Ursa Majoris Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 oh come on, that was funny and done with love in my heart :kiss-kiss: I know, hence the little icon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Ok now I'm really confused. wha wha what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I found ursa's blog... The White House blog claims that Obamacare will lower the premiums paid by those of us who already have insurance (others differ). as a result of insurance market reforms that will be in place in the individual market and because of the individual responsibility requirement for coverage, CBO assumes that millions more people will have access to the individual market. According to the CBO, the impact of bringing these new people – many of whom are younger and healthier – into the market will help reduce premiums by 7 to 10 percent in the individual market. In other words, my premiums will go down because healthy young people who currently get by without insurance will be forced to buy policies they may not even want. (When I was young and healthy, I got by quite happily with a bare bones Blue Cross policy that only covered catastrophic expenses). It's a wealth transfer from the young and uninsured to the old and insured. But, as an insured old fart, who am I to complain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 "It's a wealth transfer from the young and uninsured to the old and insured." What else is new? Everyone born after 1945 has been a greedy SOB that has stolen from it's own children and never accomplished anything of real importance. This country would be solvent in one day if it killed everyone over 59 years old immediately. They're just draining the system and contributing nothing anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 failure of business. It is always the same - government with all it's inefficiencies jumps in because business f**ks it up but business first has to open the door and give government the opportunity. You can't put this one on business, ursa. The only reason businesses foot this bill is because fedgov neglected to undo what was supposed to be a temporary situation during WWII. To whit, the fact that businesses get a deduction/credit for HC costs while individuals don't. Gov't is the biggest reason for this cost problem, between the tax treatment and the inability across state lines. Even after this, the answer is more gov't??? you've got to be kidding. this is an industry where the government already does half the spending, and the more they've gotten involved the more costs have skyrocketed. it's already one of the most socialized, regulated indistries out there. the employer tax exclusion, which is directly responsible for so much of the insulation from costs, and the fact that insurance is so directly tied to employment, is obviously a government policy. laying the blame for health care's woes on the free market is absurd. it's even more absurd to suggest that the government can come in and fix it :crickets: Hold on, ursa will be standing on his front stoop in yellowed depends that should have been changed three days ago, holding his cats, yelling "Get off my lawn!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 Hold on, ursa will be standing on his front stoop in yellowed depends that should have been changed three days ago, holding his cats, yelling "Get off my lawn!" I'm viewing him more like Mr. Wilson form Dennis the Menace than Walt Kowalski from Gran Torino. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the updated package would cost $940 billion over the next decade without adding to the deficit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the updated package would cost $940 billion over the next decade without adding to the deficit. I'm curious... do you believe that that will actually be the case should Obamacare pass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the updated package would cost $940 billion over the next decade without adding to the deficit. Funny how Fox seems to have missed something: The cost of expanding coverage would exceed $200 billion a year by 2019, the CBO said. But new revenue in the package, combined with savings from program cuts, would outpace the cost of coverage, reducing the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years. The savings would continue to accumulate in the decade thereafter, the CBO said, eventually slicing around $1.2 trillion from the nation's budget gap.[/b] Washington Post And of course, these are still preliminary numbers, so there's no need to talk the righties off the ledge just yet. Edited March 18, 2010 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 March 18, 2010, 2:40 pmCoburn Warns Vote-Switchers on Health Care By CARL HULSE There are senators who use their power to block bills and nominations in the Senate, and then there is Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. Raising the bar on Republican opposition maneuvers in the Senate, Mr. Coburn on Thursday threatened to put future holds on any Democratic House members who switch their vote in favor of the health care bill, lose their election as a result next November, and then are rewarded with a high-ranking job in the Obama administration. “If you voted no and you vote yes and you lose your election and you think any nomination to a federal position isn’t going to be held in the Senate, I’ve got news for you, it’s going to be held,” said Mr. Coburn, a physician known somewhat affectionately around the Senate as Dr. No. Mr. Coburn, appearing at a news conference with 10 fellow Republican lawmakers who are also doctors, promised to scour upcoming spending bills for any special projects that may be given to lawmakers who reluctantly back the health care bill. “If you think you can cut a deal now and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn’t going to happen and be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House,” Mr. Coburn warned those making up their minds across the rotunda. With a vote in the House approaching, the intensity of the fight was being ratcheted up significantly on Capitol Hill with Republicans pulling out the stops against Democrats, and Democrats warning that the next few days would see a blizzard of Republican threats and misinformation. “There is no limit to what the other side will do to protect the insurance companies,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. NY Slimes Who knew something good cold come from Oklahoma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Who knew something good cold come from Oklahoma. Coburn? He's woman hating cry baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the updated package would cost $940 billion over the next decade without adding to the deficit. but the taxes ... my god the taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 Coburn? He's woman hating cry baby. typikal socialist response, attack the person instead of what they said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 This bill and the procedural shennanigans stinks too much for Pelosi's own House Whip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Hold on, ursa will be standing on his front stoop in yellowed depends that should have been changed three days ago, holding his cats, yelling "Get off my lawn!" F off or I'll set the cats on you and follow that up by throwing my Depends at you too. I'm viewing him more like Mr. Wilson form Dennis the Menace than Walt Kowalski from Gran Torino. We used to use people like you as sandbags......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 19, 2010 Author Share Posted March 19, 2010 F off or I'll set the cats on you and follow that up by throwing my Depends at you too. We used to use people like you as sandbags......... Nice comeback :tipshat: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Nice comeback :tipshat: +1 Great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the updated package would cost $940 billion over the next decade without adding to the deficit. Funny how Fox seems to have missed something: Washington Post And of course, these are still preliminary numbers, so there's no need to talk the righties off the ledge just yet. Oops, in just one day all those glorious "savings" were cut by $50 billion (that's roughly HALF)! Ad for a little perspective, let's look at the track record... Oh my, how embarrassing for you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Oops, in just one day all those glorious "savings" were cut by $50 billion (that's roughly HALF)! Your link doesn't work and if you think 50 billion is roughly half of 940 billion you might want to reconsider homeschooling your kids. ETA: Oh I guess your saying 50 billion is roughly half of 138 billion? Between the quotes that don't tell the story, broken links, and the fuzzy math either way, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Edited March 19, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Your link doesn't work and if you think 50 billion is roughly half of 940 billion you might want to reconsider homeschooling your kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Oops, in just one day all those glorious "savings" were cut by $50 billion (that's roughly HALF)! Ad for a little perspective, let's look at the track record... Oh my, how embarrassing for you... First link doesnt work . . second link is to The Heritage Foundation? Really? That doesnt exactly smack of impartial evaluation . . . . now if you had some of that info in a CBO estimate-linked document, I would be more apt to agree . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 First link doesnt work . . second link is to The Heritage Foundation? Really? That doesnt exactly smack of impartial evaluation . . The source for the broken link isn't exactly fair and balanced either. Still, WV totally pwned all you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 The source for the broken link isn't exactly fair and balanced either. Still, WV totally pwned all you guys. Oh my how embarrassing for all of us . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 A letter from the CBO to Paul Ryan regarding the current bill This is a very good read, and has CBo estimates in response to a request by Paul Ryan. Considering the majority of us really dont know the true cost anymore because Senate rules are more important than the content of the bill . . . everyone should read the letter and pay close attention to the numbers . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Oops, in just one day all those glorious "savings" were cut by $50 billion (that's roughly HALF)! Ad for a little perspective, let's look at the track record... Oh my, how embarrassing for you... Oh my how embarassing WV . . . . the CBO says it will SAVe money? However this means you have to beleive the CBO . . and not just some nutbag who writes a blog . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.