Politics
Out of context: Reply #11270
- Started
- Last post
- 33,771 Responses
- luckyorphan0
deathboy just shared an article that, once opening, I remembered reading yesterday as well. While I'm not entirely sure I agree with his conclusions, it's worth reading because it is from one of the more recent directors of the CBO:
The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/2…"The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt."
While I have to respect his conclusion as coming from someone who has galaxies more experience than all of us combined, I can't help by disagree with the overall thrust of his article—that doing nothing to repair access to health care in America is better than affecting the deficit. In other words, even if Holtz-Eakin is right, I'd still think it's worth it. The bill certainly helps more people than two questionable wars.
I guess that's why I'm on the left-ish side of the independent spectrum.
But the article is definitely worth a read. Makes one think. Which, contrary to some people's suggestions on here, I like to do quite a bit.
- I'm gonna research this fella a bit more. Holtz-Eakin, that is.luckyorphan
- cool because im jsut trying to figure out the math. its not liek i dont want reduced deficit with increased care. i just dont buy it********
- it.********