Posted on 11/30/2009 2:33:58 PM PST by Nachum
A new analysis by a leading MIT economist provides new ammunition for Democrats as the Senate begins formally debating the historic health-reform bill being pushed by President Barack Obama.
The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today's typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.
So Democrats will argue that under the Senate bill, Americans would pay less for more.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
MIT - isn’t that in Mass? Where Rommney care exists ...
$1.2 Trillion dollars.
Glenn Beck put that in perspective on his show. If we took 100% of all the profit of ever company belonging to the Fortune 500, it would take 146 years at the present rate, to accumulate that sort of cash.
MIT Economists apparently have no common sense whatsoever.
Didn’t the CBO report the exact opposite? That people buying insurance on their own( as opposed to employer offered insurance) would pay more under the Senate plan?
That certainly seals the deal for me. MIT Economist? /S
Eggheads supporting the eggheads who came up with this healthcare joke. Garbage in, garbage out.
Give up your freedom based on the analysis of an economist at MIT?
Aren’t economists from places like MIT the reason the economy is in the state it’s in? Didn’t economists say Social Security and Medicade would pay for themselves?
First I want to see the law that restricts coverage to US Citizens only.
That alone will derail health care.
So long as the US continues to border the single most corrupt nation and populace on the planet we cant institute health care.
If they did, they would not be using it for supporting ammo for the so called health care bill, which is really the demographic warfare wealth redistribution bill.
There will be political payback if it is passed.BIG TIME.
They misread the electorate, and small businessmen/employers.
Maybe it's just me ... but:
1) They're all liberals.
2) The men are all feminized pansies.
3) The women (if married) are all married to feminized pansies.
I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule. Good Lord ... I hope there are exceptions to that rule.
I just haven't seen them.
What was the MIT payoff for this statement?
millions, billions?
In a sterile simulation, you can show whatever you want. And this professor is a Clintonista.
It ignores runaway costs with government mandates to give every voter unlimited everything.
“The “microsimulation” analysis is by Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Treasury Department official under President Bill Clinton. Gruber used data from the Congressional Budget Office. “
From the title, I was expecting some humor...
This is actually code used in the analysis
trick_data{prod: actual cost,0.00001}
The results from the leading MIT economist were compiled with help from scientists from the University of East Anglia, no doubt.
That’s probably why MIT is known for their hard science.
Your freedom is more important than any indoctrinated fool at MIT.
MIT/Hollywood/acedemia, all one of the same. These people have a reputation of knowledge. That ended when leftist politics took over.
They can no longer be trusted. The sad part is the fools that go there are too stupid to even know it.
What does that tell you?
Did they remember to set the Defliberation Laser Transmogrifier speed to spork-weasel?
"..Jonathan Holmes "Jon" Gruber (born September 30, 1965) is an American economist and a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was called the Democratic Party's "most influential health-care expert" by the Washington Post.[1].."
What does Politco think he would say?
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.