Zoom-boing
Platinum Member
This health care takeover will end like every other government run program, underestimated in cost and overbloated with government with joe the taxpayer getting the shaft, but good.
The stimuless was to create jobs and that worked great soooo . . . . they passed a jobs bill to create jobs. Why would they do that if the stimuless is creating jobs and only 1/3 of the money has been spent? Without the stimuless unemployment would go well over the 8.5% but the stimuless would certainly curb that. Check. The first housing fix would help foreclosed on homeowners and it worked great, which is why they're doing another fix. That's the reason for the second fix, right?
How's Medicare doing? How's Medicare's costs compared to the estimates? This is what this fuckedup takeover will be like.
Read the rest here, it's only 4 pages long. http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf
How's Amtrak? How's . . . anything the government gets its hands on? Please folks, if you really believe that this takeover is going to fix anything you are touched. Go see a doc to help you, you can't get turned down.
This was published on March 20, 2010.
Republican.Senate.Gov - Blogs
The stimuless was to create jobs and that worked great soooo . . . . they passed a jobs bill to create jobs. Why would they do that if the stimuless is creating jobs and only 1/3 of the money has been spent? Without the stimuless unemployment would go well over the 8.5% but the stimuless would certainly curb that. Check. The first housing fix would help foreclosed on homeowners and it worked great, which is why they're doing another fix. That's the reason for the second fix, right?
How's Medicare doing? How's Medicare's costs compared to the estimates? This is what this fuckedup takeover will be like.
Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion.vi The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early 70s and other factors, the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.vii
Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. viii Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billionoff by nearly a factor of 10.ix
Read the rest here, it's only 4 pages long. http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf
How's Amtrak? How's . . . anything the government gets its hands on? Please folks, if you really believe that this takeover is going to fix anything you are touched. Go see a doc to help you, you can't get turned down.
This was published on March 20, 2010.
WASHINGTON, DC The Obama administrations chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified Republican leaders Saturday that the very tight time frame and complexity of the Democrats health spending bill would prevent them from fully analyzing the costs and efficacy of the bill before the House voted on the legislation. The letter was in response to a request from House and Senate Republicans.
The Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, wrote: In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21,2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.
Foster and his staff analyzed the Senate-passed bill and determined that it bent the cost curve up, estimating in a January 8 report that national health expenditures would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion, and that the additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage. Foster, in his letter today, expects the new health spending bill to be generally similar.
Republican.Senate.Gov - Blogs