jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (114 posts)

Should the GOP's Top Agenda be Killing Healthcare Reform or Jobs?

  1. DTR0005 profile image84
    DTR0005posted 6 years ago

    With unemployment still hovering around 10%, should the new "Freshman Class" in the House of Represenatives be hellbent on killing Obamacare or more concerned with job creation?

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      They aren't going to do either one very well.

      To 'kill' Obamacare, they need to get the Senate to sign on to a repeal - which won't happen and, by the way, they need Obama to sign the repeal. They know it - so all the gyrations we'll see are a dog and pony show for the teabaggers.

      Unemployment is a by-product of the recession, specifically the result of a drop in consumption. Fewer people buying stuff resulted in layoffs, which meant fewer people with money to buy stuff which resulted in more layoffs. It's leveled off, but its not getting better very fast.

      The answer is implicit in the problem definition - increase consumption. Until that happens, business is sitting on the sidelines - not hiring. The government is the biggest consumer, so that's a natural way to increase consumption Putting more money in the hands of the people certain to spend all of it, is the next-best option to spur consumption. Both are contrary to conservative philosophy which says the best way to create jobs is to give more money to the rich. (Of course, if that was true the Bush tax cuts for the rich should have sent the economy into the stratosphere - but instead ushered in the recession.)The second-best GOP answer is to reduce government consumption - which will kill jobs.

      I hope that the deal Obama made with the devil will help some - maybe a couple of points off unemployment over 2011. Don't expect anything from the US House of Representatives except the antics of clowns.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The GOP is clueless about job creation. They got us in the hole and are still digging.

    3. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yup! Killing health care will be a good first step to easing unemployment. They are related! Business doesn't want to hire because they don't know what this law is going to cost them.

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, it's a huge factor. There is also this. Even if Universal health care was everything it's supporters say it is. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT! Stop the spending. That's the key.

        1. lovemychris profile image56
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the health care overhaul will reduce deficits by more than $140 billion over 10 years."

          How are you Repubs going to make up for that 140 bil you're adding to the deficit? On TOP of the 800 something bil you added by giving ka-trillionaires a big bonus?

          That's at least 940 billion you have added to the deficit in the guise of cutting spending.

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image59
            BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the health care overhaul will reduce deficits by more than $140 billion over 10 years."

            And if they told you wolverines make good house pets would you believe them?

            Can you name a single government program that every came in at or below budget once implemented?

            1. lovemychris profile image56
              lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Yes---someone mentioned it here. The healthcare the military gets. Also social security and medicare--my mother has never had one single problem.
              My dad, however, went through HELL dealing with private insurance while he had cancer.

              It bankrupted them.

              Things may not get done on time, there is waste and abuse, but the underlying goal is to provide for the public good.
              Private enterprise is done for profit.

              I choose public good.

              1. BillyDRitchie profile image59
                BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                The healthcare the military gets.....government intervention over another government entity.

                That's the best you've got?  Wow.....

                1. lovemychris profile image56
                  lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, actually, this society runs pretty smoothly when you think about it.
                  I have no complaints, except for the high cost of living...but that's the corporate end of it isnt it?

                  So, why do you think America sucks so bad as a country?

              2. couturepopcafe profile image60
                couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Hey, lmc.  I can relate.  I know exactly what you went through.  My brother was one of those millionaires and had the best health insurance money could buy.  He died virtually penniless because of the cost of cancer care.  If government is going to do anything about health care it should be in reforming the industry.  Why does a millionaire go broke only to die anyway?  What was the use of all their research and mandated chemo and radiation?  This is a government mandate.  If they want to provide public insurance, let them pay for catastrophic care which is what busts people, not the everyday stuff.  And certainly not forcing people to buy it.  The only way health care overhaul will reduce deficits is because we are being forced to buy it.  The plan includes the money we put in.  What happens after that?  What happens after the $140. million we put in is used up?  It's not actually lowering the deficit it's just paying for something which should have been investigated long ago.  Overpriced meds, overpriced research, too many grants and funding, to many hands in the pockets of the people's money.  Sorry.  I can truly empathize with you but don't see your argument as a viable way out of this.

                1. lovemychris profile image56
                  lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  "If government is going to do anything about health care it should be in reforming the industry."

                  You are kidding right? What do you think the Dems have been trying to do? Who has been stopping it?

                  I see now the new "talking point" of the right.....

                  "Pay for Catastrophic,then let us out." Well, what about a poor kid who needs glasses? Or braces? Poor people can't afford that, but it's not catastrophic. What should they do? Just wish they were born rich I guess huh?

                  And btw...when can I opt out of paying these Republican politicians? When can I opt out of funding Haliburton? When? I wanna know.

            2. profile image60
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              That's been prove FALSE! It's all based on the idea that you tax for five years to pay for the following five. That makes it budget neutral in ten years. WHAT ABOUT TWENTY YEARS?

              1. lovemychris profile image56
                lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Who proved it false? I'm going with the CBO. What's your source?

                1. profile image60
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The numbers the CBO uses have a disclaimer. They openly admit that they are NOT including cost projections for the IRS or the Department of Health and Human Services. Those are just examples. The CBO also states that it doesn't NORMALLY make projections beyond 10 years. But has in this case at the request of Congress. HMMM....

              2. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                "WHAT ABOUT TWENTY YEARS?"

                C.J. - The CBO gave a best guess of savings of OVER 1 trillion dollars in the second decade. The Health Care Law does bend the cost curve down which was a major objective. The exact amounts can be argued, but it's beyond question that repealing health care drives the federal deficit UP - while health care reform - as passed - will SAVE money.

                Democrats have made it clear that they are open to suggestions to tweek the law, now and in the future, to make it better. Repeal makes no fiscal sense, however.

                1. profile image60
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL, no SOURCES? You kill me with your rhetoric. I know you love socialism. Just know this, American's can't handle it. They are too independent. Take a close look at the CBO's projections. See how they have changed. Look historically and note how they seem to over and under shoot reality.

                2. profile image60
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  A best guess huh? So where is the money coming from to fund it? What they are telling us is that it will be completely funded from tax payer money. NO borrowing right?

                  Let me explain using your source:

                  the CBO says: "Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations" 

                  So, what your calling a "BEST GUESS" I call the "BEST CASE SCENARIO" I've heard it all before.

                3. lady_love158 profile image58
                  lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL! The CBO MUST use assumptions given to it by the administration when it performs its calculations. We all know the numbers are suspect because in the first 6 of 10 years the governemnt is collecting money without paying out the full benefits.
                  As far as the promises of lowering costs, the evidence so far is costs are rising faster than they would have wiothout the law. Already 100s of business have filed for and received waivers from teh government for implementing the law because it's too costly! Also the promise that you could keep your insurance has been shown to be false. We were fed a bunch of lies!

      2. DTR0005 profile image84
        DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Business doesn't want to hire because they have grown extrememly lean and heavy-to-the-black on their balance sheet.  Why would they hire when they are making money hand-over-fist with the status quo? Alan Greenspan called it the "volatility of labor markets" which he deemed a good thing. When pressed he went on to explain that when people feel threatened about losing their job 24/7, they work for less, expect much less from their employers, and generally feel "indebted" to their employer - they don't move, they don't bitch, they just "exist" under the constant fear of losing their job.  Corporate America has posted record profits because they are demanding more productivity from their existing workforce - and getting it - for less money. And the excuse is, "Well times are tough..." Jobs are the by-product of business - not the soul goal of business. If a business could operate profitably without employees, it would and they do - it's called outsourcing. My career field exists because I am the "outsourcee." If you believe your "Joe Capitalist" feels a need to provide his fellow man with a job, well I got a bridge to sell you...

        1. lady_love158 profile image58
          lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          That is precisely why the government must get out of the way and allow business and American citizens to be prosperous. Raising employment levels creates demand for workers, which forces business to compete for labor which leads to higher wages and benefits which increases demand for products which raises again the need for labor and so on! Government regulation and taxes are a burden to business, it's a cost that stifles demand, reduces consumption and leads to unemployment which leads to further contraction of the economy and greater poverty.

        2. lovemychris profile image56
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, excellent post 0005!!

    4. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The government can only "create" jobs in government. That requires taxes to go up. The government can not create jobs in the private sector.
      The left is wanting to raise the legal debt ceiling. That means they want to spend MORE! This is ridiculous. "The spending will continue until the deficit improves" seems to be the mantra here.
      Oh, I know. It's all Bush's fault. Well if run away spending got us into this mess, how will it get us out? The math simply does not work.

      1. lovemychris profile image56
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Well- your math has been PROVEN wrong. Once, twice we had Bush tax cuts...now 3 times is the charm?

        Where are the jobs?
        What did that cut increase but the income and quality of life disparity here?

        Here's why they did it, "You are our base, and we will support you."
        Apparently, the base is still the same.

        No jobs, just plenty of re-distribution of wealth...to the top.

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It doesn't work when you don't, 1. REDUCE SPENDING. 2. Don't create incentives to get business back in the US. You are focusing on a single component. Taxes. Its more than taxes. It's Spending, Taxes and Trade policy.

          1. lovemychris profile image56
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Umm, hello! WHO was in charge? From 2000-2006, total Repubs, with 2 tax cuts they put through.
            Where were the jobs?  guess.....they went overseas...much like a lot or rich people's money, so they could avoid US taxes.
            Now we are supposed to buy this crappola again? Puleeeeeze.

            You can buy it, I see it for what it is. Complete and total stinky matter on the bottom of my shoes.

            1. profile image60
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              You are painting me as a Republican simply because I don't agree with you. I'm NOT a Republican. The results of the past election are NOT a blanket approval of Republican policy from 2000 to 2006. They are a rejection of the Democrats policy from 2006 to 2010. If Republicans refuse to listen, they will be gone again.

              1. profile image66
                logic,commonsenseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, they will.  In fact, more of both parties will be gone in 2012 if they do not change their course!

                1. Flightkeeper profile image73
                  Flightkeeperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Well then who's going to be left?

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                    Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Evan G Rogers

      2. lovemychris profile image56
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You spent in the wrong place and the wrong way.
        Not to help the majority, but to feather the nest of the minority.


        ****sorry about that double answer to the same post....I got a message saying "you can't post the same message more than once"....but they did post it!****

      3. DTR0005 profile image84
        DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Don't raise the debt ceiling and the US defaults on its sovereign debt. That would make the Great Recession look like a rendition of "Happy Days Are Here Again..."

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          here's an idea. CUT SPENDING!

    5. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Government cannot create jobs.

      Jobs are created by private business.

      Government can knock down walls that have been put up that stifle job creation.

      We'll see.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You are of course joking . . . though somehow I doubt it.

        1. lady_love158 profile image58
          lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Why do you say that? Didn't Obama's stimulus prove his point? After spending a trillion dollars no jobs were created, at least nothing that wasn't a government job or anything that was permanent. Government doesn't create wealth, government consumes it!

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            So governments consume nothing and promote nothing?
            Even at the most basic level, say stationary, most of this will be contracted out to private printers, the rest,donein house will still employ people.

            Put a man on the moon? How many tens of thousands does this employ along with research spin off that provide private businesses with opportunities.

            How about that new high way, carried out by private business or just the thousands upon thousands of paper pushers.

            Government redistributes wealth and creates wealth, were does the wealth that government consume disappear to?

            1. lady_love158 profile image58
              lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Government takes wealth and spends it, period. I'm not saying that there is never a benefit, but they don't create any lasting wealth.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Really!
                I've known people who have made themselves pretty wealthy out of government contracts.

                Have a look around in your own country and I'm sure you'll find a good few companies who've made a shilling or two from working for the government.

                1. lady_love158 profile image58
                  lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure that's not creating wealth that's just taking it from you and me and giving it to someone else! Creating wealth is investing in an idea and selling it for a profit, like Microsoft and Apple.

                  1. DTR0005 profile image84
                    DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Then with that logic, should every private business that does business with local, state, and the Federal government just forgo the extremely lucrative contracts that in turn put money into the hands of private citizens, other private businesses via subcontracts, etc? I work for insurance companies - that is pure redistribution of wealth at its finest.  Do a little backward engineering and find an example where someone's bread and butter didn't bring from government spending. When I purchase my fuel, my groceries, my kids' clothing, it's done with money earned that someone paid in insurance premiums. Should those private benefactors of the aforementioned not accept my money?

                  2. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Why does investing in a highway not create wealth but giving money to Microsoft and Apple create wealth? It's still taking money from you and me and giving it to somebody else. The difference is that we do have some say in what happens to money to the state whereas we have no say at all in what private business does with our money.

      2. lovemychris profile image56
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        We ALREADY did!!!

        Where are the jobs from the first 2 tax cuts?

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    They are trying their best to kill jobs smile

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Surely you don't really think they sit there saying "how can we kill jobs today?"

      1. lovemychris profile image56
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        If it makes Obama look bad....uyup.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          But they hadn't even taken over the majority yet.  How is this possible?

          1. lovemychris profile image56
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, just wait and see. Like McConnell said, "If the Democrats think this session was bad, wait until January." (paraphrasing)

            They are out to make Obama a one term president, bust unions, lower the minimum wage, make sure poor people get NO help * "heaven forfend!!" * and make sure money keeps flowing to the top.

            They are the party of corporate America.
            Were you really fooled by them?

  3. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

    How about making some adjustments like adding the public option to the health care bill, or better yet universal health care, and create jobs?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Great idea, but not likely.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Adding an opt-out for those who don't want to be forced to buy someone's idea of health insurance would be a good way to leave the bill for those who want it and leave an out for those who don't.  Government is the biggest consumer.  Once they stop all the unnecessary spending, the economy will level out.  It may not be what is was, but consumerism can only go so far before it self destructs.  And since the government hasn't really stopped spending, I guess we can't blame the downturn on them.  Maybe the war caused a lot of this.  Who knew?  Blame whomever you wish to but let's just let it level out, stop unnecessary spending, stop taxing people to death, and let me do what I want with my health care.

    3. BillyDRitchie profile image59
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You really want the government in charge of your health care?  Really?  I mean, really?

      The same organization that couldn't even run a "Cash For Clunkers" program?  In charge of your health care?

      What to say but "Wow"....

      1. DTR0005 profile image84
        DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Well I agree with you to a certain point. However, there is no Public Option so the idea of having "government in charge of your health care" unless you are on Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care (Veterans and active duty) is a mute point. Interestingly enough, I have talked to and work daily with the aged, the poor, and military veterans - none have much to bitch about regarding their government-run care. Now the same can't be said about my customers with private health insurance. Most people, when they actually realize that private health insurers find ways to cut your coverage/their cost, tend to lose that rosey glow. But then again, neither no one including Congress has read the bill cover to cover - PS - it's available online and a pretty "easy" read...

      2. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Cash for clunkers? I can give you a better one. Department of Education. No Child Left Behind. A great feel good program dictated by the Fed and paid for by the states. It's nothing more than another tax. Unfunded mandates are crippling the states. Run away spending is killing the tax payer. Unrealistic trade policy is chasing big business away. Loop holes in the tax code make running away profitable. All these problems and the only answer government has is SPEND!

        1. DTR0005 profile image84
          DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          So without some kind of "standard" we continue to have basically what we have now - a joke of an education system that varies so greatly from one district to the next WITHIN ONE STATE that no kid is guaranteed the same education as the next. Here in Ohio, it's funded by levies on property value. So, the wealthy communities benefit the most, the poor communities benefit the least. You know there is one thing to be said about our current culture: we want all the benefits without a price. We want good roads, but don't tax us. We want good schools, but don't fund them. We want good police and fire protection, but don't raise our taxes to obtain them. Of course the TeaParty crowd will tell you or lead you to believe that all of this can be done without taxes. Well saddle up my horse and pack me a sachel Miss Kitty - the gold piece on the table is for you....

          1. profile image60
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I'll be brually honest with you. I DON'T WANT EQUAL EDUCATION! At least as it's currently being defined.

          2. profile image60
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I would bet that your exagerating about Ohio's plan for funding schools. Most states fund schools at the county level with subsidy from the state and federal governments. So, if the entire county is broke...guess what? The whole school system suffers. The idea that rich communities have nicer schools is a gimic used to create class envy. Newer communities do have newer schools because well, they are newer.
            ****NEWS FLASH***** Your wrong about your states policy on funding schools. It's just as I thought. Federal, State and Local Taxes fund your schools. Monies from the State are distributed based on a "Foundation Schedule" that ensures districts with a lower property value are compensated equitably. Your state calls it "Low Wealth Subsidy" or "Equity Aid". Federal monies are "program" based. The programs are based on merit or need.

            1. DTR0005 profile image84
              DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Newsflash - I am not wrong - in part, local districts are funded by property taxes. I have lived here for 45 years and my wife works for the school system. Of course districts receive money from the state and federal levels, but a significant portion comes from property taxes. And again, wealthier communities have the better schools by virtue of more tax revenue.

              1. profile image60
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                No, your wrong. Look it up. Look at how Ohio funds schools. The state ensures that low property valued communities are funded equitably. If they didn't the Fed would be all over them like a cheap suit!

              2. profile image60
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Oh, here is your original quote:
                "Here in Ohio, it's funded by levies on property value"

                If you knew the statement was not completely true, why didn't you list the entire truth in your OP?

        2. habee profile image95
          habeeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I got one, I got one!! The DMV!!

          1. profile image60
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Thats a state thing. But your right! Every state I've lived in, it's been HORRIBLE!

    4. Pandoras Box profile image67
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Far too worthwhile.

    5. thisisoli profile image73
      thisisoliposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The majority of people are in favor of national health care in America, and it is astounding to people outside America that people might actually be against it.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Certainly count me as one of the astounded Oli.

  4. Evan G Rogers profile image75
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    1) healthcare reform is nothing but trouble. government can't create wealth, it can only - at best - rearrange it.

    2) jobs aren't the most important part of an economy. increasing supply is.

  5. profile image66
    logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago

    Good point!  Perhaps one election cycle without anyone in Washington would be the most beneficial!

 
working