- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
. Of course you do, we all know that Bush gave Obama the authority to put Bush spending on steroids and that 6.2 trillion in 4 plus years is much less than 4.9 trillion in 8 years.
So those bills in Reid's desk are to repeal Obamacare? I cannot imagine how increasing business costs by forcing small businesses to provide healthcare will affect hiring. You really have that figured out well.
... substantially all of the $6.2B was the run-out of the deficit infrastructure created by the previous administration. The wars, tax cuts and medicare expansion account for most of the deficits... they were in place before Obama showed up. Its much harder to reverse these things than create them. Yes, now Obama owns the tax cuts, as he advocated for them and they were passed. They account for $2T of our debt and the future cost of those cuts now fall on the Obama ledger.
... substantially all of the $6.2B was the run-out of the deficit infrastructure created by the previous administration. The wars, tax cuts and medicare expansion account for most of the deficits... they were in place before Obama showed up. Its much harder to reverse these things than create them. Yes, now Obama owns the tax cuts, as he advocated for them and they were passed. They account for $2T of our debt and the future cost of those cuts now fall on the Obama ledger.
There were huge losses in Federal Income Tax and Payroll Tax revenues which were caused by the job losses due to the Great Bush recession that added to the deficits.
Who are you trying to kid here? Other than the gullible. Under the Bush 43 administration the first trillion dollar budget was brought in. And the first trillion dollar increase in the budget was brought in.
What bills?
. Of course you do, we all know that Bush gave Obama the authority to put Bush spending on steroids and that 6.2 trillion in 4 plus years is much less than 4.9 trillion in 8 years.
So those bills in Reid's desk are to repeal Obamacare? I cannot imagine how increasing business costs by forcing small businesses to provide healthcare will affect hiring. You really have that figured out well.
And there is no demand because of low consumer confidence and poor leadership by the WH to create confidence.
So, government is the answer?
Point is the problem is neither taxes nor regulations. Those things can be navigated.
I can tell you from my own personal experience that what you suggest about demand is not alltogether true. Demand can be created, and is created all the time.
I've cited examples of products that were not in demand, manufactured by companies that barely existed, where supply generated demand. This is well known, and, for example, forms the basis for funding Research and Development. Obviously, a final decision is based on whether the market could support the product. No reason to open a Rolls Royce dealership in downtown Detroit, for example, or build a skateboard park in a retirement village.
As to the Obamacare example, I think you may not have thought that through. Obamacare has exacerbated the doctor shortage, no alleviated it. With dramatic restrictions on Doctor compensation, and still questionable provisions required such things as "the doctor fix" just to fill in holes, Doctors are going to be far shorter supply than ever. Obamacare is a perfect example of the unintended consequences of goverment intervention and regulation.
No, the govt. is the obstacle not the answer, get out of the way and let the free enterprise work. Stop creating dependence and rewarding bad behavior. You continue to ignore basic human behavior including your own. Reagan understood leadership, liberals today have no idea
If you blame the government, especially in terms f leadership, than you're saying only government can fix it.
The truth is, you're argument is really little more than partisan hackers. There is no substance in your argument.
If we have a lot of expendable money, yes you can get is to buy all kinds of shiny things. In that sense, demand can be created. And we covered low salaries for a long time by the "charge it" mantra. Buy, when we see demand as plentiful customers with disposable income, that can be created by a good sales pitch. The demand is from those making enough to buy. One of the downsides to low wages is the decrease of buyers.
As for healthcare reform, you have factual mistake concerning the reform. There are encouragements within the act to increase the number of doctors and to explore cheaper and more cost effective deliveries (including by providers other than doctors). The AMA has a huge lobbying force, and that means a huge say in government. But, the point is the act has encouragements.
As for restrictions of compensations, doctors are not going broke. When the skying is falling scare subsides, they will settle in, adjust, and still be well compensated. That would be the case even if we went with UHC.
I'm sorry, but a swish of your hand through the air doesn't change the realities of healthcare and it's impact of the availability of qualified people to provide it. You're either grossly misinformed on the issue, or unwilling to take the time to accurately address the issue.
As to demand, etc., my observations are based on my experiences. I can only go by that.
Govt. has a role in fixing the problem they helped create. You seem to be having a problem with anyone that disagrees with your point of view totally ignoring human behavior and that impact on economic activity. Who created the problem of dependence today, the individual or the govt? All that spending in the name of compassion that never really generated compassionate spending but rather created dependence.
I have seen no substance at all from you because you cannot argue the reality that more spendable income due to tax cuts stimulates economic activity, growth, and job creation.
No, I'm quite well informed on it.
1. The law does have the encouragements I mentioned.
2. The compensation is quite high. Doctors will not be going broke. We can link numbers on tis if you want. My brother in law says his practice will likely see a decrease from 300k to 295k, give or take. He'd like it go he other way, but calling that a hardship is a bit of an exaggeration.
But we can't have it all ways. To decrease the expense, means we have to pay less. Now to do that and increase access is difficult. Making everyone happy impossible. So, we need to focus on the problem and at accordingly. UHC addresses this, doesn't break doctors, removes healthcare from business, and lowers cost with increased access.
And your experience shows something different that what I said, I would love to see anY support for it all. People without disposable income spenng money seems very unlikely and sure to be a problem if you ask me.
No, I'm quite well informed on it.
1. The law does have the encouragements I mentioned.
2. The compensation is quite high. Doctors will not be going broke. We can link numbers on tis if you want. My brother in law says his practice will likely see a decrease from 300k to 295k, give or take. He'd like it go he other way, but calling that a hardship is a bit of an exaggeration.
But we can't have it all ways. To decrease the expense, means we have to pay less. Now to do that and increase access is difficult. Making everyone happy impossible. So, we need to focus on the problem and at accordingly. UHC addresses this, doesn't break doctors, removes healthcare from business, and lowers cost with increased access.
And your experience shows something different that what I said, I would love to see anY support for it all. People without disposable income spenng money seems very unlikely and sure to be a problem if you ask me.
You can't cut taxes enough. It helps the wealthy more, but their spending isn't decreased or increased based on taxes (remember I've give you studies on that many times). And working class and poorer families just don't get enough from cuts o stimulate.
If you more toward UHC, removed it from employment, if with increased taxes, you'd do more to put money in their hands than cutting taxes.
I've. Presented evidence and not merely repeated the talking points and rants as you do. To rebut, you need to do the same.
Boo, what happens if you are wrong? Are there any consequences in your world for making a bad mistake that affects 1/7 of the U.S. Economy? Have you bothered to dig into the MA results? Costs are up and the number of doctors are down. There certainly is total access but access to whom?
Little worse can happen if I'm wrong than we have now. But we have plenty of evidence that I'm not.
How do you know how it affects the wealthy and why do you care? You cannot have it both ways saying that taxes don't affect the wealthy and then say it helps the wealthy more. How does giving more money to the govt. help?
Government is more interested in putting money into the economy vs the private sector that is more interested in accumulating (hoarding) money.
Your information regarding Doctor compensation under Obamacare is not supported by many different sources on the subject:
Doctors Will Have To Take A Pay Cut Under Obamacare - Forbes
The Obamacare Revolt: Physicians Fight Back Against the Bureaucratization of Health Care - Reason.com
Thanks To Obamacare, A 20,000 Doctor Shortage Is Set To Quintuple - Forbes
Again, as to demand, you're making generalizations not supported by facts.
Wrong, if you are wrong it can only get much worse. How do you add more people to the insurance roles, have lower costs, and fewer doctors. There will still be millions uninsured, fewer doctors, and higher costs. That is the history of universal healthcare
Govt money going into the economy has generated about 250 billion dollars in debt service. How many people could that 250 billion actually help? The govt. doesn't invest in the economy, the govt. spends money and creates debt. What is wrong with people like you?
I don't see it. We have he most expensive health care in the world, of less access.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?