Posted by Dave C. on December 11, 2009, 5:05 am
>
> Do you spend your paycheck before you receive it? It makes sense to
> me
> to acquire the revenue before spending it. If only all government
> spending
> were so prudent.
If only the intent was to balance the budget. The intent of
front-loading the funding is to hide the true cost. It's well over two
trillion already, before cost overruns kick in. Of course, the cost
overruns have been deliberately delayed for several years. Now you
know why. -Dave
Posted by Rod Speed on December 11, 2009, 5:17 pm
Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
>>
>>>>>>>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link
>>>>>>>> to a paper
>>>>>>>> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
>>>>>>>> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
>>>>>>>> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
>>>>>>> No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
>>>>>>> Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
>>>>>>> to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
>>>>>>> it might be a good idea. Running in circles
>>>>>>> screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
>>>>>>> does not form a reasoned argument.
>>
>>>>>>> Look, if the health care bill is going to
>>>>>>> do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
>>>>>>> bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
>>>>>>> position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
>>>>>>> "government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
>>>>>>> and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
>>>>>>> fear-mongering.
>>
>>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>>>>>> Hardly fear mongering. It is a critical comment on how
>>>>>> bureaucratic, inefficient and insulting the Federal government
>>>>>> is. Congress should be totally absolutely embarrassed and
>>>>>> ashamed of themselves for creating a work product that
>>>>>> absolutely no one can understand. There is absolutely no reason
>>>>>> why the health bill can't be a 20
>>>>>> page document with tables that clearly define the scope.
>>>>> Have you read this, or for that matter, any bill?
>>
>>>>> Every bill has the same format, with wide margins and 24 numbered
>>>>> lines per page of perhaps 5 words per line.
>>
>>>>> It's not hard to read. Really. Not quite a picture book, but not
>>>>> complex. Much easier to read than a mortgage agreement.
>>
>>>>> As far as length, George W Bush's last budget bill ran far longer.
>>>>> Were you complaining about that?
>>
>>>>> You guys take some one else's opinion instead of actually looking
>>>>> at the product. Try thinking for yourself instead of taking
>>>>> someone else's opinion. Unlike any of George W Bush's
>>>>> legislation, you can actually find drafts of this online. Easily.
>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>
>>>> bottom line is, if it's good enough for us, why is obammy and
>>>> congress exempt?
>>
>>> You believe everything you hear on wingnut radio?
>>
>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/491
>>
>>> If you guys stop running on myths and fear we can get somewhere. But
>>> maybe that's all you got?
>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>>> And not only exempt , but also exempt from the "cadillac plan" tax.
>>>> wanna buy a bridge?
>>
>> This a myth too?
>>
>> "All the revenue-raising measures - the taxes and fees - come
>> up-front, while the benefits don't kick in until 2013 and 2014,"
>> says Robert Blendon, the leading healthcare pollster. "There would
>> be an initial surge in support for this historic achievement,
>> followed by quite a big backlash as the costs seep through."
>>
>> Pay me now and wait.
>> Why don't they show us FIRST, all the money this is going to save us
>> in their cost cutting BEFORE sending us the bill?
> Do you spend your paycheck before you receive it?
Sometimes.
> It makes sense to me to acquire the revenue before spending it.
That doesnt always make sense.
> If only all government spending were so prudent.
If they did it that way, we'd be in another great depression or worse.
Posted by JonquilJan on December 11, 2009, 4:29 pm
I have heard and read so many different things back and forth - pro and
con - about the proposed healthcare bill - don't know what to believe or
not.
I have Medicare. Not the Advantage or any Supplement - just plain Medicare.
I took a bad fall in July and had to have X-rays of my wrist. The bill -
without Medicare - would have been $160. With Medicare it was $11.67. I
had met my yearly deductible.
My main concern, if Medicare payments to doctors, etc, is reduced will fewer
doctors accept Medicare patients? Not many doctors accept Medicaid for that
reason. At the present, hospitals and those facilities associated with
hospitals get much higher reimbursements for Medicaid patients than the
independent practitioner. (This is New York state - other places may be
different).
So will the same thing happen with Medicare? That reduces the options a
great deal and puts those in rural areas (such as my location) in a position
that would require much more travel distance and time to get to a
practitioner that accepts Medicare.
But things are so confusing with the bill - and things being changed back
and forth so often - who really knows. Not even the ones who are voting on
the changes.
JonquilJan
Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying
Posted by tmclone on December 15, 2009, 10:36 pm
The 3877 thing is a troll. It's been all over the place in the last
few hours. Just killfile it and move on.
Posted by sf on December 15, 2009, 7:31 pm
>You believe everything you hear on wingnut radio?
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/491
>If you guys stop running on myths and fear we can get somewhere. But
>maybe that's all you got?
http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/poRescue/?source=fbc
let's get this show on the road!
--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.
> Do you spend your paycheck before you receive it? It makes sense to
> me
> to acquire the revenue before spending it. If only all government
> spending
> were so prudent.