However, you are dead wrong on this issue and I've not engaged in any hyperbole. You're distorting the facts. Period.
>>>That's why I said that you were "embellishing". If you had said, this law does "less than desired amounts" to reduce government, that would be one thing, but saying that it does "nothing" is easily disprovable.
There is no up side to spending $400 billion in unfunded mandates. Especially when that $400 billion, will soon turn into $800 billion to $1.2 trillion, or more! I don't understand why you and others have such a hard time grasping the reality of the facts, as they exist. You do not spend $400 billion to reduce the size of government. That pure sophistry!
Many of the aspects of privatization that are contained in this new Medicare bill, are extremely limited in range and scope. The Heritage Foundation clearly spells this out in their analysis. I just got done listening to Arizona Rep. John Shadegg and he said and I quote, "the reforms went out the window". Shadegg said, we could have created a program that assisted the elderly poor and helped out seniors with catastrophic healthcare costs, without spending $400 billion in unfunded mandates.
You really need to wake up and get with the program.
You are still doing it. You are still resorting to hyperbole rather than sticking to facts.
This particular Medicare Reform law authorizes $39.5 Billion per year for ten years. That's it. Any additional funds would have to come from *additional* legislation.
So don't tell me about Trillion Dollar cost estimates because such guesses (to be kind) aren't law, but rather *are* hyperbole.
Moreover, the clear, obvious upside to the $39.5 Billion Dollar cost is that we get an additional tax cut in the form of Medical Savings Accounts in addition to no fewer than 6 Privatization options for Medicare.
That's enormous "up side," and yet more evidence that contrasts with your hyperbole.