Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you will and all others who want to opt of health care will sign a waiver that you will pay for all costs up front and in full and never spend any of government funds (i.e. part of my money) for your care, then that's fine with me. If someone wants to sign away any and all healthcare without the ability to pay cash up front then okay. But when you come down with a some major life threatening illness or injury and don't have the money, be prepared to die and sign a waiver saying so. In fact I suggest you carry a "do not treat and leave me to die if my bank account cannot cover care" card with you at all times. Then if you and others that are against any kind of public health care want to opt out, I have no issues.
I did not have to sign anything, nor would I. What I do with my own money is none of anyone's business but my own. If you do not like that reality, I suggest you move to some despotic country where you can be as self-important as you like. Anti-American leftist fascists are always trying to control other people, it must be a genetic defect.
If you will and all others who want to opt of health care will sign a waiver that you will pay for all costs up front and in full and never spend any of government funds (i.e. part of my money) for your care, then that's fine with me. If someone wants to sign away any and all healthcare without the ability to pay cash up front then okay. But when you come down with a some major life threatening illness or injury and don't have the money, be prepared to die and sign a waiver saying so. In fact I suggest you carry a "do not treat and leave me to die if my bank account cannot cover care" card with you at all times. Then if you and others that are against any kind of public health care want to opt out, I have no issues.
I'd rather have congress and the prez sign something that says they won't spend more then they have and must cut spending to levels back 10-15 years. What's worse, the person taking advantage of handouts or the person handing your money out? Don't get me wrong, there's a need for Mary Potter programs and I fully back the ones that work. There are people who genuinely need help and wish they didn't. It's those who expect the handouts, never bothering to actually earn a lving (the Obama money crowd), who yank my chains.
Like I said, you'd rather see a 9 year old child from a broken leg or be lame for the rest of their life instead of your taxes going up by maybe 2% overall. In all reality you probably make far less than 70K a year, in which case you won't see your taxes go up at all.
But thats what you support, kids dying in the streets because of their parents bad decisions. I guess we could simply take kids away from parents that don't get them insurance, but the foster system is overloaded and costs far more than just taking care of the medical needs of a small percentage of people.
Quit with the unnecessary drama. Kids dying in the streets. Really?
And no, taking kids away from parents because they don't have insurance isn't going to happen. But smoking and drinking their pay away, and choosing to not get medical attention for their child with a broken leg? Yup, take the kid away.
So what's clear now is that no one seems to know for sure how far the judge's ruling — which did not include an injunction officially stopping the administration from enforcing the law while an appeal goes forward — reaches.
This is a conversation, and it's easier read than explained. Here is a "snippet" however.
And besides, says Pollack of Families USA, this case is clearly an outlier. So far, he notes, 16 cases filed against the law have been disposed of. Twelve have been dismissed on technicalities. Two judges have found the law constitutional. And now two have not.
The average American doesn't know any of this. The media that's SUPPOSED to inform us about these things is instead full of pundits on the left and right, screaming at each other. That's why the health-care law got repealed. We repealed it because it scared us. It scared us because we understood nothing about it.
I understand how much will be taken from Medicare under this law annually to get money to pay for the plan. I don't like that very much but then I am very wrong about death panels, also.
State Medicare boards that are made up of bureaucrats and nothing else amount to death panels, like it or not.
Much of the expense of medicine in this country comes from the fact that those boards don't pay a whole lot of what care givers ask for and then they try to make up that cost with people who have insurance.
I know these things to be true because I have been on Medicare for over 13 years and have watched how they paid.
He did declare it "void" and, no, they cannot proceed to implement it. If they do, they are in contmept.
He only declared the Act unconstitutional and not void therefore he did not issue an injunction against implementation of the Act. The parts of it can be enforced at the specified times no matter what so we need higher court action as soon as possible.
You sound like a welfare MaMa proclaiming it is her right to have as many kids as she wants.
You know, that "you have to pay for me" attitude that is destroying America.
Are you a Republican?
You're off your rocker. Stop deflecting.
That attitude is exactly why Obamacare passed in the first place. When will you realize that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.