Fear, and Tyranny

[dblclutch]

American Thinker: Love, Fear, and Tyranny

Quote:People like me are understandably angry. We are witnessing Barack Obama's and the Democrats' roughhousing of America. Michigan Representative John Dingell admits that the goal is "to control the people." The only barrier between freedom and totalitarianism is the United States Constitution. It has been demoted to near-irrelevance by Democrats' corrupt health care takeover.

Please read first,then comment!

[slavenomore]

Originally Posted by dblclutch

American Thinker: Love, Fear, and Tyranny

Quote:People like me are understandably angry. We are witnessing Barack Obama's and the Democrats' roughhousing of America. Michigan Representative John Dingell admits that the goal is "to control the people." The only barrier between freedom and totalitarianism is the United States Constitution. It has been demoted to near-irrelevance by Democrats' corrupt health care takeover.

Please read first,then comment!

I took the "liberty" to search the American Thinker through their own search engine. I searched "Heritage Foundation" and it seems that they are a highly favored conservative think tank on the site. I wonder if ya go back to the Herbert Bush era if ya will find any stories relating to this link which shows that Heritage and the New America Foundation supported individual mandates on health insurance for thirty years...The conservatives favor this wether you wil ever see the truth on it or not. But underlying all of their hype against it they actually favor it. Which is why t is almost useless fighting it.
For what you witness now is just smokescreen and mirrors. The conservatives know this nationally mandated healthcare has been needed for a long time. They actually got their way on this bill. For clinton wanted it mandated on employers. The conservatives wanted it mandated on individuals. and that's what we got. Another bailout of non-union, right-to-work states and employers and their concentrated efforts of shoving off all costs onto the middle and working classes after the unions five year favor has expired.

The Thirty Year History Of Republicans Supporting the Individual Mandate DC Progressive

"In August, Grassley laid out a strong defense of the policy by saying, “through an individual mandate and that’s individual responsibility and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.” A long time supporter of the policy, again in June he said, “there isn’t anything wrong with it [an individual mandate], except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom.”

Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980’s

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. “It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.”…

“We called this responsible national health insurance,” says Pauly. “There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn’t be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.”

The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

More recently, the Heritage Foundation continued to support the proposal under the Massachusetts health care reform effort passed into law while Mitt Romney was governor. While the proposal did change over the course of the reform process in the state, and Romney and Heritage tried to walk back their support, as Romney admitted this weekend it is, “the ultimate conservative plan.”

The questions raised by tenther individual mandate opponents have largely been debunked by constitutional law experts. Grassley and other Republican are appealing to conservative voters with their recent opposition rather than the constitutional questions. If there had been problems with the legality of the requirement, the argument would have been raised at one point in the last thirty years.
"

[slavenomore]

here's another GOP think tank which supports the bill yet was told to "hush-up" on the issue:
American Enterprise Institute sends David Frum into the wilderness - War Room - Salon.com
"Still, the basic idea of an institutionally-enforced conspiracy of silence jibes with a story told by Bruce Bartlett, another conservative pragmatist and a friend of Frum.


Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
"

[slavenomore]

My take is this: Both conservative and democrat think tanks are involved in this bill....2000+ legal pages were not written overnight. The 1st link goes back thirty tears. It's been in the works a long time. probably since the unions were weakened through "freetrade" and "right-to-work" laws. As the union numbers in the private sector decline,so to has the healthcare coverage to the people. So, Cllinton comes up with the fix of having the government provide what the unions once provided throught the freemarket. The GOP has too look out for it's own corporate interests and says mandate it on everybody, not just employers. They both know the problem exists and is no good for advertising democracy or capitalism.
Ya can't say capitalism and democracy are great when so many have no health insurance. They both know that. So they mandate it. Not just the dems.

This is a result of the wealthy's attack on the unions. Unions almost always provided health insurance under written legal contracts. Wallstreet wants business to have it as easy as possible. Gt rid of unions. they find ways to get rid of them through freetrade with countries which have no unions. They find ways to affect policy to even have the states themselves against each other through right-to-work laws and keeping traditional union states in fear for their jobs.
The right-to-work states and the foreign countries provide insufficient healthcare coverage yet suck up all the jobs which once provided. They can't handle the medical bills so seek federal relief for their cheapskate employers, evenoffering tax breaks for moving to their states....so the northern or traditional union states which once provided, not only lose the tax base and jobs, but also end up with alot of uninsured for people think that employers can't afford it....so you get a federal cost. so ya need a federal solution,i geuss. Ya can't have employers skating away from unions for tax breaks and the right-not-to-insure without it sooner or later catching up with ya.....it has caught up. I't a bailout for Wallstreet's concept of getting rid of the unions. A bailout for employers who escaped the unions and now don't provide. A bailout for all businewsses who believe that it is not thier job to provide and have not provided all for the sake of profits over people.
It's a bailout for all the right-to-work states who improved their economies whilst the ones who did provide lost jobs and their economies went downhill.

A message to Wallstreet: Don't worry, the working man will take care of you for you to rip us off. We always do