Prev: Win Free Vehicle Parts
Next: {BS} Obama about Carter's "racism" remark
From: larry moe 'n curly on 21 Sep 2009 19:55


dbu` wrote:
>
> In article
> <7212f849-a21a-4f7b-b617-07bbd4c557b1(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > dbu` wrote:
> > >
> > > In article
> > > <652484e2-f2cc-4ff7-a40b-9b993bcdc85d(a)g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> > > edspyhill01 <edspyhill01(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What have the republicans proposed to reform healthcare and make it
> > > > more affordable?
> > >
> > > Tort reform for a start, it would save billions.
> >
> > FreedomWorks, an anti-reform organization that's a front for the
> > private health insurance industry, said, on the News Hour, that it
> > would save $100B. OTOH the CBO gave a figure of I believe $25-35B.
> > Health care costs us about $2,500B a year, so at best your idea will
> > save 4%, or roughly 0.7% of GDP. That's not much because in reality
> > the main problem is the health insurance companies, which have
> > increased their share of the US economy from 1.1% in the 1960s to 5%
> > now. On a dollar basis per patient, our private health insurers
> > consume as much as the Japanese health care system does for both
> > insurance and treatment.
> >
> > Tort reform is just a kneejerk idea that addresses only a very small
> > part of the problem, so what's your real solution?
>
> No it's not. If you save 100 billion, that's 100 billion.
> That's enough savings to make it worthwhile.

$100B a year is $333 a person, maybe $1,000 for a family. Not
antihistamine money, as Bullwinkle would say, but even with that
savings, our health care would still be the most expensive in the
world.

> In fact it could even be more than 100 billion. Your low figures are questionable.

So why did the private insurance industry itself, through its
FreedomWorks PR firm, give the $100B number if they thought the actual
amount was higher? And why did the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
say the savings would be only a fraction as much?

Are you ever going to get serious in this conversation? Apparently
not.


From: JoeSpareBedroom on 21 Sep 2009 21:07
"dbu`" <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:06ydnTCQypt4vyXXnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

>> So why did the private insurance industry itself, through its
>> FreedomWorks PR firm, give the $100B number if they thought the actual
>> amount was higher? And why did the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
>> say the savings would be only a fraction as much?
>>
>> Are you ever going to get serious in this conversation? Apparently
>> not.
>
> Funny to see you and your crowd in a defensive posture. You have a lot
> to defend. it will get worse for you.
> --
>


He asked you a valid question which you are unable to respond to, but try
anyway.

This was, and still is the question:

"So why did the private insurance industry itself, through its FreedomWorks
PR firm, give the $100B number if they thought the actual
amount was higher? And why did the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) say
the savings would be only a fraction as much?"


From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 21 Sep 2009 22:18
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:55:16 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

>> No it's not. If you save 100 billion, that's 100 billion. That's enough
>> savings to make it worthwhile.
>
> $100B a year is $333 a person, maybe $1,000 for a family. Not
> antihistamine money, as Bullwinkle would say, but even with that savings,
> our health care would still be the most expensive in the world.


I spend $333 in Wellness visits. Who's going to take up the slack?


From: JoeSpareBedroom on 22 Sep 2009 08:13
"dbu`" <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:5LadnX4Gb53RLSXXnZ2dnUVZ_h9i4p2d(a)giganews.com...
> In article <brVtm.17038$6f4.14443(a)newsfe08.iad>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> "dbu`" <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:06ydnTCQypt4vyXXnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> >> So why did the private insurance industry itself, through its
>> >> FreedomWorks PR firm, give the $100B number if they thought the actual
>> >> amount was higher? And why did the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
>> >> say the savings would be only a fraction as much?
>> >>
>> >> Are you ever going to get serious in this conversation? Apparently
>> >> not.
>> >
>> > Funny to see you and your crowd in a defensive posture. You have a lot
>> > to defend. it will get worse for you.
>> > --
>> >
>>
>>
>> He asked you a valid question which you are unable to respond to, but try
>> anyway.
>>
>> This was, and still is the question:
>>
>> "So why did the private insurance industry itself, through its
>> FreedomWorks
>> PR firm, give the $100B number if they thought the actual
>> amount was higher? And why did the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) say
>> the savings would be only a fraction as much?"
>
> why should I believe the obama regime and their manipulated numbers?



I can't believe you're drunk so early in the morning.

Actually, I do believe it.


From: SMS on 23 Sep 2009 10:57
Jeffutz wrote:

> Yes, getting rid of the Republicans (the dim ones in Congress) would
> be good.

You say it jokingly, but in the U.S. government, as well as in
California, it's Republicans that are the obstructionists when it comes
to both economic and health care reforms.

The old-guard Republicans, those that are more like Barry Goldwater was
like (in his later years, not his early years) need to leave the
lunatics behind and form a new party. They are not going to get their
party back from Rush, Sarah, Glenn, Sean ,etc--the inmates are running
the asylum.

The Coalition for a Republican-Free America is working on your proposal.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Win Free Vehicle Parts
Next: {BS} Obama about Carter's "racism" remark