Question:
"The price tag is now under a trillion. That is over 10 years," Ross said. "That is less money than what George W. Bush passed."
Answers:
Because Bush did not allow Medicare to negotiate prescription rates with Big Pharma. The bill actually hurt seniors and helped the pharmaceuticals.
Since Bush spent like a Democrat, perhaps they thought Obama was serious when he promised change and that he meant he would not spend like a Democrat. It appears that Obama is simply continuing Bush's spending ideology. However, Obama may tax us to pay for it which would be different from Bush. He is already supporting policies of inflation, which is a hidden and arbitrary tax as J. M. Keynes has pointed out.
edit: As for your question, Bush wasn't a conservative.
I think you about covered it. I just want another opportunity to state publicly that my own personal blue dog, Melancon, doesn't have a chance in hell to be Senator, and the guy he's running against is David "I pay for sex and my wife doesn't care" Vitter.
I don't think you need it explained to you at all, Denzel. You seem to understand it just fine. It's the right-wingers who need things explained to them as if they were four years old. But then, that would make them more mature than they currently are, wouldn't it?Republicans are only against health care reform because they're greedy and uncompassionate, and really want to grasp on their money and not pay taxes to help the less fortunate. To a republican, helping other people is unheard of.Republicans are against this kind of reform.If you libs really wanted health care reform you would of pressured Bill Clinton to sign the countless bills sent up to him by Republicans.There's one important difference you didn't mention... Bush didn't pay for a dime of it. That money is still sitting on the books whereas Obama has repeatedly said he will not sign a reform bill unless it's "deficit neutral."does it matter if the idea is good or bad? no of course not thats the way two party politics work