Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on September 19, 2013, 05:45:35 PM
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/seriously-the-republicans-have-no-health-plan/
were some of these during the bush admin???
Comprehensive Republican health reform plans introduced in Congress
Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.
•Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
•Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
•Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
•Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.
•H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).
-
Comprehensive conservative Obamacare replacement plans
Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:
•Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.
•Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.
•Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.
•Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here: •James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, “How to Replace Obamacare,” National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012).
•James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012.
•Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—released Best of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.
•Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.
•Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).
•Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).
-
The forgotten history of George W. Bush’s comprehensive health reform plan
Too many people conveniently ignore that in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed.
What’s sad is that the Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provided universal coverage. The latest figures from CBO says that when it is fully implemented in 2016, Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history. Consider one of the newest market-oriented health reform plans put on the table by Jim Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Compared to Obamacare, this plan would cost roughly the same amount yet cover 22% more (8 million!) uninsured. If there’s a superior alternative to the slow-motion train wreck now being implemented, why wouldn’t the President and Democrats in Congress want to seriously consider it as a replacement?
Of course even those willing to acknowledge Bush’s health reform plan then tend to counter with the claim that he wasn’t “serious” about his proposal. It was just a defensive move to defend Republicans in 2008 against the charge that the Republicans didn’t have a plan because they didn’t care about the issue (sound familiar). Those dubious about GWB’s “seriousness” about health reform should do the following thought experiment. Imagine that the Democrats in Congress had passed a bill containing the Bush administration’s health plan–no more, no less. Does anyone seriously believe GWB would have vetoed that bill? If not, I would argue his proposal was a serious one.
-
also lets not forget the repeal of obamacare which by all measures is not what it was sold as...
-
The libtard dumocrats will never admit that republicans have come up with ideas for healthcare reform.
If it's different from their own ideas, libtards will never accept it and will claim that the GOP doesn't have solutions. It has to be their way.
So much for compromise.
-
The libtard dumocrats will never admit that republicans have come up with ideas for healthcare reform.
If it's different from their own ideas, libtards will never accept it and will claim that the GOP doesn't have solutions. It has to be their way.
So much for compromise.
I agree notice how none of those who bought the lie have shown up in this thread...
-
Sort of a stupid partisan non-issue.
All republican proposals fail to address the millions of uninsured and underinsured. More tax deferred savings plans and credits have been tried. They don't work well. Espcecialy where all health coverage has become catastrophic in terms of the cost (deductible less than 5 grand? Don't think so.). From that POV, the republicans are just more of the same with no new plan.
Obama's plan is not good but it is better than anything from the opposition. The Public Option was the best bet. But Obama did not run on that platform. That's too bad b/c people needed it. We needed a new FDR and got Stepin Fetchit instead.
-
Sort of a stupid partisan non-issue.
All republican proposals fail to address the millions of uninsured and underinsured. More tax deferred savings plans and credits have been tried. They don't work well. Espcecialy where all health coverage has become catastrophic in terms of the cost (deductible less than 5 grand? Don't think so.). From that POV, the republicans are just more of the same with no new plan.
Obama's plan is not good but it is better than anything from the opposition. The Public Option was the best bet. But Obama did not run on that platform. That's too bad b/c people needed it. We needed a new FDR and got Stepin Fetchit instead.
BULLSHIT!!!! Stop FNG lying. Yes he did promise the public option
-
BULLSHIT!!!! Stop FNG lying. Yes he did promise the public option
He said a lot of things but he did not run on the public option.
Didn't your mother ever teach you how to act like a respectable person?
I guess not. Take your filthy mouth and lies and go.
-
Sort of a stupid partisan non-issue.
All republican proposals fail to address the millions of uninsured and underinsured. More tax deferred savings plans and credits have been tried. They don't work well. Espcecialy where all health coverage has become catastrophic in terms of the cost (deductible less than 5 grand? Don't think so.). From that POV, the republicans are just more of the same with no new plan.
Obama's plan is not good but it is better than anything from the opposition. The Public Option was the best bet. But Obama did not run on that platform. That's too bad b/c people needed it. We needed a new FDR and got Stepin Fetchit instead.
Bullshit! The GOP has a plan. If you get sick DIE. Fast!!
-
He said a lot of things but he did not run on the public option.
Didn't your mother ever teach you how to act like a respectable person?
I guess not. Take your filthy mouth and lies and go.
Stop spreading lies and you will be treated accordingly. Obama lied to you and the gullible fools that voted for him. Deal with it.
-
Sort of a stupid partisan non-issue.
All republican proposals fail to address the millions of uninsured and underinsured. More tax deferred savings plans and credits have been tried. They don't work well. Espcecialy where all health coverage has become catastrophic in terms of the cost (deductible less than 5 grand? Don't think so.). From that POV, the republicans are just more of the same with no new plan.
Obama's plan is not good but it is better than anything from the opposition. The Public Option was the best bet. But Obama did not run on that platform. That's too bad b/c people needed it. We needed a new FDR and got Stepin Fetchit instead.
actually you're incorrect there gimmick, many articles out there showing bushes proposal would have covered more and cost less...
-
-
Stop spreading lies and you will be treated accordingly. Obama lied to you and the gullible fools that voted for him. Deal with it.
8) Sign a ‘Universal' Health care Bill
Last but certainly not least is the promise Mr. Obama made to sign a universal health care bill. Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has many detractors, this has to be considered a major promise kept by President Obama.
On March 23, 2010 after months of political battles on Capitol Hill, President Obama signed Democrat-passed health care reform into law, triggering a firestorm that is still working its way through the courts. Many legal scholars and pundits expect the matter will ultimately be resolved in the Supreme Court
Trippi adds that no president can keep all of his campaign promises, yet on the biggest issues, such as Iraq and health care reform, Obama did make good on pledges he made on the trail.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/05/brief-look-at-candidate-obama-2008-campaign-promises/
You don't know what you're talking about.
But by all means, keep posting more and more videos that I won't watch.
Deal with it! hahaha h. You're tough.
-
actually you're incorrect there gimmick, many articles out there showing bushes proposal would have covered more and cost less...
Really? Can you first explain Bush's healthcare plan and then show me the articles out there showing how it covers more people and cost less...than a plan that inflates the rolls of insurance which necessarily drops the cost of coverage?
This is no gimmick. Republican plans are terrible. Obama's plan is scarcely better. Don't pretend otherwise.
-
Really? Can you first explain Bush's healthcare plan and then show me the articles out there showing how it covers more people and cost less...than a plan that inflates the rolls of insurance which necessarily drops the cost of coverage?
This is no gimmick. Republican plans are terrible. Obama's plan is scarcely better. Don't pretend otherwise.
hey, hi. AndreaRyc...welcome to the GOP clown car.
and just wait until the run up to the '16 prez election. this place will be going bonkers.
hang in there. and enjoy the people here. just don't take them seriously.
-
hey, hi. AndreaRyc...welcome to the GOP clown car.
and just wait until the run up to the '16 prez election. this place will be going bonkers.
hang in there. and enjoy the people here. just don't take them seriously.
Especially chadstallion, the never serious unfunny comic relief. :)
-
Really? Can you first explain Bush's healthcare plan and then show me the articles out there showing how it covers more people and cost less...than a plan that inflates the rolls of insurance which necessarily drops the cost of coverage?
This is no gimmick. Republican plans are terrible. Obama's plan is scarcely better. Don't pretend otherwise.
he's not pretending
he really is that gullible/stupid
Republicans have been opposing any kind of healthcare reform since they squashed Trumans attempt at universal health care in 1949 (and it probably goes back farther than that)
The only time even bother to pretend to offer any kind of "ideas" is when they are opposing Democratic ideas (that's why they came up with the individual mandate in opposition to what they called Hillarycare. Once Hilarycare was shit canned they all suddenly decided it was really a horrible idea after having raved about it just a few short years previously - note that Romney didn't get the memo)
When Repubs had a majority under Bush they could have done some form of healthcare reform and gotten bipartisan support but they didn't do shit
btw - I believe Tony is suggesting that you are the gimmick
Welcome to the Right Wing Echo Chamber/Cirlce Jerk that is the Politics Board
-
he's not pretending
he really is that gullible/stupid
Republicans have been opposing any kind of healthcare reform since they squashed Trumans attempt at universal health care in 1949
The only time even bother to pretend to offer any kind of "ideas" is when they are opposing Democratic ideas (that's why they came up with the individual mandate in opposition to what they called Hillarycare. Once Hilarycare was shit canned they all suddenly decided it was really a horrible idea after having raved about it just a few short years previously - note that Romney didn't get the memo)
When Repubs had a majority under Bush they could have done some form of healthcare reform and gotten bipartisan support but they didn't do shit
btw - I believe Tony is suggesting that you are the gimmick
Welcome to the Right Wing Echo Chamber/Cirlce Jerk that is the Politics Board
Lmfao yes straw opposing reform by offering legislation
-
Lmfao yes straw opposing reform by offering legislation
yet they suddenly forgot all their wonderful ideas (or decided they were actually terrible ideas) when they actually had enough votes in Congress and also controlled the White House
Shit, Repubs could have actually sponsored legislation when Dems had control because Dems would have supported them
btw - proposing ideas like getting rid of medicare and giving your grandmother a voucher to go shop for private insurance is not exactly a "reform" nor is it a good idea.
-
Sort of a stupid partisan non-issue.
All republican proposals fail to address the millions of uninsured and underinsured. More tax deferred savings plans and credits have been tried. They don't work well. Espcecialy where all health coverage has become catastrophic in terms of the cost (deductible less than 5 grand? Don't think so.). From that POV, the republicans are just more of the same with no new plan.
Obama's plan is not good but it is better than anything from the opposition. The Public Option was the best bet. But Obama did not run on that platform. That's too bad b/c people needed it. We needed a new FDR and got Stepin Fetchit instead.
Welcome! If you love stupid, you'll love it here! :)
-
yet they suddenly forgot all their wonderful ideas (or decided they were actually terrible ideas) when they actually had enough votes in Congress and also controlled the White House
Shit, Repubs could have actually sponsored legislation when Dems had control because Dems would have supported them
btw - proposing ideas like getting rid of medicare and giving your grandmother a voucher to go shop for private insurance is not exactly a "reform" nor is it a good idea.
actually if you look at the dates many of them were during the dem controlled congress, many were before when bush was president and many were after.
So what we have is undeniable proof that the reps have been committed to comprehensive health care reform. Now I know you have to draw your silver lining to fit your pre determined agenda or else your head will explode but facts are facts.
Individual mandates and more legislation that raises premiums and increases costs for companies isnt exactly reform either nor are they good ideas...but draw your silver linings there straw
-
Really? Can you first explain Bush's healthcare plan and then show me the articles out there showing how it covers more people and cost less...than a plan that inflates the rolls of insurance which necessarily drops the cost of coverage?
This is no gimmick. Republican plans are terrible. Obama's plan is scarcely better. Don't pretend otherwise.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/04/30/how-george-w-bush-would-have-replaced-obamacare/
The Lewin Group analyzed the Bush tax reform using its Health Benefits Simulation Model, and estimated that equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance would expand coverage by 9.2 million people. In addition, the Bush administration estimated that the Affordable Choices Initiative would expand coverage by an additional 2 million or so, for a total of about 11 million. That’s not as large a coverage expansion of Obamacare, at 33 million, but that 11 million is achieved with zero increase in federal spending commitments: a pretty impressive bang for the buck.
Even more impressively, the Joint Committee on Taxation—the government agency responsible for the CBO’s estimates of the impact of tax legislation—projected that the Bush proposal would reduce the deficit by $334 billion from 2008 to 2017, and by trillions more in later decades, because the tax deduction would grow at the rate of inflation, whereas the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance isn’t capped by law, and grows along with overall, and higher, health inflation.
notice the uninsured % under the proposal(bush's plan) now compare that to the current law(obamacare)
-
actually if you look at the dates many of them were during the dem controlled congress, many were before when bush was president and many were after.
So what we have is undeniable proof that the reps have been committed to comprehensive health care reform. Now I know you have to draw your silver lining to fit your pre determined agenda or else your head will explode but facts are facts.
Individual mandates and more legislation that raises premiums and increases costs for companies isnt exactly reform either nor are they good ideas...but draw your silver linings there straw
sure if comprehensive health reform = dismantling medicare and giving your 80 year old grandmother a coupon to go buy private health insurance
I always laugh when you imply I have "an agenda'
My only agenda is to post on this board for as long as it entertains me
While you were scouring the internet for republican "ideas" did you do any research on exactly why NONE of them made it into law?
Was it the Dems who stopped it or were the Repubs blocked by their own party or did they not follow through because they didn't actually give a rats ass about healthcare reform and were just proposing crap as a way to object to Dem ideas
BTW - have you noticed that the Repubs used to say "repeal and replace" when it came to Obamacare and now after the 40+ symbolic votes for the benefit of appeasing the sliver of teabag idiots they dropped the "replace" part all together
I wonder why they don't mention replace anymore
could it be that they didn't give a shit in the first place and they know the votes are a complete waste of time and money so why even bother with the bullshit "replace" statement when they never had any intention of replacing it with anything
-
The libtard dumocrats will never admit that republicans have come up with ideas for healthcare reform.
If it's different from their own ideas, libtards will never accept it and will claim that the GOP doesn't have solutions. It has to be their way.
So much for compromise.
The Repubs have had ideas, but nothing that's been a viable plan. And certainly nothing that ever made it on the agenda. This was one of my biggest problems with the Repubs during the whole debate. Congress (as a whole) just let the situation brew. When it finally boiled over, the Dems controlled the Congress and the Presidency and we got Obamacare.
-
sure if comprehensive health reform = dismantling medicare and giving your 80 year old grandmother a coupon to go buy private health insurance
I always laugh when you imply I have "an agenda'
My only agenda is to post on this board for as long as it entertains me
While you were scouring the internet for republican "ideas" did you do any research on exactly why NONE of them made it into law?
Was it the Dems who stopped it or were the Repubs blocked by their own party or did they not follow through because they didn't actually give a rats ass about healthcare reform and were just proposing crap as a way to object to Dem ideas
BTW - have you noticed that the Repubs used to say "repeal and replace" when it came to Obamacare and now after the 40+ symbolic votes for the benefit of appeasing the sliver of teabag idiots they dropped the "replace" part all together
I wonder why they don't mention replace anymore
could it be that they didn't give a shit in the first place and they know the votes are a complete waste of time and money so why even bother with the bullshit "replace" statement when they never had any intention of replacing it with anything
actually if you read the forbes article they sight partisan politics as the reason the bush healthcare reform didnt make it, you know the one that would have resulted in more ppl covered using less money????
you can say whatever you want, the fact is the reps pushed for healthcare reform and it was killed by the dems, fact is they have had many different ideas for reform and have introduced many different pieces of legislation.
-
actually if you read the forbes article they sight partisan politics as the reason the bush healthcare reform didnt make it, you know the one that would have resulted in more ppl covered using less money????
you can say whatever you want, the fact is the reps pushed for healthcare reform and it was killed by the dems, fact is they have had many different ideas for reform and have introduced many different pieces of legislation.
I actually read the entire article but unlike you I don't assume that anything written in Forbes is sacrosanct.
I'm sure you aware (or I hope you are) that Bush faux plan was nothing more than yet another late term shot to give the wealthy another tax cut. I'm also not impressed with the opinions of the Lewin Group which is owned by UnitedHealth Group and donates money to Republican politicians
Go find the CBO scoring of Bush's phony health care reform plan (much like his phony alternative energy plan - switch grass anyone)
-
I actually read the entire article but unlike you I don't assume that anything written in Forbes is sacrosanct.
I'm sure you aware (or I hope you are) that Bush faux plan was nothing more than yet another late term shot to give the wealthy another tax cut. I'm also not impressed with the opinions of the Lewin Group which is owned by UnitedHealth Group and donates money to Republican politicians
Go find the CBO scoring of Bush's phony health care reform plan (much like his phony alternative energy plan - switch grass anyone)
Ahh so much like it was predicted, you have fallen back on to the "well bush wasn't really serious about healthcare reform"...lmfao
The lengths that you will go to
-
Especially chadstallion, the never serious unfunny comic relief. :)
thank you, that's almost the nicest thing I've read here. ;)
-
Sort of a stupid partisan non-issue.
All republican proposals fail to address the millions of uninsured and underinsured.
Really? Why don't you do some research and look up what the CBO says about the amount of people who will continue to go uninsured under the democrats' crapcare reform?
Nevermind, I know you won't even attempt to do that. If you had, you wouldn't be posting crap right out of you rear end.
Under crapcare, 30 million people will continue to go uninsured. How is that better than anything that the GOP has proposed? This crapcare by the democratic party fails in the same exact way as, according to you, the GOP proposals.
Funny as hell watching these libtards make up their own "facts".
-
thank you, that's almost the nicest thing I've read here. ;)
No problem. :)
-
Ahh so much like it was predicted, you have fallen back on to the "well bush wasn't really serious about healthcare reform"...lmfao
The lengths that you will go to
he (and the Republicans) were as serious about it as they were about using switch grass as an alternative fuel source
isn't that what you put in your car these days thanks to the Republicans
-
he (and the Republicans) were as serious about it as they were about using switch grass as an alternative fuel source
isn't that what you put in your car these days thanks to the Republicans
As predicted when faced with facts, the default position is to say "they werent serious" LMFAO
-
Ahh so much like it was predicted, you have fallen back on to the "well bush wasn't really serious about healthcare reform"...lmfao
The lengths that you will go to
I'd probably agree. The President is one of the few gatekeepers who can control the agenda. I don't ever remember Bush making any significant noise about health care reform. A half-hearted committee introduction won't typically go anywhere anyway.
I just can't see absolving Republicans of their role in Obamacare. Their 'inaction' is just as much at fault, IMO.
-
I'd probably agree. The President is one of the few gatekeepers who can control the agenda. I don't ever remember Bush making any significant noise about health care reform. A half-hearted committee introduction won't typically go anywhere anyway.
I just can't see absolving Republicans of their role in Obamacare. Their 'inaction' is just as much at fault, IMO.
was one of his key talkling points in his state of the union speech, just before legislation was introduced that would have covered more people and costed less than obamacare.
-
was one of his key talkling points in his state of the union speech, just before legislation was introduced that would have covered more people and costed less than obamacare.
ya it passed and turned out great!!
-
was one of his key talkling points in his state of the union speech, just before legislation was introduced that would have covered more people and costed less than obamacare.
go back and re-read the Forbes article that you posted
-
go back and re-read the Forbes article that you posted
did you not see the graph i posted from that same article?
bushes proposal would have resulted in less people uninsured....
-
did you not see the graph i posted from that same article?
bushes proposal would have resulted in less people uninsured....
the paragraph right above the chart seems to contradict the chart
Also, try to keep in mind that this was more of a vehicle to give another tax cut (remember the first two rounds of Bush Tax cuts) when he had no other way to propose more tax cuts so late in his administration with the mounting expense of the wars, etc...
There was also plenty of Republican opposition to the plan (also in your article)
Like I said before, Bush was as serious about healthcare reform as he was about alternative energy......i.e clearly not that serious about it at all
-
the paragraph right above the chart seems to contradict the chart
Also, try to keep in mind that this was more of a vehicle to give another tax cut (remember the first two rounds of Bush Tax cuts) when he had no other way to propose more tax cuts so late in his administration with the mounting expense of the wars, etc...
There was also plenty of Republican opposition to the plan (also in your article)
Like I said before, Bush was as serious about healthcare reform as he was about alternative energy......i.e clearly not that serious about it at all
yes yes straw, we all know the default libtard tactic is to say "he didnt really mean it" lmfao
I agree, but if you read the article the chart will make sense and so will the fact that bushes plan meant less ppl uninsured and much less cost....
-
yes yes straw, we all know the default libtard tactic is to say "he didnt really mean it" lmfao
I agree, but if you read the article the chart will make sense and so will the fact that bushes plan meant less ppl uninsured and much less cost....
How much switch grass did you put in your car this morning
And I'm sure Bush was sincere about the tax cut which was the key part of his so plan
I read the article so if you did too then you can explain this sentence to me "the Bush administration estimated that the Affordable Choices Initiative would expand coverage by an additional 2 million or so, for a total of about 11 million. That’s not as large a coverage expansion of Obamacare, at 33 million"
Even the Forbes article highlighted opposition from Republicans (I know you saw that part since you read it) so it's not like Bush had any hope of getting a major (landmark) health care bill passed when he was a lame duck. I'm sure you believe he was totally sincere in wanted to reform healthcare but just because you choose to be gullible don't expect others to follow along
BTW - you're acting like there was some kind of plan actually fleshed out with details. I can't find a CBO Scoring and I can find lot's of articles saying the plan was short on details to make any meaningful evaluation (though of course that didn't seem to stop the Republican biased Forbes from hiring the Republican biased and fully owned by a healthcare company Lewin group from attempting to do so anyway). Hmmmm, I wonder why they would post this article in April of 2012. What was happening around that time
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=238
http://www.hcplive.com/publications/internal-medicine-world-report/2007/2007-04/2007-04_22
-
How much switch grass did you put in your car this morning
And I'm sure Bush was sincere about the tax cut which was the key part of his so plan
I read the article so if you did too then you can explain this sentence to me "the Bush administration estimated that the Affordable Choices Initiative would expand coverage by an additional 2 million or so, for a total of about 11 million. That’s not as large a coverage expansion of Obamacare, at 33 million"
Even the Forbes article highlighted opposition from Republicans (I know you saw that part since you read it) so it's not like Bush had any hope of getting a major (landmark) health care bill passed when he was a lame duck. I'm sure you believe he was totally sincere in wanted to reform healthcare but just because you choose to be gullible don't expect others to follow along
BTW - you're acting like there was some kind of plan actually fleshed out with details. I can't find a CBO Scoring and I can find lot's of articles saying the plan was short on details to make any meaningful evaluation (though of course that didn't seem to stop the Republican biased Forbes from hiring the Republican biased and fully owned by a healthcare company Lewin group from attempting to do so anyway). Hmmmm, I wonder why they would post this article in April of 2012. What was happening around that time
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=238
http://www.hcplive.com/publications/internal-medicine-world-report/2007/2007-04/2007-04_22
i guess obamacare was really only about giving ppl govt assistance then? ::)
read the article, this small paragraph doesnt take into account the entire plan only part of it,
"Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history."
from the forbes article.....
-
By the way the dems declared bush's proposal dead on arrival...
"This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed."
-
i guess obamacare was really only about giving ppl govt assistance then? ::)
read the article, this small paragraph doesnt take into account the entire plan only part of it,
"Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history."
from the forbes article.....
I read the Forbes article
If you can't explain the discrepancy between the text and the chart then just say so
I really don't give a shit since the Bush plan didn't actually exist in any meaningful way, had no chance of passing (opposed by people in both parties) and like I've said from the beginning was just a late term Hail Mary attempt to give the wealthy another tax cut
do you have anything else that's actually relevant and timely that you want to bellyache about?
-
By the way the dems declared bush's proposal dead on arrival...
"This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed."
Yeah, because it was a TAX CUT PLAN for the wealthy
-
Yeah, because it was a TAX CUT PLAN for the wealthy
LOL - and Oh-Shits obamascam is a tax HIKE on everyone.
-
LOL - and Oh-Shits obamascam is a tax HIKE on everyone.
false
-
false
LOL - believe what you want Obama slave
-
I couldn't imagine trying to defend a glorified community activist turned disasterous presidency like Barack Obama for 3 more years. I believe I would just give up and keep what remaining credibility I had left.
It is entertaining watching these folks on this forum making excuses though, I must admit.
-
LOL - believe what you want Obama slave
and you are free to believe whatever you want as well you retarded bald headed dwarf
-
I couldn't imagine trying to defend a glorified community activist turned disasterous presidency like Barack Obama for 3 more years. I believe I would just give up and keep what remaining credibility I had left.
It is entertaining watching these folks on this forum making excuses though, I must admit.
If he were allowed to run he could probably win another 2 terms
-
Just read where Joe Manchin, Democrat Senator from West Virginia has broke ranks and now supports a one year delay on the individual mandate.
Any confirmation on this?
-
If true it's a major kick in the nuts to the Obama administration and just reinforces how much of a joke he is as a leader.
-
If true it's a major kick in the nuts to the Obama administration and just reinforces how much of a joke he is as a leader.
You state a rumor then assume it's true.
-
You state a rumor then assume it's true.
modus operandi of all of Fox News. It works for them every day.