What is $105,464,000,000?

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

President Skippy signed it. He's accountable.

Skippy is a figure-head. Nancy runs DC.

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

In have said many times, they all read it or had their staffs do it and report. If you think otherwise, you are indeed, foolish. Why would I think any of them voted for it. It was disappointing to see that none would veer from their assigned position, but that was, and still is, the Kristol plan.

Apparently you think what happened on "West Wing" is real.

What's the average # of "staff" that a congressperson has (not college interns and not post-college interns) on call to read 2000+ pages of a bill a few hours before it's going to be voted on and make sense of it?

And who the HELL would rely on what some staff member "told them" about what a bill said?

When was the vote to take place, and at what time (how much time before the vote) was this specific added in?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Well, you keep posting your head slapping emoticons, but your own link proves that for most people the premiums will go down. Why does that make you angry?

I'm slapping my head because its an outright lie. Do you not understand that $5500 is LARGER than $5200? Do you not understand that $15,200 is larger than $13,100? Tell me how far in school did you get that you dont see that the cost is larger if the amount is higher? yes, slappy face is back..

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

People in the 'small group' and 'large group' will see their premiums go down. For employment based policies, the change would be 1-2%. If these findings are correct, the bill is a success. I believe it said these represent 4 out of 5 policy holders. Your cherry picked data covers only 17% of people. Why don't you talk about the 83% who will save money?

Wrong.. right from the link..
"Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughtly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal"

If the AVERAGE is going up, that means some could go down, but MORE will go up than down. If more would go down than up the difference would be a NEGATIVE number.. but clearly you admit that $5,800 - $5,500 is a positive and $15,200 - $13,100 is also a positive right?

You cant have 83% saving money and then have the AVERAGE cost going up $300 and then claim you are saving money when clearly its GOING UP.. Try again..

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Well, you keep posting your head slapping emoticons, but your own link proves that for most people the premiums will go down. Why does that make you angry? People in the 'small group' and 'large group' will see their premiums go down. For employment based policies, the change would be 1-2%. If these findings are correct, the bill is a success. I believe it said these represent 4 out of 5 policy holders. Your cherry picked data covers only 17% of people. Why don't you talk about the 83% who will save money?

Who is paying for those premiums to go down?

How is that going to happen? No one gets a "break" without someone else footing the bill.

[florida.bob]

Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker

Apparently you think what happened on "West Wing" is real.

What's the average # of "staff" that a congressperson has (not college interns and not post-college interns) on call to read 2000+ pages of a bill a few hours before it's going to be voted on and make sense of it?

And who the HELL would rely on what some staff member "told them" about what a bill said?

When was the vote to take place, and at what time (how much time before the vote) was this specific added in?

Here, The airhead's phony surprise notwithstanding, no, I agree that none relied on staff, but some have said they didn't read. I suspect that is either a lie or they were very derelict in their duties.

Was $105 Billion Really 'Hidden' In The Health Law? : Shots - Health Blog : NPR