<![CDATA[Republican Hypocrisy]]>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overh...iring_insurance

I mean seriously..... they got the cross state exchanges, the mandate for responsibility, No public option.... funny really how much hate the right wing has to ignore their own ideas......

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/10868/republican-hypocrisyRSS for NodeThu, 01 Oct 2026 03:36:19 GMTSat, 27 Mar 2010 18:04:11 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:06:52 GMT]]>

@shoot said:

The point of the mandate isn't improving service, it's to provide universal coverage (which in turn reduces costs in the long term). Of course, this cost reduction is much more effective when you either have competition (think public option, national-level exchanges, etc) or strict regulation (like the Dutch system where everything is private but premiums are capped at a very low rate and subsidized by the govt). But thanks to the slobbering idiots we have in Washington, we only got one part of what was needed. As it is in bare-bones form, you could construe it as a handout to private insurance companies.

Right, so, once again, the young, healthy people who are trying to get by without insurance for whatever reason are forced to pay for those who make a substantial amount of claims.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/165984https://brownsboard.com/post/165984Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:06:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:13:17 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

It is.

I supported it and still do.

But I realize it isn't going to reduce the cost or improve service much.

WSS

The point of the mandate isn't improving service, it's to provide universal coverage (which in turn reduces costs in the long term). Of course, this cost reduction is much more effective when you either have competition (think public option, national-level exchanges, etc) or strict regulation (like the Dutch system where everything is private but premiums are capped at a very low rate and subsidized by the govt). But thanks to the slobbering idiots we have in Washington, we only got one part of what was needed. As it is in bare-bones form, you could construe it as a handout to private insurance companies.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/165926https://brownsboard.com/post/165926Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:13:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:59:53 GMT]]>

@pumpkin-eater said:

I thought the mandate was Mitt Romney's idea from Massachusetts.

It is.

I supported it and still do.

But I realize it isn't going to reduce the cost or improve service much.

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/165921https://brownsboard.com/post/165921Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:59:53 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:44:18 GMT]]>What's really funny is how similar this bill is to the "alternative" Republicans+Heritage Foundation et al. pushed to Clinton's HC reform efforts in 1992. But 18 years later, the political discourse has been pushed so far to the right that a center-right policy is considered "socialist" by a sizable portion of the voting public.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/165912https://brownsboard.com/post/165912Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:44:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:38:05 GMT]]>I thought the mandate was Mitt Romney's idea from Massachusetts.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/165909https://brownsboard.com/post/165909Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:38:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:39:12 GMT]]>they are both equally worthless...Dems and Reps that is.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/165697https://brownsboard.com/post/165697Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:39:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:39:27 GMT]]>this post was about republican policy hypocrisy.... i am glad you mentioned another different method which was also republican backed.......

stretching the truth T? seriously........... how funny.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/164842https://brownsboard.com/post/164842Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:39:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:24:21 GMT]]>

@osusev said:

you meant EXCHANGES... right

No professor.

I meant (maybe I was unclear) that the insurcos are still and will still be regulated state by state.

That means they really don't have to compete on a meaningful basis.

But I'm sure that every rose colored forcast will come to pass just as promiosed.

But for all the screeching over contributions lobbyists and graft it does look like they paid off for the Dems.

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/164783https://brownsboard.com/post/164783Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:24:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:13:40 GMT]]>This sounds like the author of the article is stretching their imagination on this.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/164772https://brownsboard.com/post/164772Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:13:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:37:34 GMT]]>

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Just when I though you couldn't be more of a pompous ahole. You prove me wrong again.

from you that child like name calling really hurts my self esteem....... I will be crying all night.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/164754https://brownsboard.com/post/164754Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:37:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:43:45 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

Wise up Sev.

They did NOT get cross state regulation.

The insurco doesn't want it and Nancy kept it out.

With that they'd really need to compete.

The mandate was Hillarys that hypocrite Obama campaigned aganist.

And you guys barely passed it as it was and wouldn't have with the PO.

So spare us the "you got everything you wanted" snowjob.

Lucky for you Stupak's morals are window dressing.

WSS

you meant EXCHANGES... right

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/164750https://brownsboard.com/post/164750Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:43:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:34:54 GMT]]>

@osusev said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overh...iring_insurance

I mean seriously..... they got the cross state exchanges, the mandate for responsibility, No public option.... funny really how much hate the right wing has to ignore their own ideas......

Just when I though you couldn't be more of a pompous ahole. You prove me wrong again.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/164739https://brownsboard.com/post/164739Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:34:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Republican Hypocrisy on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:47:43 GMT]]>

@osusev said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overh...iring_insurance

I mean seriously..... they got the cross state exchanges, the mandate for responsibility, No public option.... funny really how much hate the right wing has to ignore their own ideas......

Wise up Sev.

They did NOT get cross state regulation.

The insurco doesn't want it and Nancy kept it out.

With that they'd really need to compete.

The mandate was Hillarys that hypocrite Obama campaigned aganist.

And you guys barely passed it as it was and wouldn't have with the PO.

So spare us the "you got everything you wanted" snowjob.

Lucky for you Stupak's morals are window dressing.

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/164728https://brownsboard.com/post/164728Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:47:43 GMT