We were wrong; it ain't the Reps or the Dems or Obama

[Don]

Despite the fact that "Dubya" has been out of office for the past five years, most of the respondents said former President George W. Bush is to blame for the shutdown.


Why? Well, he apparently did a lot of bad stuff and had policies that only Barack Obama can reverse, which is why the current president has added twice as much debt than economic output over the past two years.

As for health care, which is at the heart of the shutdown, one respondent said that, if Bush had proposed some sort of health care reform, all of this could've been avoided. Well, he did. In fact, there's a long history of Republican policy proposals to fix American health care.

The irony is that Bush's 2007 health care proposal is actually "superior" to Obamacare concerning universal coverage. As Chris Conover of Forbes noted last August:

"[T]he Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provide 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%."

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/shutdown-bushs-fault#sthash.Fv8nnspR.dpuf

 

[InTheLight]

As for health care, which is at the heart of the shutdown, one respondent said that, if Bush had proposed some sort of health care reform, all of this could've been avoided. Well, he did. In fact, there's a long history of Republican policy proposals to fix American health care.

The irony is that Bush's 2007 health care proposal is actually "superior" to Obamacare concerning universal coverage. As Chris Conover of Forbes noted last August:

"[T]he Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage.

Chris Conover is on crack. I do not see how Bush's 2007 health insurance plan, unveiled in the 2007 State of the Union Address would provide more universal coverage than ObamaCare since there is no mandate. Bush's plan was to shield $15,000 of income from any payroll or income taxes for families, $7,500 for single people. That's it. No mandate, no insurance exchanges, no preexisting clause, no removal of lifetime caps, etc. etc. This is "superior" to ObamaCare in getting uninsured people to become insured?

Under the Bush plan if you are married with two kids you would pocket $1,147.50 from FICA and Medicare tax savings plus whatever you would save on reducing your taxable income by $15,000, which I'm going to guess would be around $2,000. So a family of four would save about $3,200 on taxes under the Bush plan. Tell me, how are you going to provide health care insurance for your family on $3,200 a year? If you are currently uninsured what is going to motivate you to buy health insurance with that additional $3,200? And if you are insured through your employer the plan would simply shift funding away from FICA and Medicare and into your pocket. Does anyone see the problem with taking tax funds from Medicare, shifting it to younger workers, while having 10,000 baby boomer retiring per day and going on Medicare?

 

[Salty]

OR if there was no required universal health care - there would have been no govt shut-down

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I do not see how Bush's 2007 health insurance plan, unveiled in the 2007 State of the Union Address would provide more universal coverage than ObamaCare since there is no mandate. Bush's plan was to shield $15,000 of income from any payroll or income taxes for families, $7,500 for single people. That's it. No mandate, no insurance exchanges, no preexisting clause, no removal of lifetime caps, etc. etc. This is "superior" to ObamaCare in getting uninsured people to become insured?

Yeah. Why? Because it encourages and protects health savings accounts, which is the best form of protection a family can have, especially in light of the high deductibles we're seeing as a result of the misbegotten ACA.

Under the Bush plan if you are married with two kids you would pocket $1,147.50 from FICA and Medicare tax savings plus whatever you would save on reducing your taxable income by $15,000, which I'm going to guess would be around $2,000. So a family of four would save about $3,200 on taxes under the Bush plan. Tell me, how are you going to provide health care insurance for your family on $3,200 a year?

Well, for one thing, $3,200 a year in tax savings is nothing to sneeze at. Tell me you wouldn't take it if it was offered to you. Also, you don't accurately represent the Bush health care plan. President George W. Bush laid out a plan that would have made healthcare more affordable, given everyone who buys insurance the same tax break and incentivized you to be more cost-conscious in how you spend your healthcare dollars, all without increasing federal spending.

Specifically, Bush proposed changing how spending on health insurance is taxed, and reallocating federal funds to help those states with affordable insurance subsidize low-income and hard-to-insure people.

"When it comes to healthcare, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children," the president said. "We will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy."

Even those critical of the proposal's details gave the president credit for taking on inequities in the healthcare system. Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said the President showed leadership by placing the tax treatment of employer-based coverage on the table as part of health care reform.

So yes, the Bush plan was far superior to the ACA and yes, it was more universal that the ACA. And let me repeat -- all without raising taxes or increasing federal spending. So, of course, the socialists wouldn't go along with it. Neither of those things are on their agenda.

 

[InTheLight]

So yes, the Bush plan was far superior to the ACA and yes, it was more universal that the ACA. And let me repeat -- all without raising taxes or increasing federal spending. So, of course, the socialists wouldn't go along with it. Neither of those things are on their agenda.

This is "superior" to ObamaCare in getting uninsured people to become insured?

Please explain how giving people a tax break is going to incent them to specifically buy health insurance (and not a flat screen TV and a new cell phone)?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This is "superior" to ObamaCare in getting uninsured people to become insured?

Please explain how giving people a tax break is going to incent them to specifically buy health insurance (and not a flat screen TV and a new cell phone)?

Obviously you didn't read the whole post. It wasn't just "a tax break." Or else, what part of " ... reallocating federal funds to help those states with affordable insurance subsidize low-income and hard-to-insure people" did you fail to understand?

 

[InTheLight]

Obviously you didn't read the whole post. It wasn't just "a tax break." Or else, what part of " ... reallocating federal funds to help those states with affordable insurance subsidize low-income and hard-to-insure people" did you fail to understand?[/QUOTE]

Saw that part of your post. However the centerpiece of Bush's plan was a tax break. Now take a shot at answering my question:

Please explain how giving people a tax break is going to incent them to specifically buy health insurance (and not a flat screen TV and a new cell phone)?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Saw that part of your post. However the centerpiece of Bush's plan was a tax break.

Centerpiece or not, the only thing you talked about was the tax break, which of course wouldn't be of much use to the low-income families all by itself. But the point is, the reallocation of federal funds to see to it they get low-cost coverage, and the hard-to-insure are covered, fleshes out the program to the point that the tax break couldn't. You can't just consider the tax break without considering the rest of the proposal in gauging its effectiveness.

Now take a shot at answering my question:

Please explain how giving people a tax break is going to incent them to specifically buy health insurance (and not a flat screen TV and a new cell phone)?

That's a bogus question. The tax break was tied to the creation of a health savings account AND a health insurance purchase. They would have negated their tax break if they didn't have insurance.

 

[Don]

(AHEM) If I may interject - what is your opinion of Bush being responsible for the shut-down?

 

[InTheLight]

(AHEM) If I may interject - what is your opinion of Bush being responsible for the shut-down?

LOL. Yeah, back to the OP. I don't buy into the idea that Bush is responsible for the shutdown. It's both parties with the Republicans bearing a little bit more than the Dems.