Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

The Progressive Movement Explained

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

    Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
    You are the one trying to deflect.

    Did the Heritage Foundation create/come up with the Individual Mandate or did they publish the booklet and ran a disclaimer that they may or may not agree with it?

    Simple question answer it simply without deflection.
    They published the booklet and ran the disclaimer. Then they said this (Amicus Brief, p.5):
    Not only was the policy statement taken somewhat out of context (the author in 1989 conditioned such a mandate on tax reform and tax savings provided to families to fully or partially offset the cost of the insurance), but Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
    Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously
    absent from the PPACA.
    They indeed supported an individual mandate - despite the disclaimer - that just happened to be conditioned, and thus different from the one in the Affordable Care Act. Also, through a quick google search, I noticed that even the conditioned individual mandate proposed at the time seems to have raised questions among conservatives - but that should be verified. Last thing to note is, even if the mandate was accompanied with conditions, it's possible to argue that the idea of an individual mandate was there.
    ...
    What has this to do with a "progressive" movement...

    ?


    • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

      Originally posted by Vuld Edone View Post
      They published the booklet and ran the disclaimer. Then they said this (Amicus Brief, p.5):
      They indeed supported an individual mandate - despite the disclaimer - that just happened to be conditioned, and thus different from the one in the Affordable Care Act. Also, through a quick google search, I noticed that even the conditioned individual mandate proposed at the time seems to have raised questions among conservatives - but that should be verified. Last thing to note is, even if the mandate was accompanied with conditions, it's possible to argue that the idea of an individual mandate was there.
      ...
      What has this to do with a "progressive" movement...
      Page 2 of your cited amicus.

      Soon after its inception in 1973, Heritage’s domestic policy scholars began
      analyzing, and educating policymakers and the public about, health policy issues
      and proposals for health policy reform. In several publications and statements over
      the last decade, Heritage health policy experts have opposed on purely policy
      grounds a government-enforced mandate that individuals or families buy health
      insurance.
      In its opening brief in this Court, the United States quotes a 21-year-old
      lecture by a Heritage policy expert supporting a government-enforced mandate.
      Because the United States has made an issue of Heritage’s policy position and left
      a potentially misleading impression of its current position, Heritage has a strong
      interest in explaining to this Court why its health policy experts have concluded
      that an insurance mandate is unnecessary to expand health coverage significantly
      and, indeed, is highly undesirable.
      Page 3

      Since the creation of its Center for Legal & Judicial Studies (Legal Center)
      in 2000, Heritage also has played a leading role analyzing the constitutionality and
      legal implications of various public policy proposals. In December 2009,
      Heritage’s Legal Center published an 18-page Legal Memorandum examining the
      constitutionality of the “individual mandate” provision in the then-pending health
      care bill.1 The Legal Memorandum suggested there were several constitutional
      means to increase health care coverage, but noted the costly implications of the
      individual mandate then being debated, and concluded that it would be
      unconstitutional as drafted.
      Several Members of Congress relied on Heritage’s
      Legal Memorandum in debates over the constitutionality of the pending bill and
      entered it into the Congressional Record. Since that time, Heritage legal scholars
      have remained active in commenting on and educating the public about the
      unconstitutional nature of the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and
      Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148 (2010), as amended (PPACA).

      Your logic does not hold. If I say I will publish your work but you need to put in a disclaimer that I do not necessarily agree with your conclusions it means I do not agree. That is like saying Lyle Stuart completely agreed with what was in the Anarchist Cookbook. No he published it to cause an uproar and to reap profits. How about a bookstore? Does Borders believe in witchcraft because they sell books on witchcraft?

      Your argument hinges on the assumption that by publishing the lectures Heritage supports their conclusions and assertions. That is intellectual dishonesty.

      Your statement is pure hyperbole. You have no proof that they support the individual mandate. Everything shows the contrary.

      You also ignore my other comment. Put the disclaimer and everything else aside doesn't a person or organization have a RIGHT to change their opinion and take a different stance? If they do, then it is possible to have supported it originally and later looked at their reasoning and then realized they were wrong. Don't they have a right to change their stance?

      ?


      • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

        Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
        Your logic does not hold. If I say I will publish your work but you need to put in a disclaimer that I do not necessarily agree with your conclusions it means I do not agree. That is like saying Lyle Stuart completely agreed with what was in the Anarchist Cookbook. No he published it to cause an uproar and to reap profits. How about a bookstore? Does Borders believe in witchcraft because they sell books on witchcraft?

        Your argument hinges on the assumption that by publishing the lectures Heritage supports their conclusions and assertions. That is intellectual dishonesty.

        Your statement is pure hyperbole. You have no proof that they support the individual mandate. Everything shows the contrary.

        You also ignore my other comment. Put the disclaimer and everything else aside doesn't a person or organization have a RIGHT to change their opinion and take a different stance? If they do, then it is possible to have supported it originally and later looked at their reasoning and then realized they were wrong. Don't they have a right to change their stance?
        Calm down, please.
        My argument has never been that they supported the individual mandate in the ACA. My argument is that they supported a conditioned mandate. My argument is based on the passage I quoted. They clearly explained the differences between that conditioned mandate and the mandate that appeared in the ACA. As far as the right to change opinion, it's not up to me to decide.
        But they do talk about a "prior support", which means that despite the disclaimer, they did support a mandate. Just a mandate under conditions. My argument is against the disclaimer : wouldn't it be better to defend the Heritage Foundation by raising awareness about what they said and say, instead of just throwing away their responsibility? (Heritage - about)
        Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
        Even with the disclaimer, their responsibility at least should be to promote conservative ideas. If Butler didn't offer a conservative idea, their responsibility should have been to not publish him. Then, the Heritage Foundation is not obliged to support every conservative idea ; they just claimed that for this once they did, which is the passage I quoted.

        That and that only is my argument.

        ?


        • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

          Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
          You are the one trying to deflect.

          Did the Heritage Foundation create/come up with the Individual Mandate or did they publish the booklet and ran a disclaimer that they may or may not agree with it?

          Simple question answer it simply without deflection.
          If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
          Douglas Adams

          Oh, that's right, personal responsibility is not your thing.

          Brgrn: BTW, if you are going to quote our founding fathers, make sure they are attributed quotes. Some of the Jefferson quotes are not.

          Wlessard: All those quotes came from the site Brainy Quote. If they are mis-attributed then it is their mistake not mine.

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          And logic is an enemy and truth is a menace. You're trying to deflect this simple FACT: The individual mandate is a conservative idea. It is not a liberal idea.

          And you are trying to make it sound like the Heritage Foundation published some outlier article from some obscure author.

          Wlessard: Heritage Foundation disclaims any support of what is in there. They published it for Butler. Everything I can find online at this time points to this fact. They published for butler but they did not directly support the idea.

          The individual mandate was conservative orthodoxy a decade ago, and now a target of convenience, not principle.

          Do you know who Stuart Butler is?



          Heritage Expert


          Stuart Butler, Ph.D.

          Distinguished Fellow and Director, Center for Policy Innovation

          Center for Policy Innovation

          Stuart M. Butler, a nationally recognized architect of public policy, directs the Center for Policy Innovation. This new division of The Heritage Foundation is charged with designing the next generation of breakthrough ideas.

          Before taking the helm of CPI in August 2010, Butler guided Heritages domestic policy research for almost 30 years. As vice president for domestic and economic policy studies, he helped shape the debate on critical issues from health care and Social Security to welfare reform and tax relief.

          Butler, who remains on Heritages senior management team, sees the Center for Policy Innovation as a mechanism for assembling virtual think tanks, each dedicated to addressing a seemingly intractable problem.

          Butler joined Heritage in 1979, when it was a relatively obscure conservative think tank, as a policy analyst specializing in urban issues.

          Heritage Foundation bio

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Don't believe me? How about Peter Ferrara, who served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan and was an Associate Deputy Attorney General from 1991 to 1993. Between those positions, Ferrara became a Heritage Foundation analyst specializing in Social Security issues. He also became an insurance consultant.

          Heritage and the Individual Mandate

          I have kept the true story of the Heritage Foundation and the individual health insurance mandate under wraps for almost 20 years now, because up until now it has been too costly to tell it. But now it is too costly not to tell it.

          This is not an attack on Heritage, which has long since mended its ways. But the story is now centrally relevant to the Republican presidential primaries.

          In 1993, I was a refugee from the failed George H.W. Bush Administration, where I had served as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States, after my service in the White House Office of Policy Development, where I had worked for President Reagan. I was the Heritage Foundation John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy.

          There I discovered the wonders of the Heritage health plan, devised to stop the Hillary health plan. Except that it followed the outlines of the Hillary plan far too closely. Worse, where it differed, it was destined to fail politically.

          For example, the Hillary plan was based on an employer mandate, requiring employers to buy the health insurance plan for their workers the government specified they must buy. The Heritage plan was based on an individual mandate, requiring each worker to buy the health insurance plan the government specified they must buy. So the issue was framed as who should have to buy the health insurance, the employer as the Hillary plan required, or the worker, as the Heritage plan required. Not a winning issue for the Heritage plan.

          More

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          How about a 15 year executive VP at CIGNA?

          Individual Mandate: Republicans Were for It Before They Were Against It. In Fact, It Was Their Idea

          The Heritage Foundation was not alone in advocating for an individual mandate, which was the cornerstone of its "Responsible National Health Insurance" plan back in 1991. It was also endorsed by one of the other preeminent conservative and pro-business think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute, which for many years received funding from one of the companies I worked for, CIGNA Corporation. (CIGNA endowed a chair at AEI to honor Wilson Taylor when he retired as chairman and CEO of the company.) You can rest assured that AEI would never have supported an individual mandate if insurance companies hated the idea.

          The idea of the mandate dates back to 1989 when Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation proposed it in an article entitled, "A National Health System in America." The moniker Responsible National Health Insurance debuted two years later when economists Mark Pauly, Patricia Danzon, Paul Feldstein and attorney John Hoff expounded on the idea in an article published first by the Heritage Foundation and, in an expanded version, by AEI in 1992.

          The GOP was so fond of the idea that Sen. John H. Chaffee of Rhode Island and several other Republicans introduced legislation during the 1993-94 debate on the Clinton health care plan to require individual households to obtain coverage for acute and emergency care. Out-of-pocket expenses could not exceed what each household could afford. The provisions of the Affordable Care Act pertaining to the mandate surely were modeled after Chaffee's bill.

          The proponents of the mandate said at the time that they felt it was necessary to deal with the growing problem of "free riding," or uninsured people accessing health care but having no insurance or other means to pay for medical treatment once they had received it. They also proposed it as a "free-market" counter proposal to a single-payer system like Canada's, which many Democrats supported (and still do).

          AEI even dealt with the argument against the mandate we are hearing today: that it infringes on our freedom to remain uninsured if that's what we want to do. AEI responded that society already interferes with individual freedoms by requiring Americans to contribute to the Social Security system.

          So the next time you hear a Republican candidate denounce ObamaCare and the individual mandate around which it is built, know that it was an idea embraced by leading conservatives and GOP members of Congress not that long ago.

          More

          ?


          • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

            Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
            I felt there were two distinct thoughts here to address.

            When you actually accept first the difference between Republicans and Conservatives you find that there are worlds apart with few exceptions in government. What you describe as authoritarian conservative is no different than liberals who want to make laws like "No Salt" in restaurants because it is bad for you. A real conservative says, no to that law, you can choose not to go to that restaurant and instead go to another if you don't like the salt content. A liberal is trying to legislate what they think is best for you and take away your freedom to choose. Which one is Authoritarian in that example?

            I can cite plenty of facts about how Liberals and the Left and the Democrats want to enact laws that should be personal choice. All in the name of what is good for you. I think a good example of the real difference is from Demolition Man.



            If you truly have an open mind and are honest at least with yourself, you can see the Progressive Movement is more like the character Cocteua and true Conservatives think more like Edgar Friendly. Less Regulation and less Federal Laws does NOT equate to the strawman of going back to running things in sweatshops and the bad things of the past.
            Talk about hyperbole. Liberals don't give a shit if you lay nude in a salt mine and lick your way out. But they do believe in consumer protection, like labeling that tell you what is in a product. And the argument you're making would better describe libertarian beliefs, not conservative.

            Do you consider the House of Representative Tea Party members conservative or Republican?

            ?


            • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

              Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
              Talk about hyperbole. Liberals don't give a shit if you lay nude in a salt mine and lick your way out. But they do believe in consumer protection, like labeling that tell you what is in a product. And the argument you're making would better describe libertarian beliefs, not conservative.

              Do you consider the House of Representative Tea Party members conservative or Republican?
              I sure as hell don't like Scott Brown for what he has done but he is at least closer to center than Warren. The Speaker has caved so many times I am surprised he is not a sinkhole. There are about 3-5 true Conservatives the rest are a bunch of mouth breathing RINOs.

              As for your comment about consumer protection. How do you equate that with a BAN on salt by the Democrats in New York? Trans Fats? I don't like smoking but again a BAN by Democrats in most of the Blue States. There is a big difference between consumer protection and nanny state. How about San Fran and the Happy Meal bull? Why can't I make the choice for myself? Why does there have to be a LAW telling me what to do? I am an adult and can think for myself I do not need these stupid laws to tell me what I can and cannot eat.

              Do you want more instances of Liberals/Progressive/Democrats making laws telling us what we can and cannot do? How about policy in workplaces like the hospital where my wife worked in Dearborn Michigan. You cannot say "Merry Christmas" but they had a big banner and do every year that says Happy Ramadan.

              Also I asked for a simple statement and you cannot do it. You throw a wall of text just like Machinehead and use that as your answer. On many boards they require a TLDR... look up what it is.

              BTW your effort with the wall of text and being unable to provide a simple answer proves you are stretching hard. It was a simple question which you proved you cannot give a simple answer to without adding the BUT... you remind me of Fran Drescher in "Beautician and the Beast"

              The question by the was.

              Did the Heritage Foundation create/come up with the Individual Mandate or did they publish the booklet and ran a disclaimer that they may or may not agree with it? You know those things like don't stop chainsaw by grabbing the blade end.
              Last edited by Wlessard; 01-20-2012, 03:43 PM. Reason: Fixing for exact question I posted earlier.

              ?


              • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
                Douglas Adams

                Oh, that's right, personal responsibility is not your thing.

                Brgrn: BTW, if you are going to quote our founding fathers, make sure they are attributed quotes. Some of the Jefferson quotes are not.

                Wlessard: All those quotes came from the site Brainy Quote. If they are mis-attributed then it is their mistake not mine.
                Translation... I cannot answer simply so I make up personal attacks.

                I did due diligence on the quotes. Brainy Quotes is as far as I have ever seen accurate. What if I had gotten them from Wiki? Would you then make it a personal attack. You fit the typical liberal mode by thinking ad hominem is actually a valid debate form. You don't even comment on what quotes you believe to be someone else just make a claim and again as a typical liberal don't support your attack with real facts.

                If all you have is ad hominem and walls of text cut and pasted from elsewhere, you have failed to support your side.

                I may take pot shots, as you ore Machinehead said but I still answer with my opinion and logic as well as supporting evidence. I don't use the pot shots as my only response.
                Last edited by Wlessard; 01-20-2012, 04:09 PM. Reason: Clearing up before it can be construed wrong.

                ?


                • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                  Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                  I sure as hell don't like Scott Brown for what he has done but he is at least closer to center than Warren. The Speaker has caved so many times I am surprised he is not a sinkhole. There are about 3-5 true Conservatives the rest are a bunch of mouth breathing RINOs.

                  As for your comment about consumer protection. How do you equate that with a BAN on salt by the Democrats in New York? Trans Fats? I don't like smoking but again a BAN by Democrats in most of the Blue States. There is a big difference between consumer protection and nanny state. How about San Fran and the Happy Meal bull? Why can't I make the choice for myself? Why does there have to be a LAW telling me what to do? I am an adult and can think for myself I do not need these stupid laws to tell me what I can and cannot eat.

                  Do you want more instances of Liberals/Progressive/Democrats making laws telling us what we can and cannot do? How about policy in workplaces like the hospital where my wife worked in Dearborn Michigan. You cannot say "Merry Christmas" but they had a big banner and do every year that says Happy Ramadan.

                  Also I asked for a simple statement and you cannot do it. You throw a wall of text just like Machinehead and use that as your answer. On many boards they require a TLDR... look up what it is.

                  BTW your effort with the wall of text and being unable to provide a simple answer proves you are stretching hard. It was a simple question which you proved you cannot give a simple answer to without adding the BUT... you remind me of Fran Drescher in "Beautician and the Beast"

                  The question by the was.

                  Did the Heritage Foundation create/come up with the Individual Mandate or did they publish the booklet and ran a disclaimer that they may or may not agree with it? You know those things like don't stop chainsaw by grabbing the blade end.
                  I can see that you are fixated on really important issues of the day...not war & peace; happy meal toys...

                  BTW, I see the disclaimer, so I guess that means Heritage is off the hook. So now you can answer my question. Choose A or B

                  The Individual Mandate is:

                  A) A conservative idea
                  B) A liberal idea


                  In Mexico; grown-ups control dogs and children...
                  In America: dogs and children control grow-ups...
                  Cesar Millan

                  ?


                  • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                    Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                    Translation... I cannot answer simply so I make up personal attacks.

                    I did due diligence on the quotes. Brainy Quotes is as far as I have ever seen accurate. What if I had gotten them from Wiki? Would you then make it a personal attack. You fit the typical liberal mode by thinking ad hominem is actually a valid debate form. You don't even comment on what quotes you believe to be someone else just make a claim and again as a typical liberal don't support your attack with real facts.

                    If all you have is ad hominem and walls of text cut and pasted from elsewhere, you have failed to support your side.

                    I may take pot shots, as you ore Machinehead said but I still answer with my opinion and logic as well as supporting evidence. I don't use the pot shots as my only response.
                    Here you go, check 'em yourself.

                    Spurious Quotations Thomas Jefferson, monticello.org

                    ?


                    • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                      Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                      If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
                      Douglas Adams

                      Oh, that's right, personal responsibility is not your thing.

                      Brgrn: BTW, if you are going to quote our founding fathers, make sure they are attributed quotes. Some of the Jefferson quotes are not.

                      Wlessard: All those quotes came from the site Brainy Quote. If they are mis-attributed then it is their mistake not mine.

                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      And logic is an enemy and truth is a menace. You're trying to deflect this simple FACT: The individual mandate is a conservative idea. It is not a liberal idea.

                      And you are trying to make it sound like the Heritage Foundation published some outlier article from some obscure author.

                      Wlessard: Heritage Foundation disclaims any support of what is in there. They published it for Butler. Everything I can find online at this time points to this fact. They published for butler but they did not directly support the idea.

                      The individual mandate was conservative orthodoxy a decade ago, and now a target of convenience, not principle.

                      Do you know who Stuart Butler is?



                      Heritage Expert


                      Stuart Butler, Ph.D.

                      Distinguished Fellow and Director, Center for Policy Innovation

                      Center for Policy Innovation

                      Stuart M. Butler, a nationally recognized architect of public policy, directs the Center for Policy Innovation. This new division of The Heritage Foundation is charged with designing the next generation of breakthrough ideas.

                      Before taking the helm of CPI in August 2010, Butler guided Heritages domestic policy research for almost 30 years. As vice president for domestic and economic policy studies, he helped shape the debate on critical issues from health care and Social Security to welfare reform and tax relief.

                      Butler, who remains on Heritages senior management team, sees the Center for Policy Innovation as a mechanism for assembling virtual think tanks, each dedicated to addressing a seemingly intractable problem.

                      Butler joined Heritage in 1979, when it was a relatively obscure conservative think tank, as a policy analyst specializing in urban issues.

                      Heritage Foundation bio

                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Don't believe me? How about Peter Ferrara, who served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan and was an Associate Deputy Attorney General from 1991 to 1993. Between those positions, Ferrara became a Heritage Foundation analyst specializing in Social Security issues. He also became an insurance consultant.

                      Heritage and the Individual Mandate

                      I have kept the true story of the Heritage Foundation and the individual health insurance mandate under wraps for almost 20 years now, because up until now it has been too costly to tell it. But now it is too costly not to tell it.

                      This is not an attack on Heritage, which has long since mended its ways. But the story is now centrally relevant to the Republican presidential primaries.

                      In 1993, I was a refugee from the failed George H.W. Bush Administration, where I had served as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States, after my service in the White House Office of Policy Development, where I had worked for President Reagan. I was the Heritage Foundation John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy.

                      There I discovered the wonders of the Heritage health plan, devised to stop the Hillary health plan. Except that it followed the outlines of the Hillary plan far too closely. Worse, where it differed, it was destined to fail politically.

                      For example, the Hillary plan was based on an employer mandate, requiring employers to buy the health insurance plan for their workers the government specified they must buy. The Heritage plan was based on an individual mandate, requiring each worker to buy the health insurance plan the government specified they must buy. So the issue was framed as who should have to buy the health insurance, the employer as the Hillary plan required, or the worker, as the Heritage plan required. Not a winning issue for the Heritage plan.

                      More

                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      How about a 15 year executive VP at CIGNA?

                      Individual Mandate: Republicans Were for It Before They Were Against It. In Fact, It Was Their Idea

                      The Heritage Foundation was not alone in advocating for an individual mandate, which was the cornerstone of its "Responsible National Health Insurance" plan back in 1991. It was also endorsed by one of the other preeminent conservative and pro-business think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute, which for many years received funding from one of the companies I worked for, CIGNA Corporation. (CIGNA endowed a chair at AEI to honor Wilson Taylor when he retired as chairman and CEO of the company.) You can rest assured that AEI would never have supported an individual mandate if insurance companies hated the idea.

                      The idea of the mandate dates back to 1989 when Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation proposed it in an article entitled, "A National Health System in America." The moniker Responsible National Health Insurance debuted two years later when economists Mark Pauly, Patricia Danzon, Paul Feldstein and attorney John Hoff expounded on the idea in an article published first by the Heritage Foundation and, in an expanded version, by AEI in 1992.

                      The GOP was so fond of the idea that Sen. John H. Chaffee of Rhode Island and several other Republicans introduced legislation during the 1993-94 debate on the Clinton health care plan to require individual households to obtain coverage for acute and emergency care. Out-of-pocket expenses could not exceed what each household could afford. The provisions of the Affordable Care Act pertaining to the mandate surely were modeled after Chaffee's bill.

                      The proponents of the mandate said at the time that they felt it was necessary to deal with the growing problem of "free riding," or uninsured people accessing health care but having no insurance or other means to pay for medical treatment once they had received it. They also proposed it as a "free-market" counter proposal to a single-payer system like Canada's, which many Democrats supported (and still do).

                      AEI even dealt with the argument against the mandate we are hearing today: that it infringes on our freedom to remain uninsured if that's what we want to do. AEI responded that society already interferes with individual freedoms by requiring Americans to contribute to the Social Security system.

                      So the next time you hear a Republican candidate denounce ObamaCare and the individual mandate around which it is built, know that it was an idea embraced by leading conservatives and GOP members of Congress not that long ago.

                      More
                      http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/poli...ml#post2028342

                      ?


                      • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                        Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                        Yep, I checked every quote I posted against the list you presented and 1 yes 1 was not conclusively a Jefferson Quote.

                        This means that you either A: Did not verify each quote and assumed that all were wrong or B: Knew that only one quote was wrong and deliberately made a comment to lead people to think all were wrong.

                        Either way instead of saying that the quote.

                        "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

                        Was wrong and leave the other true ones intact you turned it into a personal attack. I know you and others definitely make constant personal attacks as rebuttals. As I said before I admit to taking pot shots but my pot shots are not my rebuttals they are just fun to me.

                        But liberal playbook - If you cannot respond with facts use ad hominem.
                        Last edited by Porras; 01-21-2012, 01:06 PM.

                        ?


                        • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                          Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                          I can see that you are fixated on really important issues of the day...not war & peace; happy meal toys...

                          BTW, I see the disclaimer, so I guess that means Heritage is off the hook. So now you can answer my question. Choose A or B

                          The Individual Mandate is:

                          A) A conservative idea
                          B) A liberal idea


                          In Mexico; grown-ups control dogs and children...
                          In America: dogs and children control grow-ups...
                          Cesar Millan
                          I cannot say definitively whether it was a conservative or liberal idea. I will agree that because Butler worked for the Heritage Foundation it could be considered a Heritage idea. Note that part of my question admitted that Heritage may or may not have agreed with the idea. That is the other problem with your side, it is an IDEA not a bill before Congress or a Law passed but an Idea and people liberal or conservative can have all sorts of ideas that may not always conform to a stringent political basis. That is why there are people known as Social Conservatives and people known as Conservative Liberals. No one is perfectly in tune with one side or the other. There are Democrats that support removing all guns laws. Romney a supposed Conservative Republican signed a ban on some guns in Massachusetts. What you try to do is pigeon hole someone. See your use of Douglas Adams quote about a duck which is just a rephrasing of the original that has been around for a long time. Adams only added the end piece in his own words.

                          Which as I said earlier means that if Heritage thought it was a good idea they have since revisited and decided they were wrong. See that is what you cannot accept that people make mistakes, even groups of people make mistakes. People are allowed to change their minds. This is quite different from flip flopping.

                          Look at Obama and the Deficit. He came out quite strong against raising it in 2006 under Bush but is quite happy to do it now. Is it because he may have new information as President that he didn't as Senator or is it just because he is a flip flopper or saying things that are politically expedient.

                          See here on the boards we have the luxury of changing our minds because we, at least some of us, are open minded enough to weight the actual facts and decide that with new facts or logical presentation of old facts that we might have been wrong.

                          So is Individual Mandate a Conservative Idea or Liberal Idea... I do not have enough facts to make a solid decision on it. So far I have not found anything before 1989 which means either the concept sprung up then or there is just so much trash on the net about the 1989 lecture that finding out if there was more in the past becomes a little more effort of searching both online and off.

                          ?


                          • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                            Now as my mind has mulling over the question.

                            As a concept the individual mandate is a liberal concept. It doesn't matter who came up with it but the idea that the government dictates what you must do simply because you exist is libral. Liberals want to control every facet of our lives, the nature of progressives is making laws from banning happy meals to salt at resturaunts to where you can smoke. Not I am not a smoker and think it is digusting. But freedom to do what you want and where you want to go is one of the basics of a true conservative. When you pass laws that with government are enforced at gun point to tell someone they have to not do something in the name of community welfare such as with the New York City salt ban that is liberal/progressive. I can accept an individual mandate if it is instituted by States not the Federal Government. Despite everything there is no better place to live than in these united States. If Massachusetts goes to single payer I am willing to sell my business and home and move to a better State that is not as liberal and mico controlling as this State. BUT if Obamacare and a Single Payer was mandated by the Federal I do not know what country I could go to.

                            Individual Mandate is Liberal in concept. It takes away freedom of choice.

                            As envisioned in the lectures it was only to have insurance that covered catastrophic accident but the idea of just forcing you to have regular health insurance is beyond a doubt liberal.

                            ?


                            • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                              Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                              Now as my mind has mulling over the question.

                              As a concept the individual mandate is a liberal concept. It doesn't matter who came up with it but the idea that the government dictates what you must do simply because you exist is libral. Liberals want to control every facet of our lives, the nature of progressives is making laws from banning happy meals to salt at resturaunts to where you can smoke. Not I am not a smoker and think it is digusting. But freedom to do what you want and where you want to go is one of the basics of a true conservative. When you pass laws that with government are enforced at gun point to tell someone they have to not do something in the name of community welfare such as with the New York City salt ban that is liberal/progressive. I can accept an individual mandate if it is instituted by States not the Federal Government. Despite everything there is no better place to live than in these united States. If Massachusetts goes to single payer I am willing to sell my business and home and move to a better State that is not as liberal and mico controlling as this State. BUT if Obamacare and a Single Payer was mandated by the Federal I do not know what country I could go to.

                              Individual Mandate is Liberal in concept. It takes away freedom of choice.

                              As envisioned in the lectures it was only to have insurance that covered catastrophic accident but the idea of just forcing you to have regular health insurance is beyond a doubt liberal.
                              Well, if it was a liberal idea, they all kept their mouths shut. Liberals and progressives have always pushed for single payer/universal health care, or at least a public option.

                              That so called 'wall of text' I posted had a lot of information that you ignored.

                              I will let Len Nichols explain that it was a conservative idea, why they came up with it and that personal responsibility is the core of the individual mandate.. I find it very ironic that conservatives always preach 'individual responsibility', I guess that only applies to OTHERS...

                              Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate

                              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."

                              The 'Free-Rider Effect'

                              Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

                              The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

                              One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

                              "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."

                              ?


                              • Re: The Progressive Movement Explained

                                Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                                Well, if it was a liberal idea, they all kept their mouths shut. Liberals and progressives have always pushed for single payer/universal health care, or at least a public option.

                                That so called 'wall of text' I posted had a lot of information that you ignored.
                                Do you really see what you are doing? I doubt it but lets go slow.

                                I said the CONCEPT is liberal. I did not say that republicans didn't present it. I have also pointed out that there is a big difference between Republican and Conservative.

                                BTW what happened with Butler? He was your original button guy for Individual Mandate in this discussion now you are jumping to someone else? As far as Pauly is concerned I cannot find anywhere he is referred to as Republican. He was a Economist. Either way my point is valid.

                                Individual Mandate is a liberal CONCEPT. You do know what a concept is right?

                                I do not deny that every thing points to it coming from the Right originally. Does this change that it is UnConstitutional? Not one bit. It is a government nanny state idea. It says that simply for the fact I exist and am a Citizen of these united States that I must purchase a product. One that the Government itself is supplying. I can live off the grid otherwise by not working or other ways to avoid actually paying taxes. I would not be living like I am now but at the same time I would not be contributing to things I do not agree with.

                                Again Liberal CONCEPT. Republican roots? Looks like it at this time. Social Republicans/Conservatives.

                                I am not a social conservative. I am a States Rights person. If a state wants it fine... if the Federal Government wants it.. HELL NO.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X