Sunday, July 19, 2009
Big Numbers for a Big Problem
It appears, folks, that the Congressional Budget Office (a non-partisan group) is at least slightly at odds with the Democrats' health-care proposal. They've been saying that 1) it's clearly going to cost more than the Congress and President are saying and 2) it isn't in any way going to reduce health-care costs down the road. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a prescription for success (sorry, I couldn't resist) to me.........................................................................Of course, there is at least one possible saving grace here. As Senator Sanders has stated in arguing for this plan, savings could in fact occur when you figure prevention into the formula. If people are seeing doctors regularly/diseases are caught much earlier, then, yes, that could save a lot of money in terms of end of life care. It's a theory that at least makes sense on paper. There, now if we could only get it to materialize in practice, too. We'd be all frigging set then, huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I'm not a liar, Clif. I was just echoing what the CBO guy said before Congress. I saw it (what he said) and it was reported on.
And, really, Clif, if it's truly "deficit neutral", why in the hell did the Congress propose $600,000,000,000 in new taxes?
Director Elmendorf is the one who's arguing with this article, Clif. Not me.
Keep it clean, Clif. So, the CBO refers to itself as "the CBO"? That's interesting. Go to youtube, Cliffy. Douglas Elmendorf (the DIRECTOR OF THE CBO!!!!!!!!!), I'm sure his concerns (voiced to the Congress) are on there by now. Or just do a basic internet search, for Christ! P.S. I can see now why the army told you to take a hike/you're unable to hold gainful employment. I'm serious, bro, there is not an organization in the galaxy that would be willing to put up with you. I mean, you would last less than an hour at my place.
And you didn't answer my question, Cliffy. If this wonderful plan is supposedly "revenue neutral", then why in the hell the need for 600 billion in increased taxes?
Why are you always so sexually inappropriate, Clif? From my experience in human services, it frequently means that the person is either confused or inadequate. Do either of those 2 possibilities ring a bell?
I'm not the one who's constantly harping on other folks, Cliffy (sexually). That, me-bucko, is strictly your domain
I'm in to classic cinema, Clif. And, yes, Vivien Leigh is one of the best actresses who's ever lived. I'm sorry that my interests and tastes are different from yours. Man, you really DO have a problem here, fellow? Anybody who has different interests and opinions from you, you just absolutely can't handle it, can you? And you're reportoire is getting ever so thin, too; homophobia, meaningless machismo. It's all extremely pathetic, Clif. It really and truly is.
Post a Comment