Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Heritage Foundation currently has up this article:

Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional

"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... titutional" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmm, that's interesting because back in the early 90's, The Heritage Foundation and GOP were all for requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage.

Per the Heritage Foundation:

If Americans really do want universal coverage, they must appreciate that the only possible method to meet that goal would be to require all individuals to obtain some level of coverage and to provide lower-income households with the means necessary to comply with that requirement.

Here's the PDF from the heritage website:
http://www.heritage.org/research/social ... 0934_1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;









Ooops, looks like you can't access it for some reason. Here's a link to the google document version.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... tRSH4OCydA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Per the Edwin J. Feulner (president of the Heritage foundation) response to Clinton Health Care Reform of 1994:

Only one plan would remove business from of the business of health care: The Consumer Choice Health Security Act, sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., and Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla. This bill, which has 25 Senate and 20 House co-sponsors, is the legislative progeny of a plan my colleagues at the Heritage Foundation devised in 1989 when our experts realized health-care financing was rapidly reaching the crisis stage.

......

The Nickles-Stearns plan is the only "market-oriented" approach out there--one that business leaders should embrace, not only for their own sakes, but for America's. All the others are pretenders.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you don't find humor in that last bolded statement, you've been living under a rock.

What is this Act you may ask? This bill, created by GOP party members, was created in response to Clinton's mandate that employers provide health coverage. In the GOP bill, it is mandated that all heads of household obtain insurance... and individual mandate. You can find this in the "Consumers Choice Health Security Act of 1994" here:

http://site.heritage.org/Research/Socia ... /IB186.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





...oh, sorry. The Heritage Foundation removed it from their website. You can find it here:

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/103/s1743is.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So, the Heritage Foundation and the GOP have supported an individual mandate.... but now it's unconstitutional.



Can we rewrite history? Yes we can!





...oh, but the Heritage Foundation has left up their original 1990 proposal. Seems familiar to something I've been reading about recently.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... lth-System" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Awaiting SPIN control - but I think mandatory Automotive insurance is unconstitutional too

don't really care about this but I think it's unconstitutional or at least against the principles of a free society

Well there is definitely some hypocrisy out there, but we are dealing with politicians here. The only time the constitution matters is when they want it to.

FargoBison wrote:Well there is definitely some hypocrisy out there, but we are dealing with politicians here. The only time the constitution matters is when they want it to.

I don't really care much for the bipartisan squabbling... but I hate hypocrisy and doublespeak no matter who is using it. If it's unconstitutional, let the courts sort it out as they are supposed to... per the constitution.

JMU DJ wrote:

FargoBison wrote:Well there is definitely some hypocrisy out there, but we are dealing with politicians here. The only time the constitution matters is when they want it to.

I don't really care much for the bipartisan squabbling... but I hate hypocrisy and doublespeak no matter who is using it. If it's unconstitutional, let the courts sort it out as they are supposed to... per the constitution.

Double agree.

But of course, wouldn't that be activist judges overriding the will of the people?

JMU DJ wrote:

FargoBison wrote:Well there is definitely some hypocrisy out there, but we are dealing with politicians here. The only time the constitution matters is when they want it to.

I don't really care much for the bipartisan squabbling... but I hate hypocrisy and doublespeak no matter who is using it. If it's unconstitutional, let the courts sort it out as they are supposed to... per the constitution.

Is it not possible to change a position?

dbackjon wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:


I don't really care much for the bipartisan squabbling... but I hate hypocrisy and doublespeak no matter who is using it. If it's unconstitutional, let the courts sort it out as they are supposed to... per the constitution.

Double agree.

But of course, wouldn't that be activist judges overriding the will of the people?

Uh, no, because we're not talking 2008. The will of the people IN 2010 was and still is against this 2700 page democrat Obamacare bill...

AZGrizFan wrote:
Is it not possible to change a position?

Why not come out and say "We have changed out position?" Why try to "delete" all history of it from your website? Why enact a Universal Health Care bill in your home state of Massachusetts and then rail against one proposed by congress? Did you change your position from 1994 or did you believe the sky was falling and the world was going to end?

Chizzang wrote:
Awaiting SPIN control - but I think mandatory Automotive insurance is unconstitutional too

I think we have debunked the similarities between Automobile insurance and health insurance from the standpoint that (1) states require the insurance not the federal government and there is a huge difference in how the states can act constitutionally and the federal government and (2) states only require if you own a car which you are not required to do.

I also think we have debunked the argument that republicans (and democrats ) aren't hypocrites. That one should have disappeared a long time ago.

OL FU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Awaiting SPIN control - but I think mandatory Automotive insurance is unconstitutional too

I think we have debunked the similarities between Automobile insurance and health insurance from the standpoint that (1) states require the insurance not the federal government and there is a huge difference in how the states can act constitutionally and the federal government and (2) states only require if you own a car which you are not required to do.

I also think we have debunked the argument that republicans (and democrats ) aren't hypocrites. That one should have disappeared a long time ago.

Jeeze,
way to take all the fun out of my sarcastic comment
BTW: Whatever happened to "states rights" I used to think we were headed in that direction.. which for the most part I am a fan of

Chizzang wrote:

OL FU wrote:
I think we have debunked the similarities between Automobile insurance and health insurance from the standpoint that (1) states require the insurance not the federal government and there is a huge difference in how the states can act constitutionally and the federal government and (2) states only require if you own a car which you are not required to do.

I also think we have debunked the argument that republicans (and democrats ) aren't hypocrites. That one should have disappeared a long time ago.

Jeeze,
way to take all the fun out of my sarcastic comment
BTW: Whatever happened to "states rights" I used to think we were headed in that direction.. which for the most part I am a fan of

Sorry, you know I take everything you say seriously

I wish we were. I think it is absolutely ok that Massachusetts passed its healthcare bill. And perfectly ok that South Carolina wants no part of it.

dbackjon wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:


I don't really care much for the bipartisan squabbling... but I hate hypocrisy and doublespeak no matter who is using it. If it's unconstitutional, let the courts sort it out as they are supposed to... per the constitution.

Double agree.

But of course, wouldn't that be activist judges overriding the will of the people?

The right wing has been re-thinking their opposition to judicial activism.

OL FU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Jeeze,
way to take all the fun out of my sarcastic comment
BTW: Whatever happened to "states rights" I used to think we were headed in that direction.. which for the most part I am a fan of

Sorry, you know I take everything you say seriously

I wish we were. I think it is absolutely ok that Massachusetts passed its healthcare bill. And perfectly ok that South Carolina wants no part of it.

agreed... (above)
Please Note: mandatory car insurance is still unconstitutional in my world

houndawg wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Double agree.

But of course, wouldn't that be activist judges overriding the will of the people?

The right wing has been re-thinking their opposition to judicial activism.

Only if you think redefining judicial activism is ok