jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (85 posts)

The Obamacare Bomb

  1. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/01/c … lve-years/

    This law MUST be repealed NOW! The destruction if America is imminent unless we rid ourselves of this unconstitutional burden, this plot to destroy our country perpetrated by the three socialists Obama, Pelosi, and Reid

    1. dingdondingdon profile image58
      dingdondingdonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Funny that that site's called Hot Air, as that's all they seem to be spewing.

      1. Austinstar profile image87
        Austinstarposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I agree ding - that site IS hotair!

        1. lady_love158 profile image60
          lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You people crack me up! No comment on the facts in the article... Did you ever notice how those on the left CONSTANTLY attack the messenger or the source? All you people do the same thing dingrate and distract... change the subject let's ignore the truth that this stupid law will destroy the country... oh and when it does you wont have health care anyway!!

          1. dingdondingdon profile image58
            dingdondingdonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            We attack the source because it's clearly biased and badly researched. We want to discuss the issue, but we can't do that if you're starting the discussion with flawed, inaccurate information.

    2. SimeyC profile image97
      SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What annoys me about all the Obamacare haters is that they want to repeal the whole bill! Do you know how many people this will effect?

      I am not democrat or republican, but AM one person this will effect. My daughter who just married IS allowed on my health insurance because of this bill - if it is repealed I will have to remove her. She is working overnight getting paid just above minimum, her husband is unemployed, she has a baby. How is she supposed to find $600+ a month to provide herself with healthcare if this bill is repealed? It currently doesn't cost me any additonal as I already cover family in my plan.

      Simply stopping the bill is going to create an additional burden for a lot of people.

      There are a lot of intelligent people in politics - sit around a GD table and take in what is best - some of the bill is good!

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No it doesn't affect you... it affects your adult daughter! When I couldn't afford health insurance I did without it... you want charity... you want other people to pay for your daughter... worse you want to force other people to do so! That isn't the answer!

        1. SimeyC profile image97
          SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Excuse me? I DO NOT WANT CHARITY -  I AM PAYING for this insurance - no one else is? How is that charity? I also note that my health care premium went up because of the new laws - so IN FACT I AM PAYING for this added benefit - you are not, the government is not.


          If my daughter DOESN'T get insurance - WE ALL pay more because  she can go to the hospital and claim CHARITY - THAT's the reality AND THAT is what is wrong with the old system! The uninsured are charged 3x as much as the insured. Just go into any ER and see how many non-insured people are there with a cold or the flu...

          Don't dismiss a bill simply because there are parts YOU don't like! Oh sorry - there's not one word in the bill you like is there - amazing how such a large bill can be hated by every single republican in the country - amazing or what?

          And being honest - had you turned around and said that you accepted that some people had benefited but the vast majority hadn't, and then gone on to say that some things could be implemented in a new law then I would have gained a lot of respect for you. But to simply attack someone and accuse them of wanting to FORCE other people to pay for my daughter shows a total lack of respect for others opinions, and a complete arrogance on your part.

          You don't debate, you simply demand that you are right! You know what -NO ONE is right 100%. Obama isn't, Bush wasn't, the next president isn't. Compromise, debate by all means...but never demand...


          Oh and one final point - do you think it is right that there are people in the US that cannot afford Health Care? You should never have been in a position where you went without health insurance, nor should anyone else - you may disagree, but that is one advantage that a socilized health care system has over any other system - don't twist my words - I'm only selecting this one small part....

        2. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          God, you don't even know what's IN this bill you think you hate so much. It allows parents to keep their adult children on their PRIVATE insurance policies until the age of 26. Previously, the limit was 21 (and in some cases even earlier), which doesn't even cover most people until they get out of college.

          "Charity" and "making other people pay" doesn't have anything to do with it. In fact, SimeyC is absolutely correct that this provision makes people like his daughter LESS dependent on charity and taxpayer assistance.

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Why should there be any age limit on who is on your policy? Why should the government dictate the provisions of a contract between parties?  Do you think the insurance companies are putting those limits in? The government dictating limits is imposing costs on insurance companies which must be passed along to us all.

            1. SimeyC profile image97
              SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Agreed - there should be no limits. But there were limits before the Obamacare, and Obamacare increased them - so isn't that a good step? So would you accept an amendment to the bill if it removed age restrictions entirely, but the associated cost increase must be paid by the consumer?

              This is what I mean - there are some great concepts in the new bill that can be expanded or kept - sure it needs to be changed in many ways, but don't repeal it IMPROVE it - there are some good ideas on both sides...

              1. lady_love158 profile image60
                lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                No! The idea for Obamacare (obstensively) was to cut the cost of insurance ... how is that possible when you're adding 32 million new people and requiring all kinds of new coverage? What's needed is the exact opposite... deregulation of insurance companies so they can sell policies that you or you daughter need those needs being different and the policy geared toward the individual. For example if you're a non smoker you wouldn't need coverage for smoking cessation as is required by the government! You would experience a savings rather than subsidizing that benefit for others.

                1. SimeyC profile image97
                  SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't disagree with you, but this can be done by amending the existing law - moving forward not backward - there are concepts and policies that are good - sure they are not implemented correctly - but fix them - don't dismiss them.

                  The idea of no-one being without insurance is excellent, and I'll all for this - I'm against the fact of forcing this....so make it optional - if you want insurance you have the option of opting in - if not then you don't get any help.....

                2. kerryg profile image88
                  kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Do you have a source on the smoking cessation thing? As far as I know, that is required only for the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, and some state programs, not for private insurance plans.

                  1. lady_love158 profile image60
                    lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    You're not getting it... the states regulate the insurance companies they tell them what they must cover so its different for every state which is why it was proposed that sales be allowed across state lines... but as you say the fed plan has it so of course it will be required in Obamacare.

      2. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Your daughter is able to get Medicaid.

        The CBO has predicted this bill will cost 800,000 plus jobs.

        I don't put a lot of faith in the CBO but if they are even half right this bill is a job killer.

        There is nothing good in this bill that you can't get through private insurance already.

        1. SimeyC profile image97
          SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Yes there is - Insurance companies cannot deny you for prior conditions...

          And medicaid is going bust and also needs reform..so while my daugther may qualify for Medicaid, if it is reformed it will not cover everything that my private insurance will. But, as a consumre, if I'm willing to have my daughter on my insurance and pay for it, why should I be denied that right?

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "Yes there is - Insurance companies cannot deny you for prior conditions..."

            No there isn't, one year after getting a policy all prior conditions would be covered.

            Its the law.

            1. SimeyC profile image97
              SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              That's great if I have cancer and six months to live - ah well!

              I may be wrong on this - but there have been many cases where an insurance company has dropped the insured, as is their right by the law, or they have denied admittance into the plan...

              1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                There are high risk pools you can buy into.

                You see, a previous condition is a high risk.

                Its like buying car insurance immediately after a wreck and expecting the insurance company to pay for a new car.

                This bill is not good.

                1. SimeyC profile image97
                  SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  And my bone of contention in this whole matter is 'The bill is not good' - there are parts of it that are.

                  I'm not D or R and I'm not looking at this politically, I'm looking at it as someone who wants to see decent healthcare. The system before was broken - the system isn't that much better with the new bill, but there are improvements.

                  Work together - come up with something superior - keep on improving - discard the crap - improve the potentially good things....that's the way it should work in a truly democratic government in my opinion....

                  1. Flightkeeper profile image73
                    Flightkeeperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I wish the same but there are a lot of dirty fingers.  Between Big Health, Big Pharma, Big Labor, the lawyers, etc. it's really muddy waters.

              2. kerryg profile image88
                kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                You aren't wrong at all. It's called rescission, and it happened to my aunt when she was diagnosed with leukemia in the 90's. Her insurance company immediately canceled her coverage even though she had paid all her premiums on time. mad

                Turned out to be a miscalculation on their part, since she is a) rich enough to pay out of pocket for her treatment and b) a damn good lawyer, so she not only survived, she's spent the intervening 20 years fighting to make sure it never happens to anybody again. lol

          2. Flightkeeper profile image73
            Flightkeeperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Simey, your premium is based on an agreement with the carrier. If one of the points in the agreement is that only children up to the age of 21 are allowed to be on your policy, the premium was calculated based on that point. If the government changes the age to include children up to age 26 the premium would have to change to include the statistical probability of their use of medical care. The age of 21 was not arbitrary. Those additional years are prime childbearing years and add to the costs and have to be borne by the medical group that you are part of, so the premiums will go up for everybody not just you.

            1. SimeyC profile image97
              SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Yes - the whole group has gone up - absolutely - but everyone in the plan has the same benefit. Personally I want my married daughter covered until she can afford her own insurance - selfish sure, but surely the benefit is the same for everyone.

              The increase in cost is onyl for those that select 'family' so if I had opted for single then I would not have borne the cost....it's a choice I made...and the way it should work!

              1. Flightkeeper profile image73
                Flightkeeperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                No, not everyone in the plan has the same benefit.  There are people on your medical group that don't have children or have children past the years of 26 and you are asking them to take the additional cost to benefit your family members.  It's all statistically based and even though single or members with no children pay less, the group family rate as a whole is cheaper.  Therefore the costs are spread out to the singles and members with children past 26.  Sorry to be harsh.

                1. SimeyC profile image97
                  SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Not at all. Sadly as it's new there will be losers. But I am paying for my daughter now, and I am willing to contribute to the plan for others once my daughters are not in the plan.

                  I can only explain in different terms - perhaps not quite the same. My children are not in school now - but I still pay school related taxes - I'm not going to opt out simply because I have no children in school (in fact I can't opt out), but will do like parents before me have done and paid into the system so that all will benefit. I continue to vote for the school budgets even when I know it will increase my own personal taxes because it's important for the whole community. In the same way I feel that providing healthcare for all is beneficial to the community...

                  I personally feel there should be no time limit on a family plan until the person dies of course....

                  1. Flightkeeper profile image73
                    Flightkeeperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Simey, that is very commendable but the difference is that you voted for the school budgets and that is as it should be.  Regarding the health care premiums, you didn't vote, it's government imposed.

                    On top of which, most of the medical premiums are being paid by the company, so it costs more for the company and leaves less money to hire people and invest in the company.  That's why it's a job killer.

      3. DannyMaio profile image61
        DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        first thing if your daughter got married and they are not able to support themselves, they shouldn't have been married, that is irresponsible. second do you think your daughter can get added and it is free? NO it will bring your policy up! I checked into this since i have 4 kids 23,22,20 and 18 and we know after 21 they come off. It will actually be cheaper if you just paid for a basic single person policy then add her to your existing policy. it is all smoke and mirrors please check before posting.

        1. SimeyC profile image97
          SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I stated my policy went up - I am paying - which is my right (or should be).

          "first thing if your daughter got married and they are not able to support themselves, they shouldn't have been married" - more personal attacks. If we all had that attitude then we would not have many marriages. So what should she do? Stay single so she can screw the system? It's because of fraud like this that everything is a mess.


          She can't afford health insurance - doesn't mean she cannot support herself. 30% of people under 30 cannot afford health insurance.

          1. DannyMaio profile image61
            DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            simeyc bottom-line is if they just let you cross states to compete insurance would go down drastically. yes we definitely need reform with health-care but the bad in that bill out weighs the good. did you know that if your very old and a operation was needed and your life expectancy was a few years the government panel would refuse the operation! these are facts, most people think this is good when in fact it is not. why do all the European and Canadian people come here for medical? because they have long waiting lists and the advancement here is the best because of open market for doctors, once the government gets involved everything goes down hill! you know this as well as I do. the doctors will work for the government and get a set salary and not have the opportunity to make millions and they spent a large portion of their life in school and studying, yes the doctors who already started this career will stay but the future stars of the medical field will go into law or something more profitable. tell me how the Europeans and Canadians feel about their system.

            1. SimeyC profile image97
              SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Aha got you! I'm English! When I lived in England my future wife visited me from America. Her daughter became ill - we rushed her to hospital - she was treated, given drugs and sent home - she was my 'guest' so she was only charged prescription costs which were limited to $10.

              Sure there are problems, but it's an Englishman's right to supplement the national health with a private health insurance....

              I spent 30 years in the British System. Never once was I questioned for 40 minutes before relating to my health insurance; never once was I kept waiting for 12 hours in the ER; never once was anyone I knew kept in the ER with sever cancer related pain and not given a pain killer because they couldn't get hold of a doctor; never once was a dying person asked how they were going to pay the bill because their insurance had denied payment - I experienced all of these 'bad' things in the American health care system not the British healthcare system!

          2. DannyMaio profile image61
            DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            the Health-care reform bill, it has over 1,990 pages. Are you aware of just some of these issues:

            Pg. 29 – Your Health Care is RATIONED!

            30 – There will be a Govt. Committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

            50 - Health-care will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise. (who is paying for that?)

            59 – Govt. will have direct access to your bank accts. for elective funds transfer.

            129 – Employers MUST pay for Health-care for part-time employees AND their families.

            (Don’t get excited about this as it will only force employers to reduce the work force, benefits, and wages to cover such a huge expense.)

            167 – ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable Health-care ACCORDING TO GOVT. will be taxed 2.5% of income.

            170 – Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

            354 – The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of “special needs people”.

            429 – An Advanced Care Consultation may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVT.)

            430 - The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life!

            494-498 – Govt. will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.



            This is scary. There is so much more to this. The dems hide these little gems under the guise of getting health care for all. No doubt about it - we need reform but not this bill. I understand what I am reading and I don't LIKE IT.



            .

            1. SimeyC profile image97
              SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              You've quoted 14 pages from the first 500 - I'm sure a pro-Obamacare could quote 14 pages that are good....

              1. DannyMaio profile image61
                DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                again, the bad out weighs the good. everyone has their opinion and now it makes sense why you are for this regardless of the disaster it will bring. you are from Europe. See how you just justified yourself, let me tell you if there were 50 million pages and one page was bad and would destroy many things then i would not care what the other 4.9999 million had in it. This is America not Europe! that is why everyone wanted to be like us(not as much anymore because of the socialist) look at Greece, that system doesn't work and eventually will break, it has too and history has shown over and over it does not work. you sound like a very decent man and I totally respect that, I'm very giving also but I do not want the government to tell me I have to, I want to. Is it fair that someone, lets say your daughter goes to school for 12 extra years to be a doctor and puts in her time and has to sacrifice a good portion of her prime ages to be that doctor and have her equal to someone who did not give two sh!ts about school and smoked pot and partied the same years she was busting her butt to be successful? she should give 60% of her salary while others do not pay anything. then they have the nerve to say because your successful you need to pay more??? please Europe is like this and the US was not designed to be like this. I'm all for helping especially the elderly and young but people need to get off their lazy asses and stop looking for handouts.

                1. SimeyC profile image97
                  SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Britain is a very different beast than the rest of Europe, but that's an argument for a different day. There are merits to the British system and there are merits to the American system - surely there's a health care bill somewhere that can meld the best of the two! This is what I find so frustrating.

                  R: the bill is bad.
                  D: the bill is good.
                  R: socialized healthcare doesn't work
                  D: socialized healthcare does work.

                  There's no in between and both sides are as bad! Work together - produce what is best for us all - BOTH sides have some amazing ideas....

                  as for 'not give two sh!ts about school and smoked pot' - *grin* isn't that the criteria for becoming a politician these days?!

                  1. DannyMaio profile image61
                    DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm a registered democrat. yes both sides have some good ideas and they should be implemented. but this bill is really not good. two or three things in it would benefit me personally but overall it will cause many problems. And for the record I love British people the nicest people around.  been to the UK but recently there are a lot of Muslim people now. like taking over and imposing a lot of Muslim culture.

              2. kerryg profile image88
                kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this
      4. BillyDRitchie profile image61
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Just married, with a baby, working for minimum wage....on exactly how many levels is this wrong?

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It's called freedom isn't it? You wouldn't want to have people told when they could marry, when they could have children would you?

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image61
            BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Um, no nobody should have to be told....I would hope most of us are smart enough to recognize when we are and are not capable of taking care of a child. 

            If you can't afford it, probably not a good idea.....

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Hm, Have children when you are young enough and fit enough to care for them or wait until you can afford them you no longer have the energy to care for them, the risk's increase, you're too busy working to devote time to them.

              Who decides when you have enough money to raise kids?
              How much money is enough?

              1. BillyDRitchie profile image61
                BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Oh, I don't know, when you can provide for their care and well being, clothing, shelter, and food without having to mooch off the rest of us who actually go out and make our way.

                Sorry if that offends (well, not really...)

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, but to what level?
                  Basic care only or all the bells and whistles?
                  When you have enough to get by day to day or when you have enough put by to cover you for an unexpected redundancy?

        2. SimeyC profile image97
          SimeyCposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You've got to be kidding right?

          Not that I should have to defend my daughter - and thanks Mighty Mom for defending her....

          My daughter IS working - she refuses to rely on food stamps and free housing as she feels it is 'stealing' especially as she has barely paid taxes - she could have not married and lived on welfare for the next ten years - so that's what you would prefer.

          Since when is being young, getting married and having a baby wrong? From what I was taught, this is in fact the way things are supposed to happen.

          She's wrong for getting a job and supporting her family? Wow! W

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image61
            BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You can support yourself on minimum wage?  More power to ya....

    3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Oh brother! roll

  2. lovemychris profile image59
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    It's desperation.
    Face it...Obama is a good president!
    He has agreed with Scott Brown because he thinks Scott Brown makes sense...he is not afraid to go where sense leads!!

    Unlike the Radical Righty's, who are ratcheting up the crazy with their desperate attempts to get rid of Obama/Democrats/Unions and give absolute power to the corporations.

    It's manic time at the righty corral.

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image61
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Obama is a good president.......I'm just amazed that people can actually say that with a straight face.

      But at least we were spared another wealth envy rant.....maybe there is hope after all....

  3. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    And so we come to the essence of  the GOP health care plan.

    For the working poor who can't afford health insurance, if you get sick the teabagger  plan can be summed up in two words.

    Die quietly.

    1. profile image46
      ShortStoryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Did you steal that from that crazy guy in Florida who lost his reelection bid?

    2. BillyDRitchie profile image61
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, Doug, please tell me you didn't just channel that moonbat Alan Grayson.....you are sooooo much more talented than that, my friend......

  4. lovemychris profile image59
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    It's only "charity" when it applies to real people. Banks and corporations get charity...REAL charity-- all the time, and those Righty's couldn't care less!
    They don't care AT ALL giving money to a corporate CEO, or a bank CEO....that's 5 mil a year just for ONE person!! THAT they don't blink an eye.
    It's only when money is used for the greater good of the unwashed masses that they get their panties all in a wad.

    Your daughter is not "one of them" and so does not rate on the deserving scale.
    You must be a member of Republicorps to deserve any tax money that WE ALL pay into.

    It's sad really---how dis-connected they are. It comes from years of thinking they own America. IMO

    1. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The right is unamerican. They have mis-guided the mass of republicans to fight against their own self interest. They have taken advantage of their people desire to be a part of something big and make changes. They don't realize they are part of a circular fireing squad.

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Lol!! You don't realize why we are fighting against our own self interest, because what is at stake is bigger than any one person... opposing Obamacare is a huge display of unselfishness... the presevation of liberty... we will NOT be bought off with entitlements!

        1. junko profile image79
          junkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          LL you were more than likely raised on entitlements and surviving on some today.Lol, Lol, Lol.  Opposing Obama is a hugh display of hate. You got more liberty than you deserve.

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The only hate I see us the hate of me and my views displayed clearly by the libs here! I can assure you I worked for and earned everything I have and I wont apologize for that!

  5. Pente profile image82
    Penteposted 6 years ago

    I have never heard a solution to the health care problem that both allows the free market to work it's magic, yet allow the government to help out those in need.

    We need something like food stamps. The free market at least works on the spending end of things, because the supermarkets compete for those food stamps (guess I should call them credits).

    If we are going to have government health care (I am avoiding the argument of whether they should for now), why not use medical credits. You would use these medical credits to shop for the best medical care or insurance, while also being limited by how many credits you can use. This would allow the free market to work.

    I read a science fiction story where there was sufficient medical knowledge to allow a person to live forever (barring accidents or murder). The cost of some of the procedures was absolutely prohibitive though. Cloning your body and transplanting your brain into it could cost a million dollars alone. Some people would take poor care of their bodies and need a new one every couple decades, while others would maintain their bodies and make them last a hundred years each.

    The government solution to this infinite demand for medical resources was to give everyone a medical savings account when they were born. Once they used it up, it was gone and so was the government obligation for free health care. After that, you had to pay for all your health care yourself.

    The point is that we need a way to limit the demand for free health care. Medical credits (either lifelong or monthly) would accomplish that goal. I wouldn't even care if they were transferable. Healthy family or friends could transfer some of their extra credits to those who need them.

    The other way to begin solving our medical crisis would be to end all federal medical programs and transfer the problem to the state. I believe that this problem could be dealt with much better within the states.

    Turning the problem over to the states would also create a bunch of different models. States would be able to learn from each other.

    Anyway, that is my two cents worth.

    1. DannyMaio profile image61
      DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      great post! I think the socialist would still not be happy because someone who worked hard or actually saved their money would get more care then the poor one. The idea of letting the state take care of it is even a better idea. I was actually thinking to do a small extra tax to cover the uninsured by hiring more doctors(actually the ones who want to help people and not in it for the money) to expand the VA hospitals and that is where the uninsured go for medical. I believe this would eliminate many problems and then allow crossing state lines to reduce the cost of insurance and that would pay the extra tax, so it will be like a wash. that is my two cents

  6. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Excuse me. Who died and annointed you the lifestyle police?
    What -- would you rather his daughter was not married to her baby's father? No, then you would complain about unwed mothers.
    Perhaps you haven't noticed, but we still have a rampant unemployment problem in this country. His daughter is lucky to have a job at all.
    Would you rather she be a welfare mother?
    She and her husband are just starting out -- just like young couples have done for generations. Are they at the top of their earning capacity? Of course not. But in true capitalist form, they're laying the foundation.

    Instead of on how many levels is this wrong, you should be saying on how many levels is this American!

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Like many others who extol freedom, it's a very restrictive freedom, do as I say or else!
      It's freedom to toe the line but not freedom to follow your star.

      1. profile image0
        tugbo200-5posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        how do you pay the fine for having no insurance, when you have no money to buy the insurance

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          What?

  7. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    I think what tugbo meant was that the healthcare law imposes a fine on those who refuse to buy health insurance coverage.
    So the point is if you don't have the money to buy health insurance coverage, how are you gonna have the money to pay the fine?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, I see. But are refusers viewed in the same way as the impoverished?

  8. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Logic tells us no, they are not viewed the same.
    The goal of the bill is not to punish anyone by forcefeeding them a "buy or die" plan. Having healthcare should not create a financial hardship for low-wage earners.
    The goal is to make healthcare coverage available on a broader scale at a more reasonable price so that it IS affordable.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Good, ta.

      1. profile image0
        tugbo200-5posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you Mighty Mom for clarifying my comment.

        My point is ,when living on a fixed income that barely pays the bills,
        Obamacare will punish  low-wage earners.Many states have gone to court
        because of the fact "you will be fined if you do not have health coverage".
        We still have no idea how it's going to affect Medicare.
        Given a "fine" means you are forced,being "forced" you are Ruled.

        1. profile image0
          tugbo200-5posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          CHEERS to "DannyMaio"

 
working