newroadie wrote:
I thought the individual mandate was about providing health care to everyone at a reasonable cost. People in the US pay almost twice what people in other countries pay for health care. We have somewhere around the 24th best health care in the world and 40 million citizens who do not have health care. Twenty percent of people going bankrupt is because of health care cost in the US. That does not happen to people in other countries.

My favorite uncle died because he was too proud to go to the hospital when he knew he couldn't pay the bill. He knew his wife would loose the house they had lived in for 40 years and already paid for. One of my buddies lost the house he lived in all is life (60 years) when he borrowed money to pay the hospital bill for cancer and could not repay the loan. That is not right.

My .02.

Obamacare has been sold as providing 'some kind of HC' to 'some' people. Your 24th number is based on a pro government HC study, that rated countries 'with' government HC, above those without. By simple default, the US got bounced to 24th, regardless, that the quality of our HC is superior to that found anywhere else. Certainly superior to 99% of those countries rated above us. We can also exclude the flawed mortality figure in the report, that forgets it's the US that protects freedom and allows the socialism in those countries to limp along, with our sacrifices.
That will be the down side, you'd get, some kind of government subsidized HC, with Obamacare, but there will be sacrifices made on the quality we've been used to, and the efficiency ie, timeliness, of needed procedures. As the profitability is trimmed from the HC industry, the quality will recede also.
Ever hear of the "donut hole" as it relates to prescription drugs? Wait until you see what the copay is with obamacare.
Nothings free.

How many people have bet the farm, on what turned out to be little more then a year or two more of life....was it worth it? Maybe your favorite uncle made the right choice? I want these to be my decisions, not decisions made by the government.

How many people won't be able to by a home, because the money they would have set aside to buy a house from their paycheck, for a down payment, now goes to subsidize national HC, ie obamacare? How many of those same people, will never see a dime, of the money they pay in?

SKWEARpeg wrote:
Obamacare has been sold as providing 'some kind of HC' to 'some' people. Your 24th number is based on a pro government HC study, that rated countries 'with' government HC, above those without. By simple default, the US got bounced to 24th, regardless, that the quality of our HC is superior to that found anywhere else. Certainly superior to 99% of those countries rated above us. We can also exclude the flawed mortality figure in the report, that forgets it's the US that protects freedom and allows the socialism in those countries to limp along, with our sacrifices.
That will be the down side, you'd get, some kind of government subsidized HC, with Obamacare, but there will be sacrifices made on the quality we've been used to, and the efficiency ie, timeliness, of needed procedures. As the profitability is trimmed from the HC industry, the quality will recede also.
Ever hear of the "donut hole" as it relates to prescription drugs? Wait until you see what the copay is with obamacare.
Nothings free.

How many people have bet the farm, on what turned out to be little more then a year or two more of life....was it worth it? Maybe your favorite uncle made the right choice? I want these to be my decisions, not decisions made by the government.

How many people won't be able to by a home, because the money they would have set aside to buy a house from their paycheck, for a down payment, now goes to subsidize national HC, ie obamacare? How many of those same people, will never see a dime, of the money they pay in?

Exactly my point in my previous post.

My health care was costing me $11 USD per month through my employer and once retired. At one point, it was absolutely free and provided by my employer.

My deductible was $300 for out-patient care and $2,000 annually for in-patient care that would max out over my medical history at $10,000. Then I would be 100% covered with no further deductibles. I loved my health care. The few times that I used it, the coverage was awesome.

Today, it's over $80 USD per month and deductibles are set to go up because the government is forcing private insurance companies to do things that do not benefit their profit margins. So now, I'm paying for other people to get free care. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and learn that some of my previous covered care will no longer be covered.

I put myself in a position by making sacrifices to have good health care, and now big government is screwing me over by dictating to the free market system and private companies. In other words, big government is changing the rules, and I made decisions based on the previous rules. The productive and responsible are always the ones who get screwed over in government mandates, and there are always so many unintended consequences when politicians think they know more than The People.

Socialism, as described by Winston Churchill, is nothing more than shared misery, and it's happening again.

GreenMachine wrote:
SKWEARpeg wrote:
Without the mandate, obamacare is dead. The initial cost estimates of the plan, have already doubled. Without the forced participation in the program, it'll never get off the ground. You need, the 279 million people who already had insurance of their own, to subsidize insurance for the 30 million or so who don't

Agreed.

SKWEARpeg wrote:
This has always been about taking money from those who had HC, inorder to provide HC for those who don't. Simple redistribution of wealth via government mandate.

If you are going to call Obamacare redistribution of wealth (and I can see the argument), how do you feel about Romney's plan to eliminate capital gains tax? Those that would benefit most from this tax cut are the wealthiest of the wealthy, and at the expense of programs set up to benefit the poor. I would argue that this plan is also redistribution of wealth.

I've never quite signed onto the whole "taking from the poor" argument. It implies that we are each owed something. It implies, that the poor had something of their own that is being taken away. It's a flawed premise, based on an arbitrary definition of fair.
If you do a little research, you'll find out that the wealthy, paid more in taxes after bush's "tax cuts for the rich" then they did before. A little known fact.
Until the mortgage bubble burst, the federal budget deficit for 2007(not the national debt), was approaching 270 billion, and growing smaller. That was with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has grown spending, more then all the other presidents before him, including the hated George, put together.

We are, as a country right now, in really serious financial straights, simply because we are spending way more then we're bringing in. There are two ways to increase revenues. One, is immediate, but doesn't last. That's simply raising taxes. You get a quick fix, and then the money dries up. Laffers Curve, has been proven correct time and time again. Entitlement programs are fine and dandy, if you can afford them, otherwise they bleed you to death.
Elimination of the capital gains, would free up money for reinvestment. It would spur the economy in ways that passing money through the government never will. A TV news report 15 years or so ago looked at the dollars that went to Washington for social programs. They reported that only about 23 cents of every dollar that goes to Washington for these programs, ever gets to the targeted program. The rest is lost in the bureaucracy...that was then.
Now, folks want to try that with obamacare, and expect a different result.
The old analogy about people riding in the wagon, fits right in here. You have people pulling the wagon(those getting the capital gains tax reductions and those actually earning enough to pay taxes for those who don't pay any), and those riding in the wagon(the bureaucracies, and those who depend on the entitlement legislation's like the EITC, and or Obamacare etc.). When you load the wagon to heavy, it comes to a halt.
You eventually get to the point, where the spending is no longer sustainable. We reached that point last year, when our countries credit rating was downgraded. It wasn't the arguing, it was the simple fact that regardless of how much you could raise taxes in the current economic environment, you won't be able to finance the debt.
Without real investment, and a sustainable tax base from real jobs(ie those pulling the wagon, not bureaucrats and burdens riding in it), Obama and his policies, can't survive. Socialism is fine, until they run out of other peoples money.

Something that bothers me. I have said this before believe it or not people who have good jobs and good health insurance can get in a lot of trouble real quick. Get sick, really sick cancer is a good example. If you are sick for an extended amount of time before you can retire you will probably get fired. The government has a family medical leave act which protects you for a very short time somewhere i believe around 12 weeks. Cancer last longer than that. I can not believe lots and lots of people believe there is some magical law that keeps you from being fired if you get sick not usually the case. Then when you get fired you lose your employer based health care. They will offer you cobra insurance which is way to expensive once you are fired. Its just kicking you when you are down. Its a joke at least. Was this a bad choice you should not have chose to get cancer i guess. And i guess you were just stupid by just having a common job making a normal living what were you thinking. Again we should all be smarter and save enough to pay for all our medical expenses, electricity,water,food,gas to get to doctor etc. And we should all be making at least a million dollars a year. If not should all of us dumb working class people just go crawl in a hole and die for being so stupid. The years of working your tail off making somebody else rich doesn't mean anything anymore. Once you get sick now you are just a burden so go away. Maybe we should have leper colonies for the sick. Oh i forgot we should beg our working class family,friends,neighbors and churches to save us. Like they can afford it. What a dumb idea. I don't know if anybody else ever looked at the check stub? What the hell is medicare? Did i have a choice in paying in on that? Why the hell do i have to pay that? Really is it constitutional? Why don't you get medicare when you start paying for it. I paid over 30 years and still to young to get it. What the hell? And yet our government both parties give millions and millions of dollars of tax payer money away to other countries yearly for health care to some people that hate us and we can't take care of our own what the hell? Its gonna be a slippery slope either way.

SKWEARpeg wrote:
I've never quite signed onto the whole "taking from the poor" argument. It implies that we are each owed something. It implies, that the poor had something of their own that is being taken away. It's a flawed premise, based on an arbitrary definition of fair.

It is true that eliminating entitlements would only be taking away from the poor what we have already given them, however it would be changing the system in a way that hurts the under-served population of our country. These are people that for the most part were born poor and grew up in communities where the education system is severely lacking.

While I'm all for a healthy economy, I would rather see tax money put into bolstering our public education system rather than putting it into the pockets of the rich by eliminating capital gains. After all, the quickest way to rise out of poverty is education. Think of what it would do for our country and economy in the long term if we eliminated most of the entitlement programs and poured that money (along with the capital gains tax revenue) into the education system. Granted, if we were to do something like this it MUST be paid for.

Until the mortgage bubble burst, the federal budget deficit for 2007(not the national debt), was approaching 270 billion, and growing smaller. That was with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has grown spending, more then all the other presidents before him, including the hated George, put together.

We are, as a country right now, in really serious financial straights, simply because we are spending way more then we're bringing in. There are two ways to increase revenues. One, is immediate, but doesn't last. That's simply raising taxes. You get a quick fix, and then the money dries up. Laffers Curve, has been proven correct time and time again. Entitlement programs are fine and dandy, if you can afford them, otherwise they bleed you to death.

I agree, our country's spending is out of control. We must become fiscally responsible, or we are in for a world of hurt. I fear we may have already passed the point of no return. I would argue however, that we are not even close to approaching any sort of outlier in Laffer's Curve. The 15% Capital Gains tax certainly is no where near the point where it becomes cost prohibitive to invest. If anything, the low rate provides incentive.

Elimination of the capital gains, would free up money for reinvestment. It would spur the economy in ways that passing money through the government never will. A TV news report 15 years or so ago looked at the dollars that went to Washington for social programs. They reported that only about 23 cents of every dollar that goes to Washington for these programs, ever gets to the targeted program. The rest is lost in the bureaucracy...that was then.

Yes, the bureaucratic system is broken. Yes, our economic situation is on the brink. Yes, eliminating capital gains could do something to nudge the economy along. But, I don't believe it is justifiable to essentially eliminate taxation for the wealthiest of Americans while the rest of us are stuck holding the bag. All in the name of spurring economic growth. We all need to pay into the system. While giving those who have been the most successful a tax break makes good economic sense, it is morally questionable to do so when there are so many suffering through no fault of their own as a result of the residual effects of the wrong doings of our cultural past. Granted, some people are just plain stupid, and those people will most likely always be poor. However, there many people in under-served populations who if given the right tools could become the next Steve Jobs. If we don't invest in our own future (mainly through education), these same people could end up working at the local drive-thru.

Without real investment, and a sustainable tax base from real jobs(ie those pulling the wagon, not bureaucrats and burdens riding in it), Obama and his policies, can't survive. Socialism is fine, until they run out of other peoples money.

I agree that we need more tax revenue if we are going to invest in social programs. However, if we are all taxed fairly, it isn't other peoples money. It is OUR money as a country. Money that we need to invest in our future, because it isn't looking too good right now. I say, invest OUR money in OUR future, but do it in a responsible manner (i.e. pay for everything). I know that's a pipe dream at this point, but we could at least start by eliminating programs and increasing tax revenue across the board. Like I said before, I don't think that we are approaching anywhere near a threshold in Laffers Curve. We need to get out of this financial mess.

We need quality Government run Heath Care like Great Britain!

Every been in a British hospital? Ever looked at the survival rates for every thing from cancer to heart disease to diabetes in places like the UK and Canada as compared to here?

Yeah! Let's spend more money on education!

Too bad we already spend way more per student than any one of the many countries that regularly beat us on test scores. And they do it with class sizes that are far larger that any we have.

Those rich people are REALLY the problem because THEY make TOO much money and don't pay their FAIR SHARE!!!

That top 1% only pays 38% of all Federal income tax revenue and the top 5% get off damn near Scot free only paying 71% for all Federal income tax revue! The bottom 50% pays ALMOST 3% now, how much MORE can we expect?

And those "Tax Breaks" that go to the high income groups! That means they are ACTUALLY KEEPING MORE of THEIR money that they EARN! Come on! How FAIR is THAT!

And the USA NEEDS to be #1 in something!
That's why we have the highest corporate tax rates the the world!

sarc \

In 2007 while we live in MA I had VERY expensive BC/BS heath care thru my employer. In late June my Cardiologist found an abnormality on a test and ordered more test. In about a week in was determined my aorta was about tho pop and there was a large tumor inside my heart. At the time I was totally symptom free.
I under went a 14 hour heart surgery at Mass General done by a Harvard Surgical Professor, honestly one of the finest in the world.
The bill was over $400,000.00. I paid about $1000.00 when all was said & done.

The day before I was discharged I had a talk with a new patient coming in who had a very similar case and had the exact same medical team I had.
Except he was a welfare patient and was paying zero. Same hospital, same team and I hope he had the same outcome I have. Where are these people who are left to die in the streets that the Liberal keep crying about?

At the time this happened to me an acquaintance in British Columbia had a business partner receive a very similar diagnosis. He was treated by the out standing Government system they keep telling us WE ought to have.
He died waiting for his turn at government rationed surgical openings.

And BTW, I was out on medical leave about nine months. I pay for disability insurance that tool care on things.

GreenMachine wrote:
It is true that eliminating entitlements would only be taking away from the poor what we have already given them, however it would be changing the system in a way that hurts the under-served population of our country. These are people that for the most part were born poor and grew up in communities where the education system is severely lacking.

While I'm all for a healthy economy, I would rather see tax money put into bolstering our public education system rather than putting it into the pockets of the rich by eliminating capital gains. After all, the quickest way to rise out of poverty is education. Think of what it would do for our country and economy in the long term if we eliminated most of the entitlement programs and poured that money (along with the capital gains tax revenue) into the education system. Granted, if we were to do something like this it MUST be paid for.

Along with the change in the system would be welfare on a temporary basis that would expire after a certain number of years -- say five. If big government did a better job of policing the fraud and abuse, that would be a big improvement. Big government is rarely efficient at anything because it is not their money. The entitlement programs were never, ever intended to be lifelong generational activities. There are too many people playing the system and stealing from their neighbors.

The public education system is the responsibility of the individual states, not the federal government. As an educator for over 25 years, I can tell you that it is the federal government that is what is wrong with public education. It's a local matter better served by local leaders.

Capital gains taxes are double taxation on money that has already been taxed as income, and it discourages investment. Today, it is not only the wealthiest of Americans who have capital gains taxes, but everyone who has a mutual fund, is retired and/or is part of a private retirement program.

Yes, the bureaucratic system is broken. Yes, our economic situation is on the brink. Yes, eliminating capital gains could do something to nudge the economy along. But, I don't believe it is justifiable to essentially eliminate taxation for the wealthiest of Americans while the rest of us are stuck holding the bag. All in the name of spurring economic growth. We all need to pay into the system. While giving those who have been the most successful a tax break makes good economic sense, it is morally questionable to do so when there are so many suffering through no fault of their own as a result of the residual effects of the wrong doings of our cultural past. Granted, some people are just plain stupid, and those people will most likely always be poor. However, there many people in under-served populations who if given the right tools could become the next Steve Jobs. If we don't invest in our own future (mainly through education), these same people could end up working at the local drive-thru.

Actually, only half of employed workers in America are holding the bag. Almost 50% of employed Americans pay no federal income taxes. Everyone should pay something, and no one should pay a higher percentage of taxes simply because they achieve, are successful and make more money.

The majority of those suffering DO suffer due to choices they made along the way in their lives. Additionally, some will choose to work at the drive-through regardless of what opportunities they are given.

I agree that we need more tax revenue if we are going to invest in social programs. However, if we are all taxed fairly, it isn't other peoples money. It is OUR money as a country. Money that we need to invest in our future, because it isn't looking too good right now. I say, invest OUR money in OUR future, but do it in a responsible manner (i.e. pay for everything). I know that's a pipe dream at this point, but we could at least start by eliminating programs and increasing tax revenue across the board. Like I said before, I don't think that we are approaching anywhere near a threshold in Laffers Curve. We need to get out of this financial mess.

"Our Money"? As in the collective? What is the incentive? People don't work and seek to achieve to throw all their achievement into some collective pool. They work for themselves and their families, and for the most part, Americans are generally very generous with their money when they are allowed to keep more of it. Personally, when the government started determining to whom I was going to donate through entitlement programs, my private donations stopped. I've had enough of paying my way and being responsible for myself only to have to pay the way of someone else and be responsible for their poor choices.

No tax revenue needs to be increased in any measure in any area. The government takes enough from the most productive members of our society. Entire federal departments could be eliminated overnight. A 10% cut across the board in every remaining department could be achieved quite easily. There was even a plan to freeze all spending at 2008 levels, eliminate automatic increases that are built into the budget, and cut 1% of spending each year for 10 years to achieve balance. It was rejected.

GreenMachine wrote:
[quote]
It is true that eliminating entitlements would only be taking away from the poor what we have already given them, however it would be changing the system in a way that hurts the under-served population of our country. These are people that for the most part were born poor and grew up in communities where the education system is severely lacking.[quote]

So what? I'm supposed to fix the rest of the world and all of the stupid people and their mistakes, as well as my own? Who decided to have kids, drop out of school, invest in being cool, waste their lives on drugs and dope, and make poor life decisions such as trying to live in an area where they have nothing but family roots and security to live on? No! It's not my business. Your trying to pretend that every parasite on the system, is some deserving soul who just slipped through the cracks. It just ain't so
I'm responsible to take care of myself, and not be a burden on my neighbors, and support the federal government in those things that are the federal governments responsibility....national defense, and interstate commerce. It's that simple. Beyond that, anything I feel responsible about doing, is my business, and nobody else's.
Your trying to paint a picture, that we're slashing programs left and right, which is patently false. This countries poor, under privileged etc. have more programs and benefits available to them, then any other nation on earth. Our poor people have obesity problems, because their lives are so good.
I don't hear anybody complaining about the fact that college tuition has out paced HC. Where is all of the outcry, about "Big education".

You can't fix stupid, with all the money in the world. If you subsidize it, it just gets worse and grows. Think about that one simple fact while your trying to throw good money after bad.

[quote]
While I'm all for a healthy economy, I would rather see tax money put into bolstering our public education system rather than putting it into the pockets of the rich by eliminating capital gains. After all, the quickest way to rise out of poverty is education. Think of what it would do for our country and economy in the long term if we eliminated most of the entitlement programs and poured that money (along with the capital gains tax revenue) into the education system. Granted, if we were to do something like this it MUST be paid for.[quote]

We've been pissing money down the public education rat hole,for over 50 years, and the public education system is worse, not better. See my "you can't fix stupid" above.
Inner city public schools have become nothing more then life support systems for many of the people that work there. I've been in public schools, and seen what their like when they think their around friends, and nobody's watching. Does this mean all teachers are a lost cause? No. It does mean, that in a private system those good teachers would still have a job, and be rewarded for their ability instead of wearing the rest of the teachers and system around their neck like a dead chicken.

[quote]
I agree, our country's spending is out of control. We must become fiscally responsible, or we are in for a world of hurt. I fear we may have already passed the point of no return. I would argue however, that we are not even close to approaching any sort of outlier in Laffer's Curve. The 15% Capital Gains tax certainly is no where near the point where it becomes cost prohibitive to invest. If anything, the low rate provides incentive.[quote]

ergo, an even lower rate of zero, would provide even more incentive. The Laffer curve is dependent on a variety of things in order to nail down a particular point where the wealthy pull back from investment risk. The riskier the economy, the less risky they feel with their capital. Keep in mind, that this money is something that has been taxed already. capital gains, are taxed at a higher rate then 15%. Dividends are taxed at 15%. Capital gains, are taxed based on the individuals tax bracket at the time the taxes are paid. It could be as low as 18%(doubtful) to as high as 0ver 30%(it's a progressive system)
New companies starting up, don't pay dividends. They are seen as risky. They need investment to survive, and that comes from invested capital.

[quote]
Yes, the bureaucratic system is broken. Yes, our economic situation is on the brink. Yes, eliminating capital gains could do something to nudge the economy along. But, I don't believe it is justifiable to essentially eliminate taxation for the wealthiest of Americans while the rest of us are stuck holding the bag. All in the name of spurring economic growth. We all need to pay into the system. While giving those who have been the most successful a tax break makes good economic sense, it is morally questionable to do so when there are so many suffering through no fault of their own as a result of the residual effects of the wrong doings of our cultural past. Granted, some people are just plain stupid, and those people will most likely always be poor. However, there many people in under-served populations who if given the right tools could become the next Steve Jobs. If we don't invest in our own future (mainly through education), these same people could end up working at the local drive-thru. [quote]

I don't remember seeing anybody suggesting eliminating their tax burden altogether. How much of the tax revenue that this country runs on, is paid by the top 5% of the taxpayers in this country? What's the percentage of people in this country, who contribute 0% to the federal tax coffers? Who's paying their fair share? Who's getting a free ride?


I agree that we need more tax revenue if we are going to invest in social programs. However, if we are all taxed fairly, it isn't other peoples money. It is OUR money as a country. Money that we need to invest in our future, because it isn't looking too good right now. I say, invest OUR money in OUR future, but do it in a responsible manner (i.e. pay for everything). I know that's a pipe dream at this point, but we could at least start by eliminating programs and increasing tax revenue across the board. Like I said before, I don't think that we are approaching anywhere near a threshold in Laffers Curve. We need to get out of this financial mess.

I'm sorry, .....is this....is this??.. Michael Moore? com'on fess up! "It is OUR money as a country???????" Did you type that with a straight face? So now slavery has become trendy again? We can now enslave other people so we can profit from their sweat and effort, in whatever way we see fit?...

....REALLY????????

We need more revenue, if we're going to survive period. If we want a whole wagon load of social programs as well, we're going to need a whole butt load of cash. Not only can we not pay our bills currently, we can't even service the debt. HELLO??? This is where the bank comes and takes your motor scooter, your home, and anything else the sheriff can find of value..remember??....or do we just change the rules?

You want to increase revenue in a reliable steady "FAIR" way? Create jobs in the private sector, in things that people will buy. Stuff that works....this excludes the Chevy Volt. Pixie dust, and algae, are not viable alternatives, worthy of investment, unless your name is Barack Hussein Obama.
You don't create a lasting revenue tax base, by passing money through the government first, so they get to pick and choose what they think is best, and who they want to reward. Keynesian economic theory has finally proved itself to be a fraud. It's time the biggest cheerleader gave back his Nobel prize in economics. If the rest of his track record isn't enough, his continual championing of spending money we don't have, and telling everyone it magically turns into 2 dollars for every 1 dollar the government touches, should. Mind numbing economic stupidity. Unless you just want to grow the government. Then, it makes perfect sense.

Actually the best part of this whole deal is if you look up the individual mandate it was a Republican proposal from the 80's.
They even put up a bill about it that ended up dying. Once again you have to know your history to know where this stuff comes from. My point is BOTH sides of the aisle have a dog in this hunt but one of them is denying it now for political expediency.I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying. Here is an exerpt...and again totally hilarious that the guy that says he will end this on day one if he is president , well, uh, he put exactly this in to place previously...read on:

The tale begins in the late 1980s, when conservative economists such as Mark Pauly, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, were searching for ways to counter liberal calls for government-sponsored universal health coverage.
"We wanted to find an alternative that was more consistent with market-oriented economic ideas and would involve less government intervention," Pauly said.
His solution: a system of tax credits to ensure that all Americans could purchase at least bare-bones "catastrophic" coverage.
Pauly then proposed a mandate requiring everyone to obtain this minimum coverage, thus guarding against "free riders": people who refuse to buy insurance and then, in a crisis, receive care whose costs are absorbed by hospitals, the government and other consumers.
Heath-policy analysts at the conservative Heritage Foundation, led by Stuart Butler, picked up the idea and began developing it for lawmakers in Congress.
By 1993, when President Bill Clinton was readying his major health-care overhaul bill, the Heritage approach -- subsidizing and facilitating the purchase of private health plans, while using the individual mandate to maximize participation -- had gelled as the natural Republican alternative.
Then-Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., formally proposed it in a bill that attracted 19 other Republican co-sponsors. The bill foundered once Clinton's effort unraveled. But the idea of the mandate gained currency in the ensuing years as Democrats chastened by the failure of the Clinton plan began considering new solutions more likely to attract bipartisan support.
That process came to a head in 2005, when Mitt Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, turned to then-Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., for help adopting a health-care overhaul for the state that was largely based on providing residents with government subsidies to buy private insurance.
The plan regulated insurance companies to a degree beyond anything Pauly had envisioned: For instance, they were barred from excluding or charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing health conditions.
But this only heightened the conviction of the health-care plan's Republican backers that an individual mandate was needed.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/03/26/20120326health-mandate-originally-republican-idea.html#ixzz1qKdGbcoG

The reason republicans have been getting their collective butts kicked in elections, is just the type of thinking that Chaffee presented. If this is the father who passed the seat to his little boy Lincoln, Then its no small wonder that he has an R by his name, and thinks like a liberal.
In the 80's we were still trying to stomp out, out of control government. It just keeps getting up again. Like a bad horror flic

For to many years, republicans were pleased as punch, to play second fiddle, and be part of the big picture the dems controlled.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

I believe it was Collins up in the NE(has an R by her name) who decided, to help Obamacare along, and also an R in Louisiana who is no longer around(much to his surprise I'm sure. Why vote for a republican who votes like a democrat, when you can have the real deal). Collins threw in the towel this time, because she screwed the pooch by supporting this heinous attack on personal liberty. It's nice to see her go. Maybe her and Olympia, can find a porch to sit on and reminisce, when she joins her. They can talk about the good old days, when conservatives knew their place, and didn't rock the boat.