Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This whole thread is a huge failure, completely intellectually dishonest.... Gaffs become promises is one, but the bigger LIE is EVERYONE knew that later estimates of the cost of ACA health care law would be greater than the first estimate. When you do a ten year estimate where three or four years don't include the costs of the law and compare that with an estimate that includes only one or two such years it is obvious that the overall number will be greater.
If each year costs $200 billion, adding several of those years increases the ten year estimate. Everyone was aware of that, you wingnuts are just taking a known fact and trying to spin a lie into a scare tactic for your uniformed base.
Next, you nuts use the gross cost number instead of using the much lower net impact number. That is like doing your household budget by only looking at your expenses without looking at your income. Another big lie.
This whole thread is a huge failure, completely intellectually dishonest.... Gaffs become promises is one, but the bigger LIE is EVERYONE knew that later estimates of the cost of ACA health care law would be greater than the first estimate. When you do a ten year estimate where three or four years don't include the costs of the law and compare that with an estimate that includes only one or two such years it is obvious that the overall number will be greater.
If each year costs $200 billion, adding several of those years increases the ten year estimate. Everyone was aware of that, you wingnuts are just taking a known fact and trying to spin a lie into a scare tactic for your uniformed base.
No, the intellectually dishonest thing was to give cost estimates over a ten year span when only 6-7 of those years would be cost-incurring. The dems did that to make the numbers look slightly less bad than they already did. So now, when more reflective numbers are coming out, the libs cry foul and say we shouldn't compare the two estimates. LAUGHABLE!! You libs are quite entertaining, to say the least.
No, the intellectually dishonest thing was to give cost estimates over a ten year span when only 6-7 of those years would be cost-incurring. The dems did that to make the numbers look slightly less bad than they already did. So now, when more reflective numbers are coming out, the libs cry foul and say we shouldn't compare the two estimates. LAUGHABLE!! You libs are quite entertaining, to say the least.
Right...
However, back in the real world on the CBO Report ...
Right...
However, back in the real world on the CBO Report ...
So you're calling buzzard27 a liar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
...the bigger LIE is EVERYONE knew that later estimates of the cost of ACA health care law would be greater than the first estimate. When you do a ten year estimate where three or four years don't include the costs of the law and compare that with an estimate that includes only one or two such years it is obvious that the overall number will be greater.
Hahahaha, you libs don't even know if you're coming or going, if the cost estimates are increasing or decreasing. All you know is that you MUST defend Obamacare at all "costs" (no pun intended, haha). Hilarious!
Last edited by AuDiBelle; 03-15-2012 at 12:06 PM..
Oh, this is rich! Eliminating redundant costs? What a novel idea! I believe the Republicans introduced a bill in the Senate last week to eliminate redundant government programs and the Dems voted it down. Yeah, like that's going to happen.
You know when LBJ was pushing his "Great Society" his lowball estimates of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid no one was the wiser. The Social Security trust fund was flush with cash. So people took the cost projections for these new entitlement programs at face value. Now we know better (at least we who care about the fiscal health of this country and still have respect for the taxpayer footing the bill). Social Security now pays out more than it collects in FICA taxes. Medicare will be broke in about 5 years, if not sooner. The Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund runs out of money in 2018. Medicaid is unsustainable. But somehow we're supposed to believe that this vast new entitlement called Obamacare will not bankrupt the country faster than it is currently being gutted by ruinous spending. At some point reality catches up. Ask Greece. Ask Spain. Ask Italy. Ask Portugal. Ask Ireland. Ask France. Obama and the Dems would have us believe we are exempt. You've heard the expression 'The bigger they are, the harder they fall?' That's us, folks.
Yep, they are counting on reductions in proposed spending as a cut. Baseline budgeting doesn't work from zero every year - it starts at an increase from the previous FY.
Quite obvious that most here don't understand how baseline budgeting works.
Oh, and you can "gut military" all you want - it's not the biggest expenditure. Neither are the benefits from social programs. Administration of programs dwafs them all and the answer people want is more administration?
My Mom tried to "cure" my Sister of smoking by making her smoke a full pack of cigs in one sitting. That didn't work either.
So you're calling buzzard27 a liar?
Hahahaha, you libs don't even know if you're coming or going, if the cost estimates are increasing or decreasing. All you know is that you MUST defend Obamacare at all "costs" (no pun intended, haha). Hilarious!
No, seems to me buzzard27 has read it and understands what he referenced. By the way, who are you calling a Lib? Centrist baby, Centrist!
To me, the biggest issue that neither party seems willing to address is decoupling health insurance from employment. I think both sides can agree that putting health insurance out on the market would help drive some of the costs down when people have a say in what they can choose.
No, seems to me buzzard27 has read it and understands what he referenced. By the way, who are you calling a Lib? Centrist baby, Centrist!
One of you is saying the cost estimates went up (and buzzards27 even gave his reasons why), and the other is saying the cost estimates are going down. Which is it?
You can call yourself whatever you like, but since you ALWAYS support the liberal democratic stances on CD, I'll call you a lib.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
