snilloctjc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 401
- Location
- El Paso, TX USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.
Full email, from Edward "Sandy" Davis, CBO's Associate Director for Legislative Affairs, below.
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion
Anything from a valid source? It's a different question, but I would still prefer to see something mainstream.
Debatable, but the Harvard article addresses that. And shows that despite the uncertainty, jobs here have been added, and they will be lost with repeal.
Did you go to the link? How more valid can you get than the actual e-mail put out by the CBO. When I studied History we called that a primary source
Jobs have been lost since Obama signed the stimulus as the actual results show. 4 million less employed today than when Obama signed the stimulus so you can point to jobs being created but until those jobs even meet the labor market on December 31, 2008 there have been no successes of this Administration. Jobs being created have not offset the people leaving the labor force. I don't have a lot of use for intellectual studies based upon ignorance of the actual facts which come from BLS.gov and the picture that BLS doesn't even paint, those not counted, business owners and contract employees that are unemployed today.
Are you so intellectually without a clue that you don't get it that tens of millions cannot AFFORD to purchase private medical insurance?
Are you so intellectually without a clue that you would rather people get rushed to the ER in life threatening conditions which cost a whole lot more than simple early treatment would have cost?
You and many on the far right here get your impressions of society from sources that have nothing to do with the day to day reality of millions of peoples lives.
Yes, lost before, during and after. I had a boat once with a hole in it. If you let it sit in the water it would sink. But you could travel across the lake while baling water. We took in a lot of water, but did much better by bailing it out than we would have had we just let the water come in. To some, they kept pointing out the boat was taking water. Others noted that we got to the other side.
Fixing the leak is better, but if you can't all at once, and still have to get to the other side, bailing is the next best option. At least until you can fix the leak.
Jobs are being lost now due to the uncertainty of Obamacare. No business is going to hire anyone not knowing the cost of hiring that individual. Money spent by the private sector isn't offset by the costs associated with the same dollar spent by the public sector. The American taxpayer doesn't fund private sector spending but it does fund public sector speding. Private sector expense generates 100% benefit to the economy, public sector spending benefit is reduced by the amount of debt that funds it.
Look, you aren't going to change my mind and apparently I am not going to change yours. I believe healthcare is a state and local issue, not a Federal Issue. Nothing you have stated changes my mind and I have history on my side regarding actual results. Since you put your faith in numbers, tell me why some states' healthcare costs are higher than others and what are the states with lower healthcare costs doing that could be duplicated in others? That is where the effort should be placed, not massive overhaul.
Look, you aren't going to change my mind and apparently I am not going to change yours. I believe healthcare is a state and local issue, not a Federal Issue. Nothing you have stated changes my mind and I have history on my side regarding actual results. Since you put your faith in numbers, tell me why some states' healthcare costs are higher than others and what are the states with lower healthcare costs doing that could be duplicated in others? That is where the effort should be placed, not massive overhaul.
I am an employer, I can assure you that my staff level is much more controlled by the demand for my products than the cost of insurance or any impending fine for so providing insurance. Simply put, I will not hire more people than I need to fill orders for the products that we make - regardless of the cost of labor.
Any two sitautions and people are not exactly the same. The Packers defense might handle New Englands offense Better than the Falcon's, but we would not argue that the NE offense isn't a problem for all defenses. Expecting all to be the same without any varience isn't enough in and of itself to dispute what is being argued here. Across the country, people are paying more for less, access is limited for too many, hosptials have to take in people who don't pay, and those costs get passed on to everyone, and those are just a few of the problems. Ad hock, state by state, little has been done to effectively change the course. And it seems unlikley that anything short of a universal payer actually ever will, IMHO.
I believe that healthcare is a family issue, not a federal or state or local one.
Exactly the point, what works with Green Bay may or many not work with New England but at least New England and Green Bay have the choice. If people across the country are paying more for less then it is up to the people in those states to find out why and what they can do to lower costs. In TX illegals' are a problem that aren't a problem in let's say Nebraska. your one size fits all doesn't fly. If little hasn't been done in the states, then it is the people of the states' problem. Why does the Federal Govt. have to get involved? Just because you think so? You perceive a problem that people in the states don't.
Not quite true. SOme systems work better than others. So, while there will be some individual differences, they won't be major enough to sugegst 52 different systems. Much of what we have in this country is essentially the same in Philly as it is in Chicago or as it is in Billings or in Los Angelas. And while there are minor differences in all those places, we use the same systems because one system not only helps with consistencey, but one is often better than another.
What makes you an expert on what another state does or another individuals financials are? There is no evidence that the Federal Govt. can do anything effeciently for 50 sovereign states yet the arrogance of liberals won't let them accept that reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?