The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.The hand-wringing for that cost is non-existent, because the cost itself is also non-existent. The problem with your analysis is that the report, "address[es] only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA and do not reflect all of the act’s budgetary effects." In other words, there are other sources of revenue, like the medical device tax, and cost cutting measures that aren't included that bring the cost way down.
Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.Where's the hand-wringing over that cost?
There is one other gotcha here. The Mother Jones article bases it's $700 per person, PER YEAR. The $50,000 you claim here is over ten years. And since the benefits are being seen by more than just those that were uninsured, you can't just use them in your calculations.
Our problem isn't guns. Our problem is gangs. Our problem is a breakdown in the home. Our problem is that many are not raised with a respect for life.My big question is, how do we know this? There are no studies out there proving this. That's because there is no funding for such research. And due to nothing but pure politics, the CDC can't even study the medical effects of gun violence.
I explore all of this -- with a thorough denunking -- in my book, Hands Off My Gun.Glad you mentioned your book, because I have some questions. Can you tell me again how Southern (conservative) Democrats disarmed a man who already had an arsenal of guns? And tell me also how the concealed carry permit he was denied in one state would have saved him from a sniper that killed him in another? That man was Martin Luther King. And it was the denial of that permit that made him realize his peace movement didn't need guns.
If that is the kind of denunking [sic] you do in your book, I'm not highly impressed.