romney sold the mandate as

Romney sold the mandate as the "anti-freeloader" mechanism.  The whole "plan" was to keep the private health insurance fraudsters in the game.  They just had to stop the rape to get to pillage.

If you had been sticking it to us for having gone Republican in healthcare policy instead of doing what we think is better, you would have a case.  When you try to avoid the fact that this plan Obama adopted was a GOPimp brand, and he did it to "triangulate" Romney very effectively, all you can do is try to call it some sort of Liberal Big Government Takeover.  Ridiculous.  We know what Socialized Medicine is, and it does not scare us.  This ain't it.

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
drc2 wrote: Romney sold the

drc2 wrote:

Romney sold the mandate as the "anti-freeloader" mechanism.  The whole "plan" was to keep the private health insurance fraudsters in the game.  They just had to stop the rape to get to pillage.

Except the mandate was never in his orginal Healthcare proposal and was a negotiated point with his SuperMajority Democrat congress. And just to stress just how impudent Romney was in crafting "romneycare" He vetoed 6 sections of the Bill. And all 6 were overruled by the Supermajority.

Quote:
If you had been sticking it to us for having gone Republican in healthcare policy instead of doing what we think is better, you would have a case.

Funny...  I have a case regardless of what you think... 

True,  politically he sold the plan his state developed .....  Because to not sell it would make him weak and impudent. 

Quote:
When you try to avoid the fact that this plan Obama adopted was a GOPimp brand 

who is avoiding it....  I tell you every bill is was suggested in...  which of course supports the case it was NOT a GOP plan.   but a politcal ploy by a few GOP senators to counter Hillarycare

Quote:
 We know what Socialized Medicine is, and it does not scare us
 

I'm almost sure you know exactly what socialized medicine is....   and can only guess to what mental deflect supports it. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital.0 wrote:Ik think it

 

Capital.0 wrote:
Ik think it safe to say you don't read so well. I do not need to retract a comment stating "about 12" when it was 19. well within reasonable limits.. if it had been 25. I'd been way off. But I wasn't way off. Since 19 is still insignificant by even your math.
So in your Orwellian mind, being off by 58% is "well within reasonable limits"? ROTF keep them coming Einstein!

Quote:
As for whether 19 cosponsors of 50 represents anything... just remember that the in the House, the original Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only had 40 cosponsors yet it passed with 243 votes.

Please retract your False information. You are off by 7. Only 43 in the senate in 1993. 47 in 1994. (SEE how I didn't use "About") that is what a stated fact looks like. Try not to be so confused in the future. [/quote] Gee, you may be correct. I think I used the numbers from the 108th Congress by mistake. Thanks for the correction. I have no desire to clog my brain with wrong data. And in correcting me, you only made my point stronger… it was 44% of GOP Senators who signed on as co-sponsors for the GOP health care bill in 1993, not 38%. So your claim it hardly got any GOP support is now disproved.

Quote:
just remember that the in the House, the original Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only had 40 cosponsors yet it passed with 243 votes.

You really need to learn to either fact check or use qualifing laungage. Please retract 243 votes. It was never orginally voted on. It passed on the back of the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act" at 416-16.[/quote]

There may be many variations of the bill. The one I'm referring to is

H.R.3590
Latest Title: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 9/17/2009) Cosponsors (40)
Related Bills: H.CON.RES.254, H.RES.1203, H.R.3780, H.R.4872, S.1728, S.1790
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-148 [GPO: Text, PDF]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:

And the House vote WAS 243 Dems…  I should have said that. It was an an example of cosponsors vs eventual votes within a party.  

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll768.xml

But we're missing the point here… and that is simply that this was an EXAMPLE. It AGAIN proves my point that the number of cosponsors does NOT represent TOTAL support. You were claiming that the few, you said 12, cosponsors for the 1993 bill represented essentially a GOP rejection of that bill. In other posts you claimed they were just mulling the matter over and of course they changed their minds. When 44% of the GOP Senators sign on as cosponsors to a bill THAT'S A SERIOUS PROPOSAL.

 

Quote:
So if we are going to keep a running total of who lies the most.... How many is that for you so far?
First I don't lie so you must be referring to yourself. Who's made mistakes… you were wrong about 1: The number of GOP cosponsors, 2: that being off by 58% is "well within reasonable limits",  3: that the GOP bill did NOT get widespread GOP support in 1993 when in fact it did.

Total retractions to date= ZERO.

I screwed up 1: citing the wrong number of GOP Senators in 1993 and I was going to say 2 mistakes but you misunderstood my point about the 243 votes. I NEVER meant to imply that was the total vote... only that a bill could have a mere 40 cosponsors yet still get widespread support.
But thanks for finding my careless error about the Senate… it made my case stronger… and yours weaker… I need all the help I can to stop being such a careless dolt.   

 

 

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote:  So in your

Pierpont wrote:

 So in your Orwellian mind, being off by 58% is "well within reasonable limits"? ROTF keep them coming Einstein!

Why do you hate math so much that you are wrong every time.  Einstien......

 Define "about" :  Near or Close To.    12 is near or close to 19.  If you wish to quantify "about"  by all means Quantify.  I would love to see.   However out of all the number possibilities I stated whether it be 12, 19, 43 or 47.   No combination derives 58%

Quote:
 Gee, you may be correct. I think I used the numbers from the 108th Congress by mistake. Thanks for the correction. I have no desire to clog my brain with wrong data. And in correcting me, you only made my point stronger… it was 44% of GOP Senators who signed on as co-sponsors for the GOP health care bill in 1993, not 38%. So your claim it hardly got any GOP support is now disproved. 
 

Your welcome,  and 44% is still a minority and co-sponsering is not Voting,  There is no statistics on congressman co-sponsering only congressman voting records.  Because voting matters..

Quote:
 But we're missing the point here

I thought the point was your were wrong,  in which case I was right on point.  

Quote:
You were claiming that the few, you said 12 

If you intend to quote me in a vain attempt to discredit,  you should at least be acurate and not provide flase information.   I said " About 12"  vastly different from "you said 12"   Feel free to retract. 

Quote:
 When 44% of the GOP Senators sign on as cosponsors to a bill THAT'S A SERIOUS PROPOSAL. 

I wonder if you even know that less than 10% of bill proposals ever get passed into law,  the 110th congress only passed 3.3%.  I see if I can find the percentage of the 103rd.  So no,   I doubt it was a serious proposal.   I have no doubt is was meant to effect debate and politcs.

Quote:
I screwed up 1: citing the wrong number of GOP Senators in 1993 and 2: in an example on cosponsors vs votes for the ACA… and, again, I admit my mistakes. But thanks for finding them… it made my case stronger… and yours weaker… I need all the help I can to stop being such a careless dolt.    

My position is sound and completely supported in facts.  Just because you want to use a completely irrelevent fact to hyperbole your dogmatic droning, in no way weakens my statements. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital.0 wrote: Pierpont

Capital.0 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:
Define "about" : Near or Close To. 12 is near or close to 19. If you wish to quantify "about" by all means Quantify. I would love to see. However out of all the number possibilities I stated whether it be 12, 19, 43 or 47. No combination derives 58%
See what I mean! You never concede, only make excuses. If the original number is 1000, being 7 off is a small .7% error. However, when the number in question is 12, then +- 7 off is a HUGE error. Take some goddamn responsibility Einstein. BTW, 12 is 58% of 19.

pierpont wrote:
Quote:
Gee, you may be correct. I think I used the numbers from the 108th Congress by mistake. Thanks for the correction. I have no desire to clog my brain with wrong data. And in correcting me, you only made my point stronger… it was 44% of GOP Senators who signed on as co-sponsors for the GOP health care bill in 1993, not 38%. So your claim it hardly got any GOP support is now disproved.

Your welcome, and 44% is still a minority and co-sponsering is not Voting, There is no statistics on congressman co-sponsering only congressman voting records. Because voting matters..

Moving the goal post? The original issues, which are getting lost, were 1: did the GOP's 1993 Health Care Bill have a mandate, 2: Was it widely accepted by the GOP, and 3: is the GOP being hypocritical when it then rejected essentially the same bill when proposed by the Dems? The latter point is tricky since we know most of those who proposed the 1993 bill are no longer in the Senate… but I did find 7 sponsors who then voted against ACA in 2009. I will look for an actual vote even if it were merely procedural. And yes there IS a record of cosponsors… go back to post 36.  

You haven't contested 1: the mandate. But you've tried to minimize that it ever was widely accepted. You have failed in that and the large number of cosponsors proves it.

Cap wrote:
Quote:
When 44% of the GOP Senators sign on as cosponsors to a bill THAT'S A SERIOUS PROPOSAL.

I wonder if you even know that less than 10% of bill proposals ever get passed into law, the 110th congress only passed 3.3%. I see if I can find the percentage of the 103rd. So no, I doubt it was a serious proposal. I have no doubt is was meant to effect debate and politcs.

How many bills get passed is NOT the issue and you know that. I know you need to denigrate the 1993 bill because if it WAS a serious proposal, your whole claim goes down the drain. But at 579 pages and 44% sponsorship, I think we know it wasn't drawn on a napkin and WAS widely accepted.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103s1770pcs/pdf/BILLS-103s1770pcs.pdf

Quote:
My position is sound and completely supported in facts. Just because you want to use a completely irrelevent fact to hyperbole your dogmatic droning, in no way weakens my statements.

ROTF Thanks again for more of your amusing bluff and bluster. Only in your delusional Orwellian World is being wrong about just about everything reframed into a complete vindication.

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote:See what I

Pierpont wrote:
See what I mean! You never concede, only make excuses. If the original number is 1000, being 7 off is a small .7% error. However, when the number in question is 12, then +- 7 off is a HUGE error. Take some goddamn responsibility Einstein. BTW, 12 is 58% of 19.

I am actually shaking by reading you stupidity. That would be 158% if you are doing 19/12 you fucking dip. It is 63.13% if you do 12/19. God have mercy on our educational system. Or I was 17% off.

http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/3percent.htm

Funny thing is, you have the unmitigated audacity to berate me with your fucking liberal math skills.

Quote:
Moving the goal post? The original issues, which are getting lost, were 1: did the GOP's 1993 Health Care Bill have a mandate,
Yes.

Quote:
2: Was it widely accepted by the GOP

No

Quote:
3: is the GOP being hypocritical when it then rejected essentially the same bill when proposed by the Dems?

You found 7 out of 218. Or for the mathematically challenged .03%. Apparently is enough for you to claim the GOP.

Quote:
You haven't contested 1: the mandate.

Must be the difference between you and I. I don't contest things that actually exist.

Quote:
But you've tried to minimize that it ever was widely accepted. You have failed in that and the large number of cosponsors proves it.

Considering you otherwise horrific grasp of facts, math and substance and complete dependence upon hyperbole.... I can see why you may think that.

Quote:
How many bills get passed is NOT the issue and you know that. I know you need to denigrate the 1993 bill because if it WAS a serious proposal, your whole claim goes down the drain. But at 579 pages and 44% sponsorship, I think we know it wasn't drawn on a napkin and WAS widely accepted.

just seeing how desperately you need to believe it, contrary to reality. Go right ahead.

Quote:
ROTF Thanks again for more of your amusing bluff and bluster. Only in your delusional Orwellian World is being wrong about just about everything reframed into a complete vindication.

Considering just how badly your doing on this thread... I'll write this off as a defense mechanism

 

anonymous green
There is a great sci-fi book

There is a great sci-fi book by Barry Malzberg, (KM O'Donnell), that speaks to this issue.

In the book, students spend all day, every day, trying to re-enact the Kennedy assassination.

In the book, something always goes awry, and they can never actually force reality fit the cover story.

But they try, every day, and their lives are dependent on this 'act' of truth-seeking.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital.0 wrote: Pierpont

 

Capital.0 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:
See what I mean! You never concede, only make excuses. If the original number is 1000, being 7 off is a small .7% error. However, when the number in question is 12, then +- 7 off is a HUGE error. Take some goddamn responsibility Einstein. BTW, 12 is 58% of 19.

I am actually shaking by reading you stupidity. That would be 158% if you are doing 19/12 you fucking dip. It is 63.13% if you do 12/19. God have mercy on our educational system. Or I was 17% off.

Now I'm getting a math lesson from the guy with the Magic Number that "proved" Newt was responsible for the Clinton Surplus. Example: if the number is 6, and you guess 4... your error is 2, or 50% of your guess…  NOT 150%. If the number is 19 and you guess 12, then your error is 58%.... 58% of 12 is about 7… the amount you were off by. But if you think that 12, being 63% of 19 makes you only 37% (NOT 17%) wrong… it's STILL not an insignificant number as you've tried to rationalize. You were also wrong about those cosponsors being in the Senate… but who cares.

Quote:
Funny thing is, you have the unmitigated audacity to berate me with your fucking liberal math skills.
Gettin' it Einstein? Didn't think so. I won't bother asking for a retraction since I know you lack the intellectual and emotional integrity.

 

Quote:
Pierpont wrote:
Moving the goal post? The original issues, which are getting lost…

2: Was it widely accepted by the GOP

No

John Chaffee who wrote the bill was head of the Chairman of the Senate Republican Task Force on Health. His proposal was the best one the GOP could muster in the days of HillaryCare. And  that 44% co-sponsorship does represent wide acceptance in the GOP. We just don't have a final vote to see how much more there was. Not that it mattered given the Dems controlled the Senate and had their own agenda.

Pierpont wrote:
Quote:
3: is the GOP being hypocritical when it then rejected essentially the same bill when proposed by the Dems?

You found 7 out of 218. Or for the mathematically challenged .03%. Apparently is enough for you to claim the GOP.

Please try and get your facts straight. What I found is 100% of the Senators who cosponsored the 1993 bill who were still in the Senate in 2009 OPPOSED the ACA... they opposed essentially the same bill they sponsored in 1993. 

Pierpont wrote:
Quote:
But you've tried to minimize that it ever was widely accepted. You have failed in that and the large number of cosponsors proves it.

Considering you otherwise horrific grasp of facts, math and substance and complete dependence upon hyperbole.... I can see why you may think that.

I still don't see any math errors except yours… but feel free to pretend they exist.

Pierpont wrote:
Cap wrote:
How many bills get passed is NOT the issue and you know that. I know you need to denigrate the 1993 bill because if it WAS a serious proposal, your whole claim goes down the drain. But at 579 pages and 44% sponsorship, I think we know it wasn't drawn on a napkin and WAS widely accepted.

just seeing how desperately you need to believe it, contrary to reality. Go right ahead.

Your problem is as it always is… your belief in your own omniscience blinds you to reality. So pray tell Brainiac, what are YOUR magic numbers that make a piece of legislation "serious"? 580 pages and 20 senators as cosponsors?

Pierpont wrote:
Quote:
ROTF Thanks again for more of your amusing bluff and bluster. Only in your delusional Orwellian World is being wrong about just about everything reframed into a complete vindication.

Considering just how badly your doing on this thread... I'll write this off as a defense mechanism

I'm doing just fine except for one stupid mistake. Your problem is you're doing terribly and, as usual, just are oblivious to it.

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote: Now I'm

Pierpont wrote:

Now I'm getting a math lesson from the guy with the Magic Number that "proved" Newt was responsible for the Clinton Surplus. Example: if the number is 6, and you guess 4... your error is 2, or 50% of your guess…  NOT 150%. If the number is 19 and you guess 12, then your error is 58%.... 58% of 12 is about 7… the amount you were off by. But if you think that 12, being 63% of 19 makes you only 37% (NOT 17%) wrong… it's STILL not an insignificant number as you've tried to rationalize. You were also wrong about those cosponsors being in the Senate… but who cares.

General people stop digging the hole their standing in when you can no longer see the light.  

 

I can’t quite figure out how you think House members can co-sponsor  Senate Bill S.1770.  “S” stands for Senate.  ALL co-sponsors have to legally be in the senate.  Sorry if that confuses you. 

 

Quote:
Gettin' it Einstein? Didn't think so. I won't bother asking for a retraction since I know you lack the intellectual and emotional integrity.  
 

You keep asking….  Old Joe Goebbels would be proud of you… 

 

Quote:
John Chaffee who wrote the bill was head of the Chairman of the Senate Republican Task Force on Health. His proposal was the best one the GOP could muster in the days of HillaryCare. And that 44% co-sponsorship does represent wide acceptance in the GOP. We just don't have a final vote to see how much more there was. Not that it mattered given the Dems controlled the Senate and had their own agenda.   
  

In 1992, he was appointed Chairman of the Senate Republican Task Force on Health, and he worked to develop a consensus among Republicans on health care

 

Did Joe develop consensus?   Doesn’t look like it.  

 

It just dawned on me….   Your being too obstinate for somebody who has all the facts.  Is it possible that you are completely ignorant of the competing GOP bill S.1743 that was submitted 3 days prior to S.1770.  That had 25 GOP signers.  (in case you are wondering,  the GOP majority).   All your statements are completely false in light of all the facts…  If it makes you feel better,  I’ll believe your just old fashioned ignorant.  

 

Quote:
Please try and get your facts straight. What I found is 100% of the Senators who cosponsored the 1993 bill who were still in the Senate in 2009 OPPOSED the ACA... they opposed essentially the same bill they sponsored in 1993.   

 

See finally using qualifiers….  “essentially the same”  but clearly NOT the same.  I assume you do know they were not identical.  So you wish to deem 7 members of the GOP hypocrites for not voting for “essentially the same bill”  from 17 years ago.    Reason certainly will not dent your dogma.  

 

Quote:
Your problem is as it always is… your belief in your own omniscience blinds you to reality. So pray tell Brainiac, what are YOUR magic numbers that make a piece of legislation "serious"? 580 pages and 20 senators as cosponsors?  

 

How bout not having 2 competing bill at the same time? Where the other had 24 cosponsors.   By your logic.   The other bill S.1743 was the serious one.  Maybe even both were serious.  Maybe neither was serious and just political.  Doesn’t matter because neither one was EVER even considered. 

 

drc2
Cap, if you are trying to

Cap, if you are trying to refute the ironclad case about Robamacare being a GOP response to Hillarycare, you lose open and shut.  If you want to reject Romney's implementation as something other than GOP, I think you still want to shout louder as the facts don't work out for you.  Now, did the Heritage Foundation issue an endorsed product that Gingrich and Romney and others argued for, with the mandate proudly there to stop freeloaders, and if not, where did it come from?

I really don't care how many of the Congresscritters co-sponsored the bills or if they voted it down or up in the politicized context of the statistics.  What is beyond debate is that this plan that has morphed into Obamacare, comes from Republican origins.  We can hope that the nose of the camel is so far in the tent that real reform can follow and we can join civilized democracies and insure healthcare for all.

But, in the pinhead ballet you love, you may have the steps right, but the dance is a GOPimp Tarantella

drc2
BTW, FL's Libertarian protest

BTW, FL's Libertarian protest is against what the Heritage Foundation put forth as Clinton-lite, in his words.  He seems to know that Heritage was deeply involved in the birth.

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
drc2 wrote: Cap, if you are

drc2 wrote:

Cap, if you are trying to refute the ironclad case about Robamacare being a GOP response to Hillarycare, you lose open and shut.  If you want to reject Romney's implementation as something other than GOP, I think you still want to shout louder as the facts don't work out for you.  Now, did the Heritage Foundation issue an endorsed product that Gingrich and Romney and others argued for, with the mandate proudly there to stop freeloaders, and if not, where did it come from?

Long on Hot air short on Facts.  Still trolling about I see.

drc2
No, just short on trivia and

No, just short on trivia and bloviation.  Obama, in his bipartisan faith, does not push the Progressive approach of Single Payer or the very east transition to Medicare for All.  No, he tries to find some points of commonality to build a Purple Haze image of One America and being President of All the People.

He has to do this, to a large extent, because he will get a rhetorical shitstorm and being a Black Man, he must not allow race or radical to be the image of being his reconciling and uniting Presidency.  He may have thought that reason and compromise would cool the cult and divide or triangulate them; or he may have believed that partisanship was a bad element that he wished to move away from.  It hardly matters in the fact that he does take a Republican "mandate" with private health insurance getting a great deal in order to get the uninsured covered.

I doubt he expected the GOP cult to be totally absurd and intransigent, but he could calculate that he would appear as the moderate reconciler and they would have to deal with being spoiled brats.  Or, it would be a truly bipartisan victory with the Progressives pissed off about not getting the privateers out of the game.

So, when the hacks started the mandate is unconstitutional stuff, one had to wonder how much they really wanted Single Payer to be on the table.  Dissing Obama is easy to understand when they have no real policy issues.  Having nothing to offer in the repeal and replace rhetoric telling us what they would retain or add, they refuse to consider the evidence of health care costs and how sane countries do this.

You are wrong on the big picture no matter what sophist points you want to make about how many co-sponsors means an endorsement.  You are so full of yourself, and your arguments are so short-sighted and empty, it is hard to find a serious point of engagement.  It has been so consistently.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital.0 wrote: Long on Hot

Capital.0 wrote:

Long on Hot air short on Facts.  Still trolling about I see.

Typical Cap... pretending his own empty claims are a devestating rebuttal.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital.0 wrote:Pierpont

Capital.0 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

Now I'm getting a math lesson from the guy with the Magic Number that "proved" Newt was responsible for the Clinton Surplus. Example: if the number is 6, and you guess 4... your error is 2, or 50% of your guess… NOT 150%. If the number is 19 and you guess 12, then your error is 58%.... 58% of 12 is about 7… the amount you were off by. But if you think that 12, being 63% of 19 makes you only 37% (NOT 17%) wrong… it's STILL not an insignificant number as you've tried to rationalize. You were also wrong about those cosponsors being in the Senate… but who cares.

General people stop digging the hole their standing in when you can no longer see the light.

Which must be YOU once you realized your own math error... coming up with 17% instead of 37%. Of course, no admission of bad math on your part... you just think a smart ass comment will conceal what an ass you made of yourself. Funny thing is, you have the unmitigated audacity to berate me with your f*cking Orwellian Right math skills.

Quote:
I can’t quite figure out how you think House members can co-sponsor Senate Bill S.1770. “S” stands for Senate. ALL co-sponsors have to legally be in the senate. Sorry if that confuses you.
Pray tell, when did I say that? I've all along said Chaffee's bill, he was a SENATOR, had 19 GOP SENATORS as cosponsors. I even listed the SENATORS names. I made it a point to say that 7 SENATORS who sponsored the 1993 bill were still in the SENATE in 2009. You're confusing YOUR original claim that there were 12 CONGRESSMEN who were cosponsors. But I don't expect a retraction there either. The more you f*ck up, the more you think you're making devastating rebuttals. It's really a fascinating pathology to watch unfold thread after thread. You're your own worst enemy. You seem to think all our debates are a death match between you and I when they are really about you vs reality. That's why I have no problem admitting if I f*ck up… while your ego is too fragile to admit ANY mistake. Like with the above, your only goal is to preserve your own ignorance.

Quote:
Quote:
John Chaffee who wrote the bill was head of the Chairman of the Senate Republican Task Force on Health. His proposal was the best one the GOP could muster in the days of HillaryCare. And that 44% co-sponsorship does represent wide acceptance in the GOP. We just don't have a final vote to see how much more there was. Not that it mattered given the Dems controlled the Senate and had their own agenda.

In 1992, he was appointed Chairman of the Senate Republican Task Force on Health, and he worked to develop a consensus among Republicans on health care Did Joe develop consensus? Doesn’t look like it.

Get all your info from Wikipedia? For Chaffee to get 44% of the GOP members of the Senate was a good start. Again we don't know what the ultimate support was in the Senate for any bill. You don't know just who in the GOP supported what. He could have had 75% for all you know but what was the point if all these GOP bills were DOA and the Dems were only debating HillaryCare.

Quote:
It just dawned on me…. Your being too obstinate for somebody who has all the facts. Is it possible that you are completely ignorant of the competing GOP bill S.1743 that was submitted 3 days prior to S.1770. That had 25 GOP signers. (in case you are wondering, the GOP majority). All your statements are completely false in light of all the facts… If it makes you feel better, I’ll believe your just old fashioned ignorant.
When did I say I had all the facts? Anyone could make you look like a fool. It's not that hard… trust me.

At issue is Chaffee's Bill which I thought was clear from my Kaiser links. So all that any other GOP bill proves is YOU were wrong for making a claim not knowing WTF bill you were even talking about. And that makes you wrong AGAIN since there were MORE GOP supporters for this other GOP bill than you claimed. Should I do the math again? Never mind.... 3ed grade math seems too deep for you.

Pierpont wrote:
Cap wrote:
Please try and get your facts straight. What I found is 100% of the Senators who cosponsored the 1993 bill who were still in the Senate in 2009 OPPOSED the ACA... they opposed essentially the same bill they sponsored in 1993.

See finally using qualifiers…. “essentially the same” but clearly NOT the same. I assume you do know they were not identical. So you wish to deem 7 members of the GOP hypocrites for not voting for “essentially the same bill” from 17 years ago. Reason certainly will not dent your dogma.

No dogma here. It was Kaiser that made the comparison. No two bills are exactly the same. But the key issue here is the mandate... not the other details.

Pierpont wrote:
Cap wrote:
Your problem is as it always is… your belief in your own omniscience blinds you to reality. So pray tell Brainiac, what are YOUR magic numbers that make a piece of legislation "serious"? 580 pages and 20 senators as cosponsors?

How bout not having 2 competing bill at the same time? Where the other had 24 cosponsors. By your logic. The other bill S.1743 was the serious one. Maybe even both were serious. Maybe neither was serious and just political. Doesn’t matter because neither one was EVER even considered.

As I said, I've ALWAYS been talking about the Chaffee bill. The other bill was fluff compared to Chaffee's bill… about 1/3 the size http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103s1743is/pdf/BILLS-103s1743is.pdf

Sorry Cap... ya really got to try harder… but, sadly, I know all you'll do is make more excuses for yourself… then scamper off.  

(Do I FINALLY have the quotes right?)

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
So the relevant point was,

So the relevant point was, the individual mandate was dreamt up by the RightWing Heritage docuhebags, and written into a bill in 1993, which many of the most conservative Senators cosponsored. 

That same individual mandate became the basis for Romneycare, and the PAC that former Speaker Gingrich headed also loudly and proudly advocated for a national individual mandate. 

Finally, during the healthcare reform debate, former Gov Romney even wrote an oped in the USA Today advocating for an individual mandate, in 2009.

So, finally Obama uses that idea, and it magically becomes a Kenyan, Communist, MaoMao, Big Government conspiracy that allows for conservatives to call for rebellion.

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote:Pray tell,

Pierpont wrote:
Pray tell, when did I say that?

Maybe it was my fault for using the English language to read your sentence “You were also wrong about those cosponsors being in the Senate… but who cares”

 

Quote:
You're confusing YOUR original claim that there were 12 CONGRESSMEN who were cosponsors. But I don't expect a retraction there either. 

Why would you expect a retraction on the congressmen?   Senators are Congressmen.   Feel free to retract your misquoting of my statement.   You forgot “about 12 congressmen”  again.. 

Quote:
while your ego is too fragile to admit ANY mistake 
 

Be sure to let me know when you find a real mistake, not just a Peirmont contrived mistake. 

Quote:
Get all your info from Wikipedia? For Chaffee to get 44% of the GOP members of the Senate was a good start. Again we don't know what the ultimate support was in the Senate for any bill. You don't know just who in the GOP supported what. He could have had 75% for all you know but what was the point if all these GOP bills were DOA and the Dems were only debating HillaryCare

Was Wiki wrong?  Hyperbole again…   Why stop at 75%...  if you planning on making shit up,  why not assume he had 95% of the GOP support.  

Quote:
When did I say I had all the facts? Anyone could make you look like a fool. It's not that hard… trust me.

At issue is Chaffee's Bill which I thought was clear from my Kaiser links. So all that any other GOP bill proves is YOU were wrong for making a claim not knowing WTF bill you were even talking about. And that makes you wrong AGAIN since there were MORE GOP supporters for this other GOP bill than you claimed. Should I do the math again? Never mind.... 3ed grade math seems too deep for you.  

 

No… what is at issue is your claim that Chaffee Bill had the support of the GOP.  Which it didn’t. 

You must have thought that Chaffee’s Bill was the GOP alternative to Hillarycare,  Which it wasn’t

You are wrong to assume anybody gave a flying fuck over Chaffee’s bill.  You thought it was a serious at Bill and it wasn’t. 

Just as long as you know about the other bill as you proceed.   It certainly puts in to context the GOP strategy of 1993.  Which BTW,  worked.   No Hillarycare.

Quote:
No dogma here. It was Kaiser that made the comparison. No two bills are exactly the same. But the key issue here is the mandate... not the other details.  
  

But not that same bill,  Yet you assume that just because the mandate was the same,   those 7 congressmen are Hypocrites.   With fallacious reasoning you gleefully spread lies. 

Quote:
As I said, I've ALWAYS been talking about the Chaffee bill. The other bill was fluff compared to Chaffee's bill… about 1/3 the size http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103s1743is/pdf/BILLS-103s1743is.pdf

So size determines seriousness.   That has got to be the funniest bullshit reasoning I heard in a long time.  I actually would believe the opposite.   Size means it’s packed full of Bullshit.   If I ever hear “we have to pass the Bill to find out what is in the Bill”  I’ll know liberty is about to die. 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital.0 wrote:Quote: You're

Capital.0 wrote:
Quote:
You're confusing YOUR original claim that there were 12 CONGRESSMEN who were cosponsors. But I don't expect a retraction there either.

Why would you expect a retraction on the congressmen? Senators are Congressmen. Feel free to retract your misquoting of my statement. You forgot “about 12 congressmen” again..

Bottom line is you knew NOTHING about what you were saying. You're trying to rewrite your own history with data you learned later, and trying to blur the line. You had no idea of what GOP bill I was talking about though I kept stating it was Chaffee's bill, you had NO idea there were other bills which I wasn't talking about anyway. You had NO idea how many cosponsors there were. Yet you're still here pretending your misuse of the term Congressmen means you knew what you were talking about when Congressmen is used to describe members of the HOUSE... from Wilkpedia:

"Whereas the term Member of Congress applies to members of both houses, the terms Congressman or Congresswoman are usually used to refer to Representatives and not to Senators."

If that's not good enough, here it is from the horse's mouth: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

"Directory of Representatives: Also referred to as a congressman or congresswoman, each representative is elected to a two-year term serving the people of a specific congressional district."

I know you won't retract congressmen = senators either. So feel free to continue making an ass of yourself.

Pierpont wrote:
Quote:
while your ego is too fragile to admit ANY mistake

Be sure to let me know when you find a real mistake, not just a Peirmont contrived mistake.

Problem is you'll never admit you made a mistake about anything. You sweep them all under the carpet and assuage your fragile ego with smart ass comebacks.

Pierpont wrote:
Quote:
Get all your info from Wikipedia? For Chaffee to get 44% of the GOP members of the Senate was a good start. Again we don't know what the ultimate support was in the Senate for any bill. You don't know just who in the GOP supported what. He could have had 75% for all you know but what was the point if all these GOP bills were DOA and the Dems were only debating HillaryCare

Was Wiki wrong? Hyperbole again… Why stop at 75%... if you planning on making shit up, why not assume he had 95% of the GOP support.

There you go projecting again. No one making anything up here. I said the Chaffee bill COULD have had 75% for all we know… all we know are two things… 1: the number of cosponsors, and 2: support for bills will probably be bigger than the number of cosponsors. If there were two competing GOP bills coming up for a floor debate, the GOP would probably vote for both to be debated. We simply don't have any vote totals since both died in Democratic controlled committees.   

Pierpont wrote:
Quote:
When did I say I had all the facts? Anyone could make you look like a fool. It's not that hard… trust me.

At issue is Chaffee's Bill which I thought was clear from my Kaiser links. So all that any other GOP bill proves is YOU were wrong for making a claim not knowing WTF bill you were even talking about. And that makes you wrong AGAIN since there were MORE GOP supporters for this other GOP bill than you claimed. Should I do the math again? Never mind.... 3ed grade math seems too deep for you.

No… what is at issue is your claim that Chaffee Bill had the support of the GOP. Which it didn’t.

I never said it had majority support only widespread support. And even if it had unanimous GOP support the GOP was in the minority.

Quote:
You must have thought that Chaffee’s Bill was the GOP alternative to Hillarycare, Which it wasn’t

You are wrong to assume anybody gave a flying fuck over Chaffee’s bill. You thought it was a serious at Bill and it wasn’t. Just as long as you know about the other bill as you proceed. It certainly puts in to context the GOP strategy of 1993. Which BTW, worked. No Hillarycare.

 

Projecting again? YOU are the one who has claimed, without proof, that the Chaffee bill was not serious, that it wasn't a key GOP alternative to head off HillaryCare. It's like all your posts… empty claims puffed up and passed off as if handed down on a slab.

 

Pierpont wrote:
Quote:
No dogma here. It was Kaiser that made the comparison. No two bills are exactly the same. But the key issue here is the mandate... not the other details.

But not that same bill, Yet you assume that just because the mandate was the same, those 7 congressmen are Hypocrites. With fallacious reasoning you gleefully spread lies.

No lies here asswipe. The record of this and all our threads show you are the one incapable of ever retracting any nonsense you spew…

Speaking of sweeping your idiocy under the carpet… we're still all wondering where you got that 17% number while you were lecturing me on my math… which in the end was correct but your feeble mind could not comprehend. Oh, you swept that under the carpet too.

Now THAT is a perfect example of your dishonesty.

Man up Cap!