LMAO. maybe YOU should read your post again, because not only did you not understand the article but you seem to think my rebuttals to your erroneous facts did not point out you were WRONG!
You do realize everyone else isn't as dumb as you and can see for themselves just how stupid you are? The yearly figure of 1 trillion dollars is NOT Kennedys or any one elses NEW Health Care plan, it is the cost of ALL plans including Medicare, and Medicaid! GAWD you are DUMB! On Jun 24, 3:38 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Sugarshack, > > Like many Moonbats, it usually takes you several times to comprehend a > point, much less a news article. In this case, I refer you back to the > Congressional Budget Office's report, of which I provided the link > earlier. You noted a part of the article, now quit cherry picking, and try > to comprehend what our own government is trying to tell the Moonbat > community!! > > Here's the link one more time: > > http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10311/06-16-ConradLetter.htm > > I suggest that you read my initial post also Sean. Clearly, you haven't a > clue about what it is that you are talking about. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:31 PM, VT VirtualTruth > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Gee once again Keith is no where to be found! > > > Once again Keith gets OWNED by the Truth! > > > On Jun 24, 10:25 am, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Dumb Ass Keith in Tampa if you had READ your OWN post.... > > > > TOTAL COSTS WITH EXISTING HEALTHCARE PROGRAMS... > > > The federal government’s financing of health care will total more than > > > $1 trillion in 2009, all told. Federal outlays for Medicare and > > > Medicaid are about $700 billion; tax preferences for health care > > > (especially the exclusion of premiums for employment-based health > > > insurance from income and payroll taxes) amount to more than $250 > > > billion; and the federal government also pays for veterans’ health > > > care, public health initiatives, and other health programs. Already, > > > those direct and indirect payments for health care account for nearly > > > 60 percent of total health expenditures for the nation. > > > > WILL THIS REDUCE COSTS?....... > > > Therefore, changes in government policy have the potential to yield > > > large reductions in both national health expenditures and federal > > > health care spending without harming health. Moreover, many experts > > > agree on some general directions in which the government’s health > > > policies should move—typically involving changes in the information > > > and incentives that doctors and patients have when making decisions > > > about health care. > > > Bundle Payments to Hospitals and Other Providers > > > The Commonwealth Fund estimated that this proposal would reduce > > > federal spending by over $200 billion between 2010 and 2020. > > > > Finally STUPID the cost of the plan is 1.6 Trillion over TEN YEARS! > > > > On Jun 24, 8:49 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Uhm......Sugarshack, > > > > > I don't know why I bother, I guess it is because I like you, but like > > any > > > > child, sometimes there comes a time when I must take your pants down > > and > > > > spank you. > > > > > From the Congressional Budget Office: > > > > > "The federal government’s financing of health care will total more > > than $1 > > > > trillion in 2009, " > > > > >http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10311/06-16-ConradLetter.htm > > > > > As usual, you are ignoring the facts, and like most Moonbats, you seem > > to > > > > want to cherry pick. Even Kennedy's plan will cost over one trillion > > > > initially. You might want to look at the numbers, and here is an > > article > > > > that frames the actual costs a little better. > > > > > Can you say, "One Point Six Trillion"??? (Just in the first year, and > > this > > > > doesn't cover everyone!!!) > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR200. > > .. > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM, VT VirtualTruth > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > Keith, your 99% sure is usually 100% wrong, > > > > > It is 10 years. > > > > > >http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre55e74c-us-usa-healthcare-cbo/ > > > > > > On Jun 23, 7:09 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sean, > > > > > > > I don't have the numbers in front of me, and I don't have time to > > go and > > > > > > look for them now, but I am 99 percent positive, that the Democrat > > plan, > > > > > > (all versions of it) were not 1 trillion in ten years. The plan(s) > > were > > > > > one > > > > > > trillion in one year, like by 2010, and that was using low ball > > numbers. > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:57 PM, VT VirtualTruth > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > So let's do the math, $250 a month for basic > > > > > > > high deductible health insurance. That comes to > > > > > > > $3000 a year per person. > > > > > > > > 40,000,000 Uninsured people. > > > > > > > > Total cost $120,000,000,000 a year. > > > > > > > or 1.2 Trillion in 10 years, > > > > > > > > The No-Publicans were against The Democrat health > > > > > > > plan because in 10 years it would cost over $1 Trillion. > > > > > > > > I am using LOW numbers by the way.....My insurance > > > > > > > costs $1400 a month for a family with dental. > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 5:20 pm, snarky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > If so, what are your thoughts? > > > > > > > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123931859150606821.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
