HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history, has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don’t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices. Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country. As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight, the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair ...
1. Completely repeal Obamacare...
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. ...
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. ...
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). ...
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. ...
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. ...
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. ...
* https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ … are-reform
This is looking like a much better HealthCare Plan for everyone.
How does he plan to repeal Obamacare? Isn't that in the arena of the Congress?
"3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. ..."
That number three in essence makes it a single payer system without any collective reduction in costs. But the funny part about it is it still allows the big pharma health providers to keep the costs ramped up. Not only does that allow the consumer to continue high premiums but it also tears the heart out of tax collections.
A true single payer system is the only way and Trump himself used to support it until he went over to the dark side.
Trump is anathema to the big pharmas from what I have read and heard from him. He won't be able to change anything so monstrous with those companies as a presidential candidate. I don't know if he will be able to as president either...I mean these are powerful elites.
Is there a solution, a ways and means? The enormity of the morally wrongness is beyond me, its unthinkable.
Only we the people hold the key yet we seem to have lost it along the way. The two party system, the theoretical sham of these parties feeding us the lies we so want to believe in is holding us like puppets on a string while the lobbyists and corporate power pulls at them. The power must go back to the people but we are loathe to mind it. We are caught up in the lies and can't see the logic while being fed more lies to keep us at bay. When ever we get off our dead a$$es and do something about is your guess is as good as mine.
There you go again, cutting right to the chase. While all the lies circulate we get ripped off.
There are a dozen failed ObamaCare cooperatives that have failed to repay any amount of the $1.2 billion in federal loans received, plus they also owe over a $1 billion in liabilities, according to recent financial statements cited last Thursday at a hearing in Congress.
Sen. Rob Portman, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said that “We shouldn’t hold our breath on repayment. In some states, these losses will be absorbed by other insurance companies, which means, by the policyholders of other insurance companies who have to pay increased … premiums. In other states, doctors, hospitals and individual patients stand to suffer large out-of-pocket losses due to the co-op failures—as our report details.”
I have read some reports about hospitals and ERs having to close in CA.
The populace is too dumbed down. This was the plan which has worked quite well.
The sad pathetic truth is that the establishment politics are the ones who have swallowed the Koolade and the outsiders are the ones making sense.
I totally agree about the dumbing-down of the populace. Mainstream media is a wonderful tool, but its masters have made it into a dispenser of the Kool-aid / agenda-media, rhetoric and propaganda. The media needs reform, but I don't suppose that will happen in my life-time if ever. I'm glad there are alternative news outlets that actually do report the real news.
Common-core in education, which Marxist Hillary is at the root of when Bill Clinton was president, has been dumbing down students of all ages. We are seeing the fruits that has to yield. Education needs to return to local and state control and the government Kool-aid needs to be purged out of there. I think if Dr. Ben Carson can be in charge of Education that our children and their children... will be far better for it.
He also claimed that he would get rid of the IRS...so you do we send our tax returns to "3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. ..."
Thank you, Stacy! I don't remember Trump saying he will get rid of the IRS. Have I missed that? I know Cruz has talked about that.
I don't remember who said that taxes would go to a secretaries office. I'm sorry I cannot be more helpful right now. If you come across that info would you please let us know? If not, no worries. I know there will have to be an address to somewhere.
(heehee, Cruz might as well drop out now)
Congratularions colorfulone ~ You're supporting a Mentally Unstable Numbskull who is advocating "STRIPPING" Health-Care from approximately 18-20 Million Americans ~ Trump is a Mentally Disturbed "Capitalist", not many Americans are willing to admit that ~
P.S. ~ Just look at Melania in that picture, she's got one foot OUT the Front DOOR just in case "DONALD" goes Bankrupt AGAIN or all of his Pending Fraud Law Suits end Up DRAINING the Account ~ Then she'll just go find another Weird looking "Stiff" with Bad Hair PLUGz & a few filthy bux ~
Let's be honest about this 'health care'. What it boils down to for many is paying money you don't have for plans that don't cover anything; or you can just let them fine you at tax time and don't have anything.
We don't have a good system but that's what one can expect when the insurance companies get a seat at the table and no one was there to represent the average american citizen.
That's EXACTLY why sooner or later we will establish a "Single Payer Plan" where there are ZERO Corporate or WALL Street Swindler Interests involved in YOUR Well Being ~
Most Americans STILL don't understand that a Trump, Rubio, Cruz, or even Kasich "PRIVATE" Health Plan will run right through WALL Street which means Corporate Profits and EARNINGS take precedence over YOUR Health ~
So we can choose a Federally Sponsored Health Care Program which does NOT run through Wall Street, or continue on with a Greedy CEO who counts Stock Certificates all day in between you and your Health ~ And we all know Corporate CEOs ALWAYS have the publics Best Interest at Heart ~
That's an UNFORTUNATE FACT ~
I'm for universal health care. I just think Obama's plan was ill thought and can't be fixed. I think we have exactly what you are warning us we will get with the others. So, why would I want to keep it in place?
If we're going to force people to buy health care for strangers, a single payer system (government covers all) is the only way to go. Yes, it will put millions out of work and kill some big companies, but it's better than forcing people to not only buy health care for their neighbors but pay for the profits of insurance companies as well. I suppose we could pay for limited health care directly and let people buy additional insurance as they wish, but it would never last. The first person that died from not getting a 4 organ transplant would put an end to it. "To each according to their needs" is alive and well in the health care controversy.
I suppose that is a fair argument. But, I can tell you I'd rather see quite a few of my tax dollars go to universal health care than some of the things they are currently spending them on.
*shrug* So would I. But that doesn't mean there is anywhere near enough money to supply what the constituency wants. Last year we spent 2.5 Trillion on health care. And the federal budget was 3T, with nearly 1T in deficit spending. In other words, the entire income of the federal government won't cover that single expenditure and given the inevitable rise in total cost with total free care the picture is much worse.
Of course, we could triple the tax rates, whereupon politicians will spend the extra on pork and other junk we don't need. Fancy paying 75% in federal taxes?
Let's back up. Giving everyone access to basic health care doesn't mean it has to be free for all. But, it should be reasonably priced for all, which would go a long way toward solving the problems. And, then, we could see what it would take to fill the gaps left.
Honestly, I think we've bought into some ideas that don't work, aren't healthy, and are actually detrimental to our health. We don't need a prescription drug for every ail. We need to stop advertising drugs to the general public. We aren't doctors. We don't need to make an appointment to see if we can get the newest drug available. Studies show that marketing a drug in one market creates a spike in the number of people who have that ailment advertised. I don't think you can come down with a specific condition that is advertised in a commercial simply by watching tv.
And, we (the average citizen) don't need to foot the bill for drug development for the world. Limit the amount of time, or level of profit, that a drug company has to reap the benefits of exclusive rights to a new drug. We, the people, foot the bill for a lot of that research and scientists benefit from studies and experiments done by peers. They aren't functioning in a vacuum and that should be taken into account when determining how exclusively they can maintain drugs created through this collective research.
Those who have odd and rare diseases shouldn't be at the mercy of every hedge fund looking to make a quick profit by buying the patent on an older drug.
I know you are a fan of capitalism and a lightly regulated economy but many of our woes could be fixed with some heavy handed laws which ensure reasonably priced prescriptions here in the U.S. Laws which address the problems the citizens face; not laws which protect the system that has created these problems.
We need universal pricing for access to doctors, specialists and procedures for everyone. Not a tiered system that allows those with insurance coverage to pay 15% of what the bill for someone uninsured looks like. I would much rather consider the possibility of helping the indigent if it didn't entail unscrupulous doctors attempting to gouge the government in the process.
And, I don't think we would be displeased with efforts to increase the number of people in our medical schools and subsidizing the tuition so qualified people could learn to be doctors without ending up with a mountain of debt which causes them to be concerned more with dollar signs than service.
Yes, health care is expensive. Yes, we can't just write a blank check. But, the function of government should be to ensure fairness to the citizens. To create a level playing field for everyone. Health care should not be about marketing, raising profits and six figure incomes. It should not be more worried about dollar signs than it is a healthy populace. Targeted measures to alleviate glaring problems could go a long way toward lowering the number of people we look at and see a need to help.
Much of what you say is very true, but much is also in the fantasy land of socialism.
Sure, we could make those with a job pay for health care for themselves AND for those without a job. That's what we're talking about after all - raising taxes to unbelievable numbers so everyone can have health care.
Yes, we can say we shouldn't see a doctor for a head cold or a hangnail...but people will do it anyway. It's a part of why ObamaCare is failing - with free care people WILL demand a doctor when one isn't needed. But just saying we shouldn't do it isn't going to stop the practice.
Yes, we should not be funding the world's need for new drugs. But if we don't there won't be any new drugs - other countries require such low prices for prescription drugs that they cannot be developed. Which is what you're saying we should do - remove any reasonable profit levels after the research is done. Sure, you can also say that profits would still be there, but it's an empty claim - the costs for developing a new drug (to our standards) are just too high (should we lower our standards, requiring far less experimentation and testing?). There's a reason that nearly all new drugs come out of America, and it for exactly the reason you're proposing - that the payoff isn't there in other countries.
Get rid of insurance and the "tiered" system, where uninsured pay for the insured, goes away. That's simple enough, but doesn't change the final price for a country's health care needs.
Yes, we could subsidize training...by increasing health care costs (that training becomes a part of the cost, after all). The bottom line of the total paid won't change much if any.
But you aren't wanting "fairness"; you're wanting some to pick up the cost for all and that's about as far from "fair" is it can get. And it is about 6 figure incomes; anyone that goes to school for the time necessary to become a world class surgeon deserves nothing less. It's called "fair" instead of "level playing field" but that's how we get those surgeons. Not by keeping their wage the same as anyone else.
And when it's all over, the fact still remains (a fact that you are trying to ignore) that our health care costs are more than the total income of the federal government. You try to alleviate that by limiting Dr. salaries, and drug profits while pretending that doing so will not affect health care, but the world doesn't work that way. Without a profit, or a great salary, you're just going to end up without drugs or doctors. Nurses, too - we treat our nurses abominably, with little pay and as a result there is a desperate shortage of that highly skilled profession. And you're wanting to do the same thing with doctors and drugs!
No, L2L, if we want universal health care, at the levels the people demand, we're going to have to bite the bullet and take some really distasteful medicine. Taxes will skyrocket beyond anything we've ever even thought about, and gripes about health care won't change. We see it in other countries now - the people are unhappy because they don't get immediate and total care for anything that might be needed. Socialized medicine of Britain, Canada and the others isn't the final answer because the money just isn't there. One day when robotics has taken over all jobs and nobody works, maybe, but until then it isn't going to happen. Not, anyway, with the care that is being demanded.
I suppose it is easier to believe it is impossible to find a happy median than to search for solutions. Unfortunately, the tendency to demand all or none works to the disadvantage of both sides of the discussion.
We will have to come to some type of humane way to work toward a reasonable amount of guaranteed health care for all citizens. It is a problem that can prematurely end a life and can impede the pursuit of happiness. Two of the three cornerstones our society is based upon.
Oh, I completely believe we can find a "median" that we can afford. It just won't be a "happy" one as it will not cover everything for everyone and that is what is being demanded.
For it's that "reasonable" amount of care that's in question. To the man in the street needing a heart transplant to live, that's what is "reasonable". For the mother with a newborn needing $2,000,000 of care, that's what is reasonable. And to the healthy 20 year old "reasonable" means setting his broken arm.
The last we can afford for everyone. The others we can't. And that's a huge problem as the cry goes up that PEOPLE WILL DIE if we don't provide unlimited care for everyone. No one seems willing to provide only what we can actually afford as a nation - cost doesn't matter in defining a "humane" system. That any acceptable solution will bankrupt the nation in short order, virtually eliminating all care, is not something that we're willing to discuss - only that people will die without total care. As your final paragraph points out, we must provide anything necessary to maintain life as well as the best quality of life we are capable of. That we don't have the resources to provide even what we know how to do is irrelevant; we have to do it anyway.
The results of this concept can already be seen in Southern California where hospitals are closing and doctors leaving, all because virtually unlimited care is required for hordes of illegal aliens that don't pay for what they get. Expand the concept to everyone in the US rather than just S. Cal. and the same result will be seen all over the country. We can't just bury our heads in the sand and hope it won't happen, because it will. We don't have the resources to provide top care to every citizen in the country! And it doesn't matter how "inhumane" it is - reality doesn't care about being humane.
I agree with your point, but... one of us got a bad set of references. If mine are right, your "In other words..." might need revision. If not....
Within a $trillion or so margin of error, most sources I checked offered similar health care expenditure numbers for 2014/2015; relative to the GDP it was about 17.5%, and it was 25% - 28% of the Federal budget, somewhere between $938 billion to $1.35 trillion, (depending how you looked at it) dollars, and the deficit was somewhere around half a $Trillion, not a whole one. Also, shouldn't HHS take a 28% share of that deficit spending, instead of the implied one $Trillion?
None of this changes how correct your point(s) were, just wanted to make sure those numbers didn't get in the way.
Couldn't remember where I got the numbers, so used http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief … countries/
$7538 per capita, times population (317M) = $2.39T (This is total national cost for health care, not what the feds pay for, and for 2008 - it has gone up in 7 years)
From Wikipedia, total federal expenditures 2014 are $3.5T, less $.75T deficit = $2.75T taken in.
A little sloppy before in my subtraction, but close enough for "government" work. The feds take in just a little more than our health care costs.
But additionally (From Kaiser), public spending is 46% of the total: we would need an additional 1.2T on top of the 2.75T we already take in in taxes to make it all public (I had neglected to figure that we already pay for half the nations health care). Assuming that total costs wouldn't go up when handled by government and that no more use was made of the system; a pretty poor bet IMHO, on either one. About 50% more tax load, in other words, with 100% more likely considering the inability of government to do anything efficiently and considering the real-life probability (inevitability?) that congress will take a good portion of the extra for their own pet projects.
Well, there you go, within a Trillion or so, as I said. Also, as mentioned, even though we quibble over the numbers, (I think mine are more accurate and representative of true costs), the point you made about the unaffordable cost - relative to the mood of the nation - is still correct, as I see it.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says 2015 numbers were $3.7 trillion, and the deficit was $468 Billion.
They also pegged Federal healthcare costs at 25% of the budget. Government's share of total healthcare expenditures is said to be 28%.
The Congressional Budget Office is projecting 2016 Federal health care spending to be $1.15 Trillion, in a $3.9 Trillion budget that's about 29% (yep, another percentage increase - again).
My only point was the inaccurate portrayal of your original numbers that seemed to show the government spending 83% of its budget on health care costs.
??!! But I never intended (in that first post) to have anything to say about what percentage of the budget went to health care! I even forgot to include governmental health care cost in the numbers. Only that the national cost (private+business+public) was about what the government takes in in total revenue!
Yes, the figures vary more than they should, but seems we've crossed communication somewhere.
Alright, hold on a minute. I will not so easily go quietly into the night.
I went back to double check, (here is your original), and yesss, maybe there is enough wiggle room for your denial to stand, but only upon dissection, not from first impressions.
Here is what I mean...
The discussion is about the tax payer cost of "free" health care, and you responded to this;
Live to Learn wrote:
"I suppose that is a fair argument. But, I can tell you I'd rather see quite a few of my tax dollars go to universal health care than some of the things they are currently spending them on."
to which part of your response was this;
"...Last year we spent 2.5 Trillion on health care. And the federal budget was 3T, with nearly 1T in deficit spending. In other words, the entire income of the federal government won't cover that single expenditure and given the inevitable rise in total cost with total free care the picture is much worse..."
Come on, 2.5 Trillion, 3 Trillion, and 1 Trillion in the same sentence as "federal budget" and you don't think a percentage evaluation was invited?
Then you continued with;
"...Of course, we could triple the tax rates, whereupon politicians will spend the extra on pork and other junk we don't need. Fancy paying 75% in federal taxes?"
Tax rates, Federal Taxes, politicians, and 75%.... Hmm...
But... here is the "wiggle room," I think;
" Last year we spent 2.5 Trillion on health care.
Yes, that "we" that I underlined and bolded was not definitely labeled as US gov. expenditures, but given the context as described above... I hope you can see why I misread the intent of your comment.
ps. I wonder if I was the only one to read your comment that way? I better slow down and start double-checking my perceptions.
I give! I admit it is possible to misread the statement! I humbly apologize and promise to (try) and do better next time! (Although it can be really, really hard to cover all possibilities and all levels of comprehension or reading skill )
*sob* I'm always so...so...bullied in these forums! People used to be so nice here - there were people like that GA Ande r s...wait a minute...
Oh well, you were almost there... until you reversed the possibilities. (should have been, "I admit it is possible to be read as I intended, if I had just been more clear about what I was talking about." )
Even that would have passed... until you brought in the "...all levels of comprehension or reading skill." (No, the LOL won't save you!)
Live to Learn ~ If you'd rather see a few more of your tax dollars go to "Universal Health Care" then I hope you REALIZE that's an Absolute VOTE for either Hillary or Bernie or just about any other Progressive Democrat ~
CON-Man Trump is trying to run your Health Care right through Wall Street with his "Private" tendencies which equates to a CORRUPT Health Care System based soly upon Corporate EARNINGS and not necessarily focused on your HEALTH ~ And that's a FACT ~
The MORE you & others Learn about Wall Street, which the "Donald" is a cozy little Capitalist Partner with, the MORE you'll understand that its where ALL Bad & CORRUPT Things Begin ~ ~
Just remember "Getting Rid of the LINES" a Boneheaded Simplistic Juvenile Plan which Rubio Nailed Him ON, simply equates to handing over your "Health & LIFE" to Wall Street Corporate Executives & TRUSTING they will do the RIGHT Thing ~ such a Happy thought ~
Sorry. I do agree that Trump's plan is somewhat boneheaded but the current system is more so. So, I don't see that my opinion warrants as agreement with anything Hillary has to say on the subject.
Just a few of the many Benefits ObamaCare Provides:
* Guaranteed Insurance for Pre-Existing Conditions
* Guaranteed Safeguards Against a Health Care Provider CANCELLING a Policy Arbitrarily
* Reducing the Deductable from Tens of Thousands to approximately 5,000
Sorry if these are not Critically Important Aspects for you Live to Learn, but for Millions of AMERICANS it's a matter of Life or Death ~
P.S. ~ Most individuals who would actually consider a vote for a CONservative are not even aware of the Benefits of Obama-Care ~ It's certainly not perfect but it's a pretty Good Start toward "Universal" or ."Single Payer" ~
I purchased health insurance through the obama care system. So, having first hand experience I can tell you it appears to be a system to enable the insurance companies to have guaranteed customers without offering even a coverage so minimum that I won't know if it is of any use unless I somehow end up in the hospital for some long term care. It hasn't offered a co pay on one service, a discount on one drug. I know people who can't afford insurance, are too proud to go on Medicaid, so they pay a fine every year. For nothing other than because the government is clueless as to what this country actually needed. If you can't provide, don't penalize.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at Live to Learn but you do seem to Complain about everything around here so I'm really not surprised at your Dis-Content with your Health Insurance ~
All I can say is approximately 18 Million Americans now have Essential Health Care Coverage thanks to ObamaCare including the young gentleman who said yesterday that it SAVED His LIFE ~
It's too bad, isn't it, that the coverage doesn't include actual care that the poor can afford? I guess it's essential for big company profits, but it certainly isn't "essential" for actual care.
If you think ObamaCare is Un-Affordable I can't IMAGINE what you think about the CONservative Republican NON-Health Coverage Program which is essentially the following ~ "Privatize & Just TRUST" Wall Street Corporate CEO's via a Failed Capitalistic System to set aside PROFITS & Earnings to provide YOU with the BEST Care Possible ~
If you believe that one I've got a CONservative Presidential Candidate for ya, he's a VERY Strange Lookin' Mentally Unstable Elderly White Dude with Undersized HANDs & Hideously BAD Hair PLUGz ~
If you think that the poor, who can't afford their own coverage and get ObamaCare instead, can afford the $6,000 deductible those free plans require you need to rethink your arithmetic. With or without insurance they cannot afford health care, so the only winners are the politicians trumpeting that they've provided (worthless) insurance to millions and the insurance companies that scoop in those tax dollars with both hands. Not the people that need it - while they used to have the option of spending the $100 per month they could afford on actual care, now they are required by law to purchase an insurance plan that they can't use because of high deductibles.
Before ObamaCare, GUESS who used to "Pick Up the TAB" for an Un-Insured Person to have a $100,000 Operation? Us Perhaps?
NOW we pay on Average $5000-$7000 with the Insurance Company Paying the Balance ~
ObamaCare is certainly not perfect but it's a GOOD Base from which to build upon ~
Anyway, why on EARTH would any individual of SOUND Mind Trust a CON Man like Trump, who has Thousands of FRAUD Law Suits Pending Against him, to be responsible for something as critically important as HEALTH Care ?? ONLY in Republican "PRETEND-Land" is that even an option ~
Don't be funny. We used to pick up the tab. Now we pick up the tab PLUS the insurance company profits. Cherry picking one specific individual with high health care costs doesn't change that. But tell me - why didn't you pick someone we pay thousands for for insurance that then never sees a doctor?
You got part of it right, though - ObamaCare is not a good system. It isn't even a base to begin building with as all it does is add to insurance costs.
Unlike you, most of us judge on what the results of those lawsuits are. Not that they were filed - most of us realize that lawsuits are a dime a dozen. Why, I've seen a judge literally laugh at a claim from a litigant, and another tell the complainant that she's flat out lying. So I will wait for the results, thank you - you go ahead and hang Trump because somebody filed a lawsuit against him. It may be a part of hating him without reason, and it may be a part of trying to get others on the same irrational bandwagon, but I'll keep my distance until actual, real facts are available as to his culpability or wrongdoing.
I don't know anyone, personally, who agrees with your assertion but if it makes you feel good to believe it, go for it.
I agree absolutely that a single payer system deducted from payroll would be the way to go. It would take the cost of for profit health insurance companies out of the costly billions of dollars they pocket. Big pharma is going to be a tough lobby to eliminate the non negotiable drug plans that were a backroom deal that also drive costs skyward.
Maybe 3-4 months ago listening to Q&A with Trump the big pharma question was asked about those companies setting their own drug prices without any bids. He said, "I didn't know that." I could see the shock value and the wheels started turning.
You don't mention where the funding would come from for the millions that don't have payroll checks big enough to cover the cost of government provided "insurance". Or what those that DO have a check big enough to cover the cost will live on after suddenly having several hundred deducted from their paycheck each month.
Or where those millions currently working in the insurance business will find jobs, either. Always problems, isn't there?
To play the devil's advocate, let us return to the system of healthcare before the disastrous implementation of Obamacare. Health care should never be mandatory but voluntary. The idea of socialized health care is undemocratic. Poor people were always covered in one way or another in this country before Obama"care". Let's scrap socialized health care altogether.
by TimTurner6 years ago
Ok so I'm watching CNN this morning and they have 3 Democrats talking about the healthcare plan and how it's going to be great for Americans.They talked about ways they were going to pay for the plan and two of the ways...
by Judy Specht4 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by OLYHOOCH4 years ago
This is just one of many Re-plys, I receive each day. I thought I might share this one with you,,,,, Thanks. And from one of my favorite pundits, Stella Paul, more motivation to work our tails off in this election...
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High...
by trish10487 years ago
For or against?Personally, I hate the idea. The government needs to stay out of my personal life. I like my freedom of choice.
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
A most interesting article in this morning's paper, the Idaho Statesman.Seems that they think they need around 5,000 sign-ups per month (through March) to pay for the program (there is a 1.5% tax on each policy...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.