Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I need to know (OT)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    "but the bill itself doesn't poll well."

    Enough said. Most people don't want the same people that run welfare and the IRS and the federal govt in general --- running their health care.

    "Bush wasn't on the ballot in 2008."

    Whats your point--- it was the biggest backlash election that I can ever remember.... Obama didn't win--- Bush caused the GOP to lose--- no matter who ran, on whatever platform. That's the real world.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MDFAN View Post
      "but the bill itself doesn't poll well."

      Enough said. Most people don't want the same people that run welfare and the IRS and the federal govt in general --- running their health care.
      There's the problem. Absolutely nothing in the bill has the federal government "running" health care. It isn't single-payer. Most of the bill consists of moderate reforms. Anyone who actually knows what is in the bill, as opposed to the lies peddled by Republicans and Fox News, will tell you this.

      Most people don't want insurance companies running their health-care either, and that's exactly what we have now.

      What we have now is a world in which the US has the highest health-care costs of ANY industrialized nation, and it's not even close. We have a world in which 44,000 people die EVERY YEAR because they don't have health insurance. When you think about the people who died on 9/11, multiply that number by 10 and you still don't reach the casualties that inaction will cost EVERY YEAR.

      The current bill will expand coverage to millions of people while CUTTING the deficit by over $1 billion over 10 years (according to the nonpartisan CBO). If you can't get on board with that then I don't know what to tell you.

      "Bush wasn't on the ballot in 2008."

      Whats your point--- it was the biggest backlash election that I can ever remember.... Obama didn't win--- Bush caused the GOP to lose--- no matter who ran, on whatever platform. That's the real world.
      Bush's policies certainly didn't help the GOP. The problem is that Bush's policies were and are the GOP's policies. People saw how disastrous they were and that's one reason why they voted for Democrats.

      And, incidentally, there was a period of time when McCain was winning the election (according to polls in early September), despite whatever negative effect Bush had. Then people saw what a nutcase Sarah Palin was and is (and McCain's own erratic behavior hurt, too). McCain was the most sensible candidate the GOP had. It became clear that if you wanted sane, responsible people running the country, you didn't vote for the GOP.

      Had the GOP proposed solutions that weren't largely a continuation of Bush's disaster, they might have won.

      Obama provided the soundest strategy, and that's why people voted for him. Part of that strategy is the reform of a health-care system that is a horrible mess, and will bankrupt this country if nothing is done. Democrats promised to govern responsibly, and reforming the health insurance industry is the only responsible thing to do.

      Comment


      • #18
        Goldbach. I have no doubt this thing will pass and as President Obama said himself.. this is what elections are for. We will see what happens in 2010 and 2012. Reform is necessary. I think what many of us feel is THIS is the wrong type of reform.

        Rail against Fox all you want too by the way but the ratings of said news network suggest that the majority of Americans get their news from them... which suggests that American remains a center right country despite the elections of 2006 and 2008.
        You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by andrewaters View Post
          Goldbach. I have no doubt this thing will pass and as President Obama said himself.. this is what elections are for. We will see what happens in 2010 and 2012. Reform is necessary. I think what many of us feel is THIS is the wrong type of reform.
          Fair enough. What is the right kind of reform? What don't you like about the current bill, and how would you change it?

          I'm presuming you don't want single-payer.

          Rail against Fox all you want too by the way but the ratings of said news network suggest that the majority of Americans get their news from them... which suggests that American remains a center right country despite the elections of 2006 and 2008.
          This isn't close to being true. A Pew poll in July 2009 said 19% of the country got their news from Fox. They have a large audience, it is true, but mostly because the other sources of news are more interested in presenting factually correct information, whereas Fox is more interested in kowtowing to the preconceived notions of their audience. I can cite poll after poll demonstrating how ill-informed Fox viewers are.

          Conservatives tend to go to Fox to reinforce their ill-informed view of the world. Some liberals do the same with MSNBC, but most go to less-biased sources that are interested in presenting factually correct information.

          As far as being a "center-right" nation, it depends on how you define it. If you poll people in terms of labels ("liberal", "conservative", etc.), people are more likely to identify as "conservative" than "liberal", it is true. However, if you break down the issues, liberal issues tend to poll better than conservative ones, often with majority support.

          Comment


          • #20
            Agree and then disagree. And also as a conservative where it gets dicey is when you use the term "ill-informed view of the world." Why am I the one who is ill-informed. Is it because my vision of society, norms, how things should be differs from you and so you deem me "ill-informed." You got me then... I guess I don't have the intellectual capacity to understand why a bill that is designed to collapse the existing healthcare system thus forcing us to a single payer system is good for me. And that is not me talking.... that is President Obama himself... who has said as much prior to campaigning for President.
            You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by andrewaters View Post
              Agree and then disagree. And also as a conservative where it gets dicey is when you use the term "ill-informed view of the world." Why am I the one who is ill-informed. Is it because my vision of society, norms, how things should be differs from you and so you deem me "ill-informed." You got me then... I guess I don't have the intellectual capacity to understand why a bill that is designed to collapse the existing healthcare system thus forcing us to a single payer system is good for me. And that is not me talking.... that is President Obama himself... who has said as much prior to campaigning for President.
              By "ill-informed view of the world" I mean the belief in falsehoods. If someone believes that 2+2=3, I would say that they have an ill-informed view of the world.

              In terms of this health-care debate, this is what I mean:

              http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/...s-misinformed/

              In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.

              Also, I'd still like to know what reforms you are in favor of, and why that would be better than a bill that expands coverage to 32 million Americans while at the same time cutting the deficit by $138 billion over ten years.

              Comment


              • #22
                Gold... let me tell you that the stats you are quoting from Think Progress don't carry any weight with me. That is an organization funded by money tied to one world leftist dudes like Soros, Bing, etc., so them claiming that Fox News viewers are misinformed doesn't mean anything to me.

                As for what reforms I would be in favor of:

                1) Tort reform... this is a state issue but the Feds could put some pressure on states to reform their court systems related to frivolous lawsuits that tie up our court systems and cause doctors to practice defensive medicine. Again... it is a state's rights issue but the Feds can make it financially smart for states to take this issue and run with it.

                2) Selling insurance across state lines. Allowing businesses to pool resources and buy in large groups. Allow school districts to team together and purchase insurance, etc. Law of large numbers type of buying but it should be done on a private basis by lifting regulation not by creating a government exchange that is going to have price controls and fixes in it. Open up the market by allowing companies to compete across state lines and you will see prices go down and quality go up.

                3) Don't cater to any special interest. There are special favors given to organized labor in this thing and let's face it they will not be taken out. There IS a change in the way that abortion is funded. If there wasn't, why would a guy like Bart Stupak who is a committed Dem say that it DOES change this paradigm. He is hanging out on a limb because he believes it changes the system of abortion funding. Why would he do that unless he REALLY thought it was there. It is there. We aren't stupid.

                4) This is something that is not addressed by either side. We need a system that creates more doctors. They should add some sort of legislation that forces state institutions that get federal/state dollars to allow more students into colleges and then medical schools for free. For instance, President Obama could score big points with the teacher's union, minorities, and I think even some republican groups if he said all kids that finish in the top 2% of their high school classes are eligible for a free college education and med school from their in-state school. This education is then repaid by the student serving in a community health clinic or in some health related community outreach capacity for 10 years to pay back this free education. That would create a ton more doctors. It would be slow but it would address the biggest issue which is too few doctors.

                and that is just the beginning but with all due respect Goldbach please don't try and snow me with stats from Think Progress or some other "think tank" in disguise just like I won't throw out stats from Cato or the Hoover group. When libs like yourself start in with that shit all I hear in my head is Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting turning the guy that was smarter than him's arguments inside out... I read as much as you do man so get off the high horse.
                You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Think Progress was quoting from a NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll. Here's a link to the WSJ writeup of the same poll:

                  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/0...l/tab/article/

                  And the MSNBC write-up:

                  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/2036015.aspx

                  And the original poll data:

                  http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...C-WSJ_Poll.pdf

                  Please, before you discount data because of where it came from, tell me why you think the data is wrong, not why you dislike the source. Attacking the messenger is a logical fallacy.

                  I'll address your other points below:

                  1. I'm actually agnostic on tort reform. The data I've seen indicates that it won't help keep costs down much, if at all. However, I also think it's mostly harmless, so if a Republican senator were willing to vote for the bill as a whole if TR were included, I'd be fine with that.

                  2. Selling insurance across state lines is a horrible idea. The insurance companies would do what the credit card companies do now: go to the one state that gives them the best deal. Essentially, it would allow one state to dictate the terms of insurance for all Americans. That's a horrible idea, unless you like insurance companies being able to do pretty much whatever they want.

                  3. Please be more specific. What deal is in there for unions? The unions were able to negotiate a lower tax on the so-called "Cadillac" plans, but that's a compromise since the unions would have preferred no tax at all.

                  3a. You use Stupak, I'll use the Catholic nuns. The nuns are the ones responsible for actually running hospitals, and treating the sick. They are in favor of the bill, and they would not be in favor of anything that increases abortions.

                  Incidentally, if abortion is what you care about, then you should be in favor of universal health care coverage. Universal coverage reduces the number of abortions on a per-capita basis:

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031202287.html

                  4. I'll agree with this, but it's somewhat irrelevant to the overall point of what is in this bill.

                  A couple of questions for you:

                  1. What would you do about covering Americans with pre-existing conditions, who are currently prevented from purchasing insurance?

                  2. What would you do to cover Americans who currently cannot afford insurance?

                  3. What would you do about Americans who have insurance, but when they get sick find that their insurance companies won't cover them anymore?

                  Again, if you can show me another plan that will cover 95% of Americans (or more) while reducing the deficit, I'd happily go along with it.
                  Last edited by goldbach; 03-21-2010, 04:17 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Covering pre-existing conditions is a little like waiting until your house is on fire to buy insurance don't you think. If they let everyone into the system and mandate it here is what is going to happen... if someone is sick and needs insurance they ae going to buy health insurance... if someone isn't sick and doesn't need it they are going to pay the fine and hope they don't get sick. What I would do is get ride of employee funded healthcare and instead give people tax credits to buy it for themselves. If folks are too poor to buy it for themselves then find... write them a check for it. But after a reasonable amount of time (24 to 36 months) if someone of legal age doesn't have insurance and they show up at the hospital expecting to get care anyway they are out of luck. If the government mandates that everybody get it then by God everybody get it. No loopholes. And if you get cancer and you decided to risk it and then you want insurance well tough shit. If you have insurance... you cannot be dropped. I agree that is BS. But seriously, the way this is structured single people who want to risk it will wait until they get sick pay the fine and then call the insurer and say you gotta cover me.

                    The abortion issue doesn't concern me actually. I am pro life but I realize pro life is not an acceptable position in this day and age. I'd like to see abortion reigned in somewhat and I don't really care what the nuns say this bill has language in it that can be twisted and tweaked at an attorneys will to get anything they want. That is why it is 2700 pages long so that attorneys can litigate what they want when they want it and claim it is in the bill.

                    As for the union thing... you are clearly in a union because you say that a compromise on the union was a win for both sides. Says who... obviously someone in a union. Don't piss on me and tell me its raining dude. If you are going to tax cadillac health plans then everybody gets taxed the same way.

                    Selling insurance across state lines is not a bad idea despite what you claim. But convincing you of that is pointless. Why is there a big payoff to Pharma in this deal... obviously to get Pharma to fall in line. But you don't seem to care about the Pharma payout at all.

                    There is absolutely no way that this reduces the deficit. The doc fix and the double counting of revenues related to social security lead to fuzzy math. So to say that this reduces the deficit is absolutely constipated thinking on your part. Nearly every economic theorist worth there salt and not in bed with the Prez/Dems says this is NOT deficit neutral.

                    Finally, I don't need opinion polls to tell me what is in the bill. I've read the vast majority of it and realize it is intentionally filled with legislative double speak. Like a lot of the concerned citizens that went to town hall meetings quoting directly from the bill and then were called wingnuts by Pelosi, Reid, Specter and others on the left.

                    You've got your votes so you guys have your historic moment and pass the bill. Then when you lose the elections of 2010, 2012 and 2014 and you are on the outside looking in and social programs get gutted those of us who think personal accountability reigns above all else will be carrying our gavel up the capital steps tough guy.
                    You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by andrewaters View Post
                      Covering pre-existing conditions is a little like waiting until your house is on fire to buy insurance don't you think. If they let everyone into the system and mandate it here is what is going to happen... if someone is sick and needs insurance they ae going to buy health insurance... if someone isn't sick and doesn't need it they are going to pay the fine and hope they don't get sick. What I would do is get ride of employee funded healthcare and instead give people tax credits to buy it for themselves. If folks are too poor to buy it for themselves then find... write them a check for it. But after a reasonable amount of time (24 to 36 months) if someone of legal age doesn't have insurance and they show up at the hospital expecting to get care anyway they are out of luck. If the government mandates that everybody get it then by God everybody get it. No loopholes. And if you get cancer and you decided to risk it and then you want insurance well tough shit. If you have insurance... you cannot be dropped. I agree that is BS. But seriously, the way this is structured single people who want to risk it will wait until they get sick pay the fine and then call the insurer and say you gotta cover me.
                      I agree with you about the need for a stronger mandate. However, I think you overstate the problems. Many, if not most people who can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions are not people trying to game the system. They're people who couldn't afford insurance for a period of time, like having lost their job and thus their insurance, for example, and then attempt to buy insurance when they can afford it again, but are unable to do so because no insurance company wants to cover them. This bill will allow people who lose their jobs to keep their insurance by providing them with money to do so and making it illegal for their companies to drop them because of their conditions.

                      I will agree that the bill isn't perfect, but it is very good. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

                      The abortion issue doesn't concern me actually. I am pro life but I realize pro life is not an acceptable position in this day and age. I'd like to see abortion reigned in somewhat and I don't really care what the nuns say this bill has language in it that can be twisted and tweaked at an attorneys will to get anything they want. That is why it is 2700 pages long so that attorneys can litigate what they want when they want it and claim it is in the bill.
                      Being pro-life isn't an acceptable position in this day and age? Really? Is that why George Bush wasn't elected or reelected? Is that why no Republican members of Congress ever take a pro-life position? Is that why Bart Stupak was laughed out of Congress when he tried to insert pro-life language into the bill?

                      It's 2700 ages long because health care is a complicated matter with a lot of moving parts. Affecting one part of it affects many different parts of it. It's what made reform so difficult. There was simply no way to affect the necessary changes in a simple manner.

                      Could lawyers find loopholes? Probably. It doesn't invalidate the good that's in the bill, though. Again, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

                      As for the union thing... you are clearly in a union because you say that a compromise on the union was a win for both sides. Says who... obviously someone in a union. Don't piss on me and tell me its raining dude. If you are going to tax cadillac health plans then everybody gets taxed the same way.
                      Actually, I didn't say the Cadillac tax was a "win" for both sides. I said it was a compromise. The tax affects all health plans that cost more than a certain amount, whether they go to union members or not, so in that sense it does affect everyone equally. If you think the tax should apply to all plans, I'd have to agree with you, since it would help contain costs even more. However, this would have been political suicide, as most people would see it as imperiling the insurance they currently have.

                      Selling insurance across state lines is not a bad idea despite what you claim. But convincing you of that is pointless. Why is there a big payoff to Pharma in this deal... obviously to get Pharma to fall in line. But you don't seem to care about the Pharma payout at all.
                      Convincing me of it is not pointless. Please point to a study which concludes that it would help control costs or to insure more people. If the study is a good one, I'd be convinced.

                      There is absolutely no way that this reduces the deficit. The doc fix and the double counting of revenues related to social security lead to fuzzy math. So to say that this reduces the deficit is absolutely constipated thinking on your part. Nearly every economic theorist worth there salt and not in bed with the Prez/Dems says this is NOT deficit neutral.
                      Again, please point me to one of these economic theorists. I have the CBO score, which estimates $130 billion in deficit reduction over ten years. Here's a link that outlines the cost-saving methods currently in the bill:

                      http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ng_cost_c.html

                      If you'd like to point me to some analysis as to why the CBO is wrong, I'd love to see it.

                      Finally, I don't need opinion polls to tell me what is in the bill. I've read the vast majority of it and realize it is intentionally filled with legislative double speak. Like a lot of the concerned citizens that went to town hall meetings quoting directly from the bill and then were called wingnuts by Pelosi, Reid, Specter and others on the left.
                      I wasn't using opinion polls to show what was in the bill. I used opinion polls to show that Fox News watchers tended not to know what was in the bill. Good for you if you're one of the minority in that regard.

                      I still stand by my statement that Fox News watchers tend to be ill-informed. Want to see the polling of how many of them think that President Obama was born in Kenya, despite the ample evidence to the contrary?

                      You've got your votes so you guys have your historic moment and pass the bill. Then when you lose the elections of 2010, 2012 and 2014 and you are on the outside looking in and social programs get gutted those of us who think personal accountability reigns above all else will be carrying our gavel up the capital steps tough guy.
                      We did, and last night was a great moment for this country. We'll take our chances in the upcoming elections, too. I'll let you look up what Republicans said about Social Security in 1936 (and how a backlash against it would vault them back into power). Ditto Medicare in the 60's. The public "backlash" against those sure came to fruition, didn't it?

                      And, seriously, "tough guy"? "constipated thinking"? What are you, 12?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Yes I am 12 and apparently as stupid as the other people that watch Fox.. thanks for clearing that up.

                        If you TRULY believe that this is going to save our country money than I have some land to sell you in Florida. There are so many provisions, legal language that can be twisted, etc., in this thing that it is truly impossible to score. There is NO WAY that this thing is deficit positive. There just isn't. If you believe that they actually I feel sorry for you because you have been duped by politicians.

                        Look at the arm twisting and the deals that had to be made to get it passed. Pharma gave its consent because the Dems agreed to give them a few more years of protection on their drug formulations before they become generic. The Dems did that... it is a fact. Which means drugs that cost pennies on the dollar in countries like Canada, India, etc., are going to continue to cost seniors and the sick more because Dems felt like they had to get big Pharma on board.

                        AARP stands to make a huge amount of money selling Medicare gap insurance because the gap is going to get wider. Or did you think that the millions of seniors who are AARP members would all come out and say "yes please cust $500 billion out of Medicare and while you are at it add 32 million to government healthcare in some form or fashion." No, that is not what happened. AARP is a corporation that makes money selling a product that is going to benefit because of this plan.

                        The AMA... they came out in support of it didn't they. No, actually the majority of doctors are against the plan... something like 70% I saw. the leadership in the AMA was bought off by promises that Medicare wouldn't be cut in some form or fashion. The doctor's fix... which is going to happen.

                        Car insurance is cheap right. Or at least it can be cheap. And it is sold across state lines. So who cares if all the companies move to one state. Let the buyer beware. Does every consumer flock to one car insurance company... no there are about 10-12 competing nationally I'd say and they all have their pluses and minuses but the consumer makes the decision based on what they want. If somebody wants health insurance because they plan on having a family they will buy a better plan. If somebody wants health insurance because they don't want to go broke if they get hit by a bus then they want a higher deductible plan. The buyer gets to put his/her policy together. And yes, give poor people tax credits so they can buy health insurance but empower them to buy it on their own with the plan they want not through some hokey federal agency that is going to funnel business to whichever health insurance company "plays ball" and kisses the ass of the Feds to get the kickbacks.

                        You think healthcare coverage for the poor is bad now you wait and see what will happen here. Americans are smart. Here is what healthcare will look like in 10 years. The good doctors will be private doctors working in private hospitals, not accepting medicare, medicaid and only some private insurance groups. Those folks with medicare and the rest will go to a bad doctor. I work in the medical field. There are bad doctors. And it will take the person a long time to get in to see said bad doctor. You want to see a specialist.... better plan on waiting a long time. This is what is going to happen. It is happening in every European country. And it happens in Canada where people that can afford it come to the U.S. for treatment.

                        Do you have a clue why European countries migrated to the Euro? It had a lot to do with changing the currency because their individual currencies were losing their value because of high taxes and government spending devaluing their legacy paper money. So they all got together and said we are kind of in a pickle here so lets marry our currency together. It will buy us time. I'm not saying that will happen in the U.S. next week but unless we get some fiscal responsibility it will happen here.

                        You cannot keep handing things to people and growing government. You just can't. Eventually the money is going to be worth nothing. Why do you think people are buying gold right now. Because they are worried that our currency is going to be worth nothing.

                        Who gives a shit about healthcare if a gallon of milk costs you $25. That is the path we are on and your leadership just moved us way further down the road to government insolvency last night. Celebrate it but remember to save your money. You are going to need it.
                        You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I never said you were stupid. I said 60-70% of Fox News viewers believed factually incorrect things. I meant to imply that your arguments are immature, both with the language you use and the fact that you don't cite facts to back up your arguments.

                          Please, if you want me to take your arguments seriously, give me facts, not truthiness (what you believe "should" be true but may or may not be).

                          In any case, I'm done replying to factless assertions. I've cited the CBO number that states that this bill will reduce the deficit over 10 years. Either show me where, specifically, the CBO fails to account for additional costs in this bill or where they underestimate the amount of savings and revenue from the bill. If you read the link I cited earlier, you'd know that a lot of the revenues come from taxes on expensive health plans, and a lot of the savings come from increased competition by setting up exchanges. In other words, the bill uses the free market to its advantage. If I've been fooled, I've been fooled by economists, not politicians. I've yet to see your economic data to counter this.

                          As for the rest, I'll await your links that prove your assertions.

                          One thing, though. I live in Canada. I've used their health system. It worked well for me. It's worked well for other people I've talked to. This is anecdotal data, certainly, but you have a high bar to convince me that the Canadian system would be bad for America. If I suggested to anyone here that Canada should have a system like the US has, they'd (rightfully) look at me as if I had three heads.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Oh, and one other thing. There was a CNN poll just released today. 39% of people supported the bill. 13% did not support the bill because it wasn't liberal enough. In other words, 52% of respondents either supported the bill or didn't think it was liberal enough.

                            http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/im...3/22/rel5a.pdf

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              From The Weekly Standard: […] For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.
                              But even that wouldn’t come close to reflecting the bill’s true costs. The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit: just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming. In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion. What would the president leave behind for his successor? According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone. If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure. This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.[…]

                              granted this is from the weekly standard which is conservative but notice when it talks about the CBO projected the cost of this outside of the timeframe that you are talking about.

                              this is a ticking timebomb man. it just is. if you can't see it then i can't help you. if the canadian healthcare system was so great why did a member of their upper government... can't remember who it was... came to the u.s. like 2 months ago for a basic heart procedure because he was going to have to wait in line in canada. and remember canada has what like 25 million people. we have 300 million.

                              finally, if my folksy way of writing comes off as immature why are you arguing with me like i live in my parents basement and spend all my time playing world of warcarft. saying my arguments are immature are a great way to "try" and dismiss me as not being on our cognitive level. dude... i have forgotten more about politics then you'll ever know.
                              You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It does a decent job of detailing certain costs of the bill, and when they take effect. I don't dispute the costs. The thing is, costs are only half the picture. There is savings and revenue generated from the bill as well.

                                Here's another link to demonstrate the cost controls, although I doubt you've been reading them:

                                http://www.newsweek.com/id/235246

                                This link shows a picture of the CBO's estimated savings vs cost year-by-year:

                                http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...care_refo.html

                                As most of you know, the bulk of the bill kicks into effect in 2014. But it's become a common GOP talking point to say that there are 10 years of taxes for six years of spending. The graph above compares what the bill spends with what it raises for each year between 2010 and 2019. What you'll see is that there are two years -- 2013 and 2014 -- when the bill is raising a lot more than it spends. The GOP has painted this as some sort of rank deception. Apparently, saving up before you purchase something is no longer fiscally responsible.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X