"Revenue neutral" baloney.

[kentuck]

It costs too much. This is one of the main arguments of the "blue dogs" and conservatives against any health care reform. It is unrealistic in the extreme to have such expectations with millions of "baby boomers" now coming into the Medicare system and with millions needing some type of health coverage. It is going to cost money.

The issue is, who will have the most efficient and effective plan to take care of our people? If they want revenue neutrality, then they will either have to raise taxes or make huge cuts in the bloated defense budget and other programs, including the present way that Medicare is run.

We cannot have health care reform with the present budget in place. It is going to cost us a lot of money. Until Congress decides what they want to cut, then they have no option but to raise revenue. It is a silly argument by the Blue Dogs and conservatives to pretend we can have reform without spending any money. But basically, since they will not vote to make the cuts needed to fund reform, they are mostly just talking baloney.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. As I told Rep. Mike Ross' office this morning, the solutions are to reverse the Bush tax cuts

(which Ross voted for in 2001) or take it out of the Pentagon's budget or get really brave and tax those over $350,000/year.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Want to find the money for health care?

Shut down just HALF our overseas bases. That would cover everything, and STILL leave us with more troops stationed on foreign soil than any other country on earth.

[MarjorieG]

3. And maybe those regular armed forces can replace our National Guard on multiple tours.