This does not include the public option that is all but assured to be in the Final bill or does it include the Dr. pay provision(that one costs about 214 billion).
From what it looks like even if they do manage to merge the bills they will still have a rough time in the house, and if there is even a hint of the public option in the Senate it will not pass.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Senator Hatch has calculated that if you accounted for all 10 yrs of this health care bill, it would cost 2.5 trillion. Awesome. [/quote]
As soon as this passes I’m going to start saying the most degrading things I can think of to fat and old people.
[quote]Valor wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Senator Hatch has calculated that if you accounted for all 10 yrs of this health care bill, it would cost 2.5 trillion. Awesome.
As soon as this passes I’m going to start saying the most degrading things I can think of to fat and old people.[/quote]
You will be labeled “un-American” and someone who hates poor people. You will be associated with people who like big business and for Wall Street and against Main Street. You gotta love how Obama spins this into “If you are against me, you hate poor minorities and are a racist.”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Valor wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Senator Hatch has calculated that if you accounted for all 10 yrs of this health care bill, it would cost 2.5 trillion. Awesome.
As soon as this passes I’m going to start saying the most degrading things I can think of to fat and old people.
You will be labeled “un-American” and someone who hates poor people. You will be associated with people who like big business and for Wall Street and against Main Street. You gotta love how Obama spins this into “If you are against me, you hate poor minorities and are a racist.”[/quote]
Just like Bushs “If you are against me you are un-American”.
It seems to me that un-American no longer holds the power it once did, because what some people believe the US should be, well yes, I am very much against that.
We’ve spent 700 billion dollars for Bush’s misadventure in Iraq. In addition, there are billions of dollars in reconstruction funds that are totally unaccounted for. They can show no written records detailing where billions of dollars went, or how it was spent.
I never heard any conservatives complain about how much money Bush was wasting in Iraq. Maybe a few made a peep, but I doubt it. Lately, some conservatives can talk about spending now that Bush is out of office, but God forbid anybody on the right would criticize Bush while he was still in office.
Look at the massive Prescription Drug bill that Republicans passed, which was a huge taxpayers’ gift to the prescription drug companies. It actually banned the government from negotiating for better drug prices.
It’s not about the government spending money. Conservatives absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE spending taxpayer’s money, when they are the ones who decide how the money is being spent. They can’t spend it fast enough!
So when I hear that the reform bill will cost X amount of money I really don’t give a shit. (Actually the bill saves money in the long run, according to the Congressional Budget Office). At least we are spending that money on benefits for Americans. Seems like conservatives would rather spend that money providing universal health care for Iraqis. That’s right, Iraqis have health benefits that American taxpayers pay for, but these are benefits that we don’t get here in America.
Health insurance premiums basically DOUBLED in price under 8 years of Bush. Clearly the Republican party has no ideas for health care reform.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
We’ve spent 700 billion dollars for Bush’s misadventure in Iraq. In addition, there are billions of dollars in reconstruction funds that are totally unaccounted for. They can show no written records detailing where billions of dollars went, or how it was spent.
I never heard any conservatives complain about how much money Bush was wasting in Iraq. Maybe a few made a peep, but I doubt it. Lately, some conservatives can talk about spending now that Bush is out of office, but God forbid anybody on the right would criticize Bush while he was still in office.
Look at the massive Prescription Drug bill that Republicans passed, which was a huge taxpayers’ gift to the prescription drug companies. It actually banned the government from negotiating for better drug prices.
It’s not about the government spending money. Conservatives absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE spending taxpayer’s money, when they are the ones who decide how the money is being spent. They can’t spend it fast enough!
So when I hear that the reform bill will cost X amount of money I really don’t give a shit. (Actually the bill saves money in the long run, according to the Congressional Budget Office). At least we are spending that money on benefits for Americans. Seems like conservatives would rather spend that money providing universal health care for Iraqis. That’s right, Iraqis have health benefits that American taxpayers pay for, but these are benefits that we don’t get here in America.
Health insurance premiums basically DOUBLED in price under 8 years of Bush. Clearly the Republican party has no ideas for health care reform. [/quote]
So your point is that, because Republicans spent a bunch money in a stupid manner and that was BAD, then it’s ok for the Democrats to spend a bunch of money in a stupid manner?
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?
Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.
[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?
Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.[/quote]
You have to question risking a $1000 to make $100. What if things didn’t turn out as you hoped, and you lost out on $1000. You have to look at the risk versus reward at stake.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin is former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This is adapted from testimony he gave before the Senate Committee on the Budget on Nov. 10.
The Coming Deficit Disaster The president says he understands the urgency of our fiscal crisis, but his policies are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg…
[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?
Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.[/quote]
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?
Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.
You have to question risking a $1000 to make $100. What if things didn’t turn out as you hoped, and you lost out on $1000. You have to look at the risk versus reward at stake. [/quote]
I was just using that as an example of being misleading. While it is technically true that I “lost” $1000 (cost of investment) and saying so would give the impression I am suffering a loss; in reality, I made $1100 ($100 gain) on the investment, thus coming out ahead.
I take your point on valuing risk and reward, but a 10% profit margin would be considered fantastic for an insurance company according to some reports that have been posted here on the board.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?
Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.
how is it going to save 800 billion?[/quote]
Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.