health care reform,terrorism,virginia foxx,rick sanchez,cnn Rick Sanchez - Virginia Foxx - Cost of Healthcare vs. Terror

Rick Sanchez - Virginia Foxx - Cost of Healthcare vs. Terror

posted by KnivesOut

1 month ago • 591 views

tags: health care reform, terrorism, virginia foxx, rick sanchez, cnn

comments (5)

embed

bookmarks (0)

playlists (0)

Stumble This

Rick Sanchez compares the relative costs of paying for health care reform to the cost of paying for the war on terror.

GREAT DESIGNS FROM VIDEOSIFT'S T-SHIRT STORE
Support VideoSift - Buy a Shirt! Use coupon code SIFTXMAS09 at checkout to save an additional 20% now!
Peanut Butter Cup Love	VideoSift Online Video Quality Control	You Lie

Comments

It's like saying my comb is scarier than a porcupine. The comb may be functional and cost less to maintain but lets face it, porcupines are badass. If you have to take on a pack of lions don't bring a comb my friend. THAT would be like trying to fight cancer with healthcare instead of war.

Ladies and gentlemen this is not making any sense. I!!! AM NOT MAKING ANY SENSE!!! IF THE GLOVE DOESN'T FIT YOU MUST ACQUIT!!!

written by JiggaJonson

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 4 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I think she's afriad her state will opt out of health care. And all that money, which would have gone to her state. Which would have provided jobs, and increase not just the standard of living for those in her state without proper health coverage, but, improve the economy. Instead, that money will go to those states, not stupid enough (read: blue states) to opt out. So, I guess, in her twisted logicl, if her state can't have it, NO ONE can have it.

Or, she could just be a mindless conservative.

written by Nithern

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

When they say a health care bill will cost x billion dollars how do they come up with that figure? I'm pretty sure I'm right in my assumption that that figure leaves out the amount not spent privately on health care and insurance and that it leaves out the programs that would automatically be reduced or removed once we had a decent system. So the X billion dollars should be a very big *negative* number if you're being intellectually honest.

written by alizarin | 1 month ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

>> ^alizarin:
When they say a health care bill will cost x billion dollars how do they come up with that figure? I'm pretty sure I'm right in my assumption that that figure leaves out the amount not spent privately on health care and insurance and that it leaves out the programs that would automatically be reduced or removed once we had a decent system. So the X billion dollars should be a very big negative number if you're being intellectually honest.

You're essentially dead on. There's no attempt in the CBO reports to gauge the non-government cost impacts of any of the health care bills.

He does mention that it would reduce the deficit, though people like Foxx say that just means it's a "stealth" tax increase.

I also think the costs listed for our wars are lowball ones, and don't include things like veterans benefits, or our basic defense spending that wasn't specifically earmarked for the war. It also doesn't mention that there were no tax increases to pay for the war -- it was pure deficit spending, with no long-run value to the American people that I can discern.

Health care, on the other hand, will be a huge long-run benefit to us, and will reduce our deficit. Seems like win/win/win, even if you insist on looking at it in purely fiscal terms.

written by NetRunner