jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (73 posts)

Does obama get free car insurance?

  1. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 3 months ago

    I hear he gets free healthcare but Im wondering if we have to pay for him or his familys auto insurance too.

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Instead of zeroing in on Obama ask if this is not something accorded to any and all former Presidents. So why is Obama the focus?

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I guess its the law in every state that requires some sort of insurance for your auto, for every owner. obama strikes me as the type that would know the law, but expect others to pay it for him or think he is exempt, and not be covered at someone elses expense. Such is the relevancy and example of arbitrarily conducting himself regarding aca.

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Funny, that would not be my take on it, but you already know that.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image81
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Obama and his wife Michelle have signed book deals with Penguin for over $60 million... They are set for life, whether or not their insurance is paid for by the government, or someone else.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Paid by the government?  Thats my money.

        1. crankalicious profile image87
          crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Are you concerned about the $3 million it costs taxpayers every time Trump goes down to Mir-a-Lago?

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            I am just concerned that I have to pay for obamas healhcare. I bet he gets to see his own doctor too. But why stop there? Does he need some car insurance? Or maybe he should get a job and pay for his own junky health insurance or pay a fine like everyone else. His so called legacy is so bad, he has to have me pay for it lol
            What a loser.

          2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
            The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, Crankallicious, and he is not wiling to implement the Constitution as it is supposed to be, as no president to date has been willing. Therefore, since Bush committed Treason by permitting 9/11/01, Obama committed it by protecting him Trump has committed it by protecting them and every congressman, all cabinet members except the last appointed Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice except the last 3 appointments (U. S. Constitution Article 3 section 3) so we need someone in place who will declare Marshall Law and implement the Constitution to replace him.

      2. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Thats nice. Meanwhile millions of Americans in repeal limbo are going to get 1095 socked in the face.

    3. crankalicious profile image87
      crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      I'm glad you're concerned about what Obama may be getting for free. Are you concerned that every trip to Mar-a-Lago by President Trump costs taxpayers $3 million each and that he's spent more time on the golf course in one month than Obama spent in an entire year?

      Also keep in mind that if Obama is getting this for free, so is George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W.H. Bush, and Jimmy Carter.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Those others shouldnt be getting tax payer funded healthcare either. Nor should any government employee or politician,  besides armed services. As soon as aca took effect, they should have lost any tax money that goes towards healthcare. And the first that should have lost it and appropriately so should have been obama.

        I know a women who is taking the fine because its cheaper to take the fine and not pay premiuns and deductibles - so then she can actually pay for a brain scan. Even though she does have a physicians insurance that does not count for aca. She tried at first to pay it all but could not. So, some insurance got some money for nothing.  Meanwhile all of us gotta pay for obamas free healthcare. He should stop smoking cigarettes and start making fries instead of eating them and pay his own way.

        1. crankalicious profile image87
          crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I'm sure the health care premiums for the past presidents is dwarfed by Trump's $3 million dollar trips to Mar-a-Lago to golf.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Of course millions of americans dont get fined while trying to pay for a brain scan out of their pocket , so that some insurance companycan post a 50 billion dollar profit while providing no actual goods and services in cases, regardless of how many vacations or golf games anyone goes to.  Trump didnt create this nightmare. Obama did, yet this friend of mine, a woman , has to pay for obamas free healthcare while misappropriating her money for actual dire health needs. Obamaa is a feckless sponge.

            1. crankalicious profile image87
              crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, Obama is the sponge.

          2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
            The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Since he has committed Treason for to having Obama arrested for Treason (Article 3.3) he has a very short time as president, however much he racks up IN HIS LESS THAN A YEAR will not amount to what Obama gave to corporations in 8 years.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          "Nor should any government employee or politician,  besides armed services. "

          What do you refer to with "armed services"?  Active duty personnel?  Retired vets?  Vets injured in service?  Or just anyone that served 4 years? 

          If the last, what justification is there for increasing the earnings for 4 years of service by an additional half million or so of free health care?  In effect, increasing compensation by a factor of 10 or so?

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            You cannot possibly fathom the amount of abuse in tricare. So that I would overhaul and replace with my own plan in 2020.

            1. crankalicious profile image87
              crankaliciousposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Man, who knew healthcare was so complicated?

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                It was already complicated and rife with fraud in insurance etc. Since aca I know a woman that has operated a clinic next door for decades has said the problems have grown exponentially and she is highly confident that the people actually administrating aca do not fully grasp what is going on.

              2. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Complicated? Its "the craziest thing in the world.".

              3. The0NatureBoy profile image79
                The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Health care isn't so complicated. Bernie Sanders provided a "Single Play Plan" that would eliminate all health care plans stablished by bring them all under one with less than half the cost of all the rest together but that was against Obama's and Congresses' giving Corporations free money.

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  I was thinking if they deducted a small % 1 or 2 from wages and states and sales tax of 1/4% and used the money for free clinics or super cheap clinics and dental. Ya know, actual services as opposed to subsidizing insurance companies. Those cheap or free clinics would or could force other medical services to be cheaper to compete. In this one case I would not mind the govt, competing with pvt sector. What the govt has done now is opened the door for even higher medical.

                  1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
                    The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    His plan was eliminating "Health Insurance" companies is why it never got any public attention. I did send it to AARP and got them to back it but the number of people who want to hear what I say are far and few in between.  Should what I expect to happen does in the next few weeks then we will not hear about it but it but it will be implemented.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Tricare being the veterans hospitals?  My son worked there for a few years and the amount of abuse, by both patients and doctors, that he saw was unbelievable.

              But that doesn't justify free health care for life for anyone that served their 4 years.  How do you justify that incredible expense?

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                I did not go into detail or offer any details regarding healthcare and the armed services. I merely, in general, differentiated who I personally considered potentially worthy of tax payer funded benefits within the context of aca. Everyone should have to pay for their own health insurance and healthcare if it is cumpulsory. Personally however, someone that is serving their country and has been put in harms way or could be, warrants and deserves exception. What the parameters of the exceptions or scope of that would be to me personally, I will leave you to google or speculate. If I did have a detailed opinion on the matter and was willing to share it, I would consider it and act accordingly.

  2. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 3 months ago

    Wow. I never thought about it. That's going to bug me until someone supplies an answer.

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Hopefully that answer will also answer whether or not he even has a personal auto. I'm thinking his Secret Service protection detail will handle his auto needs.

      GA

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        It is the law to carry liability.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          The actual law is you carry liability or show that you have the ability pay up to $100,000 in damages.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Hello TheONatureboy, it looks like you need to elaborate on what you mean.

            The requirement to have, (or not have), liability auto insurance is a State prerogative. There is no Federal mandate concerning motor vehicle liability insurance. Much less a federally mandated limit.

            All States do not require liability insurance, and among those that do - the minimums vary. Your $100,000 may be relative to your State, or you may have looked it up and found it to be a D.C. requirement,  but it certainly is not a figure with authority in a general discussion about national insurance mandates.

            So what is the actual law you refer to concerning that $100,000 figure?

            GA

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              GAA,
              I am aware the amount vary is different states but the largest sum I've seen required is $100,000 and, the last time I checked, that was California I believe. I've been a "Nomad" since 1976 and have no reason to look it up so I'm using old figures, it may have changed, upward even. I have no intentions of owning another auto so I have no need to know for sure.

              Peace.

        2. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Only if you own a vehicle.

          GA

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Surely they own a car. Dont they have to work or look for work. If they get a car, lets pay their car insurance., too.

      2. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        That was actually tongue in cheek as, I hope, was the OP.  I would hope we have bigger fish to fry.

    2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      The answer is Obama and all presidents, most of congress and most government officials, by tradition, have enough money that they don't need too carry auto insurance, their bribes have netted them enough money that they can show they have the means of paying up to, I believe, $100,000 for any damage they may cause using their vehicles which eliminates insurance needs.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        They make laws and then make themselves exempt from them. It is the definition of injustice.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          No, Phoenix, it is not "justice" by no stretch of one's imagination.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Oh boy TheONatureboy, is this 'net worth eliminates need for insurance' thought in that same "actual law" you spoke of earlier. I didn't find a thing that could validate your explanation. I did find that in the few states I looked at that did have mandatory liability requirements, they varied from requiring $15,000 to your $100,000 figure. But none of the ones I looked at gave an opt-out option using proof of net worth.

        Hmm... are you still talking about just your state?

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Virginia used to, some 20 years ago when I lived there.  Pay a fee of a few hundred dollars per year and insurance was not required.

        2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          GAA,
          When I was in the military, 1964-69, we had access to every state's law concerning auto insurance, maybe it was only $10,000, and they all said if one could show proof that they had a certain amount capital they were not required to have insurance.  For better understanding see my posts below.

  3. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 3 months ago

    He was commander in chief of the military.  Don't vets get free healthcare?
    Not sure of the connection between health care and auto insurance, but if there is one how about life insurance, home owners insurance, extra jewelry insurance, etc.?

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      The connection is whether there is a law that requires it and a fine or punishment if you do not.


      EG.

      There is a new law. Everyone has to pay 5 dollars or be fined 5 dollars.


      Except me.

    2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      As a vet, no! vets do not get free auto insurance but as someone has said, although it is unconstitutional for servants of the people not to return to being "We The People" upon leaving office, presidents has secret service protection so the autos they use are insured by the taxes of We The People.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        You misunderstood - the comment was that vets get health care, not car insurance.  That, they have to buy themselves.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Why not pay obamas, congressmen and govt employees car insurance? They gotta have it, its the law. Why should they have to pay their own car insurance , like the rest of us.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Woo boy, TheONatureboy, you are really on a roll. Where did you get the thought that it is "unconstitutional" for ex-public servants to not return to being private citizens?

        Are you saying it was unconstitutional for Hillary to become Secretary of State after being a New York Senator?

        GA

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          GAA,
          Have you understood the Preamble?  It reads: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

          Everyone is "We The People" so to perfect the union there can be no classes between people, no ethnic consideration, no sexual orientation considerations, no different standards because of money, no political parties, no secret societies, no differences because of genders, no differences because of physical abilities nor because of any position held by any of "We The People." 

          Now, you take it from there!!!!

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Hello again TheONatureboy,

            I think I understand now. Perspectives are personal, and their validity is really only a matter of concern to the holder. You appear comfortable with yours. That I might disagree is of no great importance.

            GA

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              When one goes beyond the considered definition of words, GAA, and into understanding [going from the top through the term and exit it on the bottom for a complete comprehension of it] them the perspectives of all who understand words will be the same. When one understands words and another accepts being schooled [to accept a leader's definition] their perspectives will never agree, I'm educated in the constitution and not schooled into accepting it without understanding it.

    3. The0NatureBoy profile image79
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Wilderness,
      He was CIC but unconstitutional in his actions.  By U.S. Constitution Article 3.3 he was supposed to had Bush, his cabinet and congress all arrested for 9/11's Treason the moment he took the oath of office. Now Trump has committed Treason for not doing it to Obama, the actual veterans put their lives on the line for the Presidents' treasons since European War 1 but no president or CIC has.  ow then is he a vet as are few Generals.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Treason
        Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

        Neither one committed treason by not arresting their predecessor on the charge of treason.

        But I mention that he was CIC in reference to health care, care that all vets get.  Doesn't Commander qualify the president as a vet?

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Wilderness,

          9/11 could not have happened without George W. Bush's okey, which means Congress and all of his cabinet knew what it was. Obama was in congress during that time, became president and protected Bush b y "adheres to their [him], giving [him] aid and comfort within the United States" is treason by Obama and Trump who did nothing about it. https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-And-H … Overthrown is enough evidence for proof of it. 

          No, presidents do not qualify as a vet unless he has actually been in a war.  Vets have put their lives in danger's way on the "front lines" or at least in the area of the fighting, being in the "White House's Situation Room" does not qualify.

  4. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    Seriously , someone  worry's  that Obama , one of the worst leaders ever ,  gets free car insurance ?   Man , it sure is all about "free "everything today  !  In spite of the fact that our  country lies in major turmoil   , progress in congress is non-existent  , the house is loaded down with complete  morons ,   the very  integrity of the supreme courts , the FBI ,the  DOJ  is all  in shambles .

    Say nothing about how the  left-stream news media has ''Titaniced' -the trust of all Americans .  Free speech  is fast becoming  a thing of the past ,  all that's left at this time is for the marches of the brown shirted to hit the streets.     Its no wonder that the rest of the world hates America - 

    American political  leaders  are proving themselves to be  nothing but   ADHD  kindergarteners on steroids.

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      And we the People have Amendment 10 and Article 2 section 4 giving us the power to eliminate all of Congress for Bribery for allowing the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank to print our money our government borrows and pay interest on; every President and Cabinet member who took the oath to protect the constitution for committing Treason (Article 3 section 3) to enter all foreign wars since the early 1900s and any other thing one can find in the constitution contrary to it (Article 6 section 2).  All we must do is BE WILLING TO BE KILLED to protect our nation from violating the United States Constitution.

      The Constitution is online  at http://constitutionus.com so look that up and if you work for the government your oath make that apply to you.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image81
        Ken Burgessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Good post... like it.

        You know... this IS a rather odd topic of discussion to be concerned about, considering all that is currently going on... so much to talk about, wiretaps and Russians, ISIS and Riots... can't say I'm too worried about whether or not Obama has Geico Insurance.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          All of what you just said is in violation of the constitution but who are man enough to say, as I have, "I took the oath to protect the constitution when I went into the U.S. Air Force and never repealed it" so since I went to Vietnam for a "treasonous" act I may as well put my life on the line for We The People of the USA.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Uh-oh, This one needs more than a 'boy' coupling with your handle. This one needs a Holy Cow!

        You comments relative to your referenced Constitutional segments clearly show your penchant for Alternative facts. At least that is the only explanation I can see. Someone else might offer the 'Conspiracy of Tin-foil Hats' as an explanation, but I am not familiar enough with your posting history to go quite that far - no matter how tempted.

        GA

        1. Ken Burgess profile image81
          Ken Burgessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          There are plenty of Alternative Facts to go around for everyone... take your pick, pick your side, side for who-ever, none are completely right, though some may be completely wrong.

          It seems rational discourse is quickly being sidelined in favor of people contemplating more extreme modes of resolving the issues between the various parties and factions, and the saddest part of this is that it really is those politicians that have been running things in D.C. for upwards of 30 years now that are the root of all these ills.

          Draining the swamp is indeed what was/is needed, but its hard to imagine a more divisive or controversial messenger of that need than Trump... its a shame, Obama was the hope and change candidate that everyone bet on and hoped would bring change to D.C. ... instead he joined the corrupt crew and helped them pile on the debt, regulation and taxation.

          GA you often have the most reasonable, and insightful perspectives of all, I just think the days of rational, thoughtful, well articulated viewpoints are numbered in this country for the foreseeable future.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the kind words Ken, unfortunately for 'reasonable' folks, I almost agree with your comment.

            But I will always be an optimist, and believe that reasonableness will win out - even if we do get bruised along the way.

            Relative to my use of "alternative facts." There is no such thing. Only agreement or disagreement regarding a fact. We both understand my purpose in the term's use.

            GA

          2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
            The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Ken,
            I agree, except it does go all the way back to the foundation of this nation. The Constitution has never been implemented as the "Supreme Law of the Land" (Article 6.2) is why George Washington said "let us raise a standard only the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hands off god" upon reading the Constitution. He knew they were not wise nor honest enough to do what they had written and, so to speak, prayed god would in time provide someone to do it. I read Washington's statement several times a day for over 2 years when I was in NYC, those words are deeply planted in my mind.

        2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          GAA,
          You didn't go to the Constitution to see of you would not have said that.

          "Boy and girl" are the only gender term in the English language although it is taught very differently. Before becoming a boy or girl man's children are "bad its, children and adolescents -meaning less than adults- and once we enter puberty we are boys who produce the sperm during child bearing and girls who produce the eggs. "Woman and human" both means incomplete minds unable to comprehend all things, "man" is a whole man "able got comprehend all things" and is another term for god.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            [man]
            noun, plural men.
            1.an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.

            woman
            [woo m-uh n]
            noun, plural women  [wim-in]
            1.the female human being, as distinguished from a girl or a man.
            2.an adult female person.
            3.a female attendant to a lady of rank.

            (nothing in "woman" about an incomplete mind, but both man and woman can indicate gender.

            http://www.dictionary.com/browse/woman?s=t

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Wilderness,
              That is true for those who accept their schooling, those who educate themselves by going "from the top through the subject to exit on the bottom to comprehend it" they seek the source of a word we find school is only schooling and not educating through "one's own research by objective observing, participation as needed, reasoning with the different outcomes and learn to communicate it to others" [education's definition] the word's truth is revealed. 

              The poet said "a little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the puritan spring" but most people accepts the easy way out which is the danger he was talking about.

              Wo in woman means "woven from man" and hu in human means "cut out of man" and when something is woven from something else or cut from something else what it was woven from or cut out of is incomplete as well as what came OUT OF THEM.

              Female derived from a boy's working for a girl's parents to receive her as his wife which means female's definition "the price paid to a man [boy] for his service."

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                "That is true for those who accept their schooling..."

                And for those that wish to actually communicate with others.  One does not normally speak German to a Chinese, and by the same token one does not speak a secret, privately constructed language, to anyone at all.

  5. profile image62
    Mzwandile Mkhumaposted 3 months ago

    It is a norm internationally that a former president is carried by the nation on security, welfare and maintenance generally. I suspect the U.S is no exception.

 
working