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.
As POLITICO has noted, the president's decision would be a symbolic one, since he and the first family rely on White House doctors for medical care. It would also come at a substantial out-of-pocket cost because it would not be taxpayer subsidized.
Money spent in pursuit of liberty is never a waste.
Hey if that's how you want to see, I'm all for it. Pay all you like and get nothing at all out of it. You're not going to have an effect on the law (except to maybe help make it clear that we need universal health care instead of the Republican substitution we now have in the ACA), but you'll produce some revenue.
I use to pay $3,924 annually for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, with a $250 annual deductible. Since I am my own employer, that was 100% of the true cost. The exact same policy cost me $2,244 annually during the 1990s. That is a 74% total increase over the last 20 years, or an average increase of 3.7% per year.
When I said "I use to pay" I meant that as of October 1, 2013 I intentionally canceled my policy and am no longer insured. I also refuse to participate in the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, and I will not be providing the IRS with any information concerning my health insurance coverage. I want the IRS to fine/penalize/tax me. It is the only way I can gain standing with the courts, so I (and millions like me) can end this liberal abomination once and for all.
it wont last that long, I already have a second challenge going to the Supreme Court..
As POLITICO has noted, the president's decision would be a symbolic one, since he and the first family rely on White House doctors for medical care. It would also come at a substantial out-of-pocket cost because it would not be taxpayer subsidized.
Exactly. As I previously posted, Alaska's Congress critters did precisely that. Democrat and Republicans alike signed up with the Affordable Health Care Act and paid three times higher premiums than it cost them when it was taxpayer subsidized under the congressional health care plan. It is entirely for PR purposes, but at this point both Congress and the President are desperate for any good PR.
The longer King Obama avoids joining his own signature law, the more people will perceive him as an elitist, and not subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. Of course if Obama actually knew anything about the American culture, which he obviously does not, he might be able to comprehend that it is not a good plan to come off as an elitist to the American public.
Yeah, good luck with that. For your sake, I hope you enjoy wasting money. You'll be paying fines and not having health insurance for a loooong time.
Not nearly as long as you think. There are dozens of lawsuits pending against Obamacare as we speak. Are you nearly as concerned with the billion dollars that is currently being spent on a website for a program that might be unconstitutional?
Tell me jay, why are you more concerned with what I do with my money, than you are with how the government wasts yours?
It would also come at a substantial out-of-pocket cost because it would not be taxpayer subsidized.
But somehow, the thought of other people having to pay substantial out of pocket costs due to Obamacare is just unbelievable to you and everyone who claims it, are lying.
Not nearly as long as you think. There are dozens of lawsuits pending against Obamacare as we speak. Are you nearly as concerned with the billion dollars that is currently being spent on a website for a program that might be unconstitutional?
Tell me jay, why are you more concerned with what I do with my money, than you are with how the government wasts yours?
I'm not. I think it's funny that people waste their money for nothing at all. The program has already been found constitutional, and no, I'm not opposed to the government having websites.
I'm not. I think it's funny that people waste their money for nothing at all. The program has already been found constitutional, and no, I'm not opposed to the government having websites.
Concern for the government having a website, wasnt the question, was it?
And no, it hasnt been found constitutional, PAYING a tax has been found constitutional, which of course everyone knew already, and charging people a tax for not buying something has also been found constitutional, but its passage was not challenged.
Do you find it funny that people pay into social security and die, thereby getting nothing back in return? Yeah, thats wasting money, but you dont have a problem with it I'm sure..
it wont last that long, I already have a second challenge going to the Supreme Court..
The sooner the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 is held to be unconstitutional the better. I have not had any health issues in the last three months, but my monthly prescriptions have gone from $11.33 to $176.00. On the plus side, I am no longer paying $327.00 per month in premiums. So far it has been a net gain of $162.33 per month, but that will not last. So speed is certainly preferable.
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.
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.
