I'm sure you know that a middle income married couple with 2 children in Canada has about twice the tax obligation (including province taxes) as a like household in the States.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is anyone else getting sick of dems lying over health care?
- Thread starter Hello
- Start date
Quote from Mnphats:
I visited cuba in 2003 with a well respected Ortho Doc from Tennessee (primary clients MLB Players). He came up with several new techniques with regards to scope surgery. He was down there to give some lectures regarding his techniques. We toured several hospitals in cuba. Like I said previous, Cuba's OR equipment is 50's Russian technology and the anesthesia machines are down right scary.
I to have heard about Cuba's excellent health care, but after visiting was a complete fallacy.
Aren't Americans not allowed to go to Cuba?
Quote from Mnphats:
Have you been to Cuba you babbling fool? They are using russian medical equipment from the 50's. This might be the single most uneducated post on ET.
Check this clip out from Sicko, Michael Moore's movie. It looks like Cuba does have modern equipment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncoFQdBIvU
You have to be insane or a complete idiot to believe this thing won't cost trillions and won't limit choices. From todays WSJ....
'Every argument has been made. Everything that there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it," President Obama declared yesterday as he urged Democrats to steamroll his plan through Congress. What hasn't been heard, however, is even a shred of White House honesty about the true costs of ObamaCare, or its fiscal consequences.
Nearby, we reprint Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's remarks at the health summit last week, which methodically dismantle the falsehoodsâthere is no other way of putting itâthat Mr. Obama has used to sell "reform" and repeated again yesterday. No one in the political class has even tried to refute Mr. Ryan's arguments, though he made them directly to the President and his allies, no doubt because they are irrefutable. If Democrats are willing to ignore overwhelming public opposition to ObamaCare and pass it anyway, then what's a trifling dispute over a couple of trillion dollars?
At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millionsâfamilies, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one.
Mr. Obama's fiscal assertions are possible only because of the fraudulent accounting and budget gimmicks that Democrats spent months calibrating. Readers can find the gory details in Mr. Ryan's pre-emptive rebuttal nearby, though one of the most egregious deceptions is that the bill counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending.
The real cost over a decade is about $2.3 trillion on paper, Mr. Ryan estimates, and even that is a lowball estimate considering how many people will flood to "free" health care and how many businesses will be induced to drop coverage. Mr. Obama claimed yesterday that the plan will cost "about $100 billion per year," but in fact the costs ramp up each year the program exists. The far more likely deficits are $460 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion over the next 10.
What Mr. Ryan calls "probably the most cynical gimmick" deserves special attention, which is known in Washington as the "doc fix." Next month Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 22% and deeper thereafter, though Congress is sure to postpone the reductions as it always does. Failing to account for this inevitability takes nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the ObamaCare books and by itself wipes out the "savings" that the White House continues to take credit for.
Some in the liberal cheering section now claim that this Medicare ruse isn't Mr. Obama's problem because it was first promised by Republicans and Bill Clinton in 1997. But then why did Democrats include the "doc fix" in all early versions of the bill to buy the support of the American Medical Association, only to dump this pricey item later when hiding it would make it easier to fake-reduce the deficit?
The President was (miraculously) struck dumb by Mr. Ryan's critique, and in his response drifted off into an irrelevant tangent about Medicare Advantage, while California Democrat Xavier Becerra claimed "you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office." But Mr. Ryan was careful to note that he didn't doubt the professionalism of CBO, only the truthfulness of the Democratic gimmicks that the budget gnomes are asked to score.
Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the "nonpartisan, independent" authority of CBO, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end.
The President also claimed the reason his plan is in trouble, and the reason Democrats must abuse the Senate's rules to ram this plan into law, is that "many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies." So most of Mr. Obama's first year in office has been paralyzed over nothing more than minor regulatory hair-splitting. This is so preposterous that the President can't possibly believe it.
Congress's spring break begins on March 29, and Democratic leaders plan on jamming this monster through Congress before then. Americans have to hope that enough rank-and-file Democrats aren't as deaf to fiscal honesty as this President.
'Every argument has been made. Everything that there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it," President Obama declared yesterday as he urged Democrats to steamroll his plan through Congress. What hasn't been heard, however, is even a shred of White House honesty about the true costs of ObamaCare, or its fiscal consequences.
Nearby, we reprint Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's remarks at the health summit last week, which methodically dismantle the falsehoodsâthere is no other way of putting itâthat Mr. Obama has used to sell "reform" and repeated again yesterday. No one in the political class has even tried to refute Mr. Ryan's arguments, though he made them directly to the President and his allies, no doubt because they are irrefutable. If Democrats are willing to ignore overwhelming public opposition to ObamaCare and pass it anyway, then what's a trifling dispute over a couple of trillion dollars?
At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millionsâfamilies, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one.
Mr. Obama's fiscal assertions are possible only because of the fraudulent accounting and budget gimmicks that Democrats spent months calibrating. Readers can find the gory details in Mr. Ryan's pre-emptive rebuttal nearby, though one of the most egregious deceptions is that the bill counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending.
The real cost over a decade is about $2.3 trillion on paper, Mr. Ryan estimates, and even that is a lowball estimate considering how many people will flood to "free" health care and how many businesses will be induced to drop coverage. Mr. Obama claimed yesterday that the plan will cost "about $100 billion per year," but in fact the costs ramp up each year the program exists. The far more likely deficits are $460 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion over the next 10.
What Mr. Ryan calls "probably the most cynical gimmick" deserves special attention, which is known in Washington as the "doc fix." Next month Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 22% and deeper thereafter, though Congress is sure to postpone the reductions as it always does. Failing to account for this inevitability takes nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the ObamaCare books and by itself wipes out the "savings" that the White House continues to take credit for.
Some in the liberal cheering section now claim that this Medicare ruse isn't Mr. Obama's problem because it was first promised by Republicans and Bill Clinton in 1997. But then why did Democrats include the "doc fix" in all early versions of the bill to buy the support of the American Medical Association, only to dump this pricey item later when hiding it would make it easier to fake-reduce the deficit?
The President was (miraculously) struck dumb by Mr. Ryan's critique, and in his response drifted off into an irrelevant tangent about Medicare Advantage, while California Democrat Xavier Becerra claimed "you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office." But Mr. Ryan was careful to note that he didn't doubt the professionalism of CBO, only the truthfulness of the Democratic gimmicks that the budget gnomes are asked to score.
Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the "nonpartisan, independent" authority of CBO, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end.
The President also claimed the reason his plan is in trouble, and the reason Democrats must abuse the Senate's rules to ram this plan into law, is that "many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies." So most of Mr. Obama's first year in office has been paralyzed over nothing more than minor regulatory hair-splitting. This is so preposterous that the President can't possibly believe it.
Congress's spring break begins on March 29, and Democratic leaders plan on jamming this monster through Congress before then. Americans have to hope that enough rank-and-file Democrats aren't as deaf to fiscal honesty as this President.
Quote from omegapoint:
"Hardly", he said limp-wristedly as he floated out of the room.
Your the buffoon talking about removing profit incentive from health-care or health ins.
In general you get what you (or someone else) has paid for.
If you choose a system where the profit motive is removed that's your stupidity but don't expect me to join you.
Quote from Vinny1:
Check this clip out from Sicko, Michael Moore's movie. It looks like Cuba does have modern equipment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncoFQdBIvU
-1 for linking Micheal Moore.
Do you think Cuba would make sure they provided the best equipment they had for an American movie?
Quote from HelloDollar:
I'm sure you know that a middle income married couple with 2 children in Canada has about twice the tax obligation (including province taxes) as a like household in the States.
I can't speak to the married with kids perspective, but for a single guy, the reality is, and I was born and raised in the US, and didn't move to Canada until I was 40 something, is that the taxes aren't really that much higher. Honestly, I have nearly as much left after taxes here as I did there.
There's some recent article somewhere talking about the effective tax rate in Canada, that explains it pretty well. The point is, it's actually not bad. Well, at least for single guys.
Quote from Index piker:
Your the buffoon talking about removing profit incentive from health-care or health ins.
In general you get what you (or someone else) has paid for.
If you choose a system where the profit motive is removed that's your stupidity but don't expect me to join you.
Not against making a profit but in this case insurers, who are essentially clerks and paper shufflers, are like a fat division that
should be jettisoned for the good of the small business that's shelling out excess premium. You have seen the rate raises they're proposing lately? Government could hire the same people right out of the chairs that would open up and keep the difference. No matter what you think about government it can't be ...so bad as to not clean some of the astronomical margins.
Cut the fat, get efficient lose the entitlement.
Quote from omegapoint:
Not against making a profit but in this case insurers, who are essentially clerks and paper shufflers, are like a fat division that
should be jettisoned for the good of the small business that's shelling out excess premium. You have seen the rate raises they're proposing lately? Government could hire the same people right out of the chairs that would open up and keep the difference. No matter what you think about government it can't be ...so bad as to not clean some of the astronomical margins.
Cut the fat, get efficient lose the entitlement.
Oh I get it , your not opposed to health care workers making a profit, you are just opposed to those who would make the money required for the treatment of that child (with cancer) available.
That makes sense, the parents should simply wait until they have the money in cash before their child gets treatment ( I mean burial).
Idiots bashing ins companies need to think how things would be if there weren't any .