Massachusetts Mess: Difference between revisions

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{Item |author=Investor's Business Daily editorial board, |source=Investor's Business Daily |date=July 18, 2011 |url=http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578707/2...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Item
{{Item
|author=Investor's Business Daily editorial board,  
|author=Investor's Business Daily editorial board,
|source=Investor's Business Daily
|source=Investor's Business Daily
|date=July 18, 2011
|date=July 18, 2011
Line 7: Line 7:
}}
}}
{{Opinion|Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act|Act should not have been passed|for}}
{{Opinion|Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act|Act should not have been passed|for}}
{{Opinion|Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act|Act must be passed|against}}

Revision as of 11:45, July 22, 2011

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) Investor's Business Daily editorial board
Source Investor's Business Daily
Date July 18, 2011
URL http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578707/201107181909/Massachusetts-Mess.htm
Quote
Quotes-start.png Add these up and the cumulative cost of RomneyCare is nearly $8.6 billion. The promise of cost-containment has not only been broken, it's been ripped asunder in spectacular fashion. Clearly, what we are seeing in Massachusetts is a sobering preview. Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues for the position Act should not have been passed on the topic Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


This item argues against the position Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act / Act must be passed on the topic Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.