Will this really help people?

[timesjoke]

There has been a lot of claims going around about how this forced health insurance plan will help people and many even try to beat opponents over the head with calling the program something Christians should want to do and other dirty tactics to force this idea down our throats but how much will it hurt and how much will it help on a overall basis?

 

First of all you have to pay for it, some estimates say 1 trillion, some say more but we know from experience that every program ever created by the Federal Government has had their cost estimates be way, way low. Low or not we don't even have the 1 trillion so new tax money must be found to pay for it and in a already stressed economy, there is no way to get such massive amounts of money without causing a lot of pain.....

 

Next we have the general agreement of all parties that to one degree to another this will end all private insurance, maybe not all at once but clearly the lack of having to make a profit will give the Government plan the lions share of the customers and lead to a lot of lost jobs in America. One of the links Emkay provided spoke of how American doctors have several workers in each office dedicated to filing for many different insurance companies and once we go to one Government insurer, you no longer need these workers and the lower payouts will make you fire them even if you want to keep them.

 

I have no idea how many medical offices there are in America but if say 2 to 3 people in each office is fired per office and we add in all the insurance company firings I bet we can see hundreds of thousands of jobs lost because of this Government health plan.

 

Employees who previously had great medical coverage with high coverages will be forced to lose their plans and accept the lower coverage of the Government plan on top of being herded into long waiting times for limited treatments.

 

 

 

 

So, high cost we can't pay for.

 

Hundreds of thousands of lost jobs further increasing unemployment and reducing tax income for the Govenrment.

 

Jobs lost from the private sector.

 

Lower quality care for all people.

 

 

 

Obama will go down in the books as the President who killed the most private sector jobs and increased our debt the most.

[Chi]

"Obama will go down in the books as the President who killed the most private sector jobs and increased our debt the most." - We shall see. This coming from the same people who said he had no chance in hell of winning.

[timesjoke]

"Obama will go down in the books as the President who killed the most private sector jobs and increased our debt the most." - We shall see. This coming from the same people who said he had no chance in hell of winning.

 

I never said that, I said from day one that a socialist would win the next election, they would simply play the "I'm not Bush" card and win easily.

 

The question was always if he could beat out Hillary, she was the defacto next President until Obama built such a "religious" type of following where people were even passing out just looking at him.

[Chi]

I never said that, I said from day one that a socialist would win the next election, they would simply play the "I'm not Bush" card and win easily.

 

The question was always if he could beat out Hillary, she was the defacto next President until Obama built such a "religious" type of following where people were even passing out just looking at him.

 

Riight... So you didn't think he could beat Hilary, right?

[timesjoke]

Riight... So you didn't think he could beat Hilary, right?

 

Not really, maybe when he first poped on the scene I had doubts of him beating Hillary, I don't really remember that much detail of how I viewed him in the beginning. I just knew a Socialist would win, what Socialist really never mattered to me.

 

 

I do think it is interesting that both his Vice and his secretary of State both said Obama was too nieve to be President, lol.

 

Once the stage was set with Obama versus McCain, I knew only a miracle could get McCain elected.

[Chi]

Not really, maybe when he first poped on the scene I had doubts of him beating Hillary, I don't really remember that much detail of how I viewed him in the beginning. I just knew a Socialist would win, what Socialist really never mattered to me.

 

 

I do think it is interesting that both his Vice and his secretary of State both said Obama was too nieve to be President, lol.

 

Once the stage was set with Obama versus McCain, I knew only a miracle could get McCain elected.

 

Yeah, it's so interesting and such a mystery why people who are running against another would have anything negative to say about them..

[timesjoke]

Yeah, it's so interesting and such a mystery why people who are running against another would have anything negative to say about them..

 

Saying negative that is the truth or saying negative that is a lie are two completely different things.

 

Were they telling the truth or a lie and does that speak to their character? I think so.

 

 

Anyway, back to the topic, do you think the positives from a Government run healthcare system will offset the massive loss of private sector jobs? I guess they will be able to get healthcare but someone with 10 years experience in filing medical claims will not really have many job opportunities.

 

 

How many private sector jobs is Obama willing to sacrifice in his term?

[Chi]

Government run healthcare will be able to employ people from the 'massive loss of private sector jobs' and employ others as well. It's not rocket science.

[timesjoke]

Government run healthcare will be able to employ people from the 'massive loss of private sector jobs' and employ others as well. It's not rocket science.

 

Even if you did replace 1 for 1 (impossible) your going from private sector to government paid, all Government employees do not contribute to the tax base because your just recycling the same tax dollar back to itself so you are reducing your tax base while increasing your cost.

 

At best you might see about 1 new government job for about 10,000 lost private sector jobs as an estimate based on about half of the American doctors running private offices. Hard to say for sure without hard numbers on the exact amount of offices we have.

[Chi]

Even if you did replace 1 for 1 (impossible) your going from private sector to government paid, all Government employees do not contribute to the tax base because your just recycling the same tax dollar back to itself so you are reducing your tax base while increasing your cost.

 

At best you might see about 1 new government job for about 10,000 lost private sector jobs as an estimate based on about half of the American doctors running private offices. Hard to say for sure without hard numbers on the exact amount of offices we have.

 

Ok, whatever you say, crazy. I'm not going to argue with you about this. All of what you have just stated, is just your OPINION. A crazy exagerrated one at that.

[timesjoke]

Ok, whatever you say, crazy. I'm not going to argue with you about this. All of what you have just stated, is just your OPINION. A crazy exagerrated one at that.

 

Crazy in "YOUR" opinion, but still valid concerns.

 

Private sector jobs will be lost in the hundreds of thousands, this is fact.

 

Government jobs are only recycling the same tax dollar so they do not help the economy, this is fact.

 

Just how many exact jobs will be lost "IS" my opinion, but it is based on taking half the number of doctors we have in America and assuming one lost job for each office possition. I feel this is low because even in my general practice doctors office they have 6 girls who work reception and records. The artical that Emkay shared said this will go to one person for each office, so 5 lost jobs in one office.

[phreakwars]

Considering the concerns of the Republican party in the last 8 years have yielded failure, and their excuse is "GEORGE BUSH WAS MORE OF A LIBERAL", why would anybody be motivated to listen to their concerns now? You can try and make up an excuse for George Bush, but what's your excuse for the house and senate majority who were also Republican during that time? Your concerns might be legitimate to yourself, but for people who are sick and tired of the scare tactics, we really don't care about your concerns. Seems now the Republican party is starting to come around and come out from underneath the blanket they've been hiding under and are starting to agree with those pesky liberals. Your concerns are starting to fall on deaf ears even in your own party.

.

.

[emkay64]

Crazy in "YOUR" opinion, but still valid concerns.

 

Private sector jobs will be lost in the hundreds of thousands, this is fact.

 

Government jobs are only recycling the same tax dollar so they do not help the economy, this is fact.

 

Just how many exact jobs will be lost "IS" my opinion, but it is based on taking half the number of doctors we have in America and assuming one lost job for each office possition. I feel this is low because even in my general practice doctors office they have 6 girls who work reception and records. The artical that Emkay shared said this will go to one person for each office, so 5 lost jobs in one office.

 

...and now my articles are valid arguments lol. Hilarious...

[timesjoke]

Bender,

 

The number of people who want a thing does not change if the thing was right or wrong.

 

Should slavery been kept legal just because most Americans supported slavery or at least did not believe a war was worth making the change?

 

At the time women were given the right to vote most people including many women were against the idea.

 

Government is supposed to see beyond instant gratification.

 

A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering. ~ Thomas Jefferson

 

 

 

...and now my articles are valid arguments lol. Hilarious...

 

No, not at all, most of that stuff was opinion based but I do not mind using the parts that were not based in opinion such as how office workers are reduced to one person because they do not have to process so many different kinds of claims.

[RoyalOrleans]

This is mere speculation, but I have always believed that government run healthcare is the baby of the Republican party.

 

Why?

 

I will answer my question with a question: what better way to take control of a woman's body than by mandating healthcare? Soon abortion clinics will be a thing of the past, all stem cell research will cease, and on down the line.

 

And don't give me that wounded little TJ look, either. Despite my stance on many many many economic issues, I am not a Republican.

[timesjoke]

I don't see the connection, help me out.

 

Tiller the baby killer did not run on insurance payments you know.

 

And while I lean Republican out of self defense, I am not a Republican either.

 

 

Conservatives are against massive increases in big government. Most Republicans have always been against bigger Government as well so increasing Government to run healthcare would be hard to imagine as their agenda.

 

 

Do you have anything showing they have wanted this somewhere in the past before the Democrats took up the banner?

[snafu]

Considering the concerns of the Republican party in the last 8 years have yielded failure, and their excuse is "GEORGE BUSH WAS MORE OF A LIBERAL", why would anybody be motivated to listen to their concerns now? You can try and make up an excuse for George Bush, but what's your excuse for the house and senate majority who were also Republican during that time? Your concerns might be legitimate to yourself, but for people who are sick and tired of the scare tactics, we really don't care about your concerns. Seems now the Republican party is starting to come around and come out from underneath the blanket they've been hiding under and are starting to agree with those pesky liberals. Your concerns are starting to fall on deaf ears even in your own party.

.

.

 

Wrong..

The first four went fine. The last four it went down hill with the help of a Democratic Sentate and house. You know the Senate that Obama came from? The one where he voted close to 75% of the time "present" so he could not be tagged with the decern over the direction the Sentate and house was taking us.

[ImWithStupid]

Wrong..

The first four went fine. The last four it went down hill with the help of a Democratic Sentate and house. You know the Senate that Obama came from? The one where he voted close to 75% of the time "present" so he could not be tagged with the decern over the direction the Sentate and house was taking us.

 

 

No. The Repubs spent like drunken liberals and they rightly paid for it.

 

Also, you can't vote present in the US Senate. That was when he was a state senator in Illinois that he voted present most of the time.

[snafu]

No. The Repubs spent like drunken liberals and they rightly paid for it.

 

Also, you can't vote present in the US Senate. That was when he was a state senator in Illinois that he voted present most of the time.

 

I did not know that. My bad. He still voted on the spending and the war in Iraq if I'm not mistaken.

 

Fact Check: Obama's 'present' votes - Boston.com

[snafu]

I guess he was all over the place on that one.

 

Clinton vs Obama on Iraq - Fact Checker

[phreakwars]

Yeah, everything in the world was going great up until that point in George's last 2 years when Democrats had control.

 

You trying to convince me, or convince yourself?

.

.

[timesjoke]

Yeah, everything in the world was going great up until that point in George's last 2 years when Democrats had control.

 

You trying to convince me, or convince yourself?

 

I don't know what they will say but I to a point agree with you, Bush did many, many things I did not agree with. Sure most of them were when he was trying to reinvent himself but your right, when Bush had a mostly Republican Congress they did spend, spend, spend a lot of money........but there is one problem.

 

Take all their extra spending over all the years they had power and you still do not get as much money as Obama has wasted in one stroke of his pen with the "stimulus package". 6 years of war spending for both Afganistan and Iraq combined.......less money than the "stimulus package".

 

 

Obama is just getting warmed up, the healthcare program will again be way more than 6 years of war on two continents.

 

Give the man some time, whole new possibilities have just opened up with the magic number being hit.......it is like hitting the political lottery for Obama, I bet he is drooling all over himself, lol.