Poll: Is Obamacare good or bad for Americans?

Is Obamacare good or bad for Americans?

  • Good

    Votes: 13 25.0%

  • Bad

    Votes: 39 75.0%
  • Total voters
    52
I like this idea.
Senator Rand Paul has announced that he intends to introduce a constitutional amendment that would force all federal employees off taxpayer funded personal health-care plans and onto Obamacare health insurance.

Appearing on Fox News this morning, Paul argued that as Obama’s health-care law goes into effect, federal workers should be made to purchase Affordable Care Act exchanges, instead of getting special treatment via subsidies.

“I think Congress should never exempt themselves from a law,” Paul said. “But then again, I think John Roberts, he loves ObamaCare so much, he should get it. Right now, he’s getting a federal employee subsidy.”

“He’s not part of ObamaCare. He makes the rest of America—through, I think, convoluted Constitutional logic—he makes us get ObamaCare, but he’s exempt.” the Senator added.
 
BU-CcTACEAA0RbX.jpg
 
Stated another way...

Is the "free ice-cream" the government promises the parasite class in exchange for their vote... worth HAVING THE GOVERNMENT'S HEAD SO FAR UP YOUR ASS THAT YOU CAN TASTE THE BRYLCREEM?

:mad: :mad:
 
Quote from wjk:

"Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women"


http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/?partner=yahootix
More...

And the worst part... Odumbocare is not primarily about health-anything... it's about GOVERNMENT POWER, CONTROL, SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM/NAZISM OVER THE LIVES OF THE STUPID FUCKS WHO VOTED TO GIVE UP THEIR VALUES IN EXCHANGE FOR A GOVERNMENT CHECK!! Shame on all of them!



:mad:
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

I like this idea.
Senator Rand Paul has announced that he intends to introduce a constitutional amendment that would force all federal employees off taxpayer funded personal health-care plans and onto Obamacare health insurance.

Appearing on Fox News this morning, Paul argued that as Obama’s health-care law goes into effect, federal workers should be made to purchase Affordable Care Act exchanges, instead of getting special treatment via subsidies.

“I think Congress should never exempt themselves from a law,” Paul said. “But then again, I think John Roberts, he loves ObamaCare so much, he should get it. Right now, he’s getting a federal employee subsidy.”

“He’s not part of ObamaCare. He makes the rest of America—through, I think, convoluted Constitutional logic—he makes us get ObamaCare, but he’s exempt.” the Senator added.
More...
What's the odds Congress will force themselves into Obamacare?
 
Quote from RedDuke:

1) I pointed out Medicare not to compare the two, but to point out that all those, who were claiming that it is communism and a terrible idea that Americans would reject, were proven wrong.

2) Think about car insurance. No one is forcing you to buy a car, but once you buy it, government is forcing you to buy a totally different product called insurance. One can not go without the other.

3) There are many things that the government is forcing us to do. There used to be no income tax for example. Some are bad some are good.

4) It is not known yet which camp ACA will fall into.

5) While I am healthy, my most favorite part of ACA is preexisting conditions. This is a huge problem for families who face it. It is a small % of populations, but it carries a huge tall.

6) I know few people who cling to their jobs for the sole purpose of having employer's insurance. They will be looking for other options, including starting their own business, once ACA kicks in full gear.

Let's wait and see before passing a judgement.
More...
1) medicare is a socialist program. And you're right the fed govt has ZERO authority to be operating medicare. But what you have 100% wrong is that because Americans like it, somehow that 'proves' it's a good thing or beneficial to this country in any way. You just stated the obvious, people like what they couldn't possibly afford on their own, the problem is: the program is fiscally unsustainable, and is probably the biggest train wreck in all of govt, which is really saying something.

2) I believe you're wrong again. auto insurance depends on the State which you are licensed in. They might all require insurance for you to drive, but it isn't federal law. That does make a huge difference as States have more ambiguous authority under the Constitution. It's also ridiculous policy imo. You pay insurance so that if something happens to your vehicle (in this case) your insurer covers it. But under these stupid fucking laws, if they deem it to be your fault, YOU pay. And because you are forced to purchase it, the insurance companies can really fuck you over. Like parents who let their kids drive, well when their newb kid gets in an accident or a speeding ticket, mom and dad are gonna get their premiums jacked up. It should be obvious who wrote those fucking laws.

3) geez dude.. wrong again. Income taxes were passed by Constitutional Amendment. Again totally different than obamacare. If you libs want national healthcare then the right way to do it is by Amendment because healthcare is not a right (either in the Constitution or traditionally).

4) yes it is, it will be another unaffordable, unsustainable beerocracie that causes more harm than good.

5) so ask yourself, why didn't Congress just pass a law that forbids health insurers from turning away people with preexisting conditions, assuming they're paying customers? that's oversimplified, but it could be done without a single new byerocrat.

6) lol they're gonna need a much better job to pay more for less. Someone posted the plans, i hope they're not accurate. if there is no max out of pocket you can still get fucked even on the plat plan. All the others are shit.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

"... why didn't Congress just pass a law that forbids health insurers from turning away people with preexisting conditions, assuming they're paying customers? that's oversimplified, but it could be done without a single new byerocrat.
More...

Same situation as we have now... if the "uninsurable" are required to be covered, the ADDITIONAL cost of doing so must be added to and spread across the spectrum of "normal, insurable"... That's a big part of Odumbocare.

Insurance companies, all lines, "underwrite risk". If the risk of a particular situation/person is high, the company is STUPID for covering unless they charge an appropriate premium.

Insurance companies are NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF LOSING MONEY... they want to bet on the BEST risk/reward scenarios, not the worst... just as YOU would do if in their shoes.

And just because you "want and need" health insurance at a low cost... doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to it... regardless of what Odumbo, Pelosi, and Reid claim.

NO CITIZEN IS MORALLY ENTITLED TO TAKE FROM/RECEIVE ANYTHING SOME OTHER CITIZEN IS FORCED TO PAY FOR!! REGARDLESS OF THE GREED AND LIES TOLD BY POLITICIANS/JESSE JACKSON/AL SHARPTON, ET AL!!



:mad: :mad:
 
Quote from Lucrum:

What's the odds Congress will force themselves into Obamacare?
More...

Zero, but that isn't the point Mr Paul is making. We need to show the hypocrisy of it all, and then listen to the left and their media minions try to explain it. If this shit sandwich tastes so great, why isn't congress taking a big bite?
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

Same situation as we have now... if the "uninsurable" are required to be covered, the ADDITIONAL cost of doing so must be added to and spread across the spectrum of "normal, insurable"... That's a big part of Odumbocare.

Insurance companies, all lines, "underwrite risk". If the risk of a particular situation/person is high, the company is STUPID for covering unless they charge an appropriate premium.

Insurance companies are NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF LOSING MONEY... they want to bet on the BEST risk/reward scenarios, not the worst... just as YOU would do if in their shoes.

And just because you "want and need" health insurance at a low cost... doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to it... regardless of what Odumbo, Pelosi, and Reid claim.

NO CITIZEN IS MORALLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANYTHING SOME OTHER CITIZEN IS FORCED TO PAY FOR!!

:mad: :mad:
More...
I said it was an oversimplified statement. But this happens in every insurance company already. Some people are in good health with healthy behaviors and they pay a lower rate, others in worse health or with bad habits pay a higher rate. it's all in the same pool though and since there are a lot of unhealthy people it is probable that healthy people are paying higher premiums than they ideally should be to keep costs more uniform across the range of potential customers.

if you pass a law that the 'uninsurable' have to be covered, they will pay a much higher prem. if it is so high as to be simply unaffordable, then the insurers may have to raise everyone's premiums to spread the cost and keep it more affordable.. so what. that's no different than if taxes are raised, you think the insurers are gonna eat the cost, no, they'll pass it on to their customers by bumping up prems. Also, this same policy could be used in place of medicare. Have old folks pay their own insurance instead of having everyone, including Americans who don't exist yet, paying for their healthcare.

btw, i'm a fan of non-comprehensive, catastrophic coverage policies. You don't need insurance to be involved every time you go to the doctor or neurotic parents who bring in their kids every time they have a cold. just pay cash. health insurance originally existed to cover costs that the customer couldn't, not every little thing. that makes sense to me and premiums for such a policy are much lower.

the point was, it would still be 100x better than odumbocare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top