Republican Father of ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Denies He Ever Created It

Liar.

Weasel.

Republican.

Can you smell the hypocrisy cooking?

—

Column: Don’t blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

By Stuart Butler

Updated 2/6/2012 10:40 AM

Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no. {ed. note: That’s utter bullshit, which you’ll understand why as you read on.}

Stuart Butler, By Kate Patterson, USA TODAY (The liar looks happy as a lark, doesn’t he? Apparently, there’s no joy in Mudville.)

The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare “adopts the ‘individual mandate’ concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation,” Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate “has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that

Day 3: SCOTUS hears final PPACA case arguments

It’s not looking good for the petitioners.

And to give Mr. Paul D. Clement his props, he has a phenomenal presentation, and has a wonderful presence, has a very rapidly keen response to the Justices questions. He is definitely on top of his game. However, as good as his performance may be, it is my opinion that his arguments will not sway the court.

Mr. Clement was formerly Solicitor General of the United States 2004-2008.

The Court heard arguments today, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, on the Severability issue and Medicaid issue of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act cases.

QUESTION PRESENTED:

1. Does Congress

SCOTUS, PPACA & American Healthcare: Links from Days 1 & 2

Naysayers, conservative political pundits and Obama “haters” of all stripe – Radical Republicans, TEA Partiers, White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, et al – have vilified and unified against already-enacted federal legislation that foremost, regulates practices by the Health Insurance industry, such as denial of coverage for children born with certain health conditions, denial of coverage for women with breast cancer, cancelling coverage in the midst of medical treatment, exorbitantly raising premium rates without actuarial justification, denying payment for covered services deemed medically necessary and rendered by qualified physicians or others, and more.

Such practices have been rightly demonized and justly described as onerous by almost everyone, even by the most staunch conservatives. So it remains a great mystery why so many are seemingly straining against what they denigrate as “ObamaCare.”

At least two elements of the law – the so-called

Day 2: SCOTUS hears PPACA argument

As I’m writing, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has concluded Day 2 of oral argument in the unprecedented three days of arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Hear the oral argument

Making Health Insurance Obsolete

Make no mistake about it, insurance companies exist to make money.

Regardless of their commercials, they neither care for you, grandma, babies, or puppy dogs… much less love you.

They love money.

In addition to raising premiums, one of the ways they make money is by not paying claims. And I mean to refer to them not paying legitimate claims by weaseling and fenagling out of paying claims such as by denying “pre-existing conditions,” or by making ludicrously asinine assertions, such as “you forgot to fill in line 39,” or something like “we didn’t receive your premium on time,” or something even worse – such as “we don’t insure on Thursdays from noon to 1:30PM.”

If money is a tool which can and ought to be used for the things it can do, then why is it important to maintain a hoard of of it? Tools are utilitarian things, which derive their exclusive value precisely because they are used, not capable of being used. Similarly, money only has value because it is a tool as a medium of exchange.

Insurance, like any other pecuniary enterprise, ought to be regulated precisely because of the risk for fraud is greater than in other businesses. That is, by nature it is more susceptible to deception. Deception in pecuniary enterprise is also known as “theft.”

Nevertheless…

Be certain you read on to learn

How a $1,000 test could destroy the health-insurance industry