Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- From: WangoTango <Asgard24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:44:28 -0500
In article <2bphm5lc8cse298o27meas5lb7d04f3tv8@xxxxxxx>,
mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx says...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 16:12:56 -0500, WangoTangoI would say that YOU have nothing to back up YOUR argument.
<Asgard24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <2u3hm5t6o44sfbrkv6pr53s0s4mva1tudt@xxxxxxx>,
mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx says...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:37:48 -0500, WangoTangoWhat topic would that be?
<Asgard24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1gjfm55f5l8c4mv314c3q66n5jnlug7d79@xxxxxxx>,
mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx says...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:50:33 -0500, WangoTangoLet's try again.
<Asgard24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <a4cem5djttlptgmd22v4lv3rfu5se1b4cp@xxxxxxx>,
mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx says...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:22 -0800, Bill Smith <quandary@xxxxxxxxxxx>And, what makes you think that?
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:10:11 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@xxxxxxxxx>Nation wide Universal health care. The OMB says it will eventually be
wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_re_us/us_california_health_care;_ylt=Atp_9L9DLGtS1gYnPq8bg0Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN0cXU1b2NoBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTI4L3VzX2NhbGlmb3JuaWFfaGVhbHRoX2NhcmUEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM5BHBvcwM2BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDY2FsaWZzZW5hdGVh
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
cheaper than what we do now.
The OMB says it will save between 600 and 750 BILLION dollars over the
next 10 years. Prove otherwise
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.
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?
The topic is UHC WILL save money. You've produced nothing that proves
otherwise. I have shown a non-partisan report from a group highly
respected and quoted by both sides.
You lose just because you have nothing to back up your argument. Past
performance with different entities is useless and off topic. In a
debate you would have lost points for your side.
We have seen what government run programs end up like already.
We can look at the rationing and long waits for services in Canada and
the UK, along with the costs the countries have incurred. We KNOW that
every government projection of cost and services has been wrong since
the New Deal. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
.
- References:
- Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- From: Lookout
- Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- From: WangoTango
- Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- From: Lookout
- Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- From: WangoTango
- Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- From: Lookout
- Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- From: WangoTango
- Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- From: Lookout
- Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- Prev by Date: Re: Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. Anti-Gunners have GOT to go.
- Next by Date: Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- Previous by thread: Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- Next by thread: Re: Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|