Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:21 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6127
Location: Keystone State
bucco boy wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
And what does that have to do with then Healthcare issue? Seriously, I know you a staunch conservative, but you are grasping for straws.


Everything. These are specific taxes put into the ACA specifically to fund it. So, in a sense you are right. What DOES capital gains have to do with Healthcare. Nothing of course. Except when they are made to do so. I am not grasping at anything here, just relaying the structure of the bill.

ZM


I understand it has to be paid for. So you are against the way it is being paid for or are you against everyone having it or being "forced" to have it?[/quote]

Here is one.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4145
Location: Zelienople, PA
NSMaster56 wrote:

And if you really think about what I just said above, who among us thinks we should continue down the ridiculous path paved and continue practices established by middle-aged white guys from 300 years ago?


Me and many others who realize the greatness of the documents and systems they created. The whole "they were white, they were small, they didn't envision a car" argument is foolish and self serving. The principals of government remain the same over the ages. They don't change, whether for good or bad. These guys researched history and all forms of government before they came up with ours and settled on one that respected the right of the individual to make his/her own way, and solidified that through idea of land ownership.

This lead to the greatest and richest country the world has ever seen. None close. A country where the poorest live better than most of the world. Yet now, when you have an election year battle or the inevitable recession hits, the cries of "it doesn't work" go up all around. Mostly, I observe, from a generation that has NOT suffered much of anything except prosperity in your lives.

To me, the biggest problem we have as a country is that we are spoiled. We have the most, but we want MORE!

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4145
Location: Zelienople, PA
bucco boy wrote:

I understand it has to be paid for. So you are against the way it is being paid for or are you against everyone having it or being "forced" to have it?


Here is one.[/quote]

OK, thanks. Both actually, though the latter begets the former I believe. It is simply ridiculous to force people to buy something just to live. This doesn't work from so many angles. It attacks the very foundations of individual freedom of choice, and it sets up a ponzi scheme system that simply cannot work.

That said, I for one, am happy Roberts put this in the tax category as this can be controlled by elections of Congress. And, if you and NM and others are happy to sit on the side line and complain, then I will work to make sure my official gets elected and votes down new taxes for said programs.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6127
Location: Keystone State
ZelieMike wrote:
bucco boy wrote:

I understand it has to be paid for. So you are against the way it is being paid for or are you against everyone having it or being "forced" to have it?


Here is one.


OK, thanks. Both actually, though the latter begets the former I believe. It is simply ridiculous to force people to buy something just to live. This doesn't work from so many angles. It attacks the very foundations of individual freedom of choice, and it sets up a ponzi scheme system that simply cannot work.

That said, I for one, am happy Roberts put this in the tax category as this can be controlled by elections of Congress. And, if you and NM and others are happy to sit on the side line and complain, then I will work to make sure my official gets elected and votes down new taxes for said programs.

ZM[/quote]

I have voted in every election, both primary and general since I turned 18 so please don't insinuate anything else.

As for my follow-up question, if Joe Smith doesn't have insurance because he chooses not to and needs medical treatment and can't afford it, what should happen to him?

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:35 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6203
A citizens group in Az. has just gotten a referendum on the fall ballot that will allow all voters vote for whoever they want in an open primary. Top two vote getters will run off in Nov. Gov. Jan Brewer, tried to call a special session of the legislature to defeat this measure. She reportedly had a deal with legislators to work with her in preventing this from happening, but at the last minute, most of them ckickened out and left her standing without enough to form a quorum.

Az. gets whacked at itmes for our screwball politics but the people have stood up to the state govt. on this one and the Legislature backed down.

Voters in Mesa also successfully recalled immigration bill 1070 author and local political wacko, Russell Pearce.

Unless this countries politicos figure out a way to compromise rather than polarize, we are doomed to more of the same.

I am not hopeful.... :( :( :( 8-) 8-) 8-)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4145
Location: Zelienople, PA
bucco boy wrote:

I have voted in every election, both primary and general since I turned 18 so please don't insinuate anything else.

As for my follow-up question, if Joe Smith doesn't have insurance because he chooses not to and needs medical treatment and can't afford it, what should happen to him?


Sorry about the vote, I took your response to NM as one saying you were removing yourself from such. My bad.

On the second, the hard, but correct answer, is that he pays for his choices IF no one steps up to help. But, there are plenty of organizations and personal friends who I am sure, would.

Look, I am not saying that we shouldn't make HI as affordable as possible, or work to provide as much access as possible, and provide lots of choices thereof so that Joe Smith at a minimum, has some type of catastrophic event insurance that he chooses. But the key is, he chooses.

But, really you are talking systems here. Compulsory participation in a system that is controlled centrally by bureaucrats in DC under rules that haven't even been MADE yet.

So let me turn this back on you. What happens in the new health care system if Joe Smith has cancer, but it is deemed too expensive for the system? When the IMPB (I believe that is the correct acronym) board sets rules that Mr. Smith does not fall under because he is either too much a drain on society or he doesn't contribute enough to justify the health insurance?

Can't happen? You bet it can, and does. This is the basis of all European social systems from England to France to Switzerland. You see, in this system, it is the SYSTEM that must be protected, not the individual. Right now, the decisions are between you and your doctor. Not anymore. They are withing the system and what maintains that system. If you "fit" into it, cool. But, what if Mr Smith has an expensive form of cancer to treat with a very low probability of success?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4145
Location: Zelienople, PA
Az Bucco fan wrote:

Unless this countries politicos figure out a way to compromise rather than polarize, we are doomed to more of the same.

I am not hopeful.... :( :( :( 8-) 8-) 8-)


AZ, you are undercutting your own argument here. Look, AZ citizen's did the right thing and got their reps to represent them.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5491
ZelieMike wrote:
Me and many others who realize the greatness of the documents and systems they created. The whole "they were white, they were small, they didn't envision a car" argument is foolish and self serving. The principals of government remain the same over the ages. They don't change, whether for good or bad. These guys researched history and all forms of government before they came up with ours and settled on one that respected the right of the individual to make his/her own way, and solidified that through idea of land ownership.


Yeah, respected individual rights and land ownership unless they were Native American! :roll:

Sorry, just had to take that easy shot. Really not trying to go down that road.

I agree that the Bill of Rights and most of the constitution is a great document, worthy of following to this day. However, as evidence by the Civil War and the civil 'movements' of the 60's and 70's (and to a lesser extent the modern civil issues) I think it is evident that not only did the constitution not cover all areas of need, but that it requires slight evolutions (to the state vs. federal process). And I mean more than simple amendments.

Again, when California has a popluation of Australia, New York that of Canada, and Rhode Island barely that of the New Orleans Metropolitan area, it's hard to argue that the Federal government should dictate terms to all 300 M people as equal. Throw in the vast differences and sizes of factors such as racial demographics, income tax brackets, registered voters, health, etc. and it's obvious that the Federal government is foolish to mandate anything on such a level as they are.

They are, as Wilton might say, "painting with a very wide brush".

The argument/issue of State vs. Federal is not a new one. It harkens back to the Jefferson and 'Old Hickory' days. The issue was never really settled (only slightly by the Civil War) and now has grown to gigantic levels. The core issue is the same, but now how to settle it has become a clash of titans (with corporations acting as a legitimate and lofty third party).

The system was designed so that each state/region/demographic had a[n equal/weighted] voice. Right now it's far less the case.

California is billions in debt, Massachusetts is doing their social progams thing, Texas will always be Texas... 'swing' states decide elections, there are clearly 'red' and 'blue' states, larger states dwarve elected officials from small ones, corporations clearly influence all...

I'm not saying 'blow up the system'!, I'm just saying that the way the country ran its first 50-100 years compared to now is... changed. And that's a wild, dangerous understatement.

'A nation divided [itself] cannot stand'... well, this nation is pretty damned divided in a great many ways. I don't even need to listen to talk radio or watch demagoguery political TV channels to know that.

I think a lot of those problems [and divisions] might be quelled if we stopped trying to establish a 'status quo' based upon a faulty premise.

ZelieMike wrote:
This lead to the greatest and richest country the world has ever seen. None close. A country where the poorest live better than most of the world. Yet now, when you have an election year battle or the inevitable recession hits, the cries of "it doesn't work" go up all around. Mostly, I observe, from a generation that has NOT suffered much of anything except prosperity in your lives.

To me, the biggest problem we have as a country is that we are spoiled. We have the most, but we want MORE!

ZM


This is true, undoubtedly.

This nation has forgotten the great words (and meaning behind the words) of JFK, 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' and many other poignant and applicable mantras from past great leaders.

Be that as it may, I think this country is in need of serious forward thinking. And not the type that they're trying right now, I mean legitimate, back to basics/bottom line, no BS forward thinking.

We need to analyze and examine how this country was supposed to run, where and how we do it now and then figure out how to connect the dots in between.

Because I don't care if the roots are in the old Greek Republics, the fact that ~500 people (whose demographics hardly represent the entirety of the U.S.) are making laws for 300M is absurd.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4145
Location: Zelienople, PA
Go back to the original representative mandate of one rep per about 3000 people.

Yes, it makes the galactic senate of Star Wars look small, but IMHO, the implications are huge... if you want your rep to actually rep you. There was a couple of academic studies done on this premise with some very interesting projections. With that many representatives, you will have compromise brother, believe me.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:06 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
While I understand your view that we are not represented by those in Congress, did you do the math? 300 million divided by 3000 is 100,000. Please tell us how that many people could even dream of finding solutions that could be agreed unpon.

Sometimes I wonder.....

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10563
I stayed out of this discussion for a myriad of reasons, but in looking over this thread, I believe that several questions merit discussion relative to the current medical reform plan*. These questions are:

  • Where does the Federal government get the authority under the Constitution to mandate that citizens buy ANYTHING?
  • Where does the Federal government get the power to mandate that citizens buy a product sold in private industry, like health insurance?
  • Does anybody believe that the estimates for future healthcare costs for the taxpayer under the projections for this legislation are accurate?
  • If yes to the preceding question, please list the projected costs over a 10-year span following implementation for the last four major entitlement programs at the time they were enacted by Congress (Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, and prescription drug coverage under Medicare), and compare those estimates to what the programs ACTUALLY wound up costing over that time.
  • If you note from the data that the cost estimates were off by at least 100% for every program, and vastly more for Medicare and the Rx coverage for Medicare, then please advise as to what the plan is if (WHEN) the medical coverage costs substantially more than initially projected.
  • Finally, if the medical reform act drives up the price of medical care substantially by lowering the number of doctors willing to work in such a demanding and high-stress field, for reduced pay, while increasing the pool of applicants for care, then what is the Plan B?
  • Or are we going to simply pretend that this legislation, unlike basically every other major entitled program ever enacted by Congress, will go right according to plan, at the projected cost, and without unintended consequences?

Legitimate questions, since the expanded coverage will cost 2x, 4x, or very possibly 10x what Congress anticipated in their estimates (CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period).

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof ... imates.pdf

So what is the plan when the coverage costs not $1.1 trillion over 10 years, but $3 trillion, or $4 trillion or more??

* I refuse to call legislation by its made-up and idiotically ingratiating name, such as the "Affordable Care Act" or the "Save Puppies from Starvation Act" or any similar designation. Seriously, Congress embarrasses itself with these idiotic monikers.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:55 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5491
Bucfan wrote:
  • Does anybody believe that the estimates for future healthcare costs for the taxpayer under the projections for this legislation are accurate?
  • If yes to the preceding question, please list the projected costs over a 10-year span following implementation for the last four major entitlement programs at the time they were enacted by Congress (Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, and prescription drug coverage under Medicare), and compare those estimates to what the programs ACTUALLY wound up costing over that time.


:idea:

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:06 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Bucfan wrote:
I stayed out of this discussion for a myriad of reasons, but in looking over this thread, I believe that several questions merit discussion relative to the current medical reform plan*. These questions are:

  • Where does the Federal government get the authority under the Constitution to mandate that citizens buy ANYTHING?
  • Where does the Federal government get the power to mandate that citizens buy a product sold in private industry, like health insurance?
  • Does anybody believe that the estimates for future healthcare costs for the taxpayer under the projections for this legislation are accurate?
  • If yes to the preceding question, please list the projected costs over a 10-year span following implementation for the last four major entitlement programs at the time they were enacted by Congress (Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, and prescription drug coverage under Medicare), and compare those estimates to what the programs ACTUALLY wound up costing over that time.
  • If you note from the data that the cost estimates were off by at least 100% for every program, and vastly more for Medicare and the Rx coverage for Medicare, then please advise as to what the plan is if (WHEN) the medical coverage costs substantially more than initially projected.
  • Finally, if the medical reform act drives up the price of medical care substantially by lowering the number of doctors willing to work in such a demanding and high-stress field, for reduced pay, while increasing the pool of applicants for care, then what is the Plan B?
  • Or are we going to simply pretend that this legislation, unlike basically every other major entitled program ever enacted by Congress, will go right according to plan, at the projected cost, and without unintended consequences?

Legitimate questions, since the expanded coverage will cost 2x, 4x, or very possibly 10x what Congress anticipated in their estimates (CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period).

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof ... imates.pdf

So what is the plan when the coverage costs not $1.1 trillion over 10 years, but $3 trillion, or $4 trillion or more??

* I refuse to call legislation by its made-up and idiotically ingratiating name, such as the "Affordable Care Act" or the "Save Puppies from Starvation Act" or any similar designation. Seriously, Congress embarrasses itself with these idiotic monikers.

Assuming you want repeal? Your argument bases itself on the fear of cost increases by implimentation. Much of that is just accepting the fear machine at work yet again.
Answer the following-- What happens if this law goes away? To cost? To care? The alternative of doing nothing puts us back to having health continue to destroying America. There is no one suggesting any real solution here.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4145
Location: Zelienople, PA
Substitute2 wrote:
There is no one suggesting any real solution here.


Keep saying it long enough sub, and maybe you'll actually believe it. You're smart enough to know this is a talking point.

I am still waiting on a defender to answer my question posted earlier. I'll summarize it. What happens to your Obamacare when you allow bureaucrats to control the system instead of doctors and yourself? What choices do they make when it becomes your health versus maintaining the system? Especially when you become too old, or too sick to be beneficial to society anymore?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:52 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
ZelieMike wrote:
Substitute2 wrote:
There is no one suggesting any real solution here.


Keep saying it long enough sub, and maybe you'll actually believe it. You're smart enough to know this is a talking point.

I am still waiting on a defender to answer my question posted earlier. I'll summarize it. What happens to your Obamacare when you allow bureaucrats to control the system instead of doctors and yourself? What choices do they make when it becomes your health versus maintaining the system? Especially when you become too old, or too sick to be beneficial to society anymore?

ZM

You have just indicated the reason I don't buy into your thought here. It seems that your fear of perceived socialism (not withstanding Social security and Medicare) causes you to object to all of government. There is no other solution,Mike.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4145
Location: Zelienople, PA
Substitute2 wrote:
You have just indicated the reason I don't buy into your thought here. It seems that your fear of perceived socialism (not withstanding Social security and Medicare) causes you to object to all of government. There is no other solution,Mike.


Percieved? No. Experience, yes.

Great choice there sub, Social Security - broke, Medicare- Even more broke. So much so that doctors are dropping patients and refusing to perform under it because they can't get paid.

Oooops.

There are plenty of other, market-based solutions that would work fine, and some that we had that worked fine.

You failed to address my questions though, and I am not surprised because I think you know the answer but don't want to have to say it.

Let me ask this, when was the last government run program where the costs went down, or even stayed the same versus oh, lets say a private sector medical procedure with no government involvement... like lasik eye surgery? Care to compare the cost curves sub?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm
Posts: 3326
Location: Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7080681/ns/business-answer_desk/t/social-security-really-going-broke/#.UAxi3GGJdMI

Interesting article

_________________
Image...You can observe a lot by just watching. -Yogi Berra


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10563
Sub, no major Federal entitlement program adopted from FDR's first term to present - REPEAT, NONE - cost as much as projected or less.

Each one cost more - vastly more for Medicare than was projected:

"In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare - the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled - would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare's home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... uns/print/

Further, this graph documents the ever-increasing (though studiously ignored) revised projections on the likely cost of the new medical care implemented and paid for by the Federal government under Obama's plan. Note the increases:

Image

So, Sub, I have credible, documented evidence showing that the cost of Obama's medical care plan will likely cost MUCH more than $1.1 trillion, and very likely four times as much or more.

So what evidence do you have that the estimates on which the program was adopted are reliable?

And again, given how extraordinarily important this issue is, what is the plan if (when) the costs are $3 trillion more than anticipated?

What? If you don't have a "Plan B" for that circumstance, then adopting this program is a guarantee of bankruptcy.

Look at the data above. Answer the data.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6127
Location: Keystone State
Bucfan wrote:
Sub, no major Federal entitlement program adopted from FDR's first term to present - REPEAT, NONE - cost as much as projected or less.

Each one cost more - vastly more for Medicare than was projected:

"In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare - the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled - would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare's home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... uns/print/

Further, this graph documents the ever-increasing (though studiously ignored) revised projections on the likely cost of the new medical care implemented and paid for by the Federal government under Obama's plan. Note the increases:

Image

So, Sub, I have credible, documented evidence showing that the cost of Obama's medical care plan will likely cost MUCH more than $1.1 trillion, and very likely four times as much or more.

So what evidence do you have that the estimates on which the program was adopted are reliable?

And again, given how extraordinarily important this issue is, what is the plan if (when) the costs are $3 trillion more than anticipated?

What? If you don't have a "Plan B" for that circumstance, then adopting this program is a guarantee of bankruptcy.

Look at the data above. Answer the data.


The problem isn't the plan. It's the politicians who let the plan get out of control. Let's face it. Democrats and Republicans can't help but screw things up.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:28 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10563
bucco boy wrote:
The problem isn't the plan. It's the politicians who let the plan get out of control. Let's face it. Democrats and Republicans can't help but screw things up.

That is why, I suspect, that the Constitution did not envision or authorize elected officials having that type of authority (ordering citizens to buy a consumer product, mandating the costs for medical care, etc.).

For that reason, I submit that it IS the plan.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits