The "even the Heritage Foundation supported a mandate" argument

132 posts / 0 new

Comments

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

Me trying to rewrite history…. Interesting theory.

Your Claim “You had NO idea there were other bills”

Facts http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-constitutional?page=1#comment-127378 He is Me mentioning the two bills. March 7th of this year. One of a couple I’m sure. Since this isn’t my first discussion on the individual mandate. Now I am almost sure you DID NOT know there was two. Do you have any Facts that refute my claim.

I see your Wiki and Raise you the Dictionary “a member of a congress, especially of the U.S. House of Representatives.” Last I checked, Senators are members of Congress. (would you like the definition of Congress also) So am concerned that you wish to twist the English language in your infantile attempt to get me to Retract something.

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.

Find a real mistake and we’ll talk. But so far…. This it just funny shit.

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.

And said, if you are making up shit, you might have just said “Chaffee bill COULD have had 95% for all we know”. But I like you use of Qualifiers “support for bills will probably be bigger than the number of cosponsors” or it PROBABLY be smaller if it came to a vote. But you are absolutely correct…. Both died in committee so this is all mental masturbation. So why even drum up 75%....

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

Ok… I’ll take your claim with a grain of salt…. Wide support but not Majority support. Which essentially means they had nothing. I’m glad we hammered out the English language. Although I would claim the Antonym of widespread. It had Limited support.

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.

Without proof? 2 bills in 3 days, Having the minority GOP support, never so much as getting a hearing…. Yet here you are claiming it WAS serious without proof. I think mine would beat yours in a trial.

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…

As if I really expected you to have an epiphany just now and acknowledge you’re grossly flawed fallacious reasoning.

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.

You seriously can’t figure that out. What is 27% subtract 44%. I gave up trying to help you with your math… Apparently even Subtraction even eludes your grasp.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:
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.

You seriously can’t figure that out. What is 27% subtract 44%. I gave up trying to help you with your math… Apparently even Subtraction even eludes your grasp.

I'll leave that to others to decide why you actually believe whatever sort of math you're using is accurate... or for that matter where this new "27%" even came from. As far as I can tell, it was pulled from your butt so you could justify your nonsensical 17% number. BTW... 27 minus 44 isn't 17... but -17. Please explain again why your math skills are sooooooooo advanced that you can sneer at others?

Oops, that sounds like a pissing contest! ROTF

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I wrote another long tit for tat response... but why bother. No one wants to read our pissing contest… and it has little to do with the topic of this thread. And thanks to Cap, he sunk his own original claim... which was there was NEVER any real support in the GOP for a health care mandate back in 93-94… that it was at best supported by "about 12" people... therefore if the GOP voted against the mandate in ObamaCare, they can NOT be guilty of hypocrisy. "Bullshit" he said to that observation.

We know that 20 of 47 GOP Senators signed up as cosponsors for John Chaffee's bill, including Chaffee who I originally failed to count, and in another thread Cap mentioned another GOP bill, Don Nickel's Consumer Choice Health Security Actwhich also had a mandate.

So if my count is correct between the Chaffee's and Don Nickel's proposals there were 37 of 47 GOP senators who signed on… about 79% of the GOP supported a health care mandate around 1993-94. Names below. That percentage might actually be higher since the GOP started the 103 Congress with only 43 Senate seats, not 47: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress

The list might need some additional tweaking if there were changes in the bills affecting the sponsorship but it's pretty clear Cap's claim the individual mandate was rejected by the majority of the GOP is untrue.

Sorry Cap, you're wrong again… but aren't you glad your contribution got us closer to the truth? Didn't think so. As I've always said… you're at war with any truth that conflicts with your Orwellian Right dogma. Prove me wrong… man-up for once!

For the record I used the list of GOP supporters for a health care mandate from these official sources:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1770

and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1743

Sen. Robert Bennett [R-UT, 1993-2010]
Sen. George “Hank” Brown [R-CO, 1991-1996]
Sen. Conrad Burns [R-MT, 1989-2006]
Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond [R-MO, 1987-2010]
Sen. John Chaffee [R-RI]
Sen. William Cohen [R-ME, 1979-1996]
Sen. Daniel Coats [R-IN]
Sen. Thad Cochran [R-MS]
Sen. Paul Coverdell [R-GA, 1993-2000]
Sen. Larry Craig [R-ID, 1991-2009]
Sen. Robert Dole [R-KS, 1969-1996]
Sen. John Danforth [R-MO, 1976-1994]
Sen. Pete Domenici [R-NM, 1973-2009]
Sen. David Durenberger [R-MN, 1978-1994]
Sen. Duncan “Lauch” Faircloth [R-NC, 1993-1998]
Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R-IA]
Sen. Judd Gregg [R-NH, 1993-2010]
Sen. Slade Gorton [R-WA, 1989-2000]
Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R-IA]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Sen. Mark Hatfield [R-OR, 1967-1996]
Sen. Jesse Helms [R-NC, 1973-2002]
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX]
Sen. Nancy Kassebaum [R-KS, 1978-1996]
Sen. Dirk Kempthorne [R-ID, 1993-1998]
Sen. Trent Lott [R-MS, 1989-2007]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Sen. Connie Mack [R-FL, 1989-2000]
Sen. Frank Murkowski [R-AK, 1981-2002]
Sen. Don Nickels [R]
Sen. Alan Simpson [R-WY, 1979-1996]
Sen. Bob Smith [R-NH, 1990-2002]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA, 1981-2010]
Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK, 1968-2009]
Sen. Strom Thurmond [R-SC, 1961-2002]
Sen. Malcolm Wallop [R-WY, 1977-1994]
Sen. John Warner [R-VA, 1979-2009]

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

The list might need some additional tweaking if there were changes in the bills affecting the sponsorship but it's pretty clear Cap's claim the individual mandate was rejected by the majority of the GOP is untrue.

LOL.... you didn't fucking read it did you... Always good for a laugh... you should really look at what "mandate" the majority was advocating before pretending you have a fucking clue. Your intellect is as good as your math.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Although thanks for getting the quote correct. Only took about 40 posts.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Quote Capital.0:

Quote Pierpont:

The list might need some additional tweaking if there were changes in the bills affecting the sponsorship but it's pretty clear Cap's claim the individual mandate was rejected by the majority of the GOP is untrue.

LOL.... you didn't fucking read it did you... Always good for a laugh... you should really look at what "mandate" the majority was advocating before pretending you have a fucking clue. Your intellect is as good as your math.

And you've never proven anything wrong with my math, have you Einstein? As for your response... it's just more of your bluff and bluster. We KNOW the Chaffee bill contained a mandate and you already admitted the Nickel's bill contained a mandate... even Nickels admits that: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/gop-and-health-mandate.html?_r=2 It might have been removed later but that doesn't change the fact the large majority of the GOP senators who cosponsored either bill were originally FOR a mandate... not surprising since the idea came from Heritage. So That's about 79% of the GOP senators... perhaps more depending on the time frame, supported the mandate.

Sorry, Cap, I know you're a sleaze... so feel free to make all the feeble excuses you need to, to save face.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

The list might need some additional tweaking if there were changes in the bills affecting the sponsorship but it's pretty clear Cap's claim the individual mandate was rejected by the majority of the GOP is untrue.

LOL.... you didn't fucking read it did you... Always good for a laugh... you should really look at what "mandate" the majority was advocating before pretending you have a fucking clue. Your intellect is as good as your math.

Well it wasn't a mandate that everyone brush their teeth in the morning. So now you ADMITTING a large majority of the GOP was for an individual health care mandate back in the 90's when your first posts here DENIED that? You're just, as usual, trying to have your cake and eat it. Here's that March post of yours again where YOU said these two old GOP bills had a mandate similar to ACA

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-constitutional?page=1#comment-127378

March 2012 - 15:27 (Reply to #71) #73 .

Quote Capital:
Dr Mario Kart wrote:

Also, to show that another of your earlier posts in this thread was also bullshit, can you tell the class what federal health care legislation included an individual mandate before ACA?

By all mean I would love to watch this....

1993 & 1994 – Consumer Choice Health Security Act (Republican)

1993 – Health Equity And Access Reform Today Act (Republican)

2007 – Healthy Americans Act (Democrat)

2009 – Healthy Americans Act (Democrat)

You have 3 choices Cap... go sleazy... as you've already done, scamper off, or admit what you you're already on record admitting to. Since past threads have proven you have ZERO integrity and have some pathological inability to in any way admit you're wrong or f*cked up, my money is on the first two.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

So when asked, You didn't read it, did You" The answer is NO Cap...

Liberals are Fact Based.... Makes me laugh everytime.... Hyperbole, Fallacy, Half truths.... The liberal intellectual bread and butter.

S.1743 did have a "mandate" it however did not have an "individual mandate" as you claim. Becuase you assume things, without ever reading them.

Let me help the Stupid.

S. 1743 ""Subtitle C: Employer Provisions - Requires employers to: (1) withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages and remit such premiums to the employee's chosen insurer; and (2) notify employees of their right to claim an advance refundable tax credit for such premiums."

That would be an Employer Mandate...

S. 1770 "Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone."

That would be an Individual Mandate....

To bad you left out the last line of the post when attempting to save your ass. See Dr. Mario Kart thought he was smart too. At least he was smart enough not to folllow through against someone who clearly knew more than him.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Quote Capital.0:

So when asked, You didn't read it, did You" The answer is NO Cap...

Liberals are Fact Based.... Makes me laugh everytime.... Hyperbole, Fallacy, Half truths.... The liberal intellectual bread and butter.

In your March post YOU are the one who claimed there was an INDIVIDUAL mandate in both GOP bills... now you're denying your own words even as you pretend you're up on both bills.

See, I knew you'd take the sleazy route. One might have thought you'd learned your lesson after berating me on math when my math was fine and it was YOURS that was wrong… and you're apparently wrong here too. You claim to know these old GOP health care bills yet you missed the individual mandate that YOU said was there… not to mention even Don Nickels admitted to.

Here... let me help the REALLY stupid.... I aleady gave you a link to Don Nickels ADMITTING there was an individual mandate in the CCHSA... yet you chose to ignore that then went on to make an ass of yourself again....

Quote Don Nickels in the NYTimes:When first introduced, the bill included tax credits to make health insurance more affordable and tax penalties for those who refused to buy catastrophic coverage. Yes, the tax penalty constituted a mandate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/gop-and-health-mandate.html?_r=2

You were just too lazy to actually read the bill for other ways the mandate could be worded… and instead of a direct tax, the CCHSA just prohibited personal deductions on one's federal tax. CCHSA was NEVER just an employer mandate as you claim. It also had an INDIVIDUAL mandate and there was a very real PENALTY under CCHSA for individuals who failed to have a qualified health insurance plan!!!!

‘‘(5) EXEMPTION AMOUNT DISALLOWED FOR

UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS.—The exemption amount

for any individual for such individual’s taxable year

shall be zero, unless the individual includes the policy

number of the federally qualified health insurance plan

or an enrollment code regarding a State

program described in section 131(b) of the

Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1993 for

such individual in the return claiming such exemption

amount for such individual.’’.

So you were WRONG that the individual mandate NEVER received wide acceptance with the GOP back in 93-94... and now my sponsorship list of the two bills showing about 79% of GOP senators APPROVING of an individual mandate stands.

Isn't the pursuit of truth beautiful! I didn't think you'd agree.

I can't wait for your next round of sleazy excuses. In that dept you NEVER disappoint.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I just want to get some of Cap's own words, before he deletes them, where he makes a complete ass of himself when he, himself, is wrong.

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.

LOL.... you didn't fucking read it did you... Always good for a laugh... you should really look at what "mandate" the majority was advocating before pretending you have a fucking clue. Your intellect is as good as your math.
Liberals are Fact Based.... Makes me laugh everytime.... Hyperbole, Fallacy, Half truths.... The liberal intellectual bread and butter.
To bad you left out the last line of the post when attempting to save your ass. See Dr. Mario Kart thought he was smart too. At least he was smart enough not to folllow through against someone who clearly knew more than him.

I vote the forum NEVER ban Cap.... he's one of our best Village Idiots!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

This has been my policy despite my total agreement on the quality of the conversations he engages in. I call it sophistry or the use of detail and trivia to argue against a the clear fact that the individual mandate comes from GOP sources and that Romney established it in Romneycare.

When we say that Obama, or to be correct, Congress adopted the Affordable Health Care Act and the GOPimps called it Obamacare, we are pointing out that it was an attempt to create a bipartisan approach presuming that there were a few honest Republicans still around. Wrong. It is all cult partisans and etchasketch flip flops of political convenience.

My own interest includes why people believe the crap they do. We have several contributors of first person presenting behavior whose value cannot be in engaged conversation or any evidence of being interested in what Liberals or Progressive really think can care about. We just get stereotyped and defamed as a brand, and do not get any respect for what we are actually posting.

Cap apparently holds some public office in his community, and I shudder for the people. If he acts on the ideas he posts here, and if people vote for him because of it, my sympathy lessens but my prayers are for all of them. We are going to have to fix what they are breaking at some point, and I would rather include them in the people we care about than just punish them for being ideologically blind.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Quote drc2:Cap apparently holds some public office in his community, and I shudder for the people. If he acts on the ideas he posts here, and if people vote for him because of it, my sympathy lessens but my prayers are for all of them. We are going to have to fix what they are breaking at some point, and I would rather include them in the people we care about than just punish them for being ideologically blind.
It's one thing to be a thoughtful conservative that is capable of seeing the other sides of an argument, possibly even of changing their mind if the facts dictate. It's quite another when someone has self-sabotaged their own intellect and they place as their highest priority defending their delusions of their own infallibility. If one is self-justifying instead of being self-correcting, their beliefs are just an accident… not the result of respecting reality… and when we see someone like Cap in action, we're not debating conservatism per se, but someone who keeps morphing his "conservative" argument to protect a fragile ego. That's why no matter how much of an ass he makes of himself, he will never concede. It's why he so oblivious to the most blatant of his own contradictions… claiming in one post that the Don Nickel's bill had an individual mandate then denying it in another. That's NOT conservative ideology at work… it's just an individual's lack emotional and intellectual immaturity. So, yes, should Cap have been telling the truth that he's some sort of public official, we should fear for the people in Cap's town. They deserve better.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

In your March post YOU are the one who claimed there was an INDIVIDUAL mandate in both GOP bills... now you're denying your own words even as you pretend you're up on both bills.

LOL.... It has a Mandate all right, and the looser term "individual" mandate on Employers. I would have expected you to take a moment, Read, digest, understand and formulate response with all the facts... Instead.. you use ME as a source and barreled about like a bull in a china shop.. Bravo.

Isn't the pursuit of truth beautiful! I didn't think you'd agree.

I LOVE IT.... bit of a problem though. S1743 doesn't contain your qouted passage that you stole from Broowaha "The snake oil Peddlers". There is no Section 131 (B) of S.1763. I'll go on a limb and claim you didn't bother checking. Would you care to reconfigure?

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:

I just want to get some of Cap's own words, before he deletes them, where he makes a complete ass of himself when he, himself, is wrong.

LOL... Priceless.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:
You were just too lazy to actually read the bill for other ways the mandate could be worded… and instead of a direct tax, the CCHSA just prohibited personal deductions on one's federal tax. CCHSA was NEVER just an employer mandate as you claim. It also had an INDIVIDUAL mandate and there was a very real PENALTY under CCHSA for individuals who failed to have a qualified health insurance plan!!!!

‘‘(5) EXEMPTION AMOUNT DISALLOWED FOR UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS.—The exemption amount for any individual for such individual’s taxable year shall be zero, unless the individual includes the policy number of the federally qualified health insurance plan or an enrollment code regarding a State program described in section 131(b) of the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1993 for such individual in the return claiming such exemption amount for such individual.’’.

And what a penalty CCHSA's individual health care mandate had in mind! According to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040--1993.pdf the standard deduction for a single person for tax year 1993 was $3700. If we use an inflation calculator such as http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm/ that's $5884 in 2012 dollars.

Ouch!!!!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote drc2:

Cap apparently holds some public office in his community, and I shudder for the people. If he acts on the ideas he posts here, and if people vote for him because of it, my sympathy lessens but my prayers are for all of them. We are going to have to fix what they are breaking at some point, and I would rather include them in the people we care about than just punish them for being ideologically blind.

I came on board in February, after running 3 years in deficit spending. We passed a Balance Budget, saving what little of our rainy day fund we had left. Unfortunately, Parks and Community Events took the largest hit, as they are deemed non-essential. I am currently writing and proposing a 3-year Levy that I’ll submit to the City council this Month that will raise enough Funds to bring back our Parks and Community events to 2006 levels. Sure we probably could have gone the route of Portland and just jack up your utility rates to pay for other pet projects, But that the liberal thing to do. The conservative thing is to give the people the choice. Show them what was lost, and how much it will be needed to bring it back. If they Vote No…. Then we do the best we can with the money we receive.

Anybody think they can do a better job than I do.. I invite them to try.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:

I came on board in February, after running 3 years in deficit spending. We passed a Balance Budget, saving what little of our rainy day fund we had left. Unfortunately, Parks and Community Events took the largest hit, as they are deemed non-essential. I am currently writing and proposing a 3-year Levy that I’ll submit to the City council this Month that will raise enough Funds to bring back our Parks and Community events to 2006 levels. Sure we probably could have gone the route of Portland and just jack up your utility rates to pay for other pet projects, But that the liberal thing to do. The conservative thing is to give the people the choice. Show them what was lost, and how much it will be needed to bring it back. If they Vote No…. Then we do the best we can with the money we receive.

Anybody think they can do a better job than I do.. I invite them to try.

Are you posting from work?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote Capital.0:I LOVE IT.... bit of a problem though. S1743 doesn't contain your qouted passage that you stole from Broowaha "The snake oil Peddlers". There is no Section 131 (B) of S.1763. I'll go on a limb and claim you didn't bother checking. Would you care to reconfigure?
I have no idea who Broowaha is. And your source is what?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103s1743is/pdf/BILLS-103s1743is.pdf ?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:Ouch!!!!

Hopefully that was in relation to there NOT being a Section 131B of the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1993. Section 131 is "FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF CERTAIN STATE LAWS"

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:

And your source is what?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103s1743is/pdf/BILLS-103s1743is.pdf ?

Apparently the same as you just posted...

Broowaha is the only thing that came up under your qouted passage. Unless it's a conspiracy by Google to make you look bad

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote jan in iowa:

Are you posting from work?

Yes. My work.

The political position I hold is Volunteer, unpaid City Councilor.

Interesting subject for another day is the difference between paid and unpaid political position.. There is a HUGE difference.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:There is no Section 131 (B) of S.1763. I'll go on a limb and claim you didn't bother checking. Would you care to reconfigure?
You would have been better off IF YOU READ WHAT DON NICKELS SAID IN THE NYTimes....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/gop-and-health-mandate.html?_r=3

When first introduced, the bill included tax credits to make health insurance more affordable and tax penalties for those who refused to buy catastrophic coverage. Yes, the tax penalty constituted a mandate.

But shortly after introduction, I obtained unanimous consent to remove the tax penalty.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103s1743is/pdf/BILLS-103s1743is.pdf is the REVISED version. Note the new title: Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

You would have been better off IF YOU READ WHAT DON NICKELS SAID IN THE NYTimes....

LOL... I did. You appear to be inserting words that are not present in the article. Probably a form of Bias filtering to your Brain. You really reaaaalllllyyyy want it to say individual mandate.. When the Bill was and he is refering to "employer Mandate"

What does the Article tell me. They had an "employer Mandate", Mandates were bad. He "obtained unnanmous consent to remove the tax penalty"

Sort of blows a gapping hole in your theroy that the GOP supported Mandates.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103s1743is/pdf/BILLS-103s1743is.pdf is the REVISED version. Note the new title: Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994

Yet still no Section 131 (B) and NO individual mandate.

However you might be correct in this is the revised version... And since S. 1770 with the individual mandate was never revised and resubmitted. Then your theroy is bunk. the GOP is clearly against individual mandates. As per your article you wanted me to read twice.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

You would have been better off IF YOU READ WHAT DON NICKELS SAID IN THE NYTimes....

LOL... I did. You appear to be inserting words that are not present in the article. Probably a form of Bias filtering to your Brain. You really reaaaalllllyyyy want it to say individual mandate.. When the Bill was and he is refering to "employer Mandate"

What does the Article tell me. They had an "employer Mandate", Mandates were bad. He "obtained unnanmous consent to remove the tax penalty"

Sort of blows a gapping hole in your theroy that the GOP supported Mandates.

Hardly.... here's NIckles in the Congressional Record on June 16 1994 saying he's dropped the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, not a employer mandate, from the bill

I have come to the Senate floor today to introduce a series of changes to the Consumer Choice Health Security Act , which now has 25 cosponsors, which I believe will improve this legislation by further enhancing consumer choice , expanding consumer freedom, and lowering potential consumer choice .

As originally drafted, the Consumer Choice Health Security Act contained a requirement that the States establish programs to identify individuals who fail to purchase a minimum level of health benefits and enroll them in a comparable health care package. As we received input from the States, it is my belief that this individual mandate should be dropped from the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:9:./temp/~r103YFeKTx:: (Not sure if this link will work since it's a temp search link that LOC deletes after 30 minutes. )

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

All this minatuae doesn't matter. What matters is the public believes the general truth, for once......that GOP and the conservative Heritage Foundation favored mandates via their early 90's Healthcare position, not to mention Romneycare's use of mandates.

The public is smart enough to see the GOP/Romney's efforts to do a Usain Bolt from their previous support of mandate is hypocracy.......TRUTH won this one...Progressives/Dems have gigged 'em like a frog on this one, good job........ Any efforts to argue against this is a waste of time. The GOP and Romney are being hypocritical on this one.

Now, if the general public could see the REAL story behind "trickle down"......Not gonna be that optimistic on that one, though :(

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Capital.0:Yet still no Section 131 (B) and NO individual mandate.

However you might be correct in this is the revised version... And since S. 1770 with the individual mandate was never revised and resubmitted. Then your theroy is bunk. the GOP is clearly against individual mandates. As per your article you wanted me to read twice.

I have not yet been able to find the original copy of Nickel's S1743 and the language is from the House bill. The only issue here is ARE THEY THE SAME BILL? YES, according to the Congressional Record...

THE CONSUMER CHOICE HEALTH SECURITY ACT OF 1993 (House of Representatives - November 19, 1993)
[Page: H10183]

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, Senator Nickles and I will be introducing the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1993. This comprehensive health care reform legislation the Republican leader's `Action Now' proposal and enjoys the hand-in-hand support of 24 Senators including that of Senator Dole, and 16 of our colleagues here in the House. While the NAFTA debate has occupied much of our time and attention this past week, I encourage my colleagues to review the summaries on this sweeping legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the President stated that he would not sign health care reform legislation unless it contained universal coverage, simplicity, security , choice , portability, and affordability. We have risen to the challenge and met each and every one of those goals. In fact, we've gone even further than the President's challenge.

Instead of handing over the personal and private decision of health care to the Federal Government and life-long bureaucrats, this legislation puts the individual consumer in the driver's seat and allows every American the right to choose his/her health plan that best fits their needs and that of their families. We believe that Americans know best when it comes to their health care. Just like they know which car insurance policy and home insurance policy is best for them.

Mr. Speaker, let us give the American people the same choices President Clinton and all Members of Congress have when it comes to choosing our health insurance. Americans are already skeptical of the Government. What is going to make them think that bureaucrats and politicians know better than they do when it comes to health insurance? If the President can choose his own health plan, so should the American people.

Here's the original Nickels (Technically Nickels - Stearns) bill

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdf Apparently Nickels keep working on the bill in the Senate… hence the revised version without the individual mandate. The bill appears to have just died in the House so the original version still exists.

So to determine how much of the GOP Senators were in favor of the individual mandate, we'll have to look at the list of cosponsors BEFORE the mandate was removed in the Spring of 1994. Have a problem with that methodology?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Hardly.... here's NIckles in the Congressional Record on June 16 1994 saying he's dropped the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, not a employer mandate, from the bill

Well then.... Case closed.... dreamer.

Consumer Choice Health Security Act contained a requirement that the States establish programs to identify individuals who fail to purchase a minimum level of health benefits and enroll them in a comparable health care package

You think that above passage equals.

S. 1770 "Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005"

So unless you have the exact wording from the orginal bill. (which you do seem to be looking REALLY hard for). Try not to waste my time. I'm doing Gods work today,

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote al3:

All this minatuae doesn't matter.

It matters to me, not the pissing contest bullshit, but getting to the bottom of what happened in 93-94. We KNOW the Orwellian Right and the likes of Cap are dying to rewite history so they can protect the GOP from charges of hypocrisy... the question is just how much hypocrisy was involved? And the only way to deal with that is to get to the heart of these old GOP bills. As it turns out at least a super majority of the GOP was for an individual mandate in these original bills... some more may have signed on once the mandate was removed from S1743.Luckily the dates they signed on are a public record... though the specific date of Nickel's removal of the mandate isn't yet clear.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

Hardly.... here's NIckles in the Congressional Record on June 16 1994 saying he's dropped the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, not a employer mandate, from the bill

Well then.... Case closed.... dreamer.

So you're now conceding the Nickels bill DID have an individual mandate while sweeping under the rug all your claims it was NOT there. It's the typical sleaze I expect from you. The issue is NOT close since we need to see how many GOP senators signed on to the bill WHEN IT DID HAVE THE MANDATE. I can see where that would destroy your claim there was NEVER any GOP support for the individual mandate and you want the discussion to end here.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote al3:

All this minatuae doesn't matter. What matters is the public believes the general truth, for once......that GOP and the conservative Heritage Foundation favored mandates via their early 90's Healthcare position, not to mention Romneycare's use of mandates.

I LOVE THAT..... Truth doesn't matter, Only the perception of what is true. Someone actually advocating propaganda. I LOVE THAT....

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:

Consumer Choice Health Security Act contained a requirement that the States establish programs to identify individuals who fail to purchase a minimum level of health benefits and enroll them in a comparable health care package

You think that above passage equals.

S. 1770 "Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005"

So unless you have the exact wording from the orginal bill. (which you do seem to be looking REALLY hard for). Try not to waste my time. I'm doing Gods work today,

I already found the ORIGINAL language... it remains in the House bill. All that's left is for you to concede.... which of course you will never do. ROTF

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:I LOVE THAT..... Truth doesn't matter, Only the perception of what is true. Someone actually advocating propaganda. I LOVE THAT....

I'm sure you love it since that's your life's philosophy!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

So you're now conceding the Nickels bill DID have an individual mandate while sweeping under the rug all your claims it was NOT there. It's the typical sleaze I expect from you. The issue is NOT close since we need to see how many GOP senators signed on to the bill WHEN IT DID HAVE THE MANDATE. I can see where that would destroy your claim there was NEVER any GOP support for the individual mandate and you want the discussion to end here.

I guess the "Dreamer" comment sailed right over your head.

I will concede that Nickels said "individual mandate" in his floor speech. I also concede that you believe, Without facts, he is impling individual to mean every citizen. I also concede that you most likely are taking it out of context, since there is absolutely no reference to what he is refering to other than the words "individual mandate"

I am prepared to eat crow if his orginal bill contained the individual mandate similar (Doesn't even have to be exact) as is present in S. 1770. And if you wish to rely upon his verbal words and not the context of his written words. Than you have to believe his op-ed that the GOP was unanimously against the mandate " I obtained unanimous consent to remove the tax penalty" by at least mid 1994.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote jan in iowa:

Are you posting from work?

Yes. My work.

The political position I hold is Volunteer, unpaid City Councilor.

Interesting subject for another day is the difference between paid and unpaid political position.. There is a HUGE difference.

So you own your own business?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote Pierpont:Here's the original Nickels (Technically Nickels - Stearns) bill

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdfApparently Nickels keep working on the bill in the Senate… hence the revised version without the individual mandate. The bill appears to have just died in the House so the original version still exists.

So to determine how much of the GOP Senators were in favor of the individual mandate, we'll have to look at the list of cosponsors BEFORE the mandate was removed in the Spring of 1994. Have a problem with that methodology?

Looks like 25 GOP Senators approved of the individual mandate in the ORIGINAL 1993 CCHS A bill... aside from Don Nickels himself here are the GOP cosponsors along with the date they signed on, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:SN01743:@@@P

S.1743
Latest Title: Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994
Sponsor: Sen Nickles, Don [OK] (introduced 11/20/1993) Cosponsors (24)
Latest Major Action: 4/26/1994 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Finance. Hearings held.
Latest Action: 6/16/1994 Star Print ordered on S.1743.

COSPONSORS(24), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 11/20/1993
Sen Brown, Hank [CO] - 11/20/1993
Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] - 11/20/1993
Sen Coats, Daniel [IN] - 11/20/1993
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 11/20/1993
Sen Coverdell, Paul [GA] - 11/20/1993
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 11/20/1993
Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] - 11/20/1993
Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/20/1993
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 11/20/1993
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] - 11/20/1993
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 11/20/1993
Sen Helms, Jesse [NC] - 11/20/1993
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 11/20/1993
Sen Kempthorne, Dirk [ID] - 11/20/1993
Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 11/20/1993
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 11/20/1993
Sen Mack, Connie, III [FL] - 11/20/1993
Sen Murkowski, Frank H. [AK] - 11/20/1993
Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY] - 11/20/1993
Sen Smith, Bob [NH] - 11/20/1993
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 11/20/1993
Sen Thurmond, Strom [SC] - 11/20/1993
Sen Wallop, Malcolm [WY] - 11/20/1993[/quote]

So it looks like my original count was correct... some 37 of the 47 GOP senators supported an individual mandate back up with penalties back in 1993. I'm sure 79% of the GOP Senate signing on to the mandate to Cap is proof of NO GOP support for an individual mandate which has ALWAYS been his claim.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

I already found the ORIGINAL language... it remains in the House bill. All that's left is for you to concede.... which of course you will never do. ROTF

Then it should be remarkably easy for you to post it.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:

So it looks like my original count was correct... some 37 of the 47 GOP senators supported an individual mandate back up with penalties back in 1993. I'm sure 79% of the GOP Senate signing on to the mandate to Cap is proof of NO GOP support for an individual mandate which has ALWAYS been his claim.

Sorry.. you can claim no such thing. I've been through the HR bill twice looking for this "individual Mandate" that Nickels supposedly had. Looks like alot of employer based mandates and penalties. Show me the individual mandate, than you can claim I'm wrong.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

So you're now conceding the Nickels bill DID have an individual mandate while sweeping under the rug all your claims it was NOT there. It's the typical sleaze I expect from you. The issue is NOT close since we need to see how many GOP senators signed on to the bill WHEN IT DID HAVE THE MANDATE. I can see where that would destroy your claim there was NEVER any GOP support for the individual mandate and you want the discussion to end here.

I guess the "Dreamer" comment sailed right over your head.

I will concede that Nickels said "individual mandate" in his floor speech. I also concede that you believe, Without facts, he is impling individual to mean every citizen. I also concede that you most likely are taking it out of context, since there is absolutely no reference to what he is refering to other than the words "individual mandate"

I am prepared to eat crow if his orginal bill contained the individual mandate similar (Doesn't even have to be exact) as is present in S. 1770. And if you wish to rely upon his verbal words and not the context of his written words. Than you have to believe his op-ed that the GOP was unanimously against the mandate " I obtained unanimous consent to remove the tax penalty" by at least mid 1994.

It really doesn't matter whether the individual mandate was withdrawn later or not... but whether there was ANY GOP support for it.... which you've claimed NEVER EXISTED past "about 12" "congressmen". The truth is now out that 37 of possibly 48 (the GOP started the 103ed Congress with only 43 members) or about 79% were for an individual health care mandate with penalties. As for "unanimous consent" you're assuming that this meant there was unanimous GOP opposition when in reality it's just a parliamentary move asking does anyone object… in this case removal of the individual mandate from the CCHSA which was going nowhere anyway. We don't know if this was done in committee or on the Senate floor. The last action on the bill was done in April 1994 on either the committee or SUBcommittee level. If it were the latter it could have been a handful of senators.
.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm

unanimous consent - A senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one senator objects, the request is rejected.
It could have been done in the dead of night as long as there was a quorum.

http://www.roberts-rules.com/parl06.htm

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

So it looks like my original count was correct... some 37 of the 47 GOP senators supported an individual mandate back up with penalties back in 1993. I'm sure 79% of the GOP Senate signing on to the mandate to Cap is proof of NO GOP support for an individual mandate which has ALWAYS been his claim.

Sorry.. you can claim no such thing. I've been through the HR bill twice looking for this "individual Mandate" that Nickels supposedly had. Looks like alot of employer based mandates and penalties. Show me the individual mandate, than you can claim I'm wrong.
I already gave you chapter and verse... and you said SEC. 103. OTHER TAX PROVISIONS didn't exist. LOOK AGAIN: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdf And please stop playing dumb. Doing simple keyword searches for "mandate"... is not reading the bill. The requirement can be written in different ways. In this case the penalty is not being able to make a personal deduction from one's income tax. Again...

‘‘(5) EXEMPTION AMOUNT DISALLOWED FOR UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS.—The exemption amount for any individual for such individual’s taxable year shall be zero, unless the individual includes the policy number of the federally qualified health insurance plan or an enrollment code regarding a State program described in section 131(b) of the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1993 for such individual in the return claiming such exemption amount for such individual.’’.
In 1993 the personal federal tax exemption for a single person was $3700.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:I will concede that Nickels said "individual mandate" in his floor speech. I also concede that you believe, Without facts, he is impling individual to mean every citizen.

I know you're going to fight the facts till the very end.... Don Nickels, AGAIN, from the Congressional Record

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (Senate - November 20, 1993)
CONSUMER CHOICE HEALTH SECURITY ACT

"Everyone will be required to carry at least catastrophic health insurance for their protection and to stop cost shifting."

as for employer mandates:

"But just as important as what the plan will do, is what the plan won't do, especially compared to the Clinton Government-is-the-answer health plan. Because it contains no onerous mandates that force employers to cough up additional dollars to provide health insurance, as the Clinton plan does, it won't cost jobs."

As for sponsors: "

I have come to the Senate floor today to introduce, for myself and principle coauthors Senators Hatch and Mack, health care legislation that eschews the big government solutions of the President.

Along with Senators Hatch and Mack, this legislation is sponsored by Senators Dole, Simpson, Cochran, Lott, Stevens, Burns, Thurmond, Bennett, Brown, Coats, Coverdell, Craig, Faircloth, Gregg, Helms, Hutchison, Kempthorne, Lugar, Murkowski, Smith, Wallop, and Grassley.

Nickels places the entire act in the Record and the wording is IDENTICAL to the House version:
`

(5) Exemption amount disallowed for uninsured individuals: The exemption amount for any individual for such individual's taxable year shall be zero, unless the individual includes the policy number of the federally qualified health insurance plan or an enrollment code regarding a State program described in section 131(b) of the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1993 for such individual in the return claiming such exemption amount for such individual.'.

Here's the link http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r103:FLD001:S16750 then go to

CONSUMER CHOICE HEALTH SECURITY ACT
Mr. NICKLES

It may regenerate the text of the record....

Sorry Cap... it's the smoking gun! Time to deal with the fact that the vast majority of GOP Senators DID favor an individual mandate back in 1993.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont: In 1993 the personal federal tax exemption for a single person was $3700.

I'm putting this on hold since I'd have to check the actual IRS code to see what's being modified. I may be wrong that it eliminates the standard deduction from the tax form and it may have something more to do with withholding.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

I already gave you chapter and verse... and you said SEC. 103. OTHER TAX PROVISIONS didn't exist. LOOK AGAIN: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdf And please stop playing dumb. Doing simple keyword searches for "mandate"... is not reading the bill. The requirement can be written in different ways. In this case the penalty is not being able to make a personal deduction from one's income tax. Again...

‘‘(5) EXEMPTION AMOUNT DISALLOWED FOR UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS.—The exemption amount for any individual for such individual’s taxable year shall be zero, unless the individual includes the policy number of the federally qualified health insurance plan or an enrollment code regarding a State program described in section 131(b) of the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1993 for such individual in the return claiming such exemption amount for such individual.’’.
In 1993 the personal federal tax exemption for a single person was $3700.

That is somewhat compelling as a back door tax, but hardly a "Mandate" as defined by the definition of "Mandate" An official order or commission to do something . Where clearly S.1770 includes a Mandate. Even If you knew for sure Nickles included the langage in his Senate Bill.

Although 23 out of 176 House GOP is hardly compelling for HR3698. A mere 13%

Not sure if this was the same one you posted. But this is the Nov 20th 1993 Senate Bill S.1743. And it does not include that langauge That is 2 days before Stearns entered his HR bill.

So where does that leave you?

No proof Nickles had it included in his bill. Terminolgy from the HR bill that clearly does not fall within the dictionary definition of Mandate. Piss Poor support from the GOP House. Interview from Nickles that shortly after fielding the Healthcare mandate idea that the GOP unanimous reconsidered and dumped the idea. All you have for sure is S. 1770 that includes the individual mandate and it's 19 GOP senators out of 43 which is only 44% of the GOP Senate.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:

I know you're going to fight the facts till the very end.... Don Nickels, AGAIN, from the Congressional Record

Your right, he does say "Everyone will be required to carry at least catastrophic health insurance for their protection and to stop cost shifting. "

However..... THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. So basically you have a politician SAYING one thing. DOING something else. Which do you apply more substance to. The verbal word or the Written word?

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

CATO on the original 1993 CCHSA

...the legislation (as introduced last November) contains a number of serious flaws. It endorses the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage and imposes a standardized "minimum" package of health insurance benefits.

The Nickles-Stearns bill would require that every American receive a federally defined minimum level of health insurance coverage.

If individuals (or their families) fail to purchase the federally required coverage privately, they will automatically be enrolled in their state government's program designed to provide equivalent coverage. The Nickles-Stearns legislation apparently assumes that the state programs will operate as a last resort. The bill relies primarily on a pair of tax-based incentives to encourage voluntary compliance with its insurance purchase mandate. Taxpayers who fail to provide proof that they have purchased a federally qualified health plan will lose their ability to claim any personal tax exemptions for themselves or their similarly uninsured dependents. They will also pass up the opportunity to take advantage of the bill's scheme for health care- related tax relief.

The most troubling aspect of the Nickles-Stearns legislation, as introduced on November 20, is the mandate that it imposes on all Americans to purchase a standard package of health insurance benefits. By endorsing the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage, Nickles-Stearns undermines the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against all- intrusive governmental control of health care.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa210.html

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

I know you're going to fight the facts till the very end.... Don Nickels, AGAIN, from the Congressional Record

Your right, he does say "Everyone will be required to carry at least catastrophic health insurance for their protection and to stop cost shifting. "

However..... THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. So basically you have a politician SAYING one thing. DOING something else. Which do you apply more substance to. The verbal word or the Written word?

Are you STILL reading the REVISED 1994 version of the Bill????? Nickels is describing what was in the ORIGINAL 1993 BILL the day he introduced it.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:That is somewhat compelling as a back door tax, but hardly a "Mandate" as defined by the definition of "Mandate" An official order or commission to do something . Where clearly S.1770 includes a Mandate. Even If you knew for sure Nickles included the langage in his Senate Bill.
I see you're determined to go the sleazy route. A mandate can simply be the government ordering we do X or else Y.

Although 23 out of 176 House GOP is hardly compelling for HR3698. A mere 13%
Again an error in your "logic", such as it is. Nickels says the bill was authored in the Senate, not the House. We have a better measure of the support GOP senators gave for a mandate in the two bills S.1743 and S.1770. And, again, why MUST there be a direct connection between cosponsorship and eventual support? Take the Clinton Tax Hike:

5. [103rd] H.R.2264 : Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Sponsor: Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] (introduced 5/25/1993) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Budget; House Judiciary
House Reports: 03`-111; Latest Conference Report: 03`-213 (in Congressional Record H5792-6047)
Latest Major Action: 8/10/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-66.

On the other hand, the large number of cosponsors in the Senate for these two bills indicates support. Nickels says the resistance came from the states not the Senate. Just what that meant... who knows They could have objected setting up state insurance plans.

Not sure if this was the same one you posted. But this is the Nov 20th 1993 Senate Bill S.1743. And it does not include that langauge That is 2 days before Stearns entered his HR bill.
LOOK AT THE TITLE!!!! It's the REVISED 1994 Bill. How many times do I have to go over this with you?

So where does that leave you?
The real question is where does this leave you?

No proof Nickles had it included in his bill.
Sorry... found that smoking gun.

Terminolgy from the HR bill that clearly does not fall within the dictionary definition of Mandate.
Nickels says it was an individual mandate with tax penalties. Deal with it.

Piss Poor support from the GOP House. Interview from Nickles that shortly after fielding the Healthcare mandate idea that the GOP unanimous reconsidered and dumped the idea.
"Shortly after" seems to be 5 MONTHS not a couple days!

Again your assuming "unanimous concent" mean "unanimous rejection" when you have no proof of where this even happened or who was present. The action could have been in a small GOP subcommittee since I'm sure the Dem controlled committees didn't have any part in developing the Nickels bill.

All you have for sure is S. 1770 that includes the individual mandate and it's 19 GOP senators out of 43 which is only 44% of the GOP Senate.
Nope... BOTH bills had an individual mandate I'm sticking with 37 of 47 GOP Senators... and it may be 37 of 43 which would make it 86% of the GOP senators supported a mandate.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

CATO on the original 1993 CCHSA

..The Nickles-Stearns bill would require that every American receive a federally defined minimum level of health insurance coverage.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:Again your assuming "unanimous concent" mean "unanimous rejection" when you have no proof of where this even happened or who was present. The action could have been in a small GOP subcommittee since I'm sure the Dem controlled committees didn't have any part in developing the Nickels bill.
In his remarks introducing the CCHSA Nickels says

I ask unanimous consent that a factsheet on the Consumer Choice Health Security Act and the bill itself be included in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

So by YOUR logic, everyone on the Senate floor must have AGREED with the bill.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:

..The Nickles-Stearns bill would require that every American receive a federally defined minimum level of health insurance coverage.

THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME!!!! I already posted Stearn's remarks to that effect. And I posted the way to get to the original 1993 Nickels bill. You are pathetic.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Are you STILL reading the REVISED 1994 version of the Bill????? Nickels is describing what was in the ORIGINAL 1993 BILL the day he introduced it.

Nope, I am reading the Nov. 20th 1993 Bill. Did you see anything in there that said "revised"

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. MACK, Mr. BENNETT, Mr.

BROWN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr.

CRAIG, Mr. DOLE, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HELMS, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MURKOWSKI,

Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. WALLOP,

and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm