Letter from my employer concerning Obamacare/Obamatax

[Zxereus]

Doc,

It's the UNCERTAINTY.

As you know, unless a business owner can be absolutely certain about what costs will be 6 years from now, he or she cannot possibly make a 5 year plan. They will be paralyzed by this uncertainty and will refrain from investing in their business and hiring employees....even if they need them to meet demand.

And you're going to see a lot of businesses with 49 or less employees, even if they really need more.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Doc,

It's the UNCERTAINTY.

As you know, unless a business owner can be absolutely certain about what costs will be 6 years from now, he or she cannot possibly make a 5 year plan. They will be paralyzed by this uncertainty and will refrain from investing in their business and hiring employees....even if they need them to meet demand.

And you're going to see a lot of businesses with 49 or less employees, even if they really need more.

What a dumb ass.

 

[Stephanie]

Your new health care MASTERS that YOU get to PAY FOR

hip hip hooray

ENJOY

 

[Zxereus]

Doc,

It's the UNCERTAINTY.

As you know, unless a business owner can be absolutely certain about what costs will be 6 years from now, he or she cannot possibly make a 5 year plan. They will be paralyzed by this uncertainty and will refrain from investing in their business and hiring employees....even if they need them to meet demand.

And you're going to see a lot of businesses with 49 or less employees, even if they really need more.

What a dumb ass.

You must have missed this:

FEES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

Any employer who does not offer coverage but has more than 50 employees and has at least one full-time employee who receives a premium tax credit will have to pay a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee. The first 30 employees will be excluded from this assessment.

 

[g5000]

The reason I post this, is because every time I hear a moron liberal who claims you wont be affected at all unless you do not have a plan, I want to throw something at the TV, radio, or computer screen.
I've been around the block a few times, and you cannot sit there and tell me I wont be affected no matter what. This is a whole new entitlement program that will have it's own burecracy of the federal government. Ever know one of those that do anything but grow ?

Wont affect me or you my ass ! Just wait a few years dumbasses !

Please allow me to introduce some hard facts.

First, under ObamaCare, an employer-provided health insurance plan does not qualify as a "Cadillac plan" until it hits $27,500 for a family plan, or $10,200 for an individual plan.

So unless your insurance plan is worth that much, you will not be taxed on it.

Just for reference, the average health plan for a family is about $12,000.

You know who predominantly gets Cadillac plans? Labor unions.

The original floor for the excise tax was about $18,000 for a family plan. But Obama's labor union pals hated that tax and so Obama personally raised it to $27,500.

Liberals often rant about how tax cuts for the rich cost the rest of us money. Hmmm... Sounds like labor unions are excused from that rule.

Also, employer provided health insurance actually causes health care costs to bend upward. ObamaCare forces employers to provide health insurance. There are two mandates in ObamaCare. One for you, and one for employers. If an employer does not provide their employees insurance, they pay a fine. So ObamaCare is actually entrenching something which bends the cost curve up.

These two things tell us that the Democrats were in no way interested in getting health care costs under control. This was about votes and power.

But wait! There's more!


With or without a Cadillac plan, ObamaCare is definitely going to cost you some money. Oh, yes. But from a completely different direction.

ObamaCare had a provision which forces states to increase their Medicaid rolls substantially. The states were required to add tens of millions of people to their Medicaid plans.

Of course, this means incredible leaps in costs to the states' budgets. Which is why they went to the Supreme Court to demand the right to opt out of that part of ObamaCare.

The Supreme Court ruled the states can opt out. So a little good news in this shitstorm.

However, ObamaCare lures the states into the plan with a really devious method.

If a state increases its Medicaid rolls the way Obama wants them to, the federal government will pay the extra costs for about five years. So at first, ObamaCare is cheap for the states.

But then that crutch goes away, and all that extra cost will then fall on the states.

The states are not going to be able to afford those extra costs without raising your state taxes considerably. Either that, or they will have to disenroll all those people they added, which would lead to riots, of course.

And that is the third thing which tells you that the Democrats were in no way interested in bending health care costs down. Just watch the per capita spending keep rising.


So keep your eye on your state real close. If they opt in to ObamaCare, you are fucked.

 

[The T]

It will just like all other nationalized health care countries.... you pay for national shit plan...and pay for the premium plan you want that will provide you with the care and standards you are used to having.

And in time prices for everything else will rise, just as they did in Canada... Because the money has to come from somewhere. The working class won't be able to foot the entire Bill.

Oh i know.... pricing is going to go off the scale becasue of his little ponzi scheme

Just like Socialist Security.

 

[PratchettFan]

I got an email when this was passed that said in 2014 everyone was going to lose their health care because it can now be bought on Obamacare exchanges. I suppose in liberal world that isn't much of an effect.

Yup, that's exactly what will happen. Companies will no longer cover you since you can buy your own insurance. Of course, they could do that now too. I wonder why they haven't done that yet?

For the same reason they don't cut their employee's salaries in half.

 

[idb]

I have no problem with it affecting me. If it costs me a couple of hundred dollars a year to ensure that millions of my fellow Americans have access to medical care, I can live with that. I recognize that I enjoy an unusually good lifestyle (compared to the rest of the world) because of the benefits this nation provides and I see nothing particulary unfair in the idea that I pay my fair share for it.

Try a couple hundred dollars a month.

I think your math is seriously off. Care to share how you arrived at an average increase of $2400 a year?

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

 

[PratchettFan]

Try a couple hundred dollars a month.

I think your math is seriously off. Care to share how you arrived at an average increase of $2400 a year?

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

Fascinating. Who would thought that 65 years later questions would still surround remain about Roswell? That was some breaking news, that was.

 

[CandySlice]

I think your math is seriously off. Care to share how you arrived at an average increase of $2400 a year?

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

Fascinating. Who would thought that 65 years later questions would still surround remain about Roswell? That was some breaking news, that was.

Intentionally dumb is no way to go thru life, Son



President Obama's camp chafes at the notion the health care law's individual insurance mandate packs the threat of a tax. One way Democrats have been responding to to such criticisms is to point the finger at Mitt Romney and the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts.

"Let's get down to the bottom line here: Mitt Romney is the ObamaCare daddy," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said on CBS's Face the Nation. "He gave birth to this baby up in Massachusetts, and now he doesn't recognize it."

President Obama made the same argument while on a bus tour last week, saying, "when you hear all these folks saying, oh, no, no, this is a tax, this is a burden on middle-class families, let me tell you, we know because the guy I'm running against tried this in Massachusetts and it's working just fine."

Analysts, however, say there are huge differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare, and the biggest relates to taxes.

The president has to raise a trillion dollars in revenues over the first 10 years, more in later years, to cover the cost of the federal health care law. The state law Romney signed didn't raise taxes at all.

"Certainly the Obama plan that came out of Congress raised taxes significantly," says Josh Archambault of Boston's Pioneer Institute. "The Romney plan was not predicated on having to use tax money to be able to finance it."

In fact, says Tevi Troy, a former Bush administration official, the Obama plan raised 21 taxes.

"Taxes on health care plans, health insurers, on medical device manufacturers. So he's got a whole host of new taxes in order to make this thing appear deficit neutral," Troy said.

Analysts say Massachusetts had 8 percent uninsured and that Romney focused only on fixing that, unlike ObamaCare.

"I think the biggest difference between the federal and the state health care laws is the scope and the financing of the two laws. The federal law tries to change the entire health care system in one bill," Troy said.

However, Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute notes that Romney got financial help -- from federal Medicaid money.

"The federal government provided Governor Romney with hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid matching funds, which is what he used to fund the proposal," Dorn said. "And the federal government doesn't have anyone else they can turn to for money, so they needed to raise the taxes."

Others concede the state got Medicaid money to cover the costs of the uninsured. But instead of giving it to hospitals to pay unpaid bills the state gave individuals money to buy their own policies.

"Affordable insurance on their own," Archambault said. "The federal approach simply put them on the public rolls, and as a result we don't get near universal coverage."

And Troy argues the lesson is that Obama tried to do too much at once. "When you try to do everything, you don't accomplish much of anything other than causing greater confusion and perhaps even greater turmoil in the markets."



Read more: ObamaCare more taxing than RomneyCare? Laws' differences debated | Fox News

 

[PratchettFan]

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

Fascinating. Who would thought that 65 years later questions would still surround remain about Roswell? That was some breaking news, that was.

Intentionally dumb is no way to go thru life, Son



President Obama's camp chafes at the notion the health care law's individual insurance mandate packs the threat of a tax. One way Democrats have been responding to to such criticisms is to point the finger at Mitt Romney and the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts.

"Let's get down to the bottom line here: Mitt Romney is the ObamaCare daddy," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said on CBS's Face the Nation. "He gave birth to this baby up in Massachusetts, and now he doesn't recognize it."

President Obama made the same argument while on a bus tour last week, saying, "when you hear all these folks saying, oh, no, no, this is a tax, this is a burden on middle-class families, let me tell you, we know because the guy I'm running against tried this in Massachusetts and it's working just fine."

Analysts, however, say there are huge differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare, and the biggest relates to taxes.

The president has to raise a trillion dollars in revenues over the first 10 years, more in later years, to cover the cost of the federal health care law. The state law Romney signed didn't raise taxes at all.

"Certainly the Obama plan that came out of Congress raised taxes significantly," says Josh Archambault of Boston's Pioneer Institute. "The Romney plan was not predicated on having to use tax money to be able to finance it."

In fact, says Tevi Troy, a former Bush administration official, the Obama plan raised 21 taxes.

"Taxes on health care plans, health insurers, on medical device manufacturers. So he's got a whole host of new taxes in order to make this thing appear deficit neutral," Troy said.

Analysts say Massachusetts had 8 percent uninsured and that Romney focused only on fixing that, unlike ObamaCare.

"I think the biggest difference between the federal and the state health care laws is the scope and the financing of the two laws. The federal law tries to change the entire health care system in one bill," Troy said.

However, Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute notes that Romney got financial help -- from federal Medicaid money.

"The federal government provided Governor Romney with hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid matching funds, which is what he used to fund the proposal," Dorn said. "And the federal government doesn't have anyone else they can turn to for money, so they needed to raise the taxes."

Others concede the state got Medicaid money to cover the costs of the uninsured. But instead of giving it to hospitals to pay unpaid bills the state gave individuals money to buy their own policies.

"Affordable insurance on their own," Archambault said. "The federal approach simply put them on the public rolls, and as a result we don't get near universal coverage."

And Troy argues the lesson is that Obama tried to do too much at once. "When you try to do everything, you don't accomplish much of anything other than causing greater confusion and perhaps even greater turmoil in the markets."



Read more: ObamaCare more taxing than RomneyCare? Laws' differences debated | Fox News

I think we have different interpretations of "dumb".

My question to you was how you arrived at an average increase of taxes of $2400 per year. The other poster simply told me to look at Fox news. You have now provided me with a Fox News Op piece which provides no actual data.

At this point, I am left with little choice but to assume the reason you think taxes will go up as high as you claim is because your were told to think that without having any actuall data to arrive at that conclusion. I would be happy to think otherwise, but you are going to have to give me some hard data.

 

[mudwhistle]

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:17 AM
To: *General Announcement
Subject: Update - Health Care Reform and **** Insurance Program



Admin: Please post for those without email. Thanks!



Good morning,



There may be some questions about the recent Supreme Court decision on Health Care Reform. Here is a summary from *****, **** insurance broker, regarding the decision and any impact to **** insurance program.

“In a complex 193 page ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ‘individual mandate’ in the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care law is legal as long as it is an imposed tax for not obtaining health insurance. At this point the **** benefit program complies with all aspects of the PPACA law. The new tax will only impact those individuals that choose not to purchase health insurance and not until 2014. Employer provided benefits, like the **** program, are not subject to employee taxation, unless the benefit qualifies as a ‘Cadillac Plan’ and then not until 2018. The potential taxation of the plan as income to employees in 2018 is an area we will address as the concern becomes more prevalent.”



We’ll keep you posted if and when developments impact our insurance program.



Please call if you have any questions,

****

The reason I post this, is because every time I hear a moron liberal who claims you wont be affected at all unless you do not have a plan, I want to throw something at the TV, radio, or computer screen.
I've been around the block a few times, and you cannot sit there and tell me I wont be affected no matter what. This is a whole new entitlement program that will have it's own burecracy of the federal government. Ever know one of those that do anything but grow ?

Wont affect me or you my ass ! Just wait a few years dumbasses !

Actually, that letter says that you're not affected by the law, as far as they know right now.

You have an uncanny ability to notice the obvious.

 

[CandySlice]

Fascinating. Who would thought that 65 years later questions would still surround remain about Roswell? That was some breaking news, that was.

Intentionally dumb is no way to go thru life, Son



President Obama's camp chafes at the notion the health care law's individual insurance mandate packs the threat of a tax. One way Democrats have been responding to to such criticisms is to point the finger at Mitt Romney and the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts.

"Let's get down to the bottom line here: Mitt Romney is the ObamaCare daddy," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said on CBS's Face the Nation. "He gave birth to this baby up in Massachusetts, and now he doesn't recognize it."

President Obama made the same argument while on a bus tour last week, saying, "when you hear all these folks saying, oh, no, no, this is a tax, this is a burden on middle-class families, let me tell you, we know because the guy I'm running against tried this in Massachusetts and it's working just fine."

Analysts, however, say there are huge differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare, and the biggest relates to taxes.

The president has to raise a trillion dollars in revenues over the first 10 years, more in later years, to cover the cost of the federal health care law. The state law Romney signed didn't raise taxes at all.

"Certainly the Obama plan that came out of Congress raised taxes significantly," says Josh Archambault of Boston's Pioneer Institute. "The Romney plan was not predicated on having to use tax money to be able to finance it."

In fact, says Tevi Troy, a former Bush administration official, the Obama plan raised 21 taxes.

"Taxes on health care plans, health insurers, on medical device manufacturers. So he's got a whole host of new taxes in order to make this thing appear deficit neutral," Troy said.

Analysts say Massachusetts had 8 percent uninsured and that Romney focused only on fixing that, unlike ObamaCare.

"I think the biggest difference between the federal and the state health care laws is the scope and the financing of the two laws. The federal law tries to change the entire health care system in one bill," Troy said.

However, Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute notes that Romney got financial help -- from federal Medicaid money.

"The federal government provided Governor Romney with hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid matching funds, which is what he used to fund the proposal," Dorn said. "And the federal government doesn't have anyone else they can turn to for money, so they needed to raise the taxes."

Others concede the state got Medicaid money to cover the costs of the uninsured. But instead of giving it to hospitals to pay unpaid bills the state gave individuals money to buy their own policies.

"Affordable insurance on their own," Archambault said. "The federal approach simply put them on the public rolls, and as a result we don't get near universal coverage."

And Troy argues the lesson is that Obama tried to do too much at once. "When you try to do everything, you don't accomplish much of anything other than causing greater confusion and perhaps even greater turmoil in the markets."



Read more: ObamaCare more taxing than RomneyCare? Laws' differences debated | Fox News

I think we have different interpretations of "dumb".

My question to you was how you arrived at an average increase of taxes of $2400 per year. The other poster simply told me to look at Fox news. You have now provided me with a Fox News Op piece which provides no actual data.

At this point, I am left with little choice but to assume the reason you think taxes will go up as high as you claim is because your were told to think that without having any actuall data to arrive at that conclusion. I would be happy to think otherwise, but you are going to have to give me some hard data.

Actually you are right. That estimate is probably way off. I'd be more comfortable saying it might be 3 times that. You evidently don't have experience with what happens when the Gov't gets their fangs into a good thing, but hold on to your hat because you won't be left out, I assure you.

 

[hortysir]

Actually, that letter says that you're not affected by the law, as far as they know right now.

The hard right trash doesn't care, in their minds: The ACA = complete doom and destruction to america. We will be forced to live on the streets in cardboard boxes, dig through landfills for scraps, and drink from swamps to survive..

I guess the both of you missed the part where it said that the benefit will be taxed as income??

 

[PratchettFan]

Intentionally dumb is no way to go thru life, Son



President Obama's camp chafes at the notion the health care law's individual insurance mandate packs the threat of a tax. One way Democrats have been responding to to such criticisms is to point the finger at Mitt Romney and the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts.

"Let's get down to the bottom line here: Mitt Romney is the ObamaCare daddy," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said on CBS's Face the Nation. "He gave birth to this baby up in Massachusetts, and now he doesn't recognize it."

President Obama made the same argument while on a bus tour last week, saying, "when you hear all these folks saying, oh, no, no, this is a tax, this is a burden on middle-class families, let me tell you, we know because the guy I'm running against tried this in Massachusetts and it's working just fine."

Analysts, however, say there are huge differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare, and the biggest relates to taxes.

The president has to raise a trillion dollars in revenues over the first 10 years, more in later years, to cover the cost of the federal health care law. The state law Romney signed didn't raise taxes at all.

"Certainly the Obama plan that came out of Congress raised taxes significantly," says Josh Archambault of Boston's Pioneer Institute. "The Romney plan was not predicated on having to use tax money to be able to finance it."

In fact, says Tevi Troy, a former Bush administration official, the Obama plan raised 21 taxes.

"Taxes on health care plans, health insurers, on medical device manufacturers. So he's got a whole host of new taxes in order to make this thing appear deficit neutral," Troy said.

Analysts say Massachusetts had 8 percent uninsured and that Romney focused only on fixing that, unlike ObamaCare.

"I think the biggest difference between the federal and the state health care laws is the scope and the financing of the two laws. The federal law tries to change the entire health care system in one bill," Troy said.

However, Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute notes that Romney got financial help -- from federal Medicaid money.

"The federal government provided Governor Romney with hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid matching funds, which is what he used to fund the proposal," Dorn said. "And the federal government doesn't have anyone else they can turn to for money, so they needed to raise the taxes."

Others concede the state got Medicaid money to cover the costs of the uninsured. But instead of giving it to hospitals to pay unpaid bills the state gave individuals money to buy their own policies.

"Affordable insurance on their own," Archambault said. "The federal approach simply put them on the public rolls, and as a result we don't get near universal coverage."

And Troy argues the lesson is that Obama tried to do too much at once. "When you try to do everything, you don't accomplish much of anything other than causing greater confusion and perhaps even greater turmoil in the markets."



Read more: ObamaCare more taxing than RomneyCare? Laws' differences debated | Fox News

I think we have different interpretations of "dumb".

My question to you was how you arrived at an average increase of taxes of $2400 per year. The other poster simply told me to look at Fox news. You have now provided me with a Fox News Op piece which provides no actual data.

At this point, I am left with little choice but to assume the reason you think taxes will go up as high as you claim is because your were told to think that without having any actuall data to arrive at that conclusion. I would be happy to think otherwise, but you are going to have to give me some hard data.

Actually you are right. That estimate is probably way off. I'd be more comfortable saying it might be 3 times that. You evidently don't have experience with what happens when the Gov't gets their fangs into a good thing, but hold on to your hat because you won't be left out, I assure you.

So, my first assumption was correct. You have nothing to support your claim. It just sounds good so it must be true.

 

[JoeB131]

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:17 AM
To: *General Announcement
Subject: Update - Health Care Reform and **** Insurance Program

Admin: Please post for those without email. Thanks!

Good morning,

There may be some questions about the recent Supreme Court decision on Health Care Reform. Here is a summary from *****, **** insurance broker, regarding the decision and any impact to **** insurance program.

“In a complex 193 page ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ‘individual mandate’ in the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care law is legal as long as it is an imposed tax for not obtaining health insurance. At this point the **** benefit program complies with all aspects of the PPACA law. The new tax will only impact those individuals that choose not to purchase health insurance and not until 2014. Employer provided benefits, like the **** program, are not subject to employee taxation, unless the benefit qualifies as a ‘Cadillac Plan’ and then not until 2018. The potential taxation of the plan as income to employees in 2018 is an area we will address as the concern becomes more prevalent.”



We’ll keep you posted if and when developments impact our insurance program.

Please call if you have any questions,

****

The reason I post this, is because every time I hear a moron liberal who claims you wont be affected at all unless you do not have a plan, I want to throw something at the TV, radio, or computer screen.
I've been around the block a few times, and you cannot sit there and tell me I wont be affected no matter what. This is a whole new entitlement program that will have it's own burecracy of the federal government. Ever know one of those that do anything but grow ?

Wont affect me or you my ass ! Just wait a few years dumbasses !

Gee, I don't know. It sounds to me like your company was asked a question, and answered that they were already in compliance and the law has no effect if you already have a plan.

The real problem is going to be for those companies that are winging it with half-ass plans.The 25 million Americans who think they are insured, but their insurance is inadequate.

 

[Zxereus]

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:17 AM
To: *General Announcement
Subject: Update - Health Care Reform and **** Insurance Program

Admin: Please post for those without email. Thanks!

Good morning,

There may be some questions about the recent Supreme Court decision on Health Care Reform. Here is a summary from *****, **** insurance broker, regarding the decision and any impact to **** insurance program.

“In a complex 193 page ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ‘individual mandate’ in the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care law is legal as long as it is an imposed tax for not obtaining health insurance. At this point the **** benefit program complies with all aspects of the PPACA law. The new tax will only impact those individuals that choose not to purchase health insurance and not until 2014. Employer provided benefits, like the **** program, are not subject to employee taxation, unless the benefit qualifies as a ‘Cadillac Plan’ and then not until 2018. The potential taxation of the plan as income to employees in 2018 is an area we will address as the concern becomes more prevalent.”



We’ll keep you posted if and when developments impact our insurance program.

Please call if you have any questions,

****

The reason I post this, is because every time I hear a moron liberal who claims you wont be affected at all unless you do not have a plan, I want to throw something at the TV, radio, or computer screen.
I've been around the block a few times, and you cannot sit there and tell me I wont be affected no matter what. This is a whole new entitlement program that will have it's own burecracy of the federal government. Ever know one of those that do anything but grow ?

Wont affect me or you my ass ! Just wait a few years dumbasses !

Gee, I don't know. It sounds to me like your company was asked a question, and answered that they were already in compliance and the law has no effect if you already have a plan.

The real problem is going to be for those companies that are winging it with half-ass plans.The 25 million Americans who think they are insured, but their insurance is inadequate.

Yes, but our lawyer also acknowledges that we really don't know how the tax hit will turn out. And that's the point, we've opened this door to a whole new entitlement and right now there are still questions, but the real question is where this will lead.
Pardon me for being pessimistic, but I don't have a lot of faith that a government program like this will do anything but grow and will end up costing us all much more down the road.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, but our lawyer also acknowledges that we really don't know how the tax hit will turn out. And that's the point, we've opened this door to a whole new entitlement and right now there are still questions, but the real question is where this will lead.
Pardon me for being pessimistic, but I don't have a lot of faith that a government program like this will do anything but grow and will end up costing us all much more down the road.

It's going to cost us more no matter what we do. Simple realities.

Medical Inflation is three times regular inflation.

The population is getting demographically older.

the ability of private insurance to cover things is limited.

The entire system is ALREADY highly dependent on government credits and subsidies.

The simplest solution would be go to a single payer system that covers everyone and limits costs. WHich is what most of the rest of the industrialized world does.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

It will just like all other nationalized health care countries.... you pay for national shit plan...and pay for the premium plan you want that will provide you with the care and standards you are used to having.

And in time prices for everything else will rise, just as they did in Canada... Because the money has to come from somewhere. The working class won't be able to foot the entire Bill.

Oh i know.... pricing is going to go off the scale becasue of his little ponzi scheme

Everytime I see a Con saying that I just want to throw something at the computer.

Because you guys say that as if medical expenses weren't insane as is. And even if the costs aren't that bad to you, just wait a few years with medical costs rising 3x the rate of
inflation.

Stupid ass conservatives. You viciously attack Obamacare and whats your alternative? Nothing, becuase in Conservative land, no one gets sick.

 

[Douger]

There are no sane, thinking people who do not want health insurance. There are only people who do not believe in the idea that we are one nation....and ought to pool our resources to improve the health of this nation.........as a whole.

People who claim that they pay out of pocket for their medical expenses are either full of shit or have never been seriously ill or injured. Anyone with an income large enough to pay out of pocket is smart enough to understand the value of buying insurance.

No can do. You have FreeDumb and murkin ideals to spread throughout the world and that costs muhhhhhneee.