Heritage is a right leaning organization so if they say administrative costs are in the 12% range and a left leaning article from Taibbi claims 33% than its reasonable to put the true costs in the 20% range.
Only Baucas' plan is the only one without a public option for like the 3rd time. I can't be blamed if you refuse to understand this.
Heritage is a right leaning organization so if they say administrative costs are in the 12% range and a left leaning article from Taibbi claims 33% than its reasonable to put the true costs in the 20% range.
Heritage is sourcing the studies. Taibbi isn't sourcing anything.
Only Baucas' plan is the only one without a public option for like the 3rd time. I can't be blamed if you refuse to understand this.
But the chances of it being added to the public option plan is a very good one if the public option doesn't die on the vine like it probably will.
"But the chances of it being added to the public option plan is a very good one if the public option doesn't die on the vine like it probably will."
You'll have to better explain what you're saying here.
Also I can site studies that says there is no harm in smoking but that doesn't make it so. Even if adminstrative costs are in the 12@ range and im sure that they are higher, thats double what it costs in Canada.
Maybe it wasn't clear from before, but I am completely against the Baucus fine without the public option, and you're right to oppose that part of the bill.
From the article you linked - http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/images/wm2505_chart1.gif
I'd like to add that on a personal note I don't have health insurance and make too much money to be on medicaid or any other type of aid program. (I work on average 45-50 hours a week in New York City) The public option is my best bet for getting health insurance.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-14 10:09 pm (UTC)Only Baucas' plan is the only one without a public option for like the 3rd time. I can't be blamed if you refuse to understand this.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-14 10:12 pm (UTC)Heritage is sourcing the studies. Taibbi isn't sourcing anything.
Only Baucas' plan is the only one without a public option for like the 3rd time. I can't be blamed if you refuse to understand this.
But the chances of it being added to the public option plan is a very good one if the public option doesn't die on the vine like it probably will.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-14 10:18 pm (UTC)You'll have to better explain what you're saying here.
Also I can site studies that says there is no harm in smoking but that doesn't make it so. Even if adminstrative costs are in the 12@ range and im sure that they are higher, thats double what it costs in Canada.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-14 10:20 pm (UTC)i'm saying that the public option ain't gonna pass, but this Baucus-style fine will be in a final bill.
Even if adminstrative costs are in the 12@ range and im sure that they are higher, thats double what it costs in Canada.
Except that it isn't. The study linked via the Heritage piece discussed that.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-14 10:25 pm (UTC)From the article you linked - http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/images/wm2505_chart1.gif
12% is correct and a very low estimate.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-14 10:30 pm (UTC)