{BS} Numbers don't add up
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 19 Mar 2010 17:04 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:04:00 -0700, SMS wrote: > > Hachiroku wrote: >> The numbers came out yesterday. >> >> The bill will provide healthcare to 30M Americans. It will cost ~$1T >> >> One trillion to cover 30 million? >> What's not being represented by the report from the budget office? Why >> not just put the 30M on Medicare? "Because they don't meet the >> guidlines!" Um, so? Change the guidelines to cover them, instead of >> putting a deathgrip on the whole country. > > Expanding Medicare would have been the way to go. It's very efficient, the > infrastructure is already in place, and it would require no new > bureaucracy, just a slight expansion to handle the additional volume. What...did...SMS...say-y-y-y..... <THUD> Agreed, 100%
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 19 Mar 2010 17:04 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:51:14 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:hnvuvn$695$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > >> "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" >> >> > > What's the cost of NOT having health care? You have the information. > You're a smart guy, according to you. Nothing.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 19 Mar 2010 17:09 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:59:35 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote: >>> The cost of ME not having health care affects primarily me. The cost of >>> Obama providing me with health care affects primarily everybody else. >>> It is not your job to cover my health costs. >> >> Not my job, but I still end up paying for people without coverage and so >> do you, RIGHT NOW, before any legislation is passed. >> >> You will now disagree. >> >> > There is no way that 32 million uninsured people will cost a TRILLION > DOLLARS, that's 31,250 for each of those 32 million. I got the numbers from the National Barack Channel. That's about all they said. That's why the numbers don't add up. They were trying to make it sound like the bill would be covering those poor, poor 30M people without health care, then they throw out the $940B dollar amount. Pretty clueless. But, Obama's pushing the bill, so it MUST be a good one, right?!
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 19 Mar 2010 17:10 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:41:53 -0700, SMS wrote: > Where I'm disappointed is that originally Obama was crafting the plan and > making concessions in order to get 60 Senate votes. Now that they decided > to bypass the insane filibuster rule they only need 51 votes, so they > should have been able to put some of the better provisions back into the > bill, but I don't see them doing that. What have you doe with SMS, you fiend?!
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 19 Mar 2010 17:12
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:ho0osq$o1s$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:51:14 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:hnvuvn$695$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> >>> "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" >>> >>> >> >> What's the cost of NOT having health care? You have the information. >> You're a smart guy, according to you. > > Nothing. Y'all come on back when you're prepared to be serious. |