The myth that republicans have no ideas for healthcare reform...

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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)

[tonymctones]

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

[chadstallion]

Especially chadstallion, the never serious unfunny comic relief.   

thank you, that's almost the nicest thing I've read here. 

[dario73]

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".

[Dos Equis]

thank you, that's almost the nicest thing I've read here. 

No problem.   

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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

[Skip8282]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Necrosis]

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!!

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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....

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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....

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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.....

[tonymctones]

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."

[Straw Man]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah, because it was a TAX CUT PLAN for the wealthy

LOL - and Oh-Shits obamascam is a tax HIKE on everyone. 

[Straw Man]

LOL - and Oh-Shits obamascam is a tax HIKE on everyone. 

false

[Soul Crusher]

false

LOL - believe what you want Obama slave

[polychronopolous]

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.

[Straw Man]

LOL - believe what you want Obama slave

and you are free to believe whatever you want as well you retarded bald headed dwarf