It's not a "myth" that making government bigger and more complex costs more money. I'd say it's almost a fact.
But that's not important. What is, is that reporting the news like this is almost akin to toeing the party line.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: It's not a "myth" that making government bigger and more complex costs more money. I'd say it's almost a fact.
Eh. Call it a rule of thumb. There are exceptions.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Most of those myths are lies so that is what makes it news. For example, despite the fact that there is language in the bills that says No Abortion Will Be Covered, the fact that 50% believe they will be paying for abortion is news.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Well, in a situation like health insurance, there is pretty good evidence that the government becoming involved will make things cheaper.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, kind of. At least the stupid statements and debate is about a good topic, health care, rather than something flippant while health care is ignored.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Phanto, have you paid any attention to the three+ different threads filled with people providing numerous links explaining why yes, it IS a myth that public health care is more expensive and that no, there WON'T be evil death panels telling people how to die?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Switching to public health care in the US will be expensive, at least in the short term (which is probably five to ten years at minimum). There is no analysis of the proposed policies that does not agree with that.
And yes, that is a bad example of reporting, but no worse than has gone on for quite some time. Lots of news stories (I suspect most by a lot) regarding the US government are rehashed press releases from various sources, and have been for over a decade.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Switching to public health care in the US will be expensive, at least in the short term (which is probably five to ten years at minimum). There is no analysis of the proposed policies that does not agree with that.
Sure. How could that not be true? If you drive a car that burns gas, and you wanna buy a hybrid that burns half the amount of gas, buying the hybrid is going to cost you money up front. Later, you start paying less per week for gas. Start up costs are inevitable. I mean, why open a business if you have to borrow money to get it started? Because you make the money later. Always a chance the business folds, and nobody gets paid, but you don't do business by sitting and waiting for what you want.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Is this going to be ANOTHER debate about public health care? Isn't obvious by now that no one wins those?
I do find it funny, however, that paying for abortions is even a question that has come up... we ALREADY pay for abortions!