One of the arguements against public health care is that ballooning costs will cause it to eventually consume the entire federal budget within a few decades. In short, it's too expensive.
This is based on health care cost increases for the current system in recent years.
Setting aside the debate on whether or not the meteoric rise would remain true, especially with a public health care option, how is it any less expensive to keep the current system? People are paying these costs one way or another, and will continue to do so. If the government cannot afford to pay for it in the coming years, how can we expect you or I to under a private system?
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Riddle me this
Authored by: jeff on
Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 03:51 PDT
Yeah, actually the Obama administration has called the health care reform,
"Deficit Neutral," meaning it will not affect the budget deficit. All that smoke
about big spending and big government is just a bunch of hot air. Once again
the same old fear tactics to keep the common man down.
"Deficit Neutral," meaning it will not affect the budget deficit. All that smoke
about big spending and big government is just a bunch of hot air. Once again
the same old fear tactics to keep the common man down.
(man, i sound like a communist . . . )