Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, that's a paragraph, not a sentence. I'll highlight the parts you should have read. "Well when I was talking about how much the government spends a year on healthcare, I was talking about how much the government spends a year on healthcare. Perhaps you should look up how much the government spends a year on healthcare. Pretty basic. I mean you could even paste that into google. Even you should be able to do that and not screw it up."
Obviously I was wrong about the last part.
As to liberal math, I'm not liberal and neither is math. The little $100B number you dreamed up really has nothing to do with the conversation. I'd look at the first sentence that bolded there for you.
The $100B number comes right from the CBO, where your pretend savings comes outta your but...
Again, where is the savings you were talking about?
A sales pitch? It's sold already. It's not a sales pitch. I'm guessing that they want people to actually use the preventative care as it helps people and saves wasteful spending in the healthcare system.
Why does the federal government want to hire an advertising firm to do advertising? I'll even save the usual insult that I'd throw out to a question like that. Do you really need me to answer that.
By the way, the company has 90 offices in 60 countries. I get the feeling that Blockbuster is not a big portion of their business. You might want to quit while you're ahead.
Well at least I did get you to admit that it is advertising, not an "awareness campaign." And once you admit that it's advertising, you've already admitted that it's a sales pitch, like it or not.
I'll ignore the gratuitous insults that you throw out, while claiming to not throw out. Argument via name-calling seems to be inevitable from the left.
The $100B number comes right from the CBO, where your pretend savings comes outta your but...
Again, where is the savings you were talking about?
Bahaha, so you finally googled it, realized that you were wrong and now you're trying to change the subject. Once you either admit that my numbers were correct, I'll be happy to address your little savings question.
You seemed to want to call me out for being ignorant, but my we pay $835B in healthcare is pretty easily proven. Man up and admit you were wrong and I'll address your other questions.
Quote:
Well at least I did get you to admit that it is advertising, not an "awareness campaign." And once you admit that it's advertising, you've already admitted that it's a sales pitch, like it or not.
I'll ignore the gratuitous insults that you throw out, while claiming to not throw out. Argument via name-calling seems to be inevitable from the left.
Admit? I just learned about this about 30 minutes ago and where exactly did I deny that it was an advertising campaign. Feel free to man up and show it.
By the way, you didn't answer whether or not I should tell you why someone would want an ad company to run an ad campaign.
The law is passed. It's not a sales pitch. The sales pitch would have been what was done before the law was passed. I'm not sure if you work at a real company or not. I'm guessing from your posts probably not. In the private sector, most companies spend money pushing and providing wellness programs to get people to take advantage of preventative care. It saves money. The government is doing the same thing. Were they doing a sales pitch, they'd be highlighting things other than preventative care.
Incidentally, I'm not right or left. I just like calling people out on their own stupidity. In my experience, only people of very low intelligence assume that someone disagrees with them because of some ideological bias.
Bahaha, so you finally googled it, realized that you were wrong and now you're trying to change the subject. Once you either admit that my numbers were correct, I'll be happy to address your little savings question.
You seemed to want to call me out for being ignorant, but my we pay $835B in healthcare is pretty easily proven. Man up and admit you were wrong and I'll address your other questions.
What the hell you talking about? I have been saying the same thing since my very first response to you,
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
This $20M program is advertising for the program that cost the governmen $100B a year..
When you said this would save the government money, what were you using as a reference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm specificially asking about this sentence.
Where is this savings coming from since Obamacare is expected to create deficits of another $100B a year?
Is this the new liberal math, spend $100B, and then save $20M, and then pretend you now have a savings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You said it saves the government money, you were wrong, it COSTS the government about $100B a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Bull crap.. Where the hell did you get the totals of $835 BILLION to be saved by the government because the CBO says it'll cost $100B a year..
Ok, clearly we wont save $835B a year, now tell me where the hell you are getting the idea we are going to save anything when the CBO says it'll cost $100B A YEAR..
Come on, you're just making crap up as you go along, admit it..
Easy. There's this thing called a budget. Just lookup what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid. Not sure why you got so hung up on the number. It was really immaterial to the discussion. You're supposed to bet he smarter of the emotional partisans around here.
To your point about savings I didn't quote a specific figure. The $20M doesn't have to save $100B. In fact, I didn't quote or bring up $100B. I'm only talking about this $20M. The $20M expenditure only has to justify itself. Given the mammoth spending that's done on healthcare in this country, recovering $20M is easy.
Excluding the non-monetary benefits of a healthy population and whatever utility you would give to that, it has to save $20M + $1. Perhaps there's been a cost benefit analysis done to prove this. Perhaps not. My point is just that it's stupid for people to sit around and whine about $20M when it can easily save more. Stop 50 people in their 60's from having a heart attack or having a stroke and you've probably saved the government that much.
Emotionally whining about things which you haven't researched is stupid. Getting your data from a partisan link and not finding anything else to back it up is stupid. That's my retort to the OP.
Admit? I just learned about this about 30 minutes ago and where exactly did I deny that it was an advertising campaign. Feel free to man up and show it.
By the way, you didn't answer whether or not I should tell you why someone would want an ad company to run an ad campaign.
The law is passed. It's not a sales pitch. The sales pitch would have been what was done before the law was passed. I'm not sure if you work at a real company or not. I'm guessing from your posts probably not. In the private sector, most companies spend money pushing and providing wellness programs to get people to take advantage of preventative care. It saves money. The government is doing the same thing. Were they doing a sales pitch, they'd be highlighting things other than preventative care.
Incidentally, I'm not right or left. I just like calling people out on their own stupidity. In my experience, only people of very low intelligence assume that someone disagrees with them because of some ideological bias.
In post #20 you called it an "awareness campaign." In post #25 you called it "advertising." But you're not willing to make the leap to "sales pitch." Whatever.
I can see that you have a keen interest in namecalling... "I just like calling people out on their own stupidity." The psychological dynamic is pretty obvious here.
Easy. There's this thing called a budget. Just lookup what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid. Not sure why you got so hung up on the number. It was really immaterial to the discussion. You're supposed to bet he smarter of the emotional partisans around here.
To your point about savings I didn't quote a specific figure. The $20M doesn't have to save $100B. In fact, I didn't quote or bring up $100B. I'm only talking about this $20M. The $20M expenditure only has to justify itself. Given the mammoth spending that's done on healthcare in this country, recovering $20M is easy.
Excluding the non-monetary benefits of a healthy population and whatever utility you would give to that, it has to save $20M + $1. Perhaps there's been a cost benefit analysis done to prove this. Perhaps not. My point is just that it's stupid for people to sit around and whine about $20M when it can easily save more. Stop 50 people in their 60's from having a heart attack or having a stroke and you've probably saved the government that much.
Emotionally whining about things which you haven't researched is stupid. Getting your data from a partisan link and not finding anything else to back it up is stupid. That's my retort to the OP.
The only way this can result in savings, is if it saves more than $100B a year, i.e. the total cost of the bill.
Again, where the hell did you come up with the idea this could result in a savings?
They're not selling healthcare reform. It's an awareness campaign that seems to be being done via advertising. They're not selling the benefits of why people should want it. They have it. Some people, seemingly like yourself, might not like that idea, but it's reality.
Encouraging people to get preventative care isn't the same as trying to sell the benefits of a proposed healthcare reform. There's nothing to sell as it has been sold already ergo it's not a sales pitch.
The private sector does the same thing. Companies that want to save money on their healthcare costs hire wellness companies who promote things like smoking cessation and preventative care.
Yes, that healthcare reform has already been sold. It's law. The only people who can really influence it now is the supreme court. They've already made their judgement and we get it Thursday. Your argument here wasn't is this law popular so your comment about whether or not it is popular is a red herring and has no bearing on the argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This $20M program is advertising for the program that cost the governmen $100B a year.. 
