{BS} Numbers don't add up
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku on 19 Mar 2010 09:42 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. This is the biggest bunch of liars I have ever seen in my whole life. They want more than just coverage for 30M. They want the power to rule. And, using Mass as a model, a lot of people will get coverage who otherwise don't get it from employers or can't afford it. The state subsideses it. Everyone else who doesn't meet the 'guidelines'? Bend over and grab your ankles. No subsidy for you. You pay pretty much what you would have paid anyway. But, you HAVE to pay it, or face penalties on your tax returns. "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" I hope eddy and lmc have to provide their own coverage so they can see how wonderful it really is.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 19 Mar 2010 09:51 "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.
From: SMS on 19 Mar 2010 10:04 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. "Independent" (really Republican) Joe Lieberman was an ardent supporter of this approach, so the Democrats, in an effort to win him over, added this to the health care bill. In the spirit of "we don't care how much sense it makes, if the Democrats are for it then we're against it" Lieberman then flip-flopped and said he opposed expanding Medicare to younger adults. "When carrots no longer work, when you put Senator Lieberman's most significant health care proposal at the heart of reform and he still opposes not just the larger reform but also his own provision, you start to wonder if this man is dealing in good faith." The Medicare expansion would cover those hardest and most expensive to insure in the private sector, those in their 50's and early 60's. It makes the most sense. So Republicans are of course against it.
From: SMS on 19 Mar 2010 11:41 JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:hnvuvn$695$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" >> > > > What's the cost of NOT having health care? That's really the bottom line here. That's why even spending all that money on health care still brings down the deficit, the cost of not doing anything is much higher. In the long term it's all moot. Besides the inability of uninsured individuals to afford health insurance, there is no way U.S. businesses can continue to provide health care to their employees under the current model with insurers siphoning off 40% of every premium dollar. It's making the U.S. very uncompetitive with countries that have single-payer systems. Enjoy buying your new Corolla that's built in Canada because Toyota made the obvious choice in closing down the NUMMI plant with its higher benefit costs to workers. It's always amusing to see Republicans desperately looking for anecdotes where people in systems like Canada's have a problem then trying to extrapolate that into being the norm. I suspect that they won't be using Sarah Palin's trips to Canada to receive health care as examples of the poor care provided in Canada! Right now you're seeing private insurers trying to extract the most money as possible from consumers in the short term because they know that they are not long for this world. Before the whole private insurance system collapses the executives need to get themselves set up for life with big bonuses and severance deals. Where I'm disappointed is that originally Obama was crafting the plan and making concessions in order to get 60 Senate votes. Now that they decided to bypass the insane filibuster rule they only need 51 votes, so they should have been able to put some of the better provisions back into the bill, but I don't see them doing that.
From: Jeff Strickland on 19 Mar 2010 14:12
"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:mjLon.26873$ao7.12702(a)newsfe21.iad... > "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. > 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. While I appreciate your desire to take care of me, I really don't need or want you to, mostly because I have no desire to take care of anybody else except me. |