Posted on 07/28/2009 8:45:48 AM PDT by La Lydia
LOL....
One is being touted as FREE the other costs... How long can you sustain paying for the FREE care through tax increases and paying for your own paid care out of pocket?
The logic of FREE means that Private sector will be destroyed there is no compromise on this obviously you could argue that it the Insurance industry dropped its prices to free then they could compete with the govt...
LOL
Idiots in DC LIES< LIES< LIES< LIES<
Seems to coincide with a recent discussion between zero and the CBO. Must have received an offer they couldn’t refuse.
If this isn’t clear evidence of the sort of thugs that occupy the Executive Branch, then nothing is.
Just a little tit-for-tat The Chicago Way!
‘By the way you have a very lovely daughter, I am surprised that you let her rent that apartment in Georgetown on her own. It would be a shame if anything where to happen to her.’
You can’t. This stinks of intimidation and coercion!
and I don't buy it for a second that a public plan wouldn't force out private insurers...total BS if you ask me.
My my aren’t we suspicious...
/sar
It’s called Chicago politics.
The Chicago mafia had a “talk” with the CBO. Its been straightened out.
This is an outright LIE by the CBO and I’ll guarantee they know it. Looks like Hussein’s little one-on-one with the CBO head paid off, huh!
Riiight,,,this after Obamao and the head of the CBO had a Godfather II Moe Green casino buyout chat..
It's all the years of misrepresentation on the part of those sworn to uphold the Constitution, protect us and serve us who kept telling us 4+4=5 when we kept counting it up on our fingers and couldn't come up with more than 4. Sad, sad, sad. Shame, shame, shame.
Ok, hang on. There was the first CBO report that was negative, then there was the meeting at the White Horse (nod to Armageddon), then there was a SECOND negative report after that meeting and now a positive one? Just want to be sure I have that right. If I do, what has changed between the second negative report and this third one?
Is the CBO having a I-was-against-it-before-I-was-for-it moment?
I think most of us can conclude that when BO met with CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, Mr. Elmendorf was threatened, told he would lose his job if he didn’t change his tune (because Congressional Democrats control his appointment), and, in general, given a shake-down. What gets me the most is that BO & cohorts were to damn blatant about it. Summon the guy, threaten him, and then applaud his “new” report. How dumb do they think we are? And they must think we have both short- and long-term memory problems.
You have grasped the main gist of this. But CBO wasn’t having a I-was-against-it-before-I-was-for-it moment, the CBO director was having a “save my job because it’s being threatened by the President of the United States” moment.
And in one fell swoop, BO has undermined the credibility and integrity of the CBO, by the way.
He has a tendency to do that (the Chicago way!). I was wondering last night if there’s a certain “mark” anywhere on his scalp. I know - tin foil time but, hey, the way things are going...
Wonder if the head of the CBO is going to enjoy his new summer home this year...
I feel like I now live in a South American dictatorship.
The most tyrannical administration in US history “wins” again.
I just e-mailed the CBO and told them they should shut their doors permanently. They sabotaged all their future credibility with this newest report.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.