Post by Rob W. Case on Jan 20, 2011 4:42:05 GMT -6
For over 60 years, Big Government Democrats have tried to take over every aspect of the health care industry. Thinking that the government is filled with “friends” who are there to “help”, people have accepted the idea of centralized health care as a positive “right” that all Americans should have a stake in. While the motives of domestic Democrats are largely driven by good intentions, the corporate Democrats (i.e. the Marxists) wrote the legislation with the intent to…..
--“Manage” the population by making all means of health care coverage a “money issue.”
--Run the economy into the ground. The more people out of work, the more people “work for” and depend on those who run the government. What I mean by “work for” is that people give the career politicians who crafted legislation like this their vote in exchange for the “next great benefit,” in their eyes.
--its existence requires what I’m going to call “income siphoning,” meaning that when the time release of each phase in this bill is activated (and each year, something new goes into effect, the most radical of which conveniently begins in 2013), it will require more money from the economy and from your wallet, causing joblessness to increase even more. Third world status for America is approaching fast, and is on the horizon.
--It empowers and funnels money to many lobby groups of the career politicians in power that crafted and supported this legislation’s implementation. In other words, since the career politicians incorporated their lobbyists as entities now working for the Federal Government, tax payer money can then be used as campaign funds (for Democrat politicians) by those lobby groups, who now perform services for the Federal Government.
All of this information (and then some) is currently accessible if one simply takes the time to study the matter. If one decides not to, then another interesting set of circumstances arise. This begins with a question. How well off are you? How well can you make do with subtractive “adjustments” to your income? If you had to adjust to less, how well could you adjust to even lesser? And if that didn’t work, how well could you adjust to lesser than that?
In 2011, another set of changes to the health care system was implemented. Obamacare has caused prices to skyrocket even further. States are not including certain benefits that they used to include. My parents who are approaching their 60’s recently had thorough exams done before the new changes were about to take place. As a matter of fact, baby boomers and older people who can read the handwriting on the wall, were getting health examinations and tests done in mass droves before the next set of regulatory policies became active.
Seniors have lost $500 billion in Medicare benefits (that they paid into for so long.)
Health care costs keep climbing, which in some cases has also caused co-pays to rise as well.
This bill requires so much of the GDP, and since the economy continues to shrink significantly, this bill continues to put more and more weight on the consumer, the worker, and the innovator. We are day by the day turning more and more into a third-world country.
Since the controversial history and nature involving the passing of this bill in spite of most Americans’ strong objection to it, and the realities being revealed to those who learn new things about the changes to their coverage the next time they visit the doctor’s office, the Democrats who remain in Congress have been faced with a strong political choice. Bail out now, or risk everything later. While those who didn’t believe our warnings about this bill are now starting to experience the consequential realities of it in certain areas, many people who put them in power are now disenchanted with what they truly (yet unwittingly) voted for. As a result, they are seeking total repeal, and are now in many ways open to embracing the polar opposite of what President Obama and the liberals who are trying to keep this legislation alive want.
The vote to repeal Obama-Care was meant to send a message to the American people. Sure, the Democrats had the room to claim ignorance at first. They could always say, “We didn’t expect this to happen” and get away with it. Now that there is a second chance to “redeem themselves”, after some of the consequences of having this legislation already take effect in some areas, they are faced with a decision now that will ultimately shed the light for where loyalties truly lie. In a nutshell, it will be a referendum on a politician’s moral nature (if one exists) and its priorities vs. how bad that politician prioritizes their want for power. The vote to repeal is a vote to either side with the health, well being, and will of the majority of Americans, or fall in line to the will of the campaign coffers and special interest groups that supplies the money needed to secure the politician (who collects from those coffers’) power status.
You know who chose what in the House of Representatives. Now it’s time to see who chooses what in the Senate, and (despite the rhetoric of a promised veto) the President.
--“Manage” the population by making all means of health care coverage a “money issue.”
--Run the economy into the ground. The more people out of work, the more people “work for” and depend on those who run the government. What I mean by “work for” is that people give the career politicians who crafted legislation like this their vote in exchange for the “next great benefit,” in their eyes.
--its existence requires what I’m going to call “income siphoning,” meaning that when the time release of each phase in this bill is activated (and each year, something new goes into effect, the most radical of which conveniently begins in 2013), it will require more money from the economy and from your wallet, causing joblessness to increase even more. Third world status for America is approaching fast, and is on the horizon.
--It empowers and funnels money to many lobby groups of the career politicians in power that crafted and supported this legislation’s implementation. In other words, since the career politicians incorporated their lobbyists as entities now working for the Federal Government, tax payer money can then be used as campaign funds (for Democrat politicians) by those lobby groups, who now perform services for the Federal Government.
All of this information (and then some) is currently accessible if one simply takes the time to study the matter. If one decides not to, then another interesting set of circumstances arise. This begins with a question. How well off are you? How well can you make do with subtractive “adjustments” to your income? If you had to adjust to less, how well could you adjust to even lesser? And if that didn’t work, how well could you adjust to lesser than that?
In 2011, another set of changes to the health care system was implemented. Obamacare has caused prices to skyrocket even further. States are not including certain benefits that they used to include. My parents who are approaching their 60’s recently had thorough exams done before the new changes were about to take place. As a matter of fact, baby boomers and older people who can read the handwriting on the wall, were getting health examinations and tests done in mass droves before the next set of regulatory policies became active.
Seniors have lost $500 billion in Medicare benefits (that they paid into for so long.)
Health care costs keep climbing, which in some cases has also caused co-pays to rise as well.
This bill requires so much of the GDP, and since the economy continues to shrink significantly, this bill continues to put more and more weight on the consumer, the worker, and the innovator. We are day by the day turning more and more into a third-world country.
Since the controversial history and nature involving the passing of this bill in spite of most Americans’ strong objection to it, and the realities being revealed to those who learn new things about the changes to their coverage the next time they visit the doctor’s office, the Democrats who remain in Congress have been faced with a strong political choice. Bail out now, or risk everything later. While those who didn’t believe our warnings about this bill are now starting to experience the consequential realities of it in certain areas, many people who put them in power are now disenchanted with what they truly (yet unwittingly) voted for. As a result, they are seeking total repeal, and are now in many ways open to embracing the polar opposite of what President Obama and the liberals who are trying to keep this legislation alive want.
The vote to repeal Obama-Care was meant to send a message to the American people. Sure, the Democrats had the room to claim ignorance at first. They could always say, “We didn’t expect this to happen” and get away with it. Now that there is a second chance to “redeem themselves”, after some of the consequences of having this legislation already take effect in some areas, they are faced with a decision now that will ultimately shed the light for where loyalties truly lie. In a nutshell, it will be a referendum on a politician’s moral nature (if one exists) and its priorities vs. how bad that politician prioritizes their want for power. The vote to repeal is a vote to either side with the health, well being, and will of the majority of Americans, or fall in line to the will of the campaign coffers and special interest groups that supplies the money needed to secure the politician (who collects from those coffers’) power status.
You know who chose what in the House of Representatives. Now it’s time to see who chooses what in the Senate, and (despite the rhetoric of a promised veto) the President.