For starters, being FORCED to buy a product or service from the government! Wait until they do get 'single payer'. What if Obama's top supporter was Bill Gates and quid pro quo Obama issued an Executive Order that FORCED everyone to buy a Microsoft computer or tablet or smart phone.
And don't you mean 'trying to go into effect'...
Did you know that some states FORCE all drivers to carry auto insurance?!?
Totalitarian!
Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It was a sunny day in Philadelphia in 1787, and the Constitutional convention had just finished its work. A woman, watching the esteemed gentlemen congratulate themselves, approached one of the young nation's leading statesmen, Ben Franklin. "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" she asked. "A Republic, madam..." Franklin quickly answered, "if you can keep it."
Thats easy.... Because most (NOT ALL) of those are leeching off the government, do nothing to take care of themselves or their families. The government has created this mindset in people, especially the food stamp president we have today. Personal responsibility is lacking. Why work if its handed to you. If you are not proud enough to fend for yourself and provide for your family, then you probably are not going to be one that lives and healthy responsible life.
Please save the 1% Story of people who can't work.... It a tired story and doesn't change the other 99%
Sorry for being the Master of the Obvious here....
You know who are leeching off the government? Billionaires like Mitt Romney who pay almost nothing in taxes and move their money overseas to avoid taxes), yet use the commons to a greater extent than the common citizen. Moreover, he and his cronies at Bain drove companies into bankruptcy and left taxpayers holding the bill while he paid ZERO taxes for a decade or more.
It doesn't help that the insurance companies vary across the 50 states, are allowed to be for-profit entities, and are allowed to increase premiums so much each year,
Insurers are not allowed to offer national insurance plans. Them "varying" across the 50 states, is due to regulation. Let insurers offer national plans and premiums will go down. Let insurers offer plans tailored to specific markets (eg: people with diabetes, for instance, could benefit from a national plans buying peer) and premiums will go down. Both of these are forbidden by governments.
As to complaining that they are "for profit" you don't seem to be aware of the reality.
Insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in premiums. Insurance companies, on the insurance business, operate at a LOSS. And they do so by design- they keep premiums low so more people can afford insurance. They make their profit on the investment returns between when they take premiums and pay out claims. This is an extremely efficient form of financing.
Compare this to government programs. Welfare pays out only %25 of what it takes in.
You think a government program that wastes %75 of the money is better than an insurance program that pays out %110 of what it takes in? And you complain that they make %5 on the float?
This is how messed up the debate is-- people in america are told this nonsense about "greedy insurance companies" and believe because of their ideological faith-- with no regard to the science of economics or the reality of the situation.
PS- you complain about premiums go up. but that's a direct result of Obamacare. It criminalizes selling private insurance. It includes under "selling" merely continuing an existing plan at a higher premium. With Obama printing money like the end of days, inflation is driving up costs, which means that once ACA takes full effect, the plans will have to shut down if the costs exceed premiums by too much. So they are raising them now, in the hopes of being able offer insurance to people at this rate for a longer period of time.
Once again, the results of government action is blamed on the private sector, and used as a justification for a criminal violation of human rights such as Obamacare.
I'm new to my area and I have not seen a doctor in over 20 years. I am calling to find a doctor to discuss a matter. I found out I have to see a specialist. Fine. Called the number and they told me I have to have a referral. What? I have to pay a doctor that I will never see again to write on a piece of paper to go see this other doctor.
Paying 2 doctors to see one! Somehow I have to think government was involved in this!!!
Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?
Driving is a right, not a priviledge. Thus these states that require drivers insurance are just as much violating rights. It's a priori judgement of financial irresponsibility and violates presumed innocents and most other legal precedents.
And it's this kind of nanny state BS that lets them go for even more power, such as taking over health insurance with obmacare.
The bottom line is, our opponents don't believe in human rights. They believe in collectivism. They believe we all should be slaves to the state - that's why they talk about "social contract " and "the commons" and other nonsense.
They want us all enslaved to profit a few men who run government and get rich off of our efforts. Somehow they think that is "good" for people.
No... They were accurate at the time of publication... Likely, with all the implementation details, waivers and exceptions, they are much more complex today!
A morbid exercise (especially in the middle chart) is to try and find where the "beneficiary" of the process is (kinda' looks like an afterthought)... Then to guesstimate where the bulk of the taxpayers' money goes!
Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.
Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.
Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?
Driving is a right, not a priviledge. Thus these states that require drivers insurance are just as much violating rights. It's a priori judgement of financial irresponsibility and violates presumed innocents and most other legal precedents.
And it's this kind of nanny state BS that lets them go for even more power, such as taking over health insurance with obmacare.
The bottom line is, our opponents don't believe in human rights. They believe in collectivism. They believe we all should be slaves to the state - that's why they talk about "social contract " and "the commons" and other nonsense.
They want us all enslaved to profit a few men who run government and get rich off of our efforts. Somehow they think that is "good" for people.
I think if you review the constitution of any of the 50 states -- you will find that driving is a privilege that is granted by the state and can be revoked by the state.
But if you had a grandson that is now safe at home because a President had the gumption to get out of a war we should have never been in in the first place…
Or a niece that will now get continuing palliative care…
And perhaps like the neighbors to the north who after more than 30 years of so-called socialized medicine, have better medical outcomes, lower morbidity, less infant deaths at birth, longer life, etc., at a lower cost, one may start thinking a little different…
Unfortunately, our great grandson may never benefit from it because there is a greater chance here that someone will pull out an AK-49 and shoot up his classroom….
Yep. If only we let the Tool do what more than 90% of the people wanted to do.
People also hated the idea of Medicare when it was announced.
History has proven those people correct.
All of these government programs intervening in the market have the result of making people poorer...which the politicians turn around and use as an excuse to take more power and money from the economy. It's a vicious cycle.
Most of you haters on here are simply uneducated about what you hate. Learn the facts about the ACA before spouting off against 30 million people receiving affordable healthcare. Folks like you are what is wrong with this country.
Just watch Kimmel's video where he asks people if they are for the ACA or Obamacare and everyone responds "Oh I am definitely against Obamacare, but I support the ACA." They are the same thing!! SMH
It doesn't help that the insurance companies vary across the 50 states, are allowed to be for-profit entities, and are allowed to increase premiums so much each year,
1) Insurers are not allowed to offer national insurance plans. Them "varying" across the 50 states, is due to regulation. Let insurers offer national plans and premiums will go down. Let insurers offer plans tailored to specific markets (eg: people with diabetes, for instance, could benefit from a national plans buying peer) and premiums will go down. Both of these are forbidden by governments.
2) Insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in premiums. Insurance companies, on the insurance business, operate at a LOSS. And they do so by design- they keep premiums low so more people can afford insurance. They make their profit on the investment returns between when they take premiums and pay out claims. This is an extremely efficient form of financing.
3) You think a government program that wastes %75 of the money is better than an insurance program that pays out %110 of what it takes in? And you complain that they make %5 on the float?
4) PS- you complain about premiums go up. but that's a direct result of Obamacare. It criminalizes selling private insurance. It includes under "selling" merely continuing an existing plan at a higher premium. With Obama printing money like the end of days, inflation is driving up costs, which means that once ACA takes full effect, the plans will have to shut down if the costs exceed premiums by too much. So they are raising them now, in the hopes of being able offer insurance to people at this rate for a longer period of time.
1) You should look up the legislative debate (leading up to Obamacare) on who actually squelched the idea of allowing people to buy insurance across state lines: you'd be surprised to discover that it was both Republicans and Democrats. The concern was that allowing competition across states will drive out a lot of smaller and/or less efficient insurance companies. The industry was dead set against this, and lobbied quite heavily and successfully. These are all facts that you can look up.
2) Investment returns come from assets under management (AUM). AUM, after adjusting for cumulative investment gains/losses and payouts, are the same as cumulative historical premiums. In other words, investment returns come from financial assets that have been bought with premiums that people have paid in over time.
3) No one here was comparing welfare to insurance, as I could see. This point is irrelevant.
4) Insurance premiums in employer-based health care (which is all I have data for; but that accounts for a vast proportion of the private health insurance in this country) have risen substantially faster than inflation in the past couple of decades. In 2012 and 2013 -- since Obamacare was passed and then became law -- the growth has actually slowed! Here are the facts: http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health-benefits/?special=exhibits.
Look, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.
Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.
The preamble to the Constitution states the purpose of (and reasons for) the Constitution -- it does not enumerate any rights.
Show me where in the Constitution that "Health Care" is an enumerated right! It is not.
The Constitution does provide a mechanism to enumerate rights:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The enumerated rights are made in amendments to the Constitution. The first 10 amendments are the ones the founding fathers felt were most important for a start:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Actually, I had stated the facts on UPS in a post above, which Macboy Pro apparently failed to read, or simply ignored: their decision only affects working spouses whose employers offer their own health care. Non-working spouses, or spouses whose employers do not offer health care, are not affected.
And.... It is affecting them, PERIOD. The government should not be involved in healthcare. It is affecting me as my rates have grown DRAMATICALLY and I received a call today indicating my coverage is changing. WHY? The UNAFFORDABLE care act.
Let's face it, there are many millions of people in this country that do not deserve to have any healthcare. They are leeches upon society, and those who do not pay their fair share should not be entitled to any benefits. Their well being is not my concern at all. I don't really care about what happens to them, to be honest.
You know who are leeching off the government? Billionaires like Mitt Romney who pay almost nothing in taxes and move their money overseas to avoid taxes), yet use the commons to a greater extent than the common citizen. Moreover, he and his cronies at Bain drove companies into bankruptcy and left taxpayers holding the bill while he paid ZERO taxes for a decade or more.
F'ing leeches.
At least he pays taxes which is more that those forcing higher taxes on us are doing. And if you don't like the law that allows less taxes to be paid on capital gains, make efforts to change it. Romney and others are not breaking the law, but following it.
What is hypocritical is billionaire Buffett that stated he should not be paying less taxes then his secretary when he has the ability to tell his accountant to pay taxes on all his money as if it were earned income rather than cap gains. But he does not and pays the lower tax while complaining about it. That's hypocrisy!
Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.
Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.
Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.
Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.
You have to be kidding. First of all, Driving is a PRIVILEGE in all 50 states. Nowhere is it a right. NOWHERE! If you want the privilege to drive, you can follow the rules. Heath insurance is OPTIONAL.
Is Applecare a right you are entitled to? LOL. OMG the left is clueless. This explains why we are here and why we need to educate people and test them before they can vote.
The left is against war, or so they say. But their war against undesirable fetuses is stronger than ever. Many millions slaughtered, with more to come.
Killing a terrorist = bad
Murdering a fetus, an innocent fetus who certainly never harmed anybody = good
Comments
Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?
http://freedom-school.com/a_republic.htm
You know who are leeching off the government? Billionaires like Mitt Romney who pay almost nothing in taxes and move their money overseas to avoid taxes), yet use the commons to a greater extent than the common citizen. Moreover, he and his cronies at Bain drove companies into bankruptcy and left taxpayers holding the bill while he paid ZERO taxes for a decade or more.
F'ing leeches.
It doesn't help that the insurance companies vary across the 50 states, are allowed to be for-profit entities, and are allowed to increase premiums so much each year,
Insurers are not allowed to offer national insurance plans. Them "varying" across the 50 states, is due to regulation. Let insurers offer national plans and premiums will go down. Let insurers offer plans tailored to specific markets (eg: people with diabetes, for instance, could benefit from a national plans buying peer) and premiums will go down. Both of these are forbidden by governments.
As to complaining that they are "for profit" you don't seem to be aware of the reality.
Insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in premiums. Insurance companies, on the insurance business, operate at a LOSS. And they do so by design- they keep premiums low so more people can afford insurance. They make their profit on the investment returns between when they take premiums and pay out claims. This is an extremely efficient form of financing.
Compare this to government programs. Welfare pays out only %25 of what it takes in.
You think a government program that wastes %75 of the money is better than an insurance program that pays out %110 of what it takes in? And you complain that they make %5 on the float?
This is how messed up the debate is-- people in america are told this nonsense about "greedy insurance companies" and believe because of their ideological faith-- with no regard to the science of economics or the reality of the situation.
PS- you complain about premiums go up. but that's a direct result of Obamacare. It criminalizes selling private insurance. It includes under "selling" merely continuing an existing plan at a higher premium. With Obama printing money like the end of days, inflation is driving up costs, which means that once ACA takes full effect, the plans will have to shut down if the costs exceed premiums by too much. So they are raising them now, in the hopes of being able offer insurance to people at this rate for a longer period of time.
Once again, the results of government action is blamed on the private sector, and used as a justification for a criminal violation of human rights such as Obamacare.
A great example of why healthcare cost so much.
I'm new to my area and I have not seen a doctor in over 20 years. I am calling to find a doctor to discuss a matter. I found out I have to see a specialist. Fine. Called the number and they told me I have to have a referral. What? I have to pay a doctor that I will never see again to write on a piece of paper to go see this other doctor.
Paying 2 doctors to see one! Somehow I have to think government was involved in this!!!
Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?
Driving is a right, not a priviledge. Thus these states that require drivers insurance are just as much violating rights. It's a priori judgement of financial irresponsibility and violates presumed innocents and most other legal precedents.
And it's this kind of nanny state BS that lets them go for even more power, such as taking over health insurance with obmacare.
The bottom line is, our opponents don't believe in human rights. They believe in collectivism. They believe we all should be slaves to the state - that's why they talk about "social contract " and "the commons" and other nonsense.
They want us all enslaved to profit a few men who run government and get rich off of our efforts. Somehow they think that is "good" for people.
No... They were accurate at the time of publication... Likely, with all the implementation details, waivers and exceptions, they are much more complex today!
A morbid exercise (especially in the middle chart) is to try and find where the "beneficiary" of the process is (kinda' looks like an afterthought)... Then to guesstimate where the bulk of the taxpayers' money goes!
Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.
Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.
I think if you review the constitution of any of the 50 states -- you will find that driving is a privilege that is granted by the state and can be revoked by the state.
Driving is a right, not a priviledge.
Where does it state that?
What a tool our President is.
Yep.
But if you had a grandson that is now safe at home because a President had the gumption to get out of a war we should have never been in in the first place…
Or a niece that will now get continuing palliative care…
And perhaps like the neighbors to the north who after more than 30 years of so-called socialized medicine, have better medical outcomes, lower morbidity, less infant deaths at birth, longer life, etc., at a lower cost, one may start thinking a little different…
Unfortunately, our great grandson may never benefit from it because there is a greater chance here that someone will pull out an AK-49 and shoot up his classroom….
Yep. If only we let the Tool do what more than 90% of the people wanted to do.
People also hated the idea of Medicare when it was announced.
History has proven those people correct.
All of these government programs intervening in the market have the result of making people poorer...which the politicians turn around and use as an excuse to take more power and money from the economy. It's a vicious cycle.
LOL. I've got news for you:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2012/Jul/Medicare-v-Employer-Insurance.aspx
It was in Post #47, but since you seem to have missed it, I thought I'd help out.
Just watch Kimmel's video where he asks people if they are for the ACA or Obamacare and everyone responds "Oh I am definitely against Obamacare, but I support the ACA." They are the same thing!! SMH
It doesn't help that the insurance companies vary across the 50 states, are allowed to be for-profit entities, and are allowed to increase premiums so much each year,
1) Insurers are not allowed to offer national insurance plans. Them "varying" across the 50 states, is due to regulation. Let insurers offer national plans and premiums will go down. Let insurers offer plans tailored to specific markets (eg: people with diabetes, for instance, could benefit from a national plans buying peer) and premiums will go down. Both of these are forbidden by governments.
2) Insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in premiums. Insurance companies, on the insurance business, operate at a LOSS. And they do so by design- they keep premiums low so more people can afford insurance. They make their profit on the investment returns between when they take premiums and pay out claims. This is an extremely efficient form of financing.
3) You think a government program that wastes %75 of the money is better than an insurance program that pays out %110 of what it takes in? And you complain that they make %5 on the float?
4) PS- you complain about premiums go up. but that's a direct result of Obamacare. It criminalizes selling private insurance. It includes under "selling" merely continuing an existing plan at a higher premium. With Obama printing money like the end of days, inflation is driving up costs, which means that once ACA takes full effect, the plans will have to shut down if the costs exceed premiums by too much. So they are raising them now, in the hopes of being able offer insurance to people at this rate for a longer period of time.
1) You should look up the legislative debate (leading up to Obamacare) on who actually squelched the idea of allowing people to buy insurance across state lines: you'd be surprised to discover that it was both Republicans and Democrats. The concern was that allowing competition across states will drive out a lot of smaller and/or less efficient insurance companies. The industry was dead set against this, and lobbied quite heavily and successfully. These are all facts that you can look up.
2) Investment returns come from assets under management (AUM). AUM, after adjusting for cumulative investment gains/losses and payouts, are the same as cumulative historical premiums. In other words, investment returns come from financial assets that have been bought with premiums that people have paid in over time.
3) No one here was comparing welfare to insurance, as I could see. This point is irrelevant.
4) Insurance premiums in employer-based health care (which is all I have data for; but that accounts for a vast proportion of the private health insurance in this country) have risen substantially faster than inflation in the past couple of decades. In 2012 and 2013 -- since Obamacare was passed and then became law -- the growth has actually slowed! Here are the facts: http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health-benefits/?special=exhibits.
Look, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
The preamble to the Constitution states the purpose of (and reasons for) the Constitution -- it does not enumerate any rights.
Show me where in the Constitution that "Health Care" is an enumerated right! It is not.
You can read it here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution does provide a mechanism to enumerate rights:
The enumerated rights are made in amendments to the Constitution. The first 10 amendments are the ones the founding fathers felt were most important for a start:
Actually, I had stated the facts on UPS in a post above, which Macboy Pro apparently failed to read, or simply ignored: their decision only affects working spouses whose employers offer their own health care. Non-working spouses, or spouses whose employers do not offer health care, are not affected.
And.... It is affecting them, PERIOD. The government should not be involved in healthcare. It is affecting me as my rates have grown DRAMATICALLY and I received a call today indicating my coverage is changing. WHY? The UNAFFORDABLE care act.
You know who are leeching off the government? Billionaires like Mitt Romney who pay almost nothing in taxes and move their money overseas to avoid taxes), yet use the commons to a greater extent than the common citizen. Moreover, he and his cronies at Bain drove companies into bankruptcy and left taxpayers holding the bill while he paid ZERO taxes for a decade or more.
F'ing leeches.
At least he pays taxes which is more that those forcing higher taxes on us are doing. And if you don't like the law that allows less taxes to be paid on capital gains, make efforts to change it. Romney and others are not breaking the law, but following it.
What is hypocritical is billionaire Buffett that stated he should not be paying less taxes then his secretary when he has the ability to tell his accountant to pay taxes on all his money as if it were earned income rather than cap gains. But he does not and pays the lower tax while complaining about it. That's hypocrisy!
Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.
Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.
Well if Life is a right, then why abortion?
Thanks for making my point! Health care is a right written into the Constitution "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" & "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE". Driving is a privilege.
Still, the government FORCES drivers to carry auto insurance, which is no different than forcing those who can afford health coverage to buy it. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AFAIK, EVERYONE used the health care system at some point. And those who have no insurance are the freeloaders, just like those who don't buy auto insurance.
You have to be kidding. First of all, Driving is a PRIVILEGE in all 50 states. Nowhere is it a right. NOWHERE! If you want the privilege to drive, you can follow the rules. Heath insurance is OPTIONAL.
Is Applecare a right you are entitled to? LOL. OMG the left is clueless. This explains why we are here and why we need to educate people and test them before they can vote.
Well if Life is a right, then why abortion?
The left is against war, or so they say. But their war against undesirable fetuses is stronger than ever. Many millions slaughtered, with more to come.
Killing a terrorist = bad
Murdering a fetus, an innocent fetus who certainly never harmed anybody = good
Leftist logic = psychotic