Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

BushCareThe easiest way to crush a Liberal in an argument about Obama is to ask, “What would you say if Bush had done it?”

In the case of ObamaCare, the lesson might be the most poignant.

I found these questions on a discussion board, and decided this time, it was worth the comparison: if ObamaCare were BushCare what would the repercussions and responses be?

So ask yourself these questions, and then question if ObamaCare would be deader than disco.

Imagine…

1. If Republican George Bush made it mandatory that every American buy health insurance.

2. If Bush said if you don’t buy it, you will be fined.

3. If Bush said he would employ the IRS to collect the fine from you for non-conformance.

4. If Bush took the “public option” out of the bill, in order to please the private health insurance companies.

5. If Bush created a health care plan where the average cost was $328 dollars a month.

6. If Bush totally ignored all of the polls that said most Americans were against the health care bill.

7. If during the first 2 weeks of Bush’s health care plan rollout, the website crashed and hardly anybody could sign up.

8. If Bush gave Corporate America a one-year delay joining, but refused to do the same for poor people.

If George Bush did these things, he’d be the most unpopular president in history, especially among blacks.

 
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • Nate Brown

    Just goes to show that we are anything but a post racial society. Racism goes both ways. People are treated unfairly because of race sometimes, yes, but now we are seeing a president get unbelievably biased treatment because of his race.

    • http://www.facebook.com/deangreen2005 Dean Green

      Because Obama gets white advantages? Well, Obama is neither black nor African American. He’s not black because he’s half-black and half-white. He’s mixed or biracial (and some would use the apparently “politically incorrect” mulatto word). And he’s not African American because African Americans are the American descendants of Africans who were enslaved and brought to America. African Americans have a different history than black immigrants to this country (such as Nigerian Americans, Kenyan Americans, Jamican Americans, African Canadians, etc.). In this regard, Obama is Kenyan-Irish American or Irish-Kenyan American because he’s Kenyan on one side and Irish on the other side.

      • Kimberly Wells

        White advantages? Like being called a racist when you speak up about a murder investigation based only on the race of the suspect and the victim? Like being deemed to be privileged by having earned your own money? Oh, yeah, I can so see how he’s been getting biased treatment because he’s white. *rolls eyes*

  • John W

    Well now that the Libtards get to taste their medicine, it *is* BushCare!

    • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

      lmao!

  • Tuna Hunkin

    Of course if it were Bushcare it will be hated by most liberals, most blacks and minorities just like Obamacare is hated by most if not all republicans. It is what it is but fact is Bush didn’t want to touch it while Obama had the guts to answer to the millions who are without health insurance and couldn’t afford to obtain it. It passed the Congress; blessed by the Supreme Court and all we do now is make sure it works and if there are some changes to make if better than lets do it, but to call for repealing a law that for the first time will help minorities and the poor in dealing with their healthcare is unconscionable.

    • Mike Lange

      So if the new healthcare law bankrupts the country would we be able to call for its recall then? This is not about getting healthcare to the poor, it would be a lot cheaper to just buy it for them. It is about controlling the people, so we are dependent on the govt for everything and have to keep electing those who promise us everything. We want NO PART OF THAT. This law is a clunker written by idiots and administered by incompetents. It will soon join its bankrupt cousins: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, the post office, and Amtrak and anything else the govt runs. If they wanted to get healthcare to the poor people then the new law would not fine hospitals for treating people for free as it does; so open your eyes.

      • Tuna Hunkin

        When SS and Medicare were implemented this is the same sentiments spewed by the right – it will bust the bust the budget and bankrupt the country yet its been decades and these entitlements are still going strong and for the minorities and elderly its their lifeline. And I don’t see any republican breaking down any doors calling for repeal and replace of the SS and Medicare because despite all their negativity they are also enjoying the benefits of these programs. So what do you have to replace Obamacare with? Over a hundered years past presidents wanted healthcare reform but none was successful because of opposition from the right.
        Your republican friends has been campaigning for 3 years to defund Obamacare and offered no alternative and the people soundly rejected their mission. Deal with it, live with it, its the law of the land – and improvements may be needed but don’t deny the millions and millions who have never had health insurance this chance.
        Of course with the anti-poor, anti-middleclass, anti-latino, anti-black, anti-immigration reform mentality of the right they will continue with this loosing mission again and may lead the country to another shutdown in a few months even though its pointless and it has already affected thousands and thousands of people and cost the economy 30 billion dollars.
        Take heed from the Heritage Foundation who said yesterday ” Obamacare will be safe until 2017″ effectively telling Republicans to lay off Obamacare and concentrate on getting a majority in the Senate and win the White House in 2017. A daunting task indeed with the damage done already by the Tea Party faction who called all the shots in this latest fiasco.
        Quoting Disqus :

        • Laurie K.

          SS and medicare are going to bankrupt the country. There is not enough people to pay for retiring baby boomers. The problems you see now are going to get much worse in the next decade. Try to do some basic logical thinking for once in your pathetic life.

          • Tuna Hunkin

            You righties are so full of it and your hypocrisy stinks to heaven. You have been saying for years these programs will bankrupt the country and it hasn’t happened yet and on the other hand you are still enjoying the benefits of SS and Medicare. Don’t worry there will always be people in the workforce to pay for the retirees as it has been for decades. Obamacare is here to stay so has been SS and Medicare; deal with it, live with it and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. No congressman or senator has the guts to call for repeal of SS or Medicare as that is political suicide – so enjoy your benefits as I’m sure your parents and grandparents are and stop with the typical rightwing extremist fearmongering that is so old news.

          • ghost of life

            Remember obumacare was passed w/out 1 republican vote. It was jammed down are throats. Also I receive s.s. benefits because I pd into s.s. for 40 years. So when the U.S. goes to hell you can sell pencils on the street corner. Use your f…. head.

          • sky2cruiser

            Let’s not forget it would not have all those democrat votes either were it not for back room deals and wavers.

          • ghost of life

            Right on, brother

          • Tuna Hunkin

            That’s the way the Congress works – how many laws has been passed recently without a single democrat vote? Were those considered as being “jammed down our throats” too? Its democracy where majority rules; basic Government 101. If the healthcare law was put thru at the time with republicans as the majority we wouldn’t be talking about Obamacare now would we? So don’t fret; win an election, get yourself in the majority and you can pretty well get anything you want in Congress – its the way Congress works whether you like it or not
            So for all you angry and frustrated rightwing nuts out there its simple – win the Senate, win the White House then you have your way but in the meantime deal with it, live with it and quit being obstructionists.
            Take heed from the Heritage Foundation who have already announced “Obamacare is safe until 2017 at least affectively telling Ted Cruz and all republicans to lay off Obamacare and get your house in order first – and more importantly – WIN AN ELECTION.

          • anoesis

            You idiots (I mean liberals) that have no more than a 7 second sound bite attention span and who never listen to any news worth while obviously have not heard the news that Medicare has been raided by the govmint to the point of bankruptcy. You don’t know that when Social (have any of you noticed that word is just 3 letters short of socialism) Security was forced on us it took just 3% of the gross yearly pay and there were 10 people paying in for every 1 drawing out. Thanks to our EXCELLENT health care system (which is now going to be shot to H***) there are now just 3 people paying in for every 1 drawing out. And that 1 drawing out lives to 85 or 90 years old not just 65. President George W. Bush had a plan for the people to keep part of the money that is being taken from them by the govmint so they could invest it in stocks or whatever they chose. It was a proven fact that invested personal money had a much better return to the individual than govmint S.S. The dummycRATS would not even talk about it. They don’t think we have sense enough to control our own money and therefore destinies and from the content of your intelligence briefing above they KNOW YOU DON”T.

    • http://commentspammersmustdie.blogspot.com/ Kakarot

      Remember – You can tune a piano, but you can’t tuna fish.

    • DOUGLAS GILLARD

      I am a minority though not poor and I have had health care for the last 33 years. I wish you liberals would stop using minorities as an excuse to push your agenda.

      • Tuna Hunkin

        Good for you if you are a minority and have healthcare insurance but millions of minorities don’t for decades because they just cant afford it.

  • bjorn skis

    my health insurance premium doubled thank you ACA

  • WerewolfVm

    That is absolutely true if it were Bushcare. But since it is Obama who is half black, considers himself black is the ram rod of this disaster it is okay with most! He does not even recognize his other ethnicity at all anymore. Why is that? Such a hypocrite and a deconstructionist of nation. I despise him with disdain and contempt.

  • old_salty_dawg99

    If Bus hd done even one thing Obammy has he would have been impeached already and Bush would not have even gotten a healthcare bill passed much lees a WORHLESS PILE of S**T like Obammy care is.

  • brucefandrews

    G W Bush did propose a health care plan. The difference is, Bush’s plan would work and would have been affordable. The democrats crushed it. The progressive media would not even mention it to the people.

    • Colin Rafferty

      Bush campaigned on a plan but never proposed anything. What he campaigned on would have only covered about five million more people, leaving 30 million still without insurance. That’s not a plan that works. And it wasn’t even a plan.

      • Kimberly Wells

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21929-2004Aug21.html

        There’s an article on that plan that never existed. As for if it would work, don’t know, did you try it? And helping cover five million people would seem to work. Sorry that’s not enough for you, some of us don’t want it or can’t afford it. Now those who fall in that category are being forced to have it anyways, even if it bankrupts us.

      • anoesis

        With all the bail out money this ‘president’ has thrown away on GM and Chrysler, to move their businesses to China and Mexico respectively, the people could have been GIVEN 2 million dollars apiece for every man, woman and child in the country to stimulate the economy and there would have still been plenty of money for him and knuckle dragger to vacation to their hearts content. Those of us who WOULD spend the money wisely would have and the moochers would have blown all theirs in two weeks time. OH! If there are (were) just 45 million people in this country who didn’t have health insurance WHY did the government NOT JUST INSURE THEM AND LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE?? I’ll answer that question. The government would not have had TOTAL CONTROL over ALL of us, just the ones the tax payers support.

        • Tuna Hunkin

          Do you really know what you’re talking about? Do the math – 300 million people x 2 million dollar – that will blow your calculator to a million pieces – don’t just spew nonsense.

  • Colin Rafferty

    This post a great example of projection. Gingrich proposed the ACA in 1992, Romney implemented it in MA in 2006, yet when Obama implements it nationwide, Republicans squeal like stuck pigs about communism.

    So while you have to guess what would have happened if Bush implemented it, we actually know what happens when a Republican plan gets implemented by a Democrat.

    • Kimberly Wells

      From what I understand Romney’s plan didn’t make the average person’s insurance go up by a couple hundred dollars a month. Gigrich’s plan never got passed. What makes you think that we want it now when we didn’t want it then?

    • anoesis

      You need to check the public records. President Bush’s plan would have given the people almost all the money they would need, in tax breaks, to purchase their own insurance. EXACTLY would they would need and NONE of what they would not. His plan would have given money to people who didn’t pay any taxes (welfare moochers) and it would have covered many more people than this forced, life shattering, country destroying socialist edict would. If health care cost no more to buy to get the coverage needed with no frills than car insurance we’d all be ABLE to buy it without having to sell our homes and live in a card board box somewhere. But this tyrant has figured out how to cause the most pain with the least gain to the American people. Any so called LEADER who WILL NOT WORK WITH CONGRESS TO SOLVE THE NATIONS PROBLEMS is childish at the least and DANGEROUS in any case.
      I have always wondered why you people who think you can’t live without the government holding your hand and making all your decisions and that everything it does is perfectly fine no matter how invasive it is to your privacy and freedom don’t go to a country where the government does just that. You’d be so much happier there than here where you are expected to take responsibility for your lives.

    • Kafir

      If this plan was so loved by Republicans, why was it never presented to Congress for a vote during the entire twelve years the GOP controlled both the House and Senate? Because it was a crappy, big-government, socialist solution and everybody knew it. Not all Republicans are small-government TEA partiers. A lot of them, like Gingrich, love the idea of big government and spreading around the largesse to their cronies.

    • michael

      You may not have noticed, but conservatives (not quasi liberal RINOs) criticized Pres. Bush for any number of things, like no child left behind, attempted amnesty, etc.
      If he had tried an ACA like montrosity, his friend teddy and the newbie barack would have been shoulder to shoulder with him. We conservatives would have been howling from the rooftops.
      Indefensable is indefensable no matter who proposes/implements it. At least that is so on the conservative side of the aisle. One of the main points of the article was that this is not so with leftists.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

    that is soooright! liberals would be screaming from the rooftops!

  • Colin Rafferty

    The best way to find out what a liberal would say is to ask one. I’m a liberal, and I’d say the same thing I say now — it doesn’t go far enough. If Medicare is good enough for people 65 and over, how about just extending it to everyone?

    That’s my personal favorite way to make someone’s head explode, ask them to explain why people 65 and older getting socialized medicine is ok, but not people under. Any answers?

    • Kimberly Wells

      That’s like asking why you’d help your parents in their old age by letting them stay with you but kick your son out because he’s almost thirty and won’t get his butt off the couch because you’re paying for everything and he won’t do anything around the house and won’t find a job.

      • Vicki Tidwell

        Thanks for taking the ‘words’ right out of my mouth & setting Rafferty straight!

      • CJ IsDa Shiznit

        its NOT an option to have it removed from your paycheck.

        • Kimberly Wells

          It’s not an option to not pay in, but you can choose not to get Medicare when you become eligible for it. The government doesn’t automatically sign you up for it nor do they require that you sign up for it. That’s what I was referring to.

          • michael

            You pay a penalty if you do not sign up. From medicare.gov:

            If you aren’t eligible for premium-free Part A, and you don’t buy it when you’re first eligible, your monthly premium may go up 10%. You’ll have to pay the higher premium for twice the number of years you could have had Part A, but didn’t sign up

            Your initial enrollment period ended September 30, 2009. You waited to sign up for Part B until the General Enrollment Period in March 2012. Your Part B premium penalty is 20%. (While you waited a total of 30 months to sign up, this included only 2 full 12-month periods.)

            no coercion here! move along nothing to see….

          • Kimberly Wells

            Yes, if you choose to wait after you’re original eligibility date there are consequences. It’s like not joining your job’s health care plan during open enrollment. However, you can peacefully live your whole life and NEVER have Medicare. The way it used to be if you had your own health insurance or didn’t want to use Medicare insurance you didn’t have to. The Amish have lived according to their own devices for quite awhile now without medical care. It is part of their belief system that they not receive modern medical attention. Should they be fined for their religion?

          • michael

            smokescreen much?

            who said anything about religion?

            I was making a point about there being coercion by the feds.

            You made the point about coercion on the front end, I made the one about there also being “do it this way or pay extra” pressure at the tail end.
            I like that: “an option for those who chose” Forced to pay into it, but I can choose to screw my self and not get ANY thing for my extorted dollars. Nice choice. Nice racket if you can pull it off. Don’t private citizens get charged with extortion or racketeering or such like for strongarming people like that?

          • Kimberly Wells

            Oh, I agree. It is a form of extortion, however it has never been a requirement to use Medicare. And no, I don’t think it’s right to have such penalties.

            As for the religion part that was about ObamaCare, which was what I was originally comparing to Medicare. Sorry, went a little off point there, but still a valid complaint. The religious majorities in this country can’t “force” their religion on others by practicing it whereas the beliefs of those who are not “religious” can be forced on everyone and that’s okay. Just makes me mad.

      • Colin Rafferty

        Cool. So everyone under 18 should have Medicare also?

        • Kimberly Wells

          You see, what they want is for everyone to have Medicare and then charge everyone extra for it. That’s basically what ObamaCare is except that Medicare gives you better coverage for your money.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You are correct. Most liberals would definitely prefer to have Medicare-for-all. It would cost less, be simpler to manage, and cover more people. What we have now is the closest we could come while still being able to get it passed.

            We almost managed to get started down the more slippery slope to getting it during the final days of negotiations. There was almost a buy-in option for 55-64 year olds. If that had made it through, we would have then just kept ratcheting down the age at which you could buy-in.

            We’d also see big corporations lobbying to be able to move employee plans into it.

            Eventually, enough people would be enrolled, that it would eventually become paid for directly out of general government revenue rather than indirectly through premiums.

    • Skip Rice

      That’s their ultimate goal. Make obamacare get adopted by having high expectations because of the misrepresentations about what it is and does, then let it fail, blame it on the private sector, say we tried, but the capitalists cannot be trusted, and simply swoop in and install a single payer system, and BOOM. Medicare for everybody.

    • michael

      I am assuming you have had a job or know someone who has had one.
      If not you can probably google the unfamiliar subject to verify these facts.

      1. Since WWII most health care coverage has been tied to jobs, with employers paying 50% or more of the costs. This is a quirk in the way people are compensated brought about by a wage freeze during WWII to keep the price of a scarce commodity (labor) low.

      2. Retirement age for many people is 65.

      3. With greatly reduced income, and no employer to pick up the majority of the cost of their insurance coverage, many people cannot afford private health care plans.

      NOTE: it is not “socialized medicine”. It is the federal govt injecting itself into the INSURANCE market. The recipients still contract with other private citizens (Drs) for their health care.
      The feds screw this bit of insurance up just as they do the annuity they force everyone to buy.(social security).
      A private company would go broke trying to sell an annuity with the return of SS and the feds doing it by force of law are still going broke.

      • Colin Rafferty

        So given your description, Obamacare makes perfect sense. People who have insurance through their jobs see no change, and people who don’t have insurance through their jobs (for whatever reason) are able to get it, just like retired people have insurance. So what’s the problem?

        And separately, if you don’t think that Medicare is socialized medicine, then Obamacare isn’t either.

        • michael

          Pay attention to the news, pople who have insurance through their jobs have been getting large increases in price. Some companies are dropping the employees and sending them to exchanges where the employees absorb ALL the increase in price. The company will get by cheaper paying the fine when their (delayed) mandate kicks in. Other companies have cut hours to part time so no coverage is required of them. Again the citizen is getting stuck with a huge bill, not the $2500 decrease that prez zero promised.
          So tell me, when a person has his hours cut, losing income, loses the employer portion of the insurance payment, and faces a huge increase in premiums, how many of those people who don’t have coverage will be able to afford paying the higher charges they will now face? That’s like passing a law saying everyone MUST drive newly more expensive luxury car, and dusting off your hands and congatulating yourself on everyone having a great ride. It ain’t gonna happen. It’s just a pipe dream.
          Very few full time jobs are being created, mostly part time, a direct result of companies making their plans with ACA in mind. Not exactly a positive for the economy. The unintended consequences of this law are killing the economy, and hurting private citizens. Those are just a couple of the problems I see.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I agree that Obamacare is not perfect, and ends of creating weird disincentives for companies. But that’s because we had to negotiate with people who don’t like the idea of everyone having medical insurance. Obviously, you aren’t one of those people, since you think that paying for anyone over 65 is fine.

            What would be much better would be to have single payer, like Canada and everyone over 65, and pay for it by increasing taxes overall. This would reduce the average individual’s health care costs, since the tax increase would be more than offset by the reduction in what people currently pay for medical care.

            Another advantage is that by having medical insurance not tied to your job, it increases labor mobility, which makes markets more efficient.

          • michael

            I already said the feds have totally fouled up the SS program. A simple annuity which every bank and insurance company in the country sells successfully (profitably) they manage to turn into a Ponzi scheme which is going broke. (again) I did not say I thought fed involvement with insurance of any kind was OK They make a botch of it and skew the market. Prices go up, access is distorted, (increasing numbers of Drs will not take medicaid or medicare), and there is no disincentive for frivolous usage of medical services. Fraud abounds. People say “root out the fraud”. They have said that all my adult life, and the problem persists and even grows.

            Another example of fed insurance skewing the market is guaranteed student loans. Prices ALWAYS far outstrip inflation. You pour dollars into a sector and prices go up to absorb the available money.This seems to be the economic corollary to “Nature abhors a vacumn”.

            Ahh yes. Canada, or Britain. or Cuba if you believe michael moore.NTY. I read of Britains Health service reporting on death either attributed to or contributed to by dehydration.

            Thousands!! not an isolated few, THOUSANDS. The link is to a skynews story, not exactly known as a right wing site:

            http://news.sky.com/story/1133948/hospital-patients-dying-of-dehydration

            Canadians who need care quickly come here. Canadian DRs who want to practice medecine unfetterred by idiot regulations and frustrated with not being able to give their patients adequate care come south. Ross Perot’s “sucking sound” might soon be the sound of American and Canadian ex-pats going south to practice medecine.
            single payer? more like single slayer.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Facts are facts. We’re talking about medicine, not SS or student loans. There are always bad individual stories, but the reality is that Canadian and British health care systems are better than the US health care, by all measures. Those are the facts. You may not like them, but it is reality. They have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality, for example. And they spend less than we do. And they have exactly zero people who go bankrupt because of medical bills. Zero.

            We have various ways that we could also reduce hospital deaths, also. But there’s a difference between anecdotes about a particular issue, and actual facts. We could have the best health care system in the world, but we choose instead to put profits over people.

          • michael

            The fact is the govt screws up the social programs it controls. And the issue is not health care, it is insurance and I gave 2 other examples of govt screwed up insurance progs. The incompetance displayed in those areas lends no confidence that they will be suddenly competant in the health insurance field.
            We have had the best health care in the world, your assertation not withstanding. That is why people come here.
            I did not give anecdotal evidence. I linked to news reports from Britains national health agency detailing neglectful deaths of thousands per year. Not just an assertation, a fact, studies made then reported in the news. I also told of how the death rate and infant death rate stats are skewed. Throw out the ones that the USA uses that they don’t and you have a different story.
            Since you cannot address any of the points made and only repeat the same assertations that have already been addressed have a good night. Enjoy your ACA. I will continue to fight against it and the harms it is doing and will continue to do to the country.

          • Colin Rafferty

            The terrible thing is that, individually, we do have the best available medical care. But in aggregate, we have terrible outcomes. If you are in the 1%, you can buy the best, but if you are one of the 30 million uninsured people, you get terrible care. The whole point of Medicare is that all people can get good medical care. It works.

            The average 66 year old has better medical outcomes than the average 64 year old.

            The average person in VA has better outcomes than the average in the equivalent cohort.

          • Colin Rafferty

            But I dont think anyone who disagrees with me is extreme. I understand that people can honestly disagree, and can have different ideas of what gov’t should and should not do. My issue is with people who act extremely.

            If you write letters, and vote, and talk to people, I might call you “wrong”, but never extreme.

            If you hold dozens of votes that will never become laws, I’ll call you a time-wasting moron who should do your job of running the country.

            If you threaten to destroy the world’s economy because you can’t get your way via legitimate mean, I’ll call you a terrorist.

          • Kimberly Wells

            Better watch out there. I do believe you just called the President a terrorist, that’ll get you arrested and detained indefinitely anymore.

      • Colin Rafferty

        But to be fair to you, I’m glad to see that we agree that it’s important that everyone have health insurance. It’s important to know where people agree, and then work towards finding a consensual solution.

      • RandomThesis

        The government has learned that it doesn’t need to OWN the “means of production” in order to CONTROL the “means of production.” Excessive regulation allows more control without the risk. That way they take credit for the successes and blame the failure on corporations and the free market. And they don’t need to involve Congress for much of it. They already do it with the Obamaphone and they are truing it with the Obamacare website debacle.

    • Kafir

      Medicare only works because there’s a quasi-free market in health care in which providers can make up for the losses they suffer in the single-payer Medicare system. Extend Medicare to everyone and you will crash the entire system.

      • michael

        excellent !! You make a great point I failed to address in my answer to colin.

      • Colin Rafferty

        The problem here is that you are arguing counter to reality. The reason Canada’s system is called Medicare is because it’s basically the same as the US’s version, but covers everyone. And their system hasn’t crashed. Not has the medical system in any Western European country. The only difference is that their citizens are healthier, live longer, and they have lower infant mortality rates.

        • Kafir

          First, single payer is the polar opposite of a monopoly. These are both bad for consumers. In a monopoly, you get high prices and low quality. In a single-payer system, you get low prices and scarcity. This is why the Canadian system features long wait times to get care. The Veterans Admin hospitals in this country have the same problem as well as the single-payer Indian Health Service.

          Second, Canada and the western European countries do not have millions of illegal immigrants pouring over their border every year.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’d rather have a long wait for quality care than a short wait for bad care. The medical outcomes for Canadian citizens living in Canada are better than those for American citizens living in the US. Immigration has nothing to do with that.

            In theory, a monopoly can be bad. In practice, socialized medicine is all-around better than what we have. Actual outcomes count.

            Speaking of VA hospitals, they actually have the best outcomes of any US insurance group. And lowest costs. The best thing we could do is move towards that model, where the government owns and runs the hospitals, and has doctors working directly for them. Just like in England, where they have lower costs and better outcomes.

        • michael

          Wrong!! They calculate infant mortality differently. If the baby is born alive it counts here. 1 hour, 1 day, 1 year, it counts.
          They do not count it until it has survived independently, for a period of time, do not count preemies, etc
          the adult stats are skewed because (in part) America has so many more automobiles , miles traveled, take those 50K deaths out of the stats, (especially the teens) and the story ends differently

  • PrayerBurden

    The easiest and simplest way would be to make is the same as car insurance. Don’t tie it to our jobs! TRANSPORTABLE! That is the way to fix the insurance side of it. Fixing the reason for the sky high COST of stuff is another argument. BUT nooo liberals/progressives WANT a single payer system for all and they are just trying to make all private companies go bankrupt.

    • Steve Randolph

      Obamacare is not about better medical care or cheaper insurance. It’s about the money and nothing else. The money is going to the insurance companies and the govt. plain and simple.

    • AsphaultCowboy

      You got it, PrayerBurden. It’s all about making it a single-payer Government controlled health care system. Part of “Cloward-Piven” strategy.

    • Philip Snide Snyder

      Obamacare = Ponzi scheme!

  • allenebooth

    I guess I’ll be fined somewhere down the road. Here’s my exact situation:

    I’m on Social Security Disability benefits. I’m currently signed up for TennCare, though they’ve farmed mine out to United Health Care. Here it is Oct. 18 as I write this and I have yet to purchase anything insurance-related. I don’t even have dental insurance.

  • Chad Javier

    IMAGINE: That we lived in a world that made any sense AT ALL …?

  • old_salty_dawg99

    Well if Bush had done this he would have been impeached so fast they would break light speed getting him out office. Had Bush even suggested such IGNORANCE they would have impeached him. Blacks would have sued him in mass and they would have had lawyers standing in line to take the case pro bono. Had Bush done as Obammy has he would have been dragged from office and thrown under the worst prison in the world and that is what should happen to Obammy as well. Had Bush done this he would not deserve the title of President. Obammy does not deserve the title even long before his STUPID Law was passed. In FACT he has and never will deserve that title and using it on him is an INSULT to ever good man that ever held that office. Obammy is the BIGGEST IDIOT and LIAR to ever infest any high office or any office of any kind the World over. That makes him completely unfit to be in the Office now or ever.

    • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

      damn right!

  • Tyler

    If Bush had done this the US Supreme Court would have found the law unconstitutional. The liberal justices would have all voted that it is not constitutional along with the conservative ones. Robert’s vote would have been unchanged.

  • pete

    It is amazing how racist only effect the whites? The democrats what no failure for this white/black person. Destroy the “American Way” so one person will not fail. I am completely disappointed in our congress. Heard that this shutdown was completely plan by one or both party’s. What else is planed by our so called leaders?

    • racefish

      Mostly the Democrats. The signs were all made up far in advance. Obama found a way to blackmail the Republicans with the aid of the media.

  • sunnyarizona

    For goodness sake, the Obama White House is STILL blaiming Bush for everything that is wrong now. There is no way BUSHCARE would have passed the Senate! Bush is the Villian here….yah….right…..

    • Jacobb Chapman

      And more recently, they are also blaming the constitution. In fact, on MSNBC they said the constitution is flawed because it doesn’t give Obama enough power.

      • Kafir

        Funny how supportive of the constitution they were when Bush was in power.

      • Kimberly Wells

        You know it’s funny how Obama is the first president to ever complain of not having enough power. I do believe this was why the checks and balances of our current government system were put in place. When one person has all the power it’s called a dictatorship.

  • Jacobb Chapman

    Both parties are guilty of this, actually. Republicans are against raising the debt ceiling, even though Reagan’s administration did it 18 times. Republicans were against Obama bombing syria without congressional approval, even though Reagan invaded Grenada and bombed Libya without congressional approval. The Democrats were against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, but now they support it. It’s never going to end.

    • Kafir

      That’s because there are only two parties in the government: The party of ever-expanding government and the TEA party. Republican members of the former simply want to slow the rate of expansion. Pick your side.

      • Jacobb Chapman

        Libertarian :D

        • Kafir

          I am pretty much a small-L libertarian myself and vote L when there is not an R and a D in the race, but let’s face facts:

          http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials

          There are only 38 Libertarians holding partisan office in the entire country. The deck has been stacked against them for a long time.

          They really need to take a cue from Ron Paul and run as Republicans like the TEA party is doing.

      • Kimberly Wells

        There are two main parties that spend enough money each year in campaigning that all the general populace knows is the two. There can be as many political parties as we choose to make, there is no limit. Just in order to start another party you have to raise enough money compete and with as much money as these two crank out in a year it’s very hard to do.

        • Kafir

          You’re missing the point. The two parties have made it impossible for third parties to have a chance. They both exist to enrich themselves and their members. The Democrats and establishment Republicans only care about feathering their nests and spreading government largesse (read: taxpayer money) to their cronies. That’s why John Boehner talks a good game but caves in the end.

    • DOOM161

      Republicans don’t oppose raising the debt ceiling. Conservatives do.

    • Kimberly Wells

      October 2008 the Debt of the US was 11.3 Trillion Dollars. In May 2013 it was 16.7 Trillion Dollars and has went up to over 17 Trillion Dollars now. This means that our country owes 17 Trillion Dollars to other countries around the world. Our debt has went up over 6 Trillion dollars since 2008. That’s the same amount that it rose from 1993 (4.3 Trillion) to 2008 (11.3 Trillion). In the last five years we’ve went in debt the same amount of money as the fifteen years before that. This is DEBT not spending. This is how much more the government is giving out than it is taking in. I don’t care which side of the fence you’re on it’s a problem. Republicans are for fixing the problem instead of simply raising the ceiling some more. This should be a good thing.

      If you as a person were $11,000 is debt and spending more each year than you made you would be in serious trouble.

      The Democrats have refused the idea of reducing spending at all and instead want to increase it. The Republicans have wanted to reduce spending. In the recent shutdown all of America saw that the Democrats refuse 100% to even discuss the possibility of reducing spending. In fact during shutdown they spent extra money just to push their agenda.

      And by the way, the debt in 2006 was 5.5 Trillion Dollars, the ceiling was raised by only 600 Billion Dollars. In 2012 alone the debt ceiling was raised by over 2 Trillion Dollars and there’s already another crisis.

      Republicans are not against raising the debt ceiling entirely, they’re against the rate that the spending has taken off to. You can’t spend yourself out of debt no matter how hard you try.

    • Jeff

      Actually, Obama part in the war in Libya a couple years ago was the very first President to send US military into combat! And when Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, as many presidents have done, the US did NOT have a 17 Trillion Dollar Debt! From George Washington to George W Bush combined, the nations debt reached just over 9 Trillion $! Obama has now added 8 Trillion $! In just 4&3/4 years! By the time Obama leaves office, the debt will be 25-26 Trillion Dollars and all other nation in the world will STOP lending us any money for fear of not being payed back! Educate yourself and don’t listen to Obama’s Properganda Media!