Quote Originally Posted by BigWeed
I have been reading both plans for the past 2 hours and I agree with you they both mirror each others. Mccains dont tell how he pays for it and Obamas dont tell but offers more. Mccain wants to take away some of the tax credit that normally goes to the employers and put it in my pocket to pay for what ever health care plan I want. The problem with that is the companys hes taking away the credit from is going to charge me even more for the goods that I buy. So he cant pay for his plan because those companys will get back in the end.

Why would they charge you more? It's a redistribution of money. They would not be taxed as proposed under Obama's plan. He's simply moving the credit that normally goes to employers and putting it in your hands. You say he didn't propose how he was going to make this happen, but if you're redistributing money there's not much to explain. Take from column A and put in column B. That's the basic gist of it. Pretty simple. I don't necessarily like McCain's plan just so you know; I simply feel it makes more sense than Obama's plan.


Obamas plan is offering more and he plans to raise the taxes on the wealthest americans and corparations which I like. I am a reasonable man no matter what each ones plans our Ill still be holding the short end of the stick.
Honestly Obama's plan truely does offer more and I don't think I could ever argue against this. What I can argue is the impact this plan will have on the American people.

The super rich make up 0.7 of the population, and I'm going to make up a number here for the rich, a generous number I feel (meaning I'm probably overestimating)... we'll say 10% of the population are the rich. So now we have 10.7% of the population trying to support 89.3% of the rest of the US. Keep in mind that the majority of the members of Congress and most high US officials also fall into this 10.7%. Assuming that Congress for once decided to do what's best for the people and not what's best for themselves. The tax rate on this 10.7% would have to be signifigant in order to aid in support of the remaining 270 million (current population is about 304million, I subtracted 10%), we'll say they're getting 15% tax increase (another estimated number.. not fact). Let's factor in the corporations whom hadn't been previously taxed. They are going to want to protect their profits. Layoffs are the easiest way to reduce cost in order to keep profits up. Through Layoffs the corporations free up the cost it would take to pay that person, in addition they will not be penalized in taxes for that 1 person since they are no longer with the company.

Anyway you slice it or dice it it's a win/win situation for the corporations. Directly leading to an increase in Job unemployment. At this point you're exchanging one problem for another. This also directly effects the economy. If people don't have money to spend then they can't buy goods, which means companies don't make money.. and I think you can see how this cycle would just keep repeating itself in a downward spiral.

They are both going at it the wrong way and it seems that there should be more regulations on the Insurance companys and I agree with Pyscho there should be more regulations on hospitals also I know I been in one for 4 months. So I will concede this to you Daihashi and go and get my gun and bible and pray that I dont have my premiums go up anymore so i dont have to go postal on them. I think we need a post for everybody to have to chime in on what whould you do if you where president to help BigWeed with his health care.:rasta::rastasmoke:imp:
YES!!! They are both going about it the wrong way. I never said I particularly cared for McCain's plan; however when comparing them side by side (because let's be honest... these two turd muffins are the only two we really have to pick from... what's Bob Barr going to do :wtf I felt McCain's made more sense for the American people, but just so you know I agree. They are both going about it the wrong way!

I agree about regulation but the problem with regulation is that you end up giving the government more and more control. Meaning if they force the hospitals to reduce costs that means there is going to have to be some special treatment to hospitals from outside organizations: Water companies, Electrical companies, Vendor services, Insurance costs (for doctors and Hospitals.. not for individuals), miscellaneous hospital stock (ie: scrubs, needles, little paper cups), and the list goes on and on. If the situation got bad enough you end up with the government controlling everything. Because you can't regulate one thing without, at some point, having to regulate something else in the future.

While I agree something needs to be done to regulate the hospitals at the same time I'm wary of giving the government any more power over me (yes this does directly effect us, it's similar to the downward spiral I spoke about earlier. I can explain if you request it but for now I'll assume you can see the outcome for yourself).

There's another type of government where they are allowed to regulate and control everything. It's called Communism. While I don't think it'll ever get that extreme; I'm not particularly keen about giving away my freedoms.

Under Obama's plan I don't see it working unless he is able to regulate multiple industries. Because even with taxing the 10.7% of the rich and the corporations.. I don't feel it's going to be enough to provide 304 million Americans with healthcare unless he forces regulation across multiple industries.

Being unemployed in a poor job market with an economy spiraling downward because of a lack of money is not something I look forward to. This is a situation that is created when you tax corporations and try to force regulation on various industries. The middle class is still going to be the one who suffers?

I hope I was able to make my view/stance on this clear.

For the most part you and I are on the same team; we just have different view points on how things will effect us.