[galveston]

Hello again, tom and gal:

At this point in time, after your side has continuously misrepresented the nature of the bill, I'm not gonna believe ANYTHING your side says. Don't be offended, though. Certainly, you don't believe ANYTHING my side says, and I'm not offended.

Nonetheless, EVEN IF the figures ARE wrong, and it COSTS us money, count me in as one who is fine with my taxes paying for the LIFE giving care of my fellow Americans. I'm not for killing 'em, like you are.

Gal, you're on SS, aren't you? Do you get your check on time?

excon

What kind of medical care can you expect to get when an additional 30 (?) million more people are put on medicare? Especially since more than a third of doctors are saying they will retire early or change professions. Many doctors right now will not accept any new medicare patients. How many young people will go into health care when they know that their investment in education will not be adequately rewarded?

I think we all know that medicare and SS are both bankrupt now, and yes, I get my SS on time. That's only because YOU continue to pay for it. What happens when your generation reaches retirement age?

Your generation may wish it hadn't aborted over 50 million future taxpayers.

[tomder55]

Ex I would believe your side more if they weren't telling the rank and file to avoid discussions about the details of the CBO report .

I would believe your side more if they weren't creating procedural tricks to pass probably the most important piece of social legislation in the last 45 years .

[inthebox]

Hello gal:

Funny! The CBO (non partisan congressional budget office) says the bill will REDUCE the deficit by $180 billion in the next 10 years, and over a TRILLION in the following 10 years.

Let me see. Should I believe a right wing organization who ISN'T in favor of the bill, or should I believe the non partisan bureaucrats who scored the bill?

YOU believe who you want to, and I'll believe who I want to.

Excon

PS> By the way, the first Bush tax cut ADDED over a TRILLION $$$'s to the deficit. How come you weren't a deficit hawk then?? The NEXT Bush tax cut added MORE to the deficit, I didn't hear a peep from you. Medicare Part D, that Bush passed, added even MORE to the deficit. You?? Nothing!! His wars added even more, but you were ready to invade.

So, NOW you're a deficit hawk?? I understand - really, I do.

Is this the same CBO that underestimated Medicare part D cost:

Updated Estimates of Spending for the Medicare Prescription Drug Program

CBO currently estimates that net Medicare spending for the Part D program will total $593 billion over the 2004-2013 period. That is an increase of $41 billion over the original $552 billion estimate of net Medicare spending for Part D

How about the original Medicare estimates?

The Medicare Monster - Reason Magazine

The two primary lessons of Medicare are the chronic problem of woefully underestimating program costs and the impossibility of genuine cost control. A closer look at Medicare shows why these two problems are certain to plague a government-administered universal health-care plan.

The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.

This was written 17 years ago. I don't even want to know what an update would be like.


Then we have universal healthcare lite in Massachusettes


ER visits and health care costs rise in Massachusetts due to lack of primary care access | KevinMD.com

What a success? In lowering costs? In providing true access to healthcare not just insurance.



It does not take much smarts to realize :

1] medicare and medicaid, government run programs, have not been able to control costs, nor provide guaranteed access to actual healthcare. What percent of physicians accept medicare and or medicaid? It is far from 100%. To think that an extension of medicare and medicaid to all the uninsured, is then going to be able to reduce cost or provide actual access to healthcare, especially if there is no "doctor fix," is absurd. Why rely on estimates of future costs when we have examples of how ineffective medicare, medicaid, medicare D are at containing costs; and that is not even broaching the subject of their solvency in the next 10 or more years.

2] Providing care to an additional 30 million people while theoretically not increasing costs WILL RESULT IN RATIONING AND LONGER WAITING LISTS. This will be further worsened by a shortage of healthcare providers:
Doctors retiring, students deciding not to go into medicine, doctors not accepting the government system.

3] to pay for this will result in HIGHER TAXES. Speaking of which: how can they tax immediately, yet the benefits don't start for 3-4 years? Is this legal? Can you imagine making a car or house payments for a year before actually driving the car or living in the house?!






G&P

[excon]

Hello again, in:

Well, I guess we DON'T pass ANY more legislation if we can't get good numbers from the CBO.

Maybe we can turn to the right wing for good numbers... Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

[galveston]

I recently heard an even more sinister report.

According to it, the IRS will be the enforcement tool to make sure that everyone buys health insurance.

To pay for the additional employees necessary to do this, an additional 10 Billion dollars would be appropriated.

Can you say Gestapo, or maybe, Politbureau?

[tomder55]

Yes that is being reported ;and additional 17,000 IRS agents will handle to load.

You see... Pelosi is right ;this health bill is about jobs !

[galveston]

I fervently pray that this thing does not pass, and that if it does, the legal challenges will be successful.

The way this country has dissed God lately though, He couldn't be blamed if He chooses to let us reap what we have sown.