Does anyone see the inconsistency here? From the WSJ:
The House bill, expected to be formally unveiled as soon as Monday, is likely to cost $1 trillion overall. About half the cost of the bill will come from budget savings from ratcheting down payments that health-care providers receive through programs like Medicare, which covers the elderly. The balance will come from revenues generated by a graduated surtax that would begin in 2011, said New York Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. . . . .
Related Posts
John Stossel's "Illegal Everything"My son Maxim produced the segment on taxi cabs.
So where will Americans end up going for health care?Obama has often said that he would like a health care system like they have in Canada. Look at how so few doctors thes- One woman who doesn't appreciate being protected by the Federal governmentCan't the government understand that its protection isn't desired some times? From the Associated Press:The federal go
- Robert Samuelson lists some of Obamacare's broken promisesSamuelson's piece in the Washington Post is available here.Controlling health spending was a major promise. After all,
- Hate speech on the left?From the WSJ:On October 23, the Scranton Times reported that Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said this about Florida's new
- Department of Labor limits early access to unemployment data to organizations that it defines as "primarily journalistic enterprises"From the Washington Examiner: But Carl Fillichio, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ top communications advisor, circulated
Democrats say no rationing, but half the costs of their medical changes come from further reductions in payments to medical providers
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
