Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NOBama Nation: 1.7 Trillon required for Universal Healthcare AND Global Poverty Act

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Hearing that these expenditures going for mainly administration fees is not enough evidence that this is indeed true.

If it is that much now, and not even a Universal Plan, where the government takes on most of the burden, how much do you think those current administration expenditures would increase? One would have to think quite alot.

You can't just twist and turn numbers to fit your (Obama's) vision. You have to have crude hard facts. A true break-down of the numbers.

I run my own business and can tell you, there are ALWAYS unforseen circumstances with regard to expenses etc.




posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Actually it would be th other way around. While the red tape might pile up, the advertising and paying cooperate fat cats would dramatically decrease!

In the morning I will dig up the numbers and post them. I am too sleepy right at the moment.


Edit: keep your tags to yourself, Obama was not my choice but I am supporting him now. Universal styled health care is also not his brain child. What I am trying to say is Don't Pigeon Hole Me Man, i do not like it.


[edit on 9-6-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 






I run my own business and can tell you, there are ALWAYS unforseen circumstances with regard to expenses etc.


I wonder what percentage of government programs come in under budget? The Iraq war was supposed to pay for itself.... I can't imagine how bad they are going to miss the mark on the healthcare plan.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Post what you like, just make sure you can illustrate that it would be cheaper for the government to implement Universal Healthcare and without making you pay considerably for it.

Let me ask you this:

Can Obama create a Universal Healthcare plan and incorporate the Global Poverty Act, without raising taxes?? If so, how (be specific and detailed, no vague generalizations)?

Will you get the same level of quality health care and servces you do now under the Private Sector?? In other words, will the Mexican making 4$ a week get the same quality of health care as you do (or vice versa) under Obama's plan? How would Universal Healthcare help research and innovation for new cures?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   


I wonder what percentage of government programs come in under budget? The Iraq war was supposed to pay for itself.... I can't imagine how bad they are going to miss the mark on the healthcare plan.


Good point and is scary to think about. Like any business, any expenses they accrue are often hiked onto their clients. In this case, all Amercian people would be the government's clients. Some people like giving 10% of their income to their church (Mormans, Scientology). Are they going to like giving at least that much and most likely more to our wonderful government, providing all these wonderful programs?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Post what you like, just make sure you can illustrate that it would be cheaper for the government to implement Universal Healthcare and without making you pay considerably for it.


#1 The Global Thingy is stupid and i didn't touch it.

#2 Let me link this again for you:



In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person.1 Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). link


$7600 PER PERSON....That is about $633 a month...It is NOT going to be hard to reduce that. Like I said, I will post more #'s in the morning.

Bottom line is this: We are already getting raped when it comes to health care. Defending the cooperate RACKET makes no sense.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 





Defending the cooperate RACKET makes no sense.


I admit, I haven't looked into it enough to know one way or another, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the new plan will still be a huge racket for big pharma. I mean, they are going to have guaranteed income from every citizen in the country now. Seems to me that the medical industry and the poor will benefit most from this.

I just don't see this as some helpful government act, looking out for the welfare of the people. This will be like most other large government programs, bloated and inefficient. I am sure there will be plenty of room for big corporations to continue screwing the people.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Obama's plan, would call for 8,500.00 per household just for the Global Poverty Act alone. The Universal Healthcare plan is similar in cost (over 800 Billion). You claim it would be easy to lower over what it is now??

Not too mention, what about the Doctors in the Hospitals now. Without competition keeping things up in the quality and service departments, how will the government handle paying Doctors? Will it be as much, and if not, will these Doctors start their own clinics? Will the government pass a law saying it is illigal for good Doctors who are used to making 300k per year to start their own clinics?

Will the government allow quackery (or be exploited to it) to make things cheaper, that is, paying the Doctors much more cheaply?

How about the service with regard to state-of-the-art computer systems for treatments? Will the government cut corners on this equipment (or worse yet, get it from China) to try and curb expenses?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Obama's plan, would call for 8,500.00 per household just for the Global Poverty Act alone. The Universal Healthcare plan is similar in cost (over 800 Billion). You claim it would be easy to lower over what it is now??


Are you reading my posts? $2.3 TRILLION and rising in 2007, $800 Billion is LESS than 50% of $2.3 TRILLION. Am I missing something else? Do you understand what I am saying about health care?

Again for clarification, the global poverty thing is horse poop IMHO. I care about everyone on the planet but it makes no sense to me that the USA give up its weath to save the whole friggen world, so I will not touch the issue of US dollars going, in such #s, to global poverty.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I understand, but am telling you also that Obama's plan calls for more than that per household as it is now. It is his numbers even, which you know don't account for all the unforseen circumstances etc. You also know that his numbers are a conservative estimate (or quote).

You are not going to save anything, and if you do, will be at the expense of some poor quality healthcare and services. It will no doubt be bloated and inefficient and you'll be paying for it very handsomly.

That is the bottom line. No numbers on Barackobama.com are going to change that.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 



You wrote:



The Universal Healthcare plan is similar in cost (over 800 Billion). You claim it would be easy to lower over what it is now??


$800 Billion = LESS THAN $2.3 TRILLION

There is NO WAY you can say that it is more, THAT IS NOT SANE. Yes if you include this Global Poverty thing than maybe it would cost more, but I am talking about HEALTH CARE, only HEALTH CARE.

If you say Obama's Health Care is $800 Billion that means he is saying he can give us ALL health care for LESS THAN HALF of what it cost 84% of US citizens to get health care in 2007.

EDIT: To add, NONE of my numbers came from Barakobama.com, NONE. PLEASE follow the links I provided when I provided #'s for you. This is starting to get silly mate.


[edit on 9-6-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal


If you say Obama's Health Care is $800 Billion that means he is saying he can give us ALL health care for LESS THAN HALF of what it cost 84% of US citizens to get health care in 2007.


I think what he's saying is it will cost $800 billion to give health care to those that do not have health care already, not including people that already have health care. So figure on the rest of us that have jobs and already pay for health care, the total cost which is the number you are looking at will be a lot more than $2.4 trillion.

Even if that's not what he's talking about, it's still "NOT SANE" to believe that health care can be given to more people than it already is for less money. That just can't happen, unless Obama really is a messiah like he thinks he is and can perform miracles.

Or, perhaps Obama is going to hire illegal mexican workers to perform surgeries and stuff for a $20 salary. Better check that plan of his.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet

You are not going to save anything, and if you do, will be at the expense of some poor quality healthcare and services. It will no doubt be bloated and inefficient and you'll be paying for it very handsomly.

That is the bottom line. No numbers on Barackobama.com are going to change that.



Oh yeah and we aren't already paying for, in your words, "bloated and inefficient" health care.


Sometimes you just have to try something new, and if this is such a huge problem for the good of the American kind as you make it out to be, how do you suggest we fix this course of action? Continue letting corporate America take over and privatize everything? In that case your tax prices would be the last things you'll be worrying about.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I think the elimination of competition between privatized health care, thus causing a degragation in quality healthcare and services, is of much concern.

Competition increase quality and services. Government sponsored healthcare removes competition. Do some research on Russia's health care system when they were under the Russian Federation.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Found this link... A year old, but hey. Unfortunately the guy who has the blog is biased to the egotistic side. Just look away from that...
20% of your taxes are put into defense and if you read 6% of your taxes were sucked into defense after 9/11.
War not costing citizens money? Yeah, right... down right blantantly ignorant and disinformation.
What's your purpose here on ATS Jetxnet?


where does the money go


[edit on 9/6/08 by flice]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
You missed pretty-much everything posted here. Taxes do go towards the military, yes. Of course they do, as in every nation with a military.

No NEW taxes were introduced to fund the Iraqi war. Obama's plan will introduce new and steep taxes (over and above any taxes now). It would have to.

Your argument was very lame, but will give you the benefit of the doubt because you obviously didn't read much of the thread.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by flice
Found this link... A year old, but hey. Unfortunately the guy who has the blog is biased to the egotistic side. Just look away from that...
20% of your taxes are put into defense and if you read 6% of your taxes were sucked into defense after 9/11.
War not costing citizens money? Yeah, right... down right blantantly ignorant and disinformation.
What's your purpose here on ATS Jetxnet?


where does the money go


[edit on 9/6/08 by flice]


Wow, besides writing under an obvious bias, this "article" is an excellent example of how not to spend tax money! So illogical: "I don't support welfare programs for the uneducated and lazy, but I also don't support education funding." The complete lack of empathy and logic astounds me.....

And thank you for bringing this up flice. If the money doesn't come from us then where does it originate? OF COURSE IT COMES OUT OF OUR POCKETS! These trillions don't materialize in the over funded defense budget, they come from every money making source in this country. If your tax dollars go to defense spending, they support the war.

Support war or support your own damn fellow Americans, geez what would make more sense?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Show us a link showing NO new taxed were used... show it! Instead of just making up statements. That's so freaking American / conservative way of debating... lots of hot air, nothing to back it up with.

www.timesonline.co.uk...


And before you start complaining about healthcare and poverty act, then consider if you really really need to spend SO MUCH money on military in the first place?
What's the point? Does it strengthen your spine and your proud white boy attitiude that you're causing disruption in the world with your hardcore boneheaded commandos, your covert organisations swooping in and out of countries gathering info because someone at the top is so paranoid he shouldn't have been let near a position of leadership in the first place.
Your whole defense structure is broken. It is so NOT transparent that you can't even see exactly where does these tax money go.

Give some proof that backs up your claims.

And last question... why does it hurt you so much to help those less fortunate? You do know that some people are not less fortunate by choice...

[edit on 9/6/08 by flice]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
What claims? I am simply stating as a working American (which you obviously are not), that I have not paid anymore new taxes coming out of my checks etc.

Of course a percentage goes to the military, this has always been the case.

You are reaching for things.

The argument is, that you will see new and additional taxes above and beyond what is coming out of your hard earned checks now (for Americans) to fund Obama's glorious plans.



[edit on 9-6-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   
to OP:

so.. mkay. you would rather have a war that A. is damaging the economy B. skyrocketing oil prices and C. is dividing this country in polar opposites not seen since the days of slavery.. as opposed to say.. A. Free medicine B. Free Surgery C. Free Check-ups ect. Now of course i know these things wouldn't be absolutely free with taxes and all, but i think i would much rather have the well-being of knowing that if anyone of my family or friends, or myself were to become ill or injured, that they would be taken care of guaranteed. that's just my two cents.

-J





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join