I hear he gets free healthcare but Im wondering if we have to pay for him or his familys auto insurance too.
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?
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.
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.
Are you concerned about the $3 million it costs taxpayers every time Trump goes down to Mir-a-Lago?
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.
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.
Thats nice. Meanwhile millions of Americans in repeal limbo are going to get 1095 socked in the face.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
You cannot possibly fathom the amount of abuse in tricare. So that I would overhaul and replace with my own plan in 2020.
Man, who knew healthcare was so complicated?
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.
Complicated? Its "the craziest thing in the world.".
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.
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.
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.
As you speak of insurance companies, I feel like if they are going to force people to buy it, then it does not quite seem right that insurance companies get to keep on playing unfettered capitalism.
Revenue Increase US$184.8 billion (2016)
Increase US$12.93 billion (2016)
Increase US$7.01 billion (2016)
Total assets Increase US$122.8 billion (2
Should my expectation happen all medical insurance will be eliminated and all doctors will be required to heal rather than treat symptoms. All formas will be require to sell healing products and not symptom treatments. That will eliminate 90% of medical costs.
That's going to be a little tough, isn't it? Do we fix fading hearing (that we don't know HOW to fix) or relieve the symptoms with a hearing aid?
A great deal of the time, temporary symptom relieve is all that we ask for or need, while our own body "fixes" the problem. Other times (fibromyalgia, perhaps) we don't know how to fix it, and can only give drugs to alleviate symptoms.
What you are asking about is in the 10%, not the 90.
There are many, many things doctors know how to heal but refuse to only to get Farmas' "kickback" that the nurses and other medical tack's don't know anything about not get any of it.
Please, "stop dreaming the American Dream" AND WAKE UP to smell and the coffee.
"There are many, many things doctors know how to heal but refuse to only to get Farmas' "kickback" that the nurses and other medical tack's don't know anything about not get any of it. "
Proof, please? I'm not much into conspiracy theories, and when you tell me my doctor is conspiring against me to ruin my health, well, I'm just not much into accepting it as true. So what do we know how to cure but don't?
Check out http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/video … -you-.html and see if there is any truth to it.
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?
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.
Wow. I never thought about it. That's going to bug me until someone supplies an answer.
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.
The actual law is you carry liability or show that you have the ability pay up to $100,000 in damages.
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?
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.
That was actually tongue in cheek as, I hope, was the OP. I would hope we have bigger fish to fry.
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.
They make laws and then make themselves exempt from them. It is the definition of injustice.
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?
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.
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.
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.?
The connection is whether there is a law that requires it and a fine or punishment if you do not.
There is a new law. Everyone has to pay 5 dollars or be fined 5 dollars.
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.
You misunderstood - the comment was that vets get health care, not car insurance. That, they have to buy themselves.
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?
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
noun, plural men.
1.an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a 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.
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."
"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.
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.
by ChenardRobinson5 years ago
Ever since the President has stepped into office he has been wrong. Its almost as if white people forgot to vote in 2008 and President Obama stole the seat. I would like to take you on a journey over the last four years...
by politicsdaylee7 years ago
well congress has given the people of the United states more burden with this bill they they pass illegally. who is going to protect us from the democratic party? well don't lose hope maybethe supreme court will...
by Deforest2 years ago
Then, why did Obama (the executive) made a new law by changing what the constitution stipulated anteriorly? Isn't the US becoming an absolute monarchy?
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
Fortunate: "favored by or involving good luck or fortune; lucky." There is a certain amount of luck involved in survival. In life, we seem to be dealt a deck of cards. Some are more fortunate than others. They...
by Longhunter5 years ago
Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court, what do you think Obama's reaction will be if Obamacare is struck down?
by girly_girl098 years ago
Back in the 60's:"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -President John F. KennedyToday:"What is the President trying to tell...
Copyright © 2017 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.