It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
the New York Times emphasizes a certain name in this article:
Democrats are increasingly anxious about an onslaught of television ads hitting vulnerable Senate and House candidates for their support of the new health law, since many lack the resources to fight back in the early stages of the midterm campaign.
Since September, Americans for Prosperity, a group financed in part by the billionaire Koch brothers, has spent an estimated $20 million on television advertising that calls out House and Senate Democrats by name for their support of the Affordable Care Act. . . .
Some Democrats are open about calling for help from allies and supporters of the health care law who may be biding their time.
“Democrats need money at this early stage in order to fight back against the limitless spending from the Kochs,” said Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “As we get closer to the election, we will have the resources to introduce their Tea Party candidates before they have an opportunity to define themselves for voters, but right now the limitless spending from the Kochs means we need Democratic donors to step up in a bigger way immediately.”
Thorneblood
reply to post by xuenchen
Forgive me If I am wrong, but didn't the Heritage Foundation and by extension the Koch bros create the framework for the Affordable Care Act back during the Clinton presidency?
Wasn't it all initially instituted by Romney, a republican?
1990 Backgrounder
Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:
If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. 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. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
From the Butler quote above, it seems to us that the brief overstates the extent to which the proposed Heritage mandate was "limited." But it is clear that Heritage has repudiated the idea of an individual mandate.
GrantedBail
reply to post by xuenchen
Yeah, the Koch Brothers are your friends? Seriously, how can people be so lame.
Thorneblood
reply to post by xuenchen
Maybe this is just me, but that reads like perfect double speak. We made it, promoted it extensively and later decided it wasn't all that a good idea but since we let it out there we can now use it to conveniently bash down any democrats who foolishly believed we were being sincere?
Democrats are increasingly anxious about an onslaught of television ads hitting vulnerable Senate and House candidates for their support of the new health law
The controversial individual mandate that was upheld Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court stems back more than 20 years, believed to have originated with a prominent conservative think tank. The mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, appeared in a 1989 published proposal by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation called "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," which included a provision to "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance." The Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. But the idea of an individual health insurance mandate later appeared in two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993, according to the non-partisan research group ProCon.org. Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law.
Thorneblood
reply to post by xuenchen
Maybe this is just me, but that reads like perfect double speak. We made it, promoted it extensively and later decided it wasn't all that a good idea but since we let it out there we can now use it to conveniently bash down any democrats who foolishly believed we were being sincere?
I wonder, if I created a process to give apes a higher level of intelligence for use as menial slaves would I then be able to refute that I had created this process when those same apes decided to overthrow humanity?
edit on 15-1-2014 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)edit on 15-1-2014 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)