Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care

In article <2u3hm5t6o44sfbrkv6pr53s0s4mva1tudt@xxxxxxx>,
mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx says...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:37:48 -0500, WangoTango
<Asgard24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1gjfm55f5l8c4mv314c3q66n5jnlug7d79@xxxxxxx>,
mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx says...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:50:33 -0500, WangoTango
<Asgard24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <a4cem5djttlptgmd22v4lv3rfu5se1b4cp@xxxxxxx>,
mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx says...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:22 -0800, Bill Smith <quandary@xxxxxxxxxxx>

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:10:11 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx>

The tide is turning.

This is largely the bill that the Governator vetoed once before. It
seems he insisted that there should be some way to pay for it, there
was no provision in the bill for that, still isn't.

The tide is turning to what, exactly?

Bill Smith
Nation wide Universal health care. The OMB says it will eventually be
cheaper than what we do now.

And, what makes you think that?

The OMB says it will save between 600 and 750 BILLION dollars over the
next 10 years. Prove otherwise
Let's try again.
Name ONE thing the government has done that did end up costing more than
expected and worked as they claimed.

Stop trying to change the topic. When you know you're wrong the first
thing you do is try to turn the discussion in another direction. I'm
not playing that game.

Keep it on topic or I'll accept the fact that you admit you lost.

What topic would that be?
The topic is that UHC will be as big a boondoggle as every other
government run program since the New Deal, or am I missing something
here? If "projections" were an accurate predictor of performance, NO
government program would EVER cost more than predicted, now would it?


Relevant Pages