If You Were At The Helm...

[andyrowe]

Which way would you steer us if you were Obama?

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. major pushing in this push poll. lol.

:bounce:

[andyrowe]

2. busted!

hehehe

[LooseWilly]

3. But the assumption that progressive reforms will push up unemployment...

... to 30% or more is confirmed by Republicans. How could that be a push?... I'm a progressive though.... so I obviously want unemployment at 30%+.... the poll says so.

[billyoc]

4. Ah, shit!

I accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan.

[Oregone]

5. "drastic progressive change" creates 30% unemployment?

Someone needs to remove their head from their ass

[vaberella]

7. Implement single-payer, and in the short run there can be a significant rise in unemploy. n/t

[Oregone]

8. Why?

You think the entire country is employed by private insurers and medical billing services? Bahh.

Private insurers also wont go up in smoke. There will be consolidation and they will go into niche, high profit services (dental/eye-wear).

For those that are unemployed, single-payer would be an immediate boon to small business in America (also big-business).

As much as you can loosely guess of the numbers that would be immediately unemployed, I could just as wildly guess of the hiring sprees some employers could go on, no longer saddled by expensive private insurance programs. To top it off, Ill make the claim that consumer spending and sentiment would instantly improve (thereby stimulating the economy). With the 62% of bankruptcies caused by medical problems instantly eliminated, and without the worry of saving for cancer, people will be more encouraged to spend.

BTW, I think the Physicians for National Health Program actually ran the numbers. Whatever study I saw, it was from a wash to a gain in jobs

30% unemployement? My ass.

Progressive legislation....like Keynesian economics....yep, that sure does drastically cause unemployment.

[vaberella]

10. I never stated 30% unemployment. But a rise in unemployment by 2% is significant.

In any event, yes there is. Crowding out is the fundamental culprit. You have to realize that health insurance companies are a massive big business. You can find them on any and every single street corner.

Do you know with Medicaid if you get it they sign you up with a well known health insurance company? Imagine the death of let's say something like Fidelis, millions of Americans will be out of health insurance and to maintain those millions of Americans are millions of Americans at call centers. In New York City, Long Island has a massive Fidelis call center that employs a good hundred of people, this doesn't include the agents out in the field who are handling cases and bringing in members, and this also doesn't include any deals they have with Big Pharma. Which ultimately affects Big Pharma big time (which I don't care). That leads to lots of scientists and factory workers out of work. Notice the near collapse of Pfizer, and what that could of done. It was pretty bad.


So when you implement something like single payer the short run affects are massive, until of course more facilities are built to meet the demand of people---then all those formerly in the private sector insurance will find some place later in a government run sector. So they kind of break even with the public sector still providing more jobs----in the long run though. Not immediate short run and during the transition period there will be a lot of lay offs mainly due to crowding out affect. Many of these former health insurance agencies will end up shrinking massively---if they remain in existence at all.

[vaberella]

6. None of the choices are adequate enough. n/t

[NoPasaran]

9. Speaking personally, I'd annex the Sudetenland

[FSogol]

11. Other: I would post a poll so long-winded that the actual options wouldn't completely appear

But that's just me.
:shrug:

[dorkulon]

12. Hmmm. I can't decide between causing a de and implementing an r

:dilemma: