• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Nice trick

Rep. Joe Donnelly told people at his recent town hall meeting that the current health care system must change because otherwise Medicare will go broke. Granted. But he went on to say that:

. . . legislation should cover people with pre-existing conditions and provide benefits to small and medium-sized businesses while not increasing the national debt.

How, for God's sake, can we cover more people and provide more benefits while not increasing the national debt? And they accuse oppoents of exaggeration.


tim zank
Thu, 08/13/2009 - 12:47pm

He's using the new Obama math.

Third Down
Thu, 08/13/2009 - 4:12pm

Maybe you haven't had time to read the bill and the revenue and cost estimates of the House bill, but the CBO has estimated that it is "deficit neutral" over the 10 year budget window. You may choose to dispute the assumptions in the bill, but at least the plan is there.

Of course, the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be budget neutral and we all know what happened there.

Bob G.
Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:10am

And can you cover MORE PEOPLE when you barely have DOCTORS and healthcare WORKERS to back all this up TODAY...let alone for the foreseeable future?
Something's gotta give (like the song goes).

And it shouldn't always be the TAXPAYERS doing ALL the "giving".

Fri, 08/14/2009 - 8:56pm

We should all accept CBO estimates in good faith. In 1993 during the Hillary Care debate, Reason Magazine pointed out:

"The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion."

The 2007 cost for Medicare was $440 billion. Obama is out of the box with a $2 trillion dollar cost for his huge program and over 10 years it will be "deficit neutral?" Maybe so, but the taxpayers will be broke.

tim zank
Sat, 08/15/2009 - 10:24pm

If ANY of you think ANY kind of government healthcare would EVER be more efficient than private enterprise, I have two GLARING examples....Post Offiice & Amtrak. And of course anything else government touchs...like freddie mac, fannie mae, ginnie mae...

I honestly don't know what instills this confidence you all seem to have, do you ever look at history?????????; or are you all of the age that believes government solves your problems, not creates them????

For God's sake open a history book, government doesn't SOLVE your problems, it CREATES more problems....

Or are you all happy having Uncle Sam wipe your...oh never mind, I know the answer to that.

We are sooooooo fricked.............

Bob G.
Sun, 08/16/2009 - 7:37am

I don't have any confidence...not in governemnt, and especially NOT to wipe MY butt...LOL!

Can you imagine HOW MUCH they PAY for a roll of TP???
(I'm thinking HUNDREDS of dollars...adjusted for inflation, naturally)

And thank you for bringing up TWO of the worst "businesses" the gub'ment stuck it's meddling ass into.

Wasn't the railroad a lot NICER when it was owned by PRIVATE companies, anyway?
And with all the modernization, you'd "think" the USPS would be turning a hefty PROFIT by now...laying people off, charging more for crap, etc.

I'm thinking the gov't is only in the "business" of DEBT ACCUMULATION & PERPETUATION...and so far, THAT they can do...and damn well.