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.
OMG. First of all using the phrase F'ing shows your education level and the reason why you need the government. Second of all, if you do not have a dictionary, go down to the public library (that my taxes pay for) and lookup the word leech. Since when does NOT giving the government your money make you a leech. I GUARANTEE Mitt Romney has contributed 100 times what you could possibly have contributed in your life to the government. My guess is that you VOTE for a living.
Just so you know, YOUR president has driven MANY MANY MANY companies to bankruptcy, leaving all the employees holding their bills and mortgages. Get a clue, then a job.
It's funny how opposing theft, and opposing the destruction of a large swath of the US economy is spun as "rooting for failure".
The ACA violates people's rights, it criminalizes sales of private insurance, it forces people to buy plans that are a worse deal than they would be able to get in the private sector, and it is a naked attempt for the government to nationalize the healthcare industry.
If, as they claim, insurance companies were being too greedy, then the government could have created their own legitimate insurance system, that didn't take any profit, and just paid out claims from premiums, and offered it as a competitive choice for people.
That's what they would do if they actually wanted to help people.
But they just want power, so they criminalized the competition (eg: private insurance) because they knew they couldn't compete if people had freedom of choice, and eliminated the right for the young and healthy to have very light or no-insurance forcing people to buy their plan.
This violates rights all around... it's unconscionable. And it shows their intentions, unlike their rhetoric, are not noble in the least.
"Criminalizes"? Hell it PROMOTES sale of private insurance. What do you imagine is for sale in the exchanges???? Oh and purchasing from the exchanges isn't required. Oh and since there's ZERO in the law regarding governmental takeover of the healthcare delivery system that's one more ovetrsimplifying echo of some bumpersticker slogan in my view.
Just like "Death Panels"
Just like "Pulling the plug on GranMa"
Just like Palin's "Death squads for the unproductive".
Just like "Socialized Medicine".
etc.
etc.
etc.
Read the laws, they're really not all that long (really wide margins that GPO uses...)
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.
"Optional"? Not when the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney have their way eh?
Well, if you're Pro-Life, then certainly you're pro universal coverage. Otherwise, who is going to pay for pre-natal exams, maternal and children's health care? Or do you only care about the unborn?
Remember, the Pope called our for-profit health care system immoral, just as Jesus would have. . .
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 gov forces you to have auto insurance, but does not force you to drive. If you don't want to pay it, walk. This is to protect those who do pay willingly. For if you hit someone and they don't have insurance, or money, or possessions, you are out of luck. If you want the privilege to drive, you have to be covered for wrongs you may cause.
If you don't want to pay for the ACA, your only choice is to give up citizenship. So congress passes a law that requires you to own something to be a citizen.
"Criminalizes"? Hell it PROMOTES sale of private insurance. What do you imagine is for sale in the exchanges???? Oh and purchasing from the exchanges isn't required. Oh and since there's ZERO in the law regarding governmental takeover of the healthcare delivery system that's one more ovetrsimplifying echo of some bumpersticker slogan in my view.
Just like "Death Panels"
Just like "Pulling the plug on GranMa"
Just like Palin's "Death squads for the unproductive".
Just like "Socialized Medicine".
etc.
etc.
etc.
Read the laws, they're really not all that long (really wide margins that GPO uses...)
Death Panels: Yes, there will be people making medical decisions for you outside of you and your doctor that may deny you care. Sure, your options is to pay for it yourself, and I recommend that, however, that does not remove the fact.
Pulling the plug on GranMa: Yes, there will be those that will make decisions based on quality of life that you may not agree with, thus pulling the plug. Sure, your options is to pay for it yourself, and I recommend that, however, that does not remove the fact.
Death squads: same as above
Socialized Medicine: socialized medicine |?so????la?zd ?m?d?s?n|
noun
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.
Yep, that is what the ACA is. And I'm sure you read every page of the what, 3' stack of law and regulations?
To prote private insurance, congress only needs to lift the law that restricts them from selling across State lines. However, insurance companies love the ACA as they will raise rates on most everyone $50k income and above to pay for those below that. Does not get much more socialized or unfair than that.
The gov forces you to have auto insurance, but does not force you to drive. If you don't want to pay it, walk. This is to protect those who do pay willingly. For if you hit someone and they don't have insurance, or money, or possessions, you are out of luck. If you want the privilege to drive, you have to be covered for wrongs you may cause.
If you don't want to pay for the ACA, your only choice is to give up citizenship. So congress passes a law that requires you to own something to be a citizen.
Hmm. . . Are you suggesting that one can never use the health care system? That one can choose to never get sick? Ok, then I can see why one would not need health care and should not need to purchase it. For mortals, though, they (like drivers who don't pay insurance) they are FREELOADERS if they don't buy health insurance.
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.
I also love when peope attack the rich. Romney pays how much? Millions of dollars each year into the government, and he gets what in return? Drives on the same roads, has the same vote, gets the same mail service, and so on and so on. Yet, probably 30% or more don't pay any taxes and they get these same benefits.
So why do the rich have to pay so much more for the same government services? Plus the rich pay 90% of the US taxes, which I think is very unfair, don't you?
Hmm. . . Are you suggesting that one can never use the health care system? That one can choose to never get sick? Ok, then I can see why one would not need health care and should not need to purchase it. For mortals, though, they (like drivers who don't pay insurance) they are FREELOADERS if they don't buy health insurance.
I agree that those that don't pay and use are freeloaders. But I have not had health insurance or seen a doctor in over 25+ years, but now I have to pay just to be a citizen of this country? I choose to pay to stay well, not pay to get better.
But to your freeloading point. I guess you agree then that all should pay some taxes as all get benefits from the government? Roads, mail, military, etc.?
OMG. First of all using the phrase F'ing shows your education level and the reason why you need the government. Second of all, if you do not have a dictionary, go down to the public library (that my taxes pay for) and lookup the word leech. Since when does NOT giving the government your money make you a leech. I GUARANTEE Mitt Romney has contributed 100 times what you could possibly have contributed in your life to the government. My guess is that you VOTE for a living.
Just so you know, YOUR president has driven MANY MANY MANY companies to bankruptcy, leaving all the employees holding their bills and mortgages. Get a clue, then a job.
Let me try again:
Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.
I agree that those that don't pay and use are freeloaders. But I have not had health insurance or seen a doctor in over 25+ years, but now I have to pay just to be a citizen of this country? I choose to pay to stay well, not pay to get better.
But to your freeloading point. I guess you agree then that all should pay some taxes as all get benefits from the government? Roads, mail, military, etc.?
I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?
Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?
Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.
FUCKING leeches. . . Is that better?
Romney paid no taxes? Which years? When he ran for president, he had to disclose his taxes and it showed he paid taxes.
How about the 30% plus people in this country that don't pay any taxes at all?
I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?
Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?
If I do, and need a doctor, I will pay for it, just like I pay for everything else in life that I want or need.
If you libs are so concerned about people's welfare, then why not make food free as eating is more of an emergent need?
If you want to drive, you need insurance. That is so much different than if I want to be a citizen I need to buy healthcare. You can choose not to drive, but I have to leave the country? Very different.
It's funny how opposing theft, and opposing the destruction of a large swath of the US economy is spun as "rooting for failure".
The ACA violates people's rights, it criminalizes sales of private insurance, it forces people to buy plans that are a worse deal than they would be able to get in the private sector, and it is a naked attempt for the government to nationalize the healthcare industry.
If, as they claim, insurance companies were being too greedy, then the government could have created their own legitimate insurance system, that didn't take any profit, and just paid out claims from premiums, and offered it as a competitive choice for people.
That's what they would do if they actually wanted to help people.
But they just want power, so they criminalized the competition (eg: private insurance) because they knew they couldn't compete if people had freedom of choice, and eliminated the right for the young and healthy to have very light or no-insurance forcing people to buy their plan.
This violates rights all around... it's unconscionable. And it shows their intentions, unlike their rhetoric, are not noble in the least.
"Criminalizes"? Hell it PROMOTES sale of private insurance. What do you imagine is for sale in the exchanges???? Oh and purchasing from the exchanges isn't required. Oh and since there's ZERO in the law regarding governmental takeover of the healthcare delivery system that's one more ovetrsimplifying echo of some bumpersticker slogan in my view.
Just like "Death Panels"
Just like "Pulling the plug on GranMa"
Just like Palin's "Death squads for the unproductive".
Just like "Socialized Medicine".
etc.
etc.
etc.
Read the laws, they're really not all that long (really wide margins that GPO uses...)
Romney paid no taxes? Which years? When he ran for president, he had to disclose his taxes and it showed he paid taxes.
How about the 30% plus people in this country that don't pay any taxes at all?
That's a myth, since they pay property and sales tax. But I'm pretty sure they don't use the courts, the military, the police, the firefighters, the roads, the educational system, etc to the same extent that these billionaire leeches do.
I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?
Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?
And I think you are missing the point of the ACA. We, the tax payers, are paying for those who don't have the money, but do use the service, such as emergency rooms. So who is the leach (your term).
It is mandated so the youth will pay into a system (ponzi scheme) to pay for the services of the old. Would it not be better to have everyone set up a health savings account that they can gain interest on, use, and will to their family when they die?
If I do, and need a doctor, I will pay for it, just like I pay for everything else in life that I want or need.
If you libs are so concerned about people's welfare, then why not make food free as eating is more of an emergent need?
If you want to drive, you need insurance. That is so much different than if I want to be a citizen I need to buy healthcare. You can choose not to drive, but I have to leave the country? Very different.
It's no different at all. Everyone I know was born and will die in a hospital. Many of them require emergency care at some point in their lives. I guess if one can prove that one has millions of dollars in case of an auto accident or medical calamity, then it would make sense to not "force" them to buy insurance. For everyone else who couldn't afford cancer treatment or killing another motorist, insurance should be required.
If you don't want to pay for the ACA, your only choice is to give up citizenship.
You could say that about any individual government program. For example, if I don't want to pay for the war in Afghanistan, my only choice is to give up citizenship. I think unless you want to be a hermit in the woods, that kind of compromise is a fact of life.
In this case, I can understand the underlying principle of smaller government, or cutting government programs that help poor people, or whatever. I can't understand the absolute fervor to stop at all costs what basically amounts to a set of new regulations on the insurance industry. Yeah, go out and protest whatever you disagree with, that's fine. But maybe the reason this law is moving forward is that it's actually better than the socialist, government takeover, bankrupting, corrupt boondoggle it has been made out to be.
Comments
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.
OMG. First of all using the phrase F'ing shows your education level and the reason why you need the government. Second of all, if you do not have a dictionary, go down to the public library (that my taxes pay for) and lookup the word leech. Since when does NOT giving the government your money make you a leech. I GUARANTEE Mitt Romney has contributed 100 times what you could possibly have contributed in your life to the government. My guess is that you VOTE for a living.
Just so you know, YOUR president has driven MANY MANY MANY companies to bankruptcy, leaving all the employees holding their bills and mortgages. Get a clue, then a job.
It's funny how opposing theft, and opposing the destruction of a large swath of the US economy is spun as "rooting for failure".
The ACA violates people's rights, it criminalizes sales of private insurance, it forces people to buy plans that are a worse deal than they would be able to get in the private sector, and it is a naked attempt for the government to nationalize the healthcare industry.
If, as they claim, insurance companies were being too greedy, then the government could have created their own legitimate insurance system, that didn't take any profit, and just paid out claims from premiums, and offered it as a competitive choice for people.
That's what they would do if they actually wanted to help people.
But they just want power, so they criminalized the competition (eg: private insurance) because they knew they couldn't compete if people had freedom of choice, and eliminated the right for the young and healthy to have very light or no-insurance forcing people to buy their plan.
This violates rights all around... it's unconscionable. And it shows their intentions, unlike their rhetoric, are not noble in the least.
"Criminalizes"? Hell it PROMOTES sale of private insurance. What do you imagine is for sale in the exchanges???? Oh and purchasing from the exchanges isn't required. Oh and since there's ZERO in the law regarding governmental takeover of the healthcare delivery system that's one more ovetrsimplifying echo of some bumpersticker slogan in my view.
Just like "Death Panels"
Just like "Pulling the plug on GranMa"
Just like Palin's "Death squads for the unproductive".
Just like "Socialized Medicine".
etc.
etc.
etc.
Read the laws, they're really not all that long (really wide margins that GPO uses...)
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.
"Optional"? Not when the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney have their way eh?
Sounds like you're not "pro-life" or Christian.
Well if Life is a right, then why abortion?
Well, if you're Pro-Life, then certainly you're pro universal coverage. Otherwise, who is going to pay for pre-natal exams, maternal and children's health care? Or do you only care about the unborn?
Remember, the Pope called our for-profit health care system immoral, just as Jesus would have. . .
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 gov forces you to have auto insurance, but does not force you to drive. If you don't want to pay it, walk. This is to protect those who do pay willingly. For if you hit someone and they don't have insurance, or money, or possessions, you are out of luck. If you want the privilege to drive, you have to be covered for wrongs you may cause.
If you don't want to pay for the ACA, your only choice is to give up citizenship. So congress passes a law that requires you to own something to be a citizen.
Sounds like you're not "pro-life" or Christian.
I am very proud to be both! Although, you can't be the latter and not the former.
"Criminalizes"? Hell it PROMOTES sale of private insurance. What do you imagine is for sale in the exchanges???? Oh and purchasing from the exchanges isn't required. Oh and since there's ZERO in the law regarding governmental takeover of the healthcare delivery system that's one more ovetrsimplifying echo of some bumpersticker slogan in my view.
Just like "Death Panels"
Just like "Pulling the plug on GranMa"
Just like Palin's "Death squads for the unproductive".
Just like "Socialized Medicine".
etc.
etc.
etc.
Read the laws, they're really not all that long (really wide margins that GPO uses...)
Death Panels: Yes, there will be people making medical decisions for you outside of you and your doctor that may deny you care. Sure, your options is to pay for it yourself, and I recommend that, however, that does not remove the fact.
Pulling the plug on GranMa: Yes, there will be those that will make decisions based on quality of life that you may not agree with, thus pulling the plug. Sure, your options is to pay for it yourself, and I recommend that, however, that does not remove the fact.
Death squads: same as above
Socialized Medicine: socialized medicine |?so????la?zd ?m?d?s?n|
noun
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.
Yep, that is what the ACA is. And I'm sure you read every page of the what, 3' stack of law and regulations?
To prote private insurance, congress only needs to lift the law that restricts them from selling across State lines. However, insurance companies love the ACA as they will raise rates on most everyone $50k income and above to pay for those below that. Does not get much more socialized or unfair than that.
Hmm. . . Are you suggesting that one can never use the health care system? That one can choose to never get sick? Ok, then I can see why one would not need health care and should not need to purchase it. For mortals, though, they (like drivers who don't pay insurance) they are FREELOADERS if they don't buy health insurance.
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.
I also love when peope attack the rich. Romney pays how much? Millions of dollars each year into the government, and he gets what in return? Drives on the same roads, has the same vote, gets the same mail service, and so on and so on. Yet, probably 30% or more don't pay any taxes and they get these same benefits.
So why do the rich have to pay so much more for the same government services? Plus the rich pay 90% of the US taxes, which I think is very unfair, don't you?
Hmm. . . Are you suggesting that one can never use the health care system? That one can choose to never get sick? Ok, then I can see why one would not need health care and should not need to purchase it. For mortals, though, they (like drivers who don't pay insurance) they are FREELOADERS if they don't buy health insurance.
I agree that those that don't pay and use are freeloaders. But I have not had health insurance or seen a doctor in over 25+ years, but now I have to pay just to be a citizen of this country? I choose to pay to stay well, not pay to get better.
But to your freeloading point. I guess you agree then that all should pay some taxes as all get benefits from the government? Roads, mail, military, etc.?
Let me try again:
Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.
FUCKING leeches. . . Is that better?
I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?
Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?
Let me try again:
Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.
FUCKING leeches. . . Is that better?
Romney paid no taxes? Which years? When he ran for president, he had to disclose his taxes and it showed he paid taxes.
How about the 30% plus people in this country that don't pay any taxes at all?
I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?
Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?
If I do, and need a doctor, I will pay for it, just like I pay for everything else in life that I want or need.
If you libs are so concerned about people's welfare, then why not make food free as eating is more of an emergent need?
If you want to drive, you need insurance. That is so much different than if I want to be a citizen I need to buy healthcare. You can choose not to drive, but I have to leave the country? Very different.
Here's the revised text... All 2408 pages of it.
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/patient-protection.pdf
Why don't you follow your own advice and "read the law"?
Get back to us when you've read and understand it -- then you can explain its costs and benefits to all of us!
FWIW, I wouldn't even attempt to do what the President or any member of Congress haven't done: Read the law!
That's a myth, since they pay property and sales tax. But I'm pretty sure they don't use the courts, the military, the police, the firefighters, the roads, the educational system, etc to the same extent that these billionaire leeches do.
I haven't had a car accident in 25 years, but that doesn't mean I won't ever. Do you expect that eventually you'll get sick, maybe eventually die? Do you think the rest of us should pay for that?
Should I not need to buy auto insurance, since I haven't had an accident then?
And I think you are missing the point of the ACA. We, the tax payers, are paying for those who don't have the money, but do use the service, such as emergency rooms. So who is the leach (your term).
It is mandated so the youth will pay into a system (ponzi scheme) to pay for the services of the old. Would it not be better to have everyone set up a health savings account that they can gain interest on, use, and will to their family when they die?
It's no different at all. Everyone I know was born and will die in a hospital. Many of them require emergency care at some point in their lives. I guess if one can prove that one has millions of dollars in case of an auto accident or medical calamity, then it would make sense to not "force" them to buy insurance. For everyone else who couldn't afford cancer treatment or killing another motorist, insurance should be required.
If you don't want to pay for the ACA, your only choice is to give up citizenship.
You could say that about any individual government program. For example, if I don't want to pay for the war in Afghanistan, my only choice is to give up citizenship. I think unless you want to be a hermit in the woods, that kind of compromise is a fact of life.
In this case, I can understand the underlying principle of smaller government, or cutting government programs that help poor people, or whatever. I can't understand the absolute fervor to stop at all costs what basically amounts to a set of new regulations on the insurance industry. Yeah, go out and protest whatever you disagree with, that's fine. But maybe the reason this law is moving forward is that it's actually better than the socialist, government takeover, bankrupting, corrupt boondoggle it has been made out to be.