- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
feel free to check the previous page, im well aware of the expansion of the federal governments power
and like i said earlier, what problems do you have if any of this "penalty" money finds its way to the military?
feel free to check the previous page, im well aware of the expansion of the federal governments power
and like i said earlier, what problems do you have if any of this "penalty" money finds its way to the military?
- 4,730
- 604
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
O.k. I understand you accept and support the idea that the federal government (executive branch exclusively) should expand its privileges and controls over the citizens of the United States. I for one disagree with you.
And I would have GREAT concern if any of this money found its way to the military because it was not defined in this tax law to go to the military. But if your hypothetical helps you deny the fact that the government has forever redefined (expanded would be a more correct term) its role, so be it- people will follow their parties off the cliff. As long as "your side wins" right?
And since you like questions and you support this power move by the federal government executive branch, you most likely fully support the Bush creation and Obama expansion of the DHS. And you for sure support the operation of U.S. military use of drones over U.S. soil, the drills the U.S. military conducted on U.S. soil and the involvement of foreign governments in war drills in conjunction with the U.S. military on U.S. coast lines. Being that you fully support the expansion of executive privilege.
- 337
- 14
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
Well...we voted President Obama into office and we will have to live with his decisions...crying over spilled milk right now...I hate it that I am going to be forced into buying something but in the end I voted for him so it is what it is...
- 1,540
- 36
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
Tag for later. Over here in the UK we've got the NHS, I need to see what the similarities are (if there are any...)
Something needs to be done cause this healthcare system we have right now is bogus. People without insurance just go to the ER if they get a cold because they can't be turned away. Health insurance in the group plan cost like $600 per person (when including your and the employer contribution). Why is the monthly premium for health insurance $600 when a doctor's appt costs like $100 if you pay cash?
People can't even switch jobs because the COBRA premiums are too high or they just go without insurance when switching jobs. People who have any pre-existing conditions can't even leave a job to start a business because they can't get health insurance.
People can't even switch jobs because the COBRA premiums are too high or they just go without insurance when switching jobs. People who have any pre-existing conditions can't even leave a job to start a business because they can't get health insurance.
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
So states can decline to participate obamacare?
- 3,949
- 1,197
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
What happens when someone needs a $100,000 surgery? Even if you pay that $600/mo for 10 years, that won't even cover the full cost of one of those surgeries. The point of health insurance is to socialize (distribute) the cost of that care and reduce the risk to the individuals within the pool.
- 68,459
- 103,971
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
My only issue is making the mandate a tax. Applying that to the tax code (maybe not immediately) opens the door for the worse kind of abuse of power. But i'm a bottom line person, and this is more good than bad, and governments abuse power, it's what they do. You're over there fighting hard against one possible extension of power while gladly accepting another. People and politics just aren't my thing. The country really isn't much different than it was 10 yrs ago, and won't be 10 yrs from now, so this running around like frantic ants with your head cut off thing ya'll like to do from time to time is pointless.
- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
Originally Posted by 8tothe24
O.k. I understand you accept and support the idea that the federal government (executive branch exclusively) should expand its privileges and controls over the citizens of the United States. I for one disagree with you., I could only imagine the outrage if it was the other side forcing you to do this (100 pages easy).
And I would have GREAT concern if any of this money found its way to the military because it was not defined in this tax law to go to the military. But if your hypothetical helps you deny the fact that the government has forever redefined (expanded would be a more correct term) its role, so be it- people will follow their parties off the cliff. As long as "your side wins" right?
i dont support all expansions of power from the execustive branch, i just pick and choose which ones to agree with and which ones not to
people can just reluctantly accept that their taxes have increased just like justice roberts claims if they dont want to purchase health care, and those who already have health care dont have to worry about paying any increased taxes
and why would it matter if the government "defined" whether or not this money goes towards the military? we already know they have the power to tax for military purposes, justice roberts says its a tax and i agree with him
- 3,949
- 1,197
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
It's not as uncommon as you think. A family member just had a heart surgery that was $400,000 that included the week for recovery in ICU. Thankfully, their insurance covered most of it.
If you think about it you have the surgeon and anesthesiologist, the team of nurses, malpractice insurance, and hospital resources used. Do I think that's a little much? Perhaps. But I also don't know the ins and outs of what goes into all those costs. Maybe they're compensating for others who don't have insurance. Maybe it costs so much because they're one of the top 5 hospitals on the west coast.
I'm pretty sure the reason they want to expand "health care coverage" (read: mandatory insurance) is the same reason we are required to contribute to social security. When we're young, we don't use the resources we're paying for and thus create a larger pool for those in their later years who utilize those resources more.
al audi
Banned
- 29,810
- 4,562
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
might as well bring this thread back
jhawk826
Banned
- 3,001
- 621
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
You already have CEOs threatening to cut back employees hours to PT status because of ObamaCare. Watch when it really goes into effect. Doesn't help the employment situation because an owner would rather pay a fine which is cheaper in the long run.
- 4,403
- 10,849
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
If the financial outlook of a company that hires over 30 people is that fragile in which it would collapse as a result of obamacare than it probably wasn't that stable to begin with. If a company is that financially fragile, lay-offs and cut-backs would've happened regardless of obamacare. Obamacare just gives them an excuse to do so.
- 864
- 78
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
Insurance companies will merge and screw everyone at the end. Less competition, higher premiums.
al audi
Banned
- 29,810
- 4,562
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009