Make Your Life Better!

Question by Cat-astrophe: How will universal health care stop foreclosures and stimulate the economy?
These two points were made by Obama in his argument for urgency in passing his health care proposals. Isn’t he robbing “Peter to pay Paul”? This plan would tax businesses more than they currently pay for employee health care.

Best answer:

Answer by Felonius_Monkey
You’re wrong about the tax burden of this new plan. Both employers and employees would save money and more people would have access to healthcare.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Comments (14)

  1. Old Goat said on 04-09-2013

    Universal health care is just another slash with the Obama knife as he continues to cut the heart out of America.

  2. ATJ said on 04-09-2013

    Obama knows that in 2010 we vote for a new senate so he must push his health care agenda pass this year because he is banking that the American people are sick of Pelosi and her cronies, I did not hear him say universal health care I heard we could keep our original plan and our doctors. Unless I missed something his proposal will not be out till the end of the year. I also heard him explain he wants peoples input as to how to go about things. I don’t believe he listens to anyone he will do what he wants.

  3. ritchwilliams said on 04-09-2013

    Shhh….you’re not supposed to be thinking. Shut up now or you’re going to spoil Rahm’s grand scheme of not wasting this crisis in the advancement of their agenda.

  4. Poohcat1 said on 04-09-2013

    Other than for those that experience catastrophic health costs, I can’t see that it will do anything for foreclosures. And it could stimulate the economy by putting thousands to work trying to do the paper work that doctors and hospitals would have to do. Of course, if that happens, they will have to charge more for their services than they do now to pay for it.

    All and all, any time that taxes are increased to the rich or to businesses, you and I (consumers) are actually the ones who end up paying for it. We are at the bottom of the food chain. The ones above us simply pass down their additional costs of doing business to us.

  5. Chris S said on 04-09-2013

    It won’t stop foreclosures OR stimulate the economy. It WILL, however, give the fed’s even more power over our lives. THAT is the real goal of UHC.

  6. oimwoomwio said on 04-09-2013

    Universal health care would free employers from paying for their employees’ insurance, and make “made in America” competitive again.

    It has been estimated that the costs of benefits raise the price of every American car by several thousand dollars over a comparable Euro or Japanese car.

    More business = more jobs = greater economic vitality and security = fewer foreclosures

    Universal coverage = lower medical costs = less risk of catastrophic illness or injury resulting in bankruptcy = fewer foreclosures = greater economic stability.

    I don’t think employers taxes are going to be the basis of a universal coverage plan. The real savings lies in using the government’s vast purchasing power to get a better deal from medical providers (even better than the discounts currently negotiated by insurance companies), and by eliminating multiple redundant bureaucracies of hundreds of different insurers. The last aspect is that the traditional insurers allegiance to shareholders over policyholders would go away, and lower costs still further.

    That’s all I got.

  7. Jim Z said on 04-09-2013

    Felonius is another socialistic idiot! How on earth can you increase healthcare, without adding cost? Medicare is already in such a financial mess, adding more people to it, without adding more taxes isn’t possible.

  8. bretsmith7876 said on 04-09-2013

    It won’t. It’s redistributive Socialism, and Nationalized Socialism at that.=Nazi politics

  9. TomT said on 04-09-2013

    I would bet my car on the fact that most people who do not have health insurance also do not have a mortgage yet Obama says that every thirty seconds in America someone files bankruptcy because they don’t have health care. “They’re losing their homes to foreclosure because they can’t afford health care.” He says. If anything, a universal health care program will result in far more foreclosures because someone has to pay for it and guess who that someone is – us. Obama also has said that medicaid is in shambles and is a drain on taxpayers – doesn’t the government run medicaid? …and now they want to run a universal health care program? Surely there are more than a few democrats who are beginning to wonder if their boy wonder really can’t work wonders after all.

  10. John said on 04-09-2013

    It won’t. Obama just says whatever he thinks you want to hear, while he does whatever he wants to do to bring this country closer to being a socialist dictatorship

  11. GunnyC said on 04-09-2013

    It is all the money everyone saves from free medical care. People have yet to figure out free does not exist but they love it. If all the money needed for this could be gotten from all the savings people and businesses got from it then it would not be a problem but the fact is it will cost more then it saves. Some companies offer higher wages in lieu of benefits so no savings to the company and other companies offer a “rebate” to employees who do not need or want medical benefits and the rest offer medical plans that is figured in to the lower compensation. The first thing that will happen is the companies including benefits as part of the package will have to do is increase pay because that is no longer part of the package or they will lose employees to the companies now getting it from the government plan so the savings is reduced. If you are going to charge the companies for it then the companies paying the higher wages without benefits either lower wages or increase cost. People will pay either way just a matter of directly through income taxes or fees or indirectly by paying increased prices for products because the companies are paying fees or higher taxes. President Obama keeps promising things without any cost to people but that is not real world. If you get cost savings through “more efficiency” in the government program and that goes to paying for the system rather then lower cost then people save nothing but lowering the cost will mean the money has to come from some where whether fees, taxes or decrease in services. Americans spend a huge amount on medical but part of that would be unnecessary or not allowed as it is cosmetic or not required; people would still want those things so would pay for them any way. The thing about getting this and saving all this money or costing nothing is not logical when you think about it but all many are seeing is something for nothing.

  12. NIkki's Tea Party said on 04-09-2013

    Doctors will be able to buy those 2nd & third houses & rent them out at exorbitant rates to poor slobs who cant pay their mortgages & pay their ridiculous malpractice insurance rates.

  13. wider scope said on 04-09-2013

    No, but after we’ve lost everything we have, we can check ourselves into the hospital and live rent free.

    Right?

  14. billiejean254 said on 05-09-2013

    Here’s something to think about: according to the census bureau, of the 47 million or so that are uninsured almost 10 million are illegal immigrants, 8 million make over 75,000 a year, another 8 million make over 50,000 a year, and 14 million qualify for medic-aid or medicare but do not apply. Hmmm. makes you think that maybe our system isn’t so bad after all. So Obama needs to quit with his fear mongering and quit lying to us. There are a lot of unemployed, but 47 million is very misleading. Give us a real number!

    Also the idea is that by giving health care to everyone, businesses don’t have to pay for it, and then they can give more jobs, increase profit, and help the economy. Which sounds great, if you’re stupid. Since Universal health care is insanely expensive, guess who pays for it? raised taxes on business and on the rich, (and apparently companies that aren’t green). So it’s basically a beat-around the the bush way to distribute wealth. And ask yourself this? Is it a good idea to take from from the rich? Take money from a poor man, and he becomes poorer, take money from a rich man, and he goes to work and fires his workers. So which is worse? MAYBE GOVERNMENT JUST SHOULDN’T TAKE PEOPLES MONEY!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *