PDA

View Full Version : Fox News 1965



Qtec
02-09-2012, 01:12 AM
http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/02/Johnsoncare.jpg

Q

LWW
02-09-2012, 05:05 AM
And?

Soflasnapper
02-09-2012, 07:08 PM
Although there was no Fox News in existence at the time, there was someone called Ronald Reagan.

He proclaimed that if we adopted Medicare, we would one day have to tell our children how it was when we were still free.

By which he may have meant, free to live in old age poverty and die from lack of medical care, because it cost too much to obtain in the marketplace.

eg8r
02-09-2012, 10:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He proclaimed that if we adopted Medicare, we would one day have to tell our children how it was when we were still free.
</div></div>Boy wasn't he spot on. One of our top 4 drivers of debt. While our interest payments have become our albatross, Medicare is one of three expenditures that has serenaded the big "interest" bird our way. We are now slaves to the Chinese.

eg8r

Qtec
02-10-2012, 02:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ronald Reagan's 1961 recording for the American Medical Association's Operation Coffee Cup, which claimed the passage of pending Medicare legislation would shortly lead to <span style='font-size: 14pt'>a complete takeover of all medical services by government and shortly thereafter, a socialist dictatorship. History shows neither, in fact, happened.</span> </div></div>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bejdhs3jGyw)

Reagan says it was rejected by the people under Truman but,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congressional Environment
Challenged by the transition from a war-time economy, Truman lost the publicís confidence. The Republicans gained the majority in both houses of Congress in 1946, creating the perception that the President was a lame duck. Truman then campaigned in 1948 promising to extend the New Deal and targeted the Republican Congress for opposing NHI. Not only did Truman win the election with a mandate from the people for NHI, but Congress also swung back to a Democratic majority. It was not enough, however. Southern Democrats in key leadership positions blocked Trumanís initiatives, partly in fear that federal involvement in health care might lead to federal action against segregation at a time when hospitals were still separating patients by race. </div></div>

Q

LWW
02-10-2012, 04:08 AM
Odd how you neglect that, as with all leftist policy, the public was promised that the total annual costs of MEDICARE would never reach $10B per year?

Qtec
02-10-2012, 04:35 AM
Rick still playing the fear card. Be afraid.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SANTORUM: They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then whatís left is the French Revolution. Whatís left is the government that gives you right, whatís left are no unalienable rights, whatís left is a government that will tell you who you are, what youíll do and when youíll do it. Whatís left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, weíre a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America,<u> then we are headed down that road.</u> </div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/09/421882/santorum-obama-has-put-america-on-the-path-of-executing-religious-people-by-decapitation/)
Q

LWW
02-10-2012, 05:53 AM
What part of the quote do you dispute, and why?

Have you ever studied the French revolution?

Do you have the slightest clue what he is talking about?

Qtec
02-10-2012, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you ever studied the French revolution? </div></div>

Has Rick?????????


Have YOU??????????????????

Q

Soflasnapper
02-10-2012, 12:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Odd how you neglect that, as with all leftist policy, the public was promised that the total annual costs of MEDICARE would never reach $10B per year? </div></div>

A laugh a minute, you are!

That is not true, unless by 'never' you mean about 1990, and by 'never reach $10 billion per year' you mean '<u>WOULD</u> REACH $12 billion a year.'

As this piece from Reason explains:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The two primary lessons of Medicare are the chronic problem of woefully underestimating program costs and the impossibility of genuine cost control. A closer look at Medicare shows why these two problems are certain to plague a government-administered universal health-care plan.

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. </div></div>

Link (http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster)

It was always assumed that Medicare costs would grow, and continue to grow. So there was never any maximum amount projected, let alone promised as a capped amount that wouldn't ever be exceeded.

What happened is that the rate of growth was several times higher than projections, which were for its growth to track payroll increases, or gdp growth + 1% (variously).

LWW
02-10-2012, 06:27 PM
You got.

I was going on memory.

The promise by the demokrooks was that it wouldn't exceed $12B 25 years down the road.

Oh, the actual annual cost 25 years later ... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>$107,000,000,000.00.</span>

Oh ... the taxpayer was also never supposed to pay more than 50% of the cost of the program, with the other 50% paid by enrollees.

How's that work out?

What's that?

The taxpayer pays 75% instead of 25% ... and after 25 years the cost 891% of the original promised maximum.

Imagine that. (http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster/singlepage)

Soflasnapper
02-11-2012, 06:15 PM
Yes, I got you on that one. (And many others.)

I now predict I'll see that same claim from you anyway down the road, as you tend to have fixed ideas on things and are impervious to evidence.

Yes, the ESTIMATE (show me any promise!) was wrong. However, EVERYTHING ran far beyond estimates made in the '60s, once inflation became entrenched from the multiple shocks of Nixon's removal of the US from the gold standard, the Vietnam war spending, and the oil price hikes (up some 300%). Moreover, Medicare was EXPANDED beyond the original program, and would have run more money than projected from that expansion alone, let alone the rampant inflation that wasn't projected at the time.

"Medical cost inflation" always ran well ahead of the normal CPI increases, and by 'well ahead' I mean about double the rate of increase. So yes, if inflation ran in the 7%s for the '70s, and medical cost inflation ran at 15% a year, do the math.

LWW
02-12-2012, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you ever studied the French revolution? </div></div>

Has Rick?????????


Have YOU??????????????????

Q </div></div>

Yes, I imagine Santorum has as well being that he nailed you.

You ... apparently not.

LWW
02-12-2012, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Moreover, Medicare was EXPANDED beyond the original program, and would have run more money than projected from that expansion alone ...</div></div>

Thank you for proving my point.