|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
03-25-2012, 07:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
" It doesn't really matter what the CBO says it will cost now, because government estimates of how much things cost almost always turn out to be wrong. And wrong on the short side.
If history is any guide, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will cost not $900 billion or $1.76 trillion but some number in excess of both of them combined. In 2009, the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee issued a report looking at the initial cost estimates versus actual costs of other government health-care programs. It shows that in 1965, when Medicare hospital insurance was enacted, the House Ways and Means Committee projected that its cost in 1990 would be $9 billion annually. The actual cost in 1990 was $67 billion. In 1966, a broader Medicare program came into being. Its 1990 cost was estimated at $12 billion. The actual cost in 1990 was $110 billion. Massachusetts' 2006 health-care plan, equally unlovingly called Romneycare, was to cost the state $472 million in 2008, according to early estimates. The actual 2008 cost was $628 million." http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/...ost-of-health/
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln 
|
|
#2
03-25-2012, 07:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/27...eform-in-2012/
an older article from Time giving thoughts on why obama and co. opted not to appeal but rather let the scotus have the case.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#3
03-25-2012, 07:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Unfortunately no television of Supreme Court arguments, but there will be audio available at end of each session on C-Span. Clarence Thomas will still be mute.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
03-26-2012, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...decision_.html
just read this intriguing article and thought others might enjoy it. the author is correct, deciding not to decide absolutely would be anti-climactic. and i can see the justices going with that move, rather than having a split vote.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#5
03-26-2012, 12:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Court-watchers are saying that the chance of the Supremes delaying hearing the case until after 2015 or 2016, when the first fines will be paid, is small.
Especially as the next President will appoint probably 2 Supreme Court judges. If the conservative members of the court want to be political judicial activists (which I really don't think they are, except for Thomas), this is their only chance.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
Hybrid Mode
