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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (598971)	1/26/2011 2:01:17 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574050

>> Now the CBO has said repeatedly that the legislation is essentially budget neutral (unlike part d) Implicit in your argument is that CBO numbers are meaningful, which anyone who has read the material knows they are NOT. Elmendorf himself has distanced himself from these figures time and again, realizing that the methodology he was required to use was insane. As to your Part D reference, Part D has vastly beaten CBO's estimates EVERY YEAR -- for two reasons: (a) It gave patients an interest in minimizing costs, and (b) it provided for competition which drove prices down. If Obamacare stands, it will destroy Part D's fiscal integrity. Part D stands as the most successful government health care program ever created in our country. By a mile. Before it was destroyed by Obamacare. You really don't know very much about this subject IMO.

To: Alighieri who wrote (598971)	1/26/2011 2:42:17 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574050

Al, > Look, health care was first and foremost enacted to provide care to the uninsured, some of which could not afford it and some of which are freeloading...cost control was a secondary goal of the legislation. Face it, if that were the only selling point of ObamaCare, it would have hardly gained any traction. "Yes, we can provide health care for the 30 million uninsured, but it will cost us." Instead, they had to sell us a bill of goods. The claim was that not only does it cover the uninsured, but it also reduces costs and lowers the deficit at the same time. By the way, there was nothing moronic in that piece posted by Tim. It was a good response to Ezra Klein's attack, which was that Republicans can't repeal ObamaCare and be fiscally responsible at the same time. Tenchusatsu