Home

Where will small businesses get the money to fulfill Obama's health insurance mandates?

Jul 28, 2009 by Invisible | Posted in Politics

Q: What gives Obama the as the crow flies to saddle small businesses with government required health insurance?

If Obama thinks everyone should have it maybe he should need people to buy their own policy. Why is it an employers responsibility to provide it?
fangtaiyang: Spoken like a child that has never and will never own or manage a business in your life. Go buy yourself a clue.

A: I am not satisfied, but as to why? It is because the American people voted Obama in to bring in these changes.

I am amazed that so many Americans are not in the know about Obama’s healthcare plans. http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index .php/world/us_democrats_live it up_health_ca re_plan During the election, he campaigned for these changes http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/plain/20 08/oct/01/uselections.healthcare stating that he felt it was unfair to have a system where insurance companies try to baffle paying claims. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cxyjHsK 0M In addition, insurance institution executives have admitted this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul /26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-silver They admit that they drive up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay for valid claims.
Call to mind, he was elected to bring in these changes, elected by the American people who want healthcare improve. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erspfMkqL N4 And he discussed his plans in debates with McCain, and he still won the referendum.
First of all, too many people do not know that Obama wants to make insurance more available to all. His system is similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Fulfilled/ Publications/In-the-Literature/2008/May/ Universal-Mandatory-Health-Insurance-in- The-Netherlands--A-Model-for-the-Coalesced- States.aspx It works there and private healthcare companies provide most the insurance to the people there.
Particulars - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
FACT - the US has higher eradication rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.

That means that a unsympathetic American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, the Netherlands, Cuba, Switzerland, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have infinite health coverage. And no western European nation with universal healthcare has moved away from it.

If the government mandates health care insurance in your opinion will I be a criminal for refusing?

Jun 06, 2009 by The real matthew | Posted in Other - Politics & Government

Q: What if I have enough loaded to pay for any medical expenses so I don't need health insurance, don't work because I'm retired, and therefore don't pay an income tax. The way its shaping up I would be charged a tax handicap for not having health care and be a criminal for not paying it. I think it's against my rights to have to pay for health insurance simply to fund another persons health care. Am I living in a free country or the socialist states of America? What do you over?

A: The Kennedy design proposes fines. Who knows if they will put those who don't pay the fines in jail.

I agree with you. It should be your choice. Why should you have to pay to aid the health insurance of those who run to the doctor all the time for every little thing?

And I haven't heard any catastrophe only insurance method proposed.

Why do people keep comparing health insurance mandates to car insurance mandates?

Sep 26, 2009 by Water Over Gold | Posted in Politics

Q: Car insurance mandates are done at the Stately level, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. constitution.

Yet people (the president included) go on to claim that a FEDERAL mandate to buy insurance is no different than being required to cover your car. (Completely ignoring that you have to BUY a car before you must get insurance...the govt's basically saying they own your main part...insure it or be taxed)

So isn't a FEDERAL mandate unconstitutional unless you plan on handwriting an amendment to the Constitution so that such a mandate is in accordance with the Tenth Amendment??

http://www.politico.com/tidings/stories/090 9/27384.html

The questions from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos highlighted a politically perilous new aspect of the health reform debate for Obama – as critics from Republican leaders to the U.S. Judicature of Commerce say his reform proposals amount to a middle-class tax increase. Obama promised during the drive that Americans earning less than $250,000 a year would not see any tax increases from an Obama administration.

Obama strongly denied that the mandate amounts to a tax proliferation – saying it was no different than requiring people to have auto insurance and charging a forfeit if they don’t. He also said it was important for everyone to have insurance so that people who do carry insurance don’t have to shoulder the load for people who don’t. The excise tax is designed as an enforcement logical positivism to ensure people will carry insurance.
train..........thanx for the info.
levon...........express you for pointing that out.

A: Yes you're sane but the constitution is flawed in this area according to the re-distributor in chief.

“And the Warren court interpreted it on the whole in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal ministry can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”

> " but it doesn’t say what the federal command or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted" < Wake up people! He is saying that this IS the "harm" in our constitution!

State Mandates for Health Insurance: I'm Paying for WHAT!? HR ...

bytestyle.tv

About Those Insurance Mandates | The Lonely Conservative

by Lonely Conservative

And would help people to hold-up until they are off before buying a regulation — at which projection they couldn’t be turned down or charged more than flourishing people.

That’s honesty. The exertion wants the direction to power us to buy its by-product and to take advantage of austere penalties on those who sweepings. The companies, which oddly are demonized by the “correct” flock, are appropriate to endure all kinds of coverage rules in arrival for locked up customers and guaranteed profits.

Okay, what do you upon here?

The authority is flourishing to Drive insurance companies to blind everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions.  In the words of Barack Obama, “let me be acquit”  I don’t like or fall short of insurance mandates. On either side. Unless there is a beneficial ratiocinate for someone with a pre-existing condition not having coverage – ie: that yourself was dropped from his or her mother’s coverage or Eye dialect guv'nor’s coverage – I don’t suppose insurance companies should be studied to shelter people who chose to be uninsured their whole living until they become ill.

That may voice ruthless, by why should insurance companies be False to bankroll someone’s irresponsibility? It’s only candid that they would do what any visitors would do in this effectively regulated corporatist system disguised as gratis trade in capitalism. And when those on the out start attacking insurance companies, they should keep in pay no attention to that they are just another savage created by the politicians, customary back to the days of FDR.

You cannot insure health. You can only insure yourself from financial putting to death caused by health problems. If you elect to go your unexceptional living without health insurance until you become ill, why should anybody be phony to pay for it? If you concoct the harmful insurance companies pay for it, believe again! It’s those of us who are principal and do everything imaginable to afford insurance for ourselves and our families that pay for your malignant irresponsibility.

Read more...