Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Health Care plan estimates from CBO; Some major problems | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 17 2009, 09:00 AM (29 Views) | |
| Mr Gray | Jun 17 2009, 09:00 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Coach
|
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49658 http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10311 OK, let's forget about the total cost of this proposal for a second, because as we have seen, the federal government has almost no concern for costs. I have got to make a major point regarding some of their thoughts on how they are going to pay for some of it. “Those costs would be partly offset by receipts or savings from three sources: increases in tax revenues stemming from the decline in employment-based coverage; payments of penalties by uninsured individuals; and reductions in outlays for Medicaid and CHIP.” Point #1, has a glaring liberal contradiction doesn't it? It assumes that if employers are no longer providing healthcare benefits, they will transfer that savings to the employees by increasing their pay, resulting in increased income tax revenue? DOESN'T THAT SOUND A LOT LIKE THE "TRICKLE-DOWN" ECONOMIC THEORY THAT LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME RIDICULING? :banghead: :banghead: All of a sudden if employers have more money they are going to transfer it down to their employees??? How the hell can these jackasses get away with cherry picking "trickle down" when it is convenient for them to spend us into oblivian? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| IUCOLTFAN | Jun 17 2009, 09:15 AM Post #2 |
|
Coach
|
I most enjoy the part that states: some of the cost will be paid by "projected savings" in healthcare and other programs. How in the fuck could a "smart person" ever sign on to vote for this shit? If you planned to quit smoking in 2 years, would you buy a new Escalade now on your projected savings from stopping smoking?? This is fucking insanity! Did you also note that the "most transparent administration in history" sealed the White House visitors list? Thats about as transparent as it gets, I guess.Did the definition of transperency change? |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jun 17 2009, 09:24 AM Post #3 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Excellent point about "trickle down", Aaron. :cheers: |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:45 PM Jul 10
|











7:45 PM Jul 10