Posted on 11/30/2011 10:27:18 AM PST by Bokababe
In the wake of the disastrous Bush presidency and the Republican defeats of 2006 and 2008, it was widely assumed that the GOP had repudiated the idea that big government could be harnessed for conservative ends. And, of course, in 2010, the Tea Party led a return to conservatisms traditional small-government roots, resulting in the biggest Republican landslide in 70 years. One would think that settled the matter.
Yet, just five weeks out from the Iowa caucuses, both of the front-runners for the Republican nomination are strong advocates for a bigger, more activist government....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“As a junior publicist, we werent being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. Universal health care was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of quality, affordable health care to everyone was a proper role of government.”
And this component of ObamaCare (and HillaryCare) is “different to you how? Remember, you started this by saying the whole thing was BS. My response was aa comparison of the components. You went off on some tangent. I am bringing it back. How are these compnents different? And remember, this is written by a pretty well respected fellow who is not lying about this. in fact, if you need more verification, there are HUNDREDS of citations on the net. HUNDREDS.
And you still have not shown where I compared the plans as equal. Because I never did.
WORD UP, DUDE!
Please see my post (#28).
Once again, the reason I go ballistic when I see posts stating that Heritage, Newt or other “conservative think tanks” came up with the idea of an individual mandate is because they leave that statement hanging - without the history. It is a tactic which the MSM and liberals use to often slight conservatives and it is wrong.
In your original post you even stated, “Lets not revise history, shall we?” You left that statement hanging, which implies that Newt recommended a similar mandate as to the one with which we are currently facing. If you only tell part of history, especially when trying to compare something with today’s standards, you are implying they are the same or similar or comparable.
My posts were to ensure you and inform those who do not know - THAT THE MANDATES ARE NOT EVEN COMPARABLE!
Personally, I do not like Newt and do not intend to vote for him (unless I am forced into another hold-my-nose situation as with McCaint)!
“With the original mandate, if I had money in savings, I could opt out of the mandate! Under ObamaCare there is NO “opt out” option! I would say that is pretty “different,” wouldn’t you agree?”
No. There is an opt out. I think. It hasn’t been passed yet - remember - we have to pass it before we can read it!
Hahahahaha. You been a good scout about this, but we are so splitting hairs now, I feel like the guy whose friend wanted him to go with him to look up his horses ass to see what killed it. I just don’t care enough about this anymore. Let’s say you win on a TKO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.