Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (38911)	11/23/2009 6:40:25 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "So I take it from your inability to refute anything that you agree the cost of the government takeover is over $3 Trillion." EXTREMELY faulty 'logic'. (I never said anything of the kind. NEITHER that there is a "government takeover" NOR that an "expense of $3 Trillion" was in the cards....) I also never said that I was "unable" to discuss ("refute" as you put it...) any or all of the content of your post.... What I DID do was start out with just ONE of the points that you raised in your post, to keep the reply short enough to still be readable... (but I'm happy to take any of the others parts of your post that you might want to talk about Peter on a one-by-one basis, so that we can give them each full justice. After all, just replying to this one single point took four paragraphs.) And... I can't help but notice that you have completely IGNORED the reply discussing the issue you raised about the "doc fix": Let's take one at a time.... (Easier that way.) Is the "doc fix" that you refer to actual FUNDING for meeting the GAP between the previously enacted-but-never-yet-put-into-effect CUTS to Medicare Doctor procedure payments? You know... the one 'can' that has been kicked down the road with ANNUALLY PASSED short term 'fixes' (preventing the cuts to Doctor's pay from EVER taking effect) that have been passed like clockwork, year-by-year, for nearly all of President Bush's two terms? If that is what you are referring to, then I expect that it probably is correct to NOT count it in this currently proposed health care bill (believe it actually isn't counted there, either) insofar as Congress OBVIOUSLY never really had the guts to let those paper-cuts take effect, and they obviously were not EVER really serious about them, it was always just stuff and nonsense. A fake 'deficit reduction effort' they first passed (but NEVER implemented) back during the Bush years, the better to take some of the political heat off of Bush and the Congress for the huge structural deficits they were running. Just 'smoke and mirrors' to fool the public. Those 'cuts' have NEVER been allowed to take effect, (reducing Doctors' reimbursement rates...), so what the heck would be DIFFERENT about simply ONE MORE YEAR when they don't take effect? Eh?