Alaska Darin Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 After ONE year, the Prescription Drug "Benefit" cost projection has increased from $400,000,000,000.00 over 10 years to over $700,000,000,000.00 for the same period. Can't wait to see what it's going to be NEXT year. Keep thinking there are government solutions to problems the government is currently causing. Go BIG GOVERNMENT and those who vote for these clowns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartacus Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 The mindset is "who cares as long as I get mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 After ONE year, the Prescription Drug "Benefit" cost projection has increased from $400,000,000,000.00 over 10 years to over $700,000,000,000.00 for the same period. Can't wait to see what it's going to be NEXT year. Keep thinking there are government solutions to problems the government is currently causing. Go BIG GOVERNMENT and those who vote for these clowns! 233585[/snapback] Thats sad. Screw BIG government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 After ONE year, the Prescription Drug "Benefit" cost projection has increased from $400,000,000,000.00 over 10 years to over $700,000,000,000.00 for the same period. Can't wait to see what it's going to be NEXT year. Keep thinking there are government solutions to problems the government is currently causing. Go BIG GOVERNMENT and those who vote for these clowns! 233585[/snapback] Well, not that I disagree with you or anything, but IIRC it's not the "same" period exactly. The new figure takes into account two extra years (2014 and 2015) which weren't counted originally (in 2003, I believe). Of course, the cost of the first two years is much less than the remainder, and the cost of future years gets higher and higher as the number of beneficiaries increases. So it was probably just a convenient way of making it sound less expensive than it really is. But that's what this government is all about, selling their proposals using bad and/or misleading data. I just find the smirkness of the Republicans on this board amusing, considering the current Republican administration has strayed so far from traditional "Republican" ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Well, not that I disagree with you or anything, but IIRC it's not the "same" period exactly. The new figure takes into account two extra years (2014 and 2015) which weren't counted originally (in 2003, I believe). Of course, the cost of the first two years is much less than the remainder, and the cost of future years gets higher and higher as the number of beneficiaries increases. So it was probably just a convenient way of making it sound less expensive than it really is. But that's what this government is all about, selling their proposals using bad and/or misleading data. I just find the smirkness of the Republicans on this board amusing, considering the current Republican administration has strayed so far from traditional "Republican" ideals. 233699[/snapback] Only reason I voted for Bush was that the prospect of a Kerry presidency scared the bejeezus out of me. Otherwise, I'da voted for Badnarik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Only reason I voted for Bush was that the prospect of a Kerry presidency scared the bejeezus out of me. Otherwise, I'da voted for Badnarik. 233896[/snapback] I can appreciate that honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I can appreciate that honesty. 233954[/snapback] LOL it's nothing new, been saying it for a while now. I like Bush's stance on taxes, just not his spending shenanigans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 9, 2005 Author Share Posted February 9, 2005 Well, not that I disagree with you or anything, but IIRC it's not the "same" period exactly. The new figure takes into account two extra years (2014 and 2015) which weren't counted originally (in 2003, I believe). Of course, the cost of the first two years is much less than the remainder, and the cost of future years gets higher and higher as the number of beneficiaries increases. So it was probably just a convenient way of making it sound less expensive than it really is. But that's what this government is all about, selling their proposals using bad and/or misleading data. I just find the smirkness of the Republicans on this board amusing, considering the current Republican administration has strayed so far from traditional "Republican" ideals. 233699[/snapback] Admittedly I didn't do any research into the report - it was on the radio at the time I posted it. I still haven't gone through what's being reported but it's pretty much on par with what I said when the program was implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 After ONE year, the Prescription Drug "Benefit" cost projection has increased from $400,000,000,000.00 over 10 years to over $700,000,000,000.00 for the same period. Can't wait to see what it's going to be NEXT year. Keep thinking there are government solutions to problems the government is currently causing. Go BIG GOVERNMENT and those who vote for these clowns! 233585[/snapback] its called fuzzy math or vodoo economics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I like Bush's stance on taxes, just not his spending shenanigans. 233975[/snapback] Yes, but doesn't that pretty much cover everything except his stance on taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Admittedly I didn't do any research into the report - it was on the radio at the time I posted it. I still haven't gone through what's being reported but it's pretty much on par with what I said when the program was implemented. 233979[/snapback] No problem...you're essentially correct regardless, it's just that you can't really compare the 400 bazillion with the 700 bazillion since they represent different time periods. Still, the point that you make is correct in that it will end up costing a heck of a lot more than it was originally 'sold' to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 It's OK, the feds will just push the extra costs onto the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts