Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Note that Kerry didn't say "net," and bilmore's source did. Coincidence?
|
No, logic. Kerry's implication is net. If you want to argue that it's not, then it would be logical to make that same statement if 1.6MM jobs were lost in W's first year, and 44MM were gained in the next three.
A failure in the prediction department, maybe, but tell me where we'd be without the cuts? What's unemployment right now - 5.4%? Not too shabby.
Quote:
|
Is it possible that Kerry was talking about real income (after inflation), and that bilmore's source is conveniently ignoring inflation?
|
Don't know, can't tell. Seems like it owuld have made sense for Kerry to specifiy if that were the case.
Quote:
|
But this isn't responsive, is it? Without supporting evidence, bilmore's source calls Kerry's statement an urban legend, and then shifts to talk about rates of increase instead. (Think about it this way -- the fastest growing counties tend to be those with the smallest population, while larger counties add more population, but aren't growing as fast.)
|
Tell me Kerry's source for this statement about the $9k. The HF article at least calls out some objective measurement.
Quote:
|
More mendacity: Bilmore's source restricts the question to "income taxes," but that's not what Kerry said, is it?
|
Only while dealing with that percentage thrown out. The rest is in dollars. And, besides, what subject was being discussed other than income tax?
Quote:
|
I don't know the details of Kerry's plan, so RT has my proxy on the first part of this one. On the second, I note only that Bush seemed to think that Kerry's plan involved providing health care to all, gratis, so perhaps he's not the most credible source on which to base an empirical attack on it?
|
Kerry's plan is to form our own version of Swiss Re for health insurers, taking all the cat risk to be paid out of my pocket. Great plan. He says that, because the feds (uh, my paycheck, I mean) will cover all losses above some determined amount, insurers can charge employers less, and so employers will voluntarily cover more people. (Except, he says it won't really be voluntary, cuz he'll hit them with penalties if they don't.) He's taken a bigger step towards HilaryCare than even Hilary dared, and he leaves a great situation for continued gradual and quiet lowering of that cat level until we truly do have single-payor. Not only does this not touch actual costs, (it just changes who pays), it puts the onus of efficiency and cost-cutting on . . . wait for it . . . federal government. Get ready for the $600 office visit, paid for by taxes.
Quote:
|
If bilmore's source doesn't understand what Kerry was saying, how can he debunk it? Perhaps by addressing health-insurance premiums instad of costs?
|
Seems to me that Kerry is talking to "us" about "our" costs. Doesn't premium cost describe that burden most accurately?
Quote:
|
Is it not odd that this author said nothing about the percentage of the population that was uninsured in 2000? Is Kerry running against Bill Clinton?
|
{{Edited to remove a response that, on reflection, makes no sense.}}.
Quote:
|
Can anyone say with a straight face that preventing the government from negotiating with drug companies might cost the drug companies money and in any event won't earn them profits? Can we just call it the Hackitage Foundation?
|
Apparently, Price Waterhouse could, and did, say just that. But I know what you mean - I've always been impressed with fedgov's abilities to negotiate costs and increase efficiency.
Quote:
|
Did Kerry talk only about public universities? And does anyone here live in a world in which college tuitions have been dropping? (Not in California they haven't.)
|
No. Does anyone live in a world in which student subsidies have been dropping? (Not in the USA they haven't.) Do public university costs tend to mirror the costs of all universities? I believe so.
