If obama wins..

[eleison]

Is it going to be that bad? Ok, I am a conservative. I would rather McCain win.. but its going to be close and theres a real possibility that McCain will lose. With that being said, for all the conservatives on this board (i.e., all the liberal weirdos, please stay out of this thread OR at least don't turn this into another Obama #1 circle jerk), how bad will it be?

Heres my take:

1) taxes will be raised -- not sure where, maybe corporate, estate, etc... after all, just raising the top 5% income will not pay for his social programs. Raising taxes has always hurt the economy, there will be more lost jobs... but then that is my humble opinion.

2) firearms rights will be curtailed -- refer to Biden in his youtube speech.

3) Medical coverage will be in shambles. When states have tried the "universal health care" or similar, it has failed.

4) the US will leave Iraq.. but the conservatives were given enough time that Iraq is now somewhat stable. leaving will not be as bad as 4 yours ago.

So.. if Obama gets elected and it does go to pot in 4 years. If you really look at it. Would it be so bad? At least the liberals can finally stop blaming Bush for all their problems. In addition, if Obama does fail, MSM will have no one to blame except themselves. I'm not saying that the current government/economic situation is great, however, I think it can get a lot worse. With that being said, sometimes, people have to loose everything before that appreciate what they do have.

 

[winnar111]

We need to be getting rid of healthcare entitlements that cost 5x what government says they will cost, not enacting more of them.

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll fail like Clinton did.

 

[quest55720]

You also forget about 10 dollar fuel from the Pelosi/Obama do nothing energy plan. If this country can avoid a depression from an Obama presidency we would be very lucky. The only funny thing is the lefts worst nightmare Palin will be the next president in 4 years of economic disaster. A vote for Obama is a vote for the Pelosi plan.

 

[nageov3t]

I think it really depends on how much he's going to kowtow to Pelosi once the democrats have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and all the crap Pelosi's pushing through the house can finally move up... will he have the stones to veto his own party's bills?

 

[RightIsWrong]

1. You are probably right on the taxes. But I think that you are wrong on the economy and jobs. Raising taxes on the top 5% while lowering it on the "bottom" 95% puts more money in more people's hands. More importantly, it puts it into the hands of people that HAVE to spend it to survive in some cases and those that WILL spend it because they really don't know how to invest and/or save.

2. Not a chance. Any law that is passed will be immediately challenged and the SCOTUS will still have the same makeup for a while

3. There are a lot of other, successful implementations of UHC around the world. Just because a couple of states have done a less than stellar job of it doesn't mean that those are the only choices that Obama has to choose from when considering if/how he would implement such a program.

4. Agreed for the most part

 

[PokerGuy]

Actually, I don't even think Obama is all that horrible, the part that makes it bad is that he'll be hard pressed to oppose dumb things that congress sends his way, and he'll likely put some bad folks on the SCOTUS, which can't easily be undone later. I was afraid Bush would do the same, but in the end Alito and Roberts aren't zealots like I thought they might be.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it really depends on how much he's going to kowtow to Pelosi once the democrats have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and all the crap Pelosi's pushing through the house can finally move up... will he have the stones to veto his own party's bills?

Like Obama will ever go against his own party. His first act if president will be to sign the fairness doctrine into law.

Other governments might have a decent UHC not this government. There is not 1 program that is not full of bloat. If you really wish medicare level coverage for your family then I guess the Pelosi/Obama plan is what you want.

If you really believe a democratic congress and democratic congress will keep 95% of peoples taxes lower. I have a bridge to sell you real cheap. They will just add new taxes or increase medicare/medicaid tax. Then Obama can claim he kept his pledge while taxing the shit out of the middle/working class.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Other governments might have a decent UHC not this government. There is not 1 program that is not full of bloat. If you really wish medicare level coverage for your family then I guess the Pelosi/Obama plan is what you want.

A mediocre plans beats the crap of the "no plan" that 47 million Americans have now. You do realize that that is almost 1/6 of the country, right?

 

[JohnnyGage]

Anyone who thinks that he can keep taxes low is living in a dreamland. He could keep taxes low, but he would have to curtail spending. With that speech last week he promised everything except a ten dollar a day stipend so that is highly unlikely. This and the no plan energy, where he eshews nuclear and drilling, is going to be his weekness.

 

[jpeyton]

You don't need a PhD to figure out it will be better than the last eight years. McCain will implement the same economic policies as Bush, and we know where that led us.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: quest55720

Other governments might have a decent UHC not this government. There is not 1 program that is not full of bloat. If you really wish medicare level coverage for your family then I guess the Pelosi/Obama plan is what you want.

A mediocre plans beats the crap of the "no plan" that 47 million Americans have now. You do realize that that is almost 1/6 of the country, right?

Perhaps. Until it comes time to pay for it.

UHC is failing in Massachusetts, one of the heathiest, wealthiest, and whitest states in the nation.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: quest55720

Other governments might have a decent UHC not this government. There is not 1 program that is not full of bloat. If you really wish medicare level coverage for your family then I guess the Pelosi/Obama plan is what you want.

A mediocre plans beats the crap of the "no plan" that 47 million Americans have now. You do realize that that is almost 1/6 of the country, right?

Perhaps. Until it comes time to pay for it.

UHC is failing in Massachusetts, one of the heathiest, wealthiest, and whitest states in the nation.

UHC failing in MA - incorrect
One of the Healtiest/Wealhiest - correct
One of the Whitest - incorrect, it's not even in the top 15

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: quest55720

Other governments might have a decent UHC not this government. There is not 1 program that is not full of bloat. If you really wish medicare level coverage for your family then I guess the Pelosi/Obama plan is what you want.

A mediocre plans beats the crap of the "no plan" that 47 million Americans have now. You do realize that that is almost 1/6 of the country, right?

Perhaps. Until it comes time to pay for it.

UHC is failing in Massachusetts, one of the heathiest, wealthiest, and whitest states in the nation.

I agree. That is why I was specifically saying that there are viable, working alternatives with which to pattern a UHC or partial-UHC plan after.

As for the savings, it would probably be pretty costly up front but should (in theory) get cheaper as it goes along. If people have the access to medical treatment while they are healthy (routine checkups, etc), they are less likely to wait until something is a full blown issue (heart attack, etc). The population as a whole should be healthier when they are nearing eligibility for Medicaid/Medicare which might enable them to stay in the workforce a little longer and/or defer benefits.

Of course, I am talking best case scenario and also hoping that the govt will manage it like a business instead of a welfare program....so I do have those strikes against me.

 

[GTKeeper]

I don't think it will be THAT bad. Here is the underlying problem. I think if EITHER person is elected, taxes are going up in one way or another. There is absolutely no way that we can not tax higher with a 500 billion dollar deficit this year. The money isn't going to come out of thin air.

Now, how those taxes are applied remains to be seen.

Here is what is fundamentally broken with our health system. We as a country spend BY FAR the most money as % of GDP on our health system... and its a private system! Whoever is elected needs to ask the important questions of why we spend so much money in the first place. I think both parties and most people on this board can agree that insurance companies have waayyyyy too much influence over the system.

HOPEFULLY both candidates are smart enough to curtail the massive costs 1st before the begin to implement any kind of major health care reform.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: quest55720

Other governments might have a decent UHC not this government. There is not 1 program that is not full of bloat. If you really wish medicare level coverage for your family then I guess the Pelosi/Obama plan is what you want.

A mediocre plans beats the crap of the "no plan" that 47 million Americans have now. You do realize that that is almost 1/6 of the country, right?

Perhaps. Until it comes time to pay for it.

UHC is failing in Massachusetts, one of the heathiest, wealthiest, and whitest states in the nation.

UHC failing in MA - incorrect
One of the Healtiest/Wealhiest - correct
One of the Whitest - incorrect, it's not even in the top 15

http://www.boston.com/news/hea..._plans_cost_to_double/

The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state's healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.

State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011. Those figures would far outstrip the original plans for the Commonwealth Care program, largely because state officials underestimated the number of uninsured residents.

The state has asked the federal government to shoulder roughly half of the program's cost from 2009 through 2011, but there is no guarantee of that funding. Commonwealth Care provides free or subsidized insurance for low- and moderate-income residents.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If problems do not get better under Obama, the Dems will complain that they were left with a crippled system and they need more time to get things going agin.

Under clinton, everything was rosy until the last year.
As he walked out the door, the market was a lead baloon and AQ wwas planning the attack that would cripple us.

Either one, the US could have handled, together, along with the incompentent leadership (at the time) has caused us grief.

Three factors come into play and one was entirely the Republican doing.

Obama would be coming into an economy that is not consolidating, but sputtering along.
Hopefully there would be no AQ coming in
And he will have a better staff and is not weak enough to not think on his own.
His albatross will be Congress; depending on the makeup, will expect a rubber stamp from him if the Dems have full control. The country can not afford a rubber stamp on spending - it has to be curtailed to get the budget under control first and then let the economy grow to support additional wish lists.

 

[rudder]

If Obama wins I will denounce my citizenship! Then I will just as quickly announce that I am now an illegal living in the U.S.. Life will be good.

Of course if McCain wins I will probably be doing the same thing.

Oh well screwed either way. At least I won't have to pay taxes for a while until my amnesty in finalized.

 

[brencat]

The 47 million uninsured referred to earlier also includes illegals which I'll bet are 25 million of that number. What about working young people in their early 20s who elect not to take a health care plan on a < $30k salary?

You institute UHC without securing the borders first and 1/2 the population of Mexico that isn't already here will make a run for the U.S. for the free health care. At least Clinton specifically mentioned that illegals would be cut out of receiving such care. I've heard no such specific mention by Obama and I don't trust his party on this issue. What about hospitals and doctors? Are they prepared to turn away illegals at the ER? Because if they're not, I want no part of the UHC and the higher taxes and costs that will come with it.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
1. You are probably right on the taxes. But I think that you are wrong on the economy and jobs. Raising taxes on the top 5% while lowering it on the "bottom" 95% puts more money in more people's hands. More importantly, it puts it into the hands of people that HAVE to spend it to survive in some cases and those that WILL spend it because they really don't know how to invest and/or save.

2. Not a chance. Any law that is passed will be immediately challenged and the SCOTUS will still have the same makeup for a while

3. There are a lot of other, successful implementations of UHC around the world. Just because a couple of states have done a less than stellar job of it doesn't mean that those are the only choices that Obama has to choose from when considering if/how he would implement such a program.

4. Agreed for the most part

Taxes is the thing that kills me the most. My first job out of college was in Austin Tx. This was before austin was cool. The only reason Austin ever became the economic city that it is now is because of lower taxes. IBM, AMD, etc.. all moved there because Austin offered lower taxes. Raising taxes on companies just causes them to move to somewhere cheaper -- maybe even out of the country.

Over taxing the top 5% doesn't make sense to me. Theres just not enough money there to pay for all the social programs. Also taxing the rich, just makes a lot of them work less and/or entices them to send all their money overseas. After all, several of my friends decided not to take important 6 figure income jobs because it would require then to work ungodly hours. Now imagine how many more smart american workers would not take these jobs especially if there were being paid even less (due to taxes). People will have more reasons to stay at home and play with their kids -- which maybe a good thing, but bad for the economy. In the end, its about companies completing in a global world and giving smart workers an incentive to work.

I guess I'm most worried about the economy. In a good economy, more people can afford heathcare, etc. However, if the economy goes bad, nobody can afford healthcare even if there is some sort of UHC provided by the government. Not to mention, the deficit. Good economy we can lower it without raising taxes (% percent wise) since people will be working and more people working means more taxes paid.

I guess the way I see it, in my opinion, if Obama is elected and the economy does get worse, in the big scheme of things, its not really that bad. Its one of those ups and downs sort of thing. The US will not turn into a 3rd world. In my opinion, a few people will lose their jobs -- things will be a little slow.. like how they do business in Spain or europe, etc... but we should still be living in one of the best nations in the world. After all, it can only get so bad. Its only 4 years. Besides, I could be wrong.

 

[nakedfrog]

Any Chicken Little conservative pulling his hair out over the possibility of Obama winning makes me laugh.

 

[sportage]

I have a "what if"...

What if something man made or God made happened to Mccain or Obama before November 3rd?

Would the republicans REALLY let Palin run on top and pick a new vp?

Would the demo's REALLY let Joe run on top and again nix Hillary?

I once took a "3-day school" cram course to pass and get my private pilots flying license.
A company called Accelerated Ground School charges $125 for a 3-day ground school test preparation. It worked!

Is there a similar short (very short) term schooling for vp's?
Or would Cheney get in the mix? Bush extension?
"So you wanta be a VP" lottery?

Looking into my crystal ball(s), I can just see this happening to the American people.
Something totally unexpected, coming out of nowhere.
Like 9/11 or the San Fran earthquake back in the 1989.

 

[rpanic]

If Obama wins more people will wear these T-shirts.

Baracktimus Prime

 

[dennilfloss]

How come there are so many black conservatives on AnandTech, yet only one was present at the GOP convention?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: brencat
The 47 million uninsured referred to earlier also includes illegals which I'll bet are 25 million of that number. What about working young people in their early 20s who elect not to take a health care plan on a < $30k salary?

You institute UHC without securing the borders first and 1/2 the population of Mexico that isn't already here will make a run for the U.S. for the free health care. At least Clinton specifically mentioned that illegals would be cut out of receiving such care. I've heard no such specific mention by Obama and I don't trust his party on this issue. What about hospitals and doctors? Are they prepared to turn away illegals at the ER? Because if they're not, I want no part of the UHC and the higher taxes and costs that will come with it.

Why not just use their own?

Healthcare in Mexico

The structure of the health care system is comprised of three components: the social security institute, governmental services for the uninsured, and the private sector that is financed almost completely from out of pocket money. Governmental services include all services that are free in rural areas by the Secretariat of Health and family planning, vaccinations, oral rehydration, and emergency services that are free to all parts of the country.

The argument that we will be invaded by Mexicans who can't afford care (when it is free if they are truly that poor) is a bogus one. Just as Canada isn't invaded by Americans who are uninsured simply for that reason, we won't either.

They are here to work mostly and to help eliminate that, you need to go after board members of the billion dollar farming industry, the billion dollar housing industry and the billion dollar processing industries (all forms, food, lumber, mining, etc). They know that it is happening in their companies and they are allowing it because it makes their bottom line healthier and their wallets fatter.

They come here for free health care is a strawman and fallacious argument because they already have it.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: eleison
Taxes is the thing that kills me the most. My first job out of college was in Austin Tx. This was before austin was cool. The only reason Austin ever became the economic city that it is now is because of lower taxes. IBM, AMD, etc.. all moved there because Austin offered lower taxes. Raising taxes on companies just causes them to move to somewhere cheaper -- maybe even out of the country.

Over taxing the top 5% doesn't make sense to me. Theres just not enough money there to pay for all the social programs. Also taxing the rich, just makes a lot of them work less and/or entices them to send all their money overseas. After all, several of my friends decided not to take important 6 figure income jobs because it would require then to work ungodly hours. Now imagine how many more smart american workers would not take these jobs especially if there were being paid even less (due to taxes). People will have more reasons to stay at home and play with their kids -- which maybe a good thing, but bad for the economy. In the end, its about companies completing in a global world and giving smart workers an incentive to work.

You're right, those reaping the most benefit from the country shouldn't do more to help it. Screw the country that helped you to make your piles of money!

(Also, dunno when you got out of college, but Austin was cool 12 years ago)