badgenome said:
I know it's very conspiratorial minded (not to mention anti-intellectual) of me to point this out, but if the gross cost has doubled then it's not exactly arguing about monsters in the shadows. If the assumed pay fors don't come through, and they likely won't (especially the fake "savings" and tax hikes), the net cost will rise as well. It might help further the dialog if you don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a NewsMax readin', Rush Limbaugh listenin', stump toothed hillbilly who goes into a blind rage at the very mention of Obama. Also, since it doesn't even kick in until 2014, 2012-2022 is not 11 years. Maths fail. But the leftist mantra seems to be, "It's not anti-intellectualism when WE do it." |
The gross cost has not doubled. The net cost WAS 900B, and the gross cost is 1.7T. The media is taking the 1.7T number and acting like it has doubled from the 900B without mentioning the words gross and net.
The program is already in effect, my good man. The actual healthcare options aren't going into effect until 2014, but maybe you can check this sit out
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
And see all the changes that have already happened.
Bolded is more shadows. I'm sorry if this sounds like labelling but more often than not, these arguments I get into politically all revolve around Republicans predicting a future different from what's bee predicted. Hey, I know you guys could be right. I mean, fair enough, but that's why repubs and dems will never be on the same page, because everyone is arguing an unprovable future.
And hey now, I'm not calling you anything, or assuming anything about you. I've read most of the news reports regarding the CBO's announcement, and it's the newsmax, washington examiner, etc who are leaving out the words gross and net. I'm sorry for assuming that this very media has you up in arms. Quite clearly, venomous sardony (is that a word?) is just part of your natural demeanor.