We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high"-- either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:18:55 -0800, N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote: > We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too > high"-- either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But > nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower > those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to > increase the costs.
This is due to the republiCAN't policy of destroying america. They will only pass a bill that puts money in their pocket and benefits BIG corporate business at the cost of american lives.
Saving money or lives for american citizens is not on the republiCAN'T agenda
On Nov 3, 10:18 am, N∅ ∅baMa∅ <obamao.sux.donki.dix...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too > high"-- either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. > But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to > lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain > to increase the costs.
Being the math illiterate that you are, you're right that nothing being proposed will lower costs, they're not meant to. They're meant to lower the *rate* at which those costs will continue to increase. Meaning, to use a simplified explanation that you can hopefully grasp, if what's being proposed will cost $1 trillion over 10 years, then keeping things at the status quo will cost $2 trillion over the same ten years. That's what reform is about - minimizing the rate of increase.
> On Nov 3, 10:18 am, N∅ ∅baMa∅ <obamao.sux.donki.dix...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too > > high"-- either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. > > But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to > > lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain > > to increase the costs.
> Being the math illiterate that you are, you're right that nothing > being proposed will lower costs, they're not meant to. They're meant > to lower the *rate* at which those costs will continue to increase. > Meaning, to use a simplified explanation that you can hopefully grasp, > if what's being proposed will cost $1 trillion over 10 years, then > keeping things at the status quo will cost $2 trillion over the same > ten years. That's what reform is about - minimizing the rate of > increase.
RM - Being the 'truth' illiterate that you are . . . Note - There are usually 2-Sides to most stories and anything else is a half-truth . . . {Viewed 'In-Context'}
Point-of-Fact : By 2018 the US National Health Care expenditures {Costs} are 'expected' to reach $4.4 Trillion which is more than double 2007 http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
> On Nov 3, 12:14 pm, Rebecca Murray <montreal.therapy.cen...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 10:18 am, N∅ ∅baMa∅ <obamao.sux.donki.dix...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > > We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too > > > high"-- either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. > > > But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to > > > lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain > > > to increase the costs.
> > Being the math illiterate that you are, you're right that nothing > > being proposed will lower costs, they're not meant to. They're meant > > to lower the *rate* at which those costs will continue to increase. > > Meaning, to use a simplified explanation that you can hopefully grasp, > > if what's being proposed will cost $1 trillion over 10 years, then > > keeping things at the status quo will cost $2 trillion over the same > > ten years. That's what reform is about - minimizing the rate of > > increase.
> RM - Being the 'truth' illiterate that you are . . . > Note - There are usually 2-Sides to most stories > and anything else is a half-truth . . . > {Viewed 'In-Context'}
> Point-of-Fact : By 2018 the US National Health Care > expenditures {Costs} are 'expected' to reach $4.4 > Trillion which is more than double 2007http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
> On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 12:14 pm, Rebecca Murray <montreal.therapy.cen...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 10:18 am, N∅ ∅baMa∅ <obamao.sux.donki.dix...@gmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too > > > > high"-- either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. > > > > But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to > > > > lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain > > > > to increase the costs.
> > > Being the math illiterate that you are, you're right that nothing > > > being proposed will lower costs, they're not meant to. They're meant > > > to lower the *rate* at which those costs will continue to increase. > > > Meaning, to use a simplified explanation that you can hopefully grasp, > > > if what's being proposed will cost $1 trillion over 10 years, then > > > keeping things at the status quo will cost $2 trillion over the same > > > ten years. That's what reform is about - minimizing the rate of > > > increase.
> > RM - Being the 'truth' illiterate that you are . . . > > Note - There are usually 2-Sides to most stories > > and anything else is a half-truth . . . > > {Viewed 'In-Context'}
> > Point-of-Fact : By 2018 the US National Health Care > > expenditures {Costs} are 'expected' to reach $4.4 > > Trillion which is more than double 2007http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
|
