John H wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim, wrote:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Follow the money

If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration
the
benefit
of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the
cost
of
the
Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that.

You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program
the
president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as
costing
$400
billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through
Congress
in
November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that
its
cost

over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion.
Then,
two
months later, the White House revealed that the program would
actually
cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after
that,
it
became clear that the administration knew all along that the
$400
billion number was fantasy. Internal administration
projections
put
the
10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld
that
information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the
Medicare
benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare
revealed
that
the
administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress
about
the
$551 projection.

And that brings us to today's news. The administration's
Medicare
chief
revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will
actually
cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but
$732
billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83
percent
over

what the administration told Congress when it was selling the
bill --

enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the
wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget
deficit
that
the
administration projects for 2009.

The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats
already
viewed
the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies
and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to
the
New
York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new
projection
for
Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush
administration."
If
the
White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why
should
anyone
believe the administration's projections for Social Security?

A better question might be, why is anyone surprised?

So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those
in
need?
I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs
so
the
people were dependant on the government.

And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance
plan
pushed
by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us?


Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the
numbers
is due
to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10
year'
costs.
Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals
without
a
brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll
chanting
the
erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he
is
clueless.

I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet?

Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental
problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I*
didn't
write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't
comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting
like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder
your
wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as
shallow
and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER
beat
my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If
that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting,
and you should seek help.

Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible
for its
accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by
newspaper folks are
'well researched and verified'.

Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm
personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John.