OBAMA-CARE: THE NEXT ECONOMIC DOWNFALL
What Obama is selling:
Uninsured people with medical problems will have a workable alternative. The bill pumps $5 billion into high-risk insurance pools run by the states to
provide coverage to those in frail health. Taxpayer-backed insurance won't be free,
but premiums should be much lower than what's charged by private insurers
willing to take those in poor health.
For people with private health insurance — about two-thirds of Americans — there would be some new safeguards. For
example, insurers would be barred from placing lifetime dollar limits on
coverage and from canceling policies except in cases of fraud. Children could
stay on their parents' coverage until age 26.
Starting in 2014, self-employed people and those whose employers don't offer coverage would be able to pick a plan through a health insurance exchange, like
a supermarket. It's modeled on the federal employee health program available to
members of Congress, with a range of private plans. Small businesses could also
join.
About 25 million people would buy coverage through state exchanges, and nearly 6 in 10 would be eligible for help with their premiums. The new tax credits would
be computed according to income and other household characteristics. The money
would go straight to the insurer. To consumers it would look like a discount —
generous for lower-income families, less so for those solidly in the middle
class.
For example, a family of four making $44,000 would pay $2,763 in premiums _about 6 percent of its income_ for a policy worth $9,435.
But a similar family making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That may be less than a mortgage, but it's more than a car payment.
Once the exchanges open, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance or pay a fine. Medicaid would be expanded to cover childless adults
living near poverty, bringing the total who'd gain coverage to more than 30
million. People with employer-provided
insurance would not see major changes. But if they lost their job, they'd be
able to get coverage through the exchange.
WHAT THEY ARE NOT MAKING PUBLIC but is in the 2700-page bill
American citizens and legal residents would be required to have health insurance, or pay a fine. For
an individual, the fine would be $750 per year or 2 percent of household
income, whichever is greater; for a family, the maximum fine would be $2,250
per year or 2 percent of household income. The fines would go into effect
gradually, starting in 2014. The House bill is similar, with exemptions for
certain low-income people.
To help pay for increased coverage, a number of long-standing tax credits and
deductions would decline, while taxes on some other benefits would increase.
One of the most prominent changes would be a tax on "gold-plated"
health insurance plans that provide lavish benefits but are expensive; the
threshold at which the surtax would kick in would be $8,500 for an individual's
annual premium and $23,000 for a family's.
The bill was written by the insurance companies and anyone else who is in the inner circle of D.C.
1. Extending coverage to 30 million more people without hundreds of thousands of additional doctors – willing to work for less as the
bill mandates - to handle them will result in severe rationing, which in turn
will force less frequent advance screenings which will increase the mortality
rate dramatically to the European standard, which has on average a 16% higher
cancer death rate than the US. Emergency room waits in Canada
extending to 24 hours are not uncommon in Canada
.
2. This will possibly bankrupt our nation already in a severe recession,
because it demands so much liquid capital that doesn’t exist, even with
increased taxes. This will result in printing more money, so we'll have
inflation on top of a recession, which has always led to catastrophic economic
downturns.
3. As the American people turn against this, Obama's poll numbers are in
freefall. His determination to push this through demonstrates that he is not a
President who governs according to the will of the people. Such politicians are
generally known in the vernacular as “tyrants” when they push hard enough.
Obama is getting very close.
4. There is nothing in Obama's past that makes us think he knows what he is
doing and we should trust him. In fact, the reverse is true: he was a junior
senator whose constitutional qualification to serve is still in doubt because
every time someone sues him for his birth records, he sends his lawyers out not
to disclose the documents, but to fight disclosure. That's insane. Nobody does
that.
From Rev Wright to self-proclaimed communist terrorist Bill Ayres (and his wife
who was a convicted terrorist and spent time in prison) to a whole host of
others, his background is one of a person who has an extremely unsettling past
and nothing in his history to balance it, save for two self-serving
autobiographies that he wrote as glorious homage to himself but still refuses
to turn over his citizen documents the way McCain and Tom Delay did when
democrats demanded such things of THEM.
We're going down a very bad road, and if it continues, generations will look
back and say "those were the days when America
was ruined for all time”.
compilated from a Yahoo article and various comments.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Lac on -
A lot of this is made up stuff. These are more like half truths where he has associated with someone none professionally, but someone who doesn't like him adds their own twist to a story to distort it. There is a website that I forgot that tells what's actually fact and what's fiction in what has been brought up on Obama. As far as his birth records, I do remember that being brought to light on the news and it shut up the guy that had a problem with Obama beating him for office in Chicago years ago. He has been gunning for him ever since.
No he doesn't have as much experience or any of the experience that past presidents who "so called" had experience done?
Who would you want to be President since you feel Obama is a Tyrant or possibly the worst president to be elected. Just curious...
I just saw this thread so I don't have the website, but if I get a chance I'll add the "fact or fiction" link. I'm not trying to convince you to like him by no means, just shedding some light so you will have only your reasons to not like him. Peace
-
Permalink Reply by LatinTemptress on -
I'm not putting this up because I "dislike" him as a person. I dont know the man personally as well as you seem to. I am posting the reality of Obama-care and the devastation is going to cause to the economy. If you want your federal taxes to go up 50-60% then by all means, go for it. I personally dont need big brother to tell me that I'm too stupid to take care of my own health so by all means, take care of me and btw, let me give you 3/4 of my paycheck so you can do it. BALONEY and PHOOEY. National health care has crippled England and Australia. Millions die in both those countries as well as Canada and Greece because healthcare is rationed out and its cheaper to let you die than to help you live. This bullshit health plan does not work as it is written now. When you "nationalize" anything it goes to the toilet---remember COMMUNISM? Nationalized banks, farms, jobs and healthcare--didn't work in Germany nor Cuba and still does not work in China. This socialist or so called "progressive" movement is nothing but marxist and communist in nature, the words are just more politically correct now. Ask yourself WHY is Obama and his administration trying to shove this down the throats of the American people? WHY can't it be re-written? WHY must it be done NOW and IMMEDIATELY? WHY?????? I bought into the "dream of hope" one time, now I am AWAKE and read between the lines.
communism----->socialism----->progressive-ism. SAME BULLSHIT. NWO.
Lac said:A lot of this is made up stuff. These are more like half truths where he has associated with someone none professionally, but someone who doesn't like him adds their own twist to a story to distort it. There is a website that I forgot that tells what's actually fact and what's fiction in what has been brought up on Obama. As far as his birth records, I do remember that being brought to light on the news and it shut up the guy that had a problem with Obama beating him for office in Chicago years ago. He has been gunning for him ever since.
No he doesn't have as much experience or any of the experience that past presidents who "so called" had experience done? Who would you want to be President since you feel Obama is a Tyrant or possibly the worst president to be elected. Just curious... I just saw this thread so I don't have the website, but if I get a chance I'll add the "fact or fiction" link. I'm not trying to convince you to like him by no means, just shedding some light so you will have only your reasons to not like him. Peace
-
Permalink Reply by LatinTemptress on
-
BTW, national health care is nothing new, Bill Clinton tried to pass it during his term and it was turned down back then by Congress because it was too expensive.
LatinTemptress said:I'm not putting this up because I "dislike" him as a person. I dont know the man personally as well as you seem to. I am posting the reality of Obama-care and the devastation is going to cause to the economy. If you want your federal taxes to go up 50-60% then by all means, go for it. I personally dont need big brother to tell me that I'm too stupid to take care of my own health so by all means, take care of me and btw, let me give you 3/4 of my paycheck so you can do it. BALONEY and PHOOEY. National health care has crippled England and Australia. Millions die in both those countries as well as Canada and Greece because healthcare is rationed out and its cheaper to let you die than to help you live. This bullshit health plan does not work as it is written now. When you "nationalize" anything it goes to the toilet---remember COMMUNISM? Nationalized banks, farms, jobs and healthcare--didn't work in Germany nor Cuba and still does not work in China. This socialist or so called "progressive" movement is nothing but marxist and communist in nature, the words are just more politically correct now. Ask yourself WHY is Obama and his administration trying to shove this down the throats of the American people? WHY can't it be re-written? WHY must it be done NOW and IMMEDIATELY? WHY?????? I bought into the "dream of hope" one time, now I am AWAKE and read between the lines.
communism----->socialism----->progressive-ism. SAME BULLSHIT. NWO.
-
Permalink Reply by PrincefromQueens on -
LatinTemptress said:
communism----->socialism----->progressive-ism. SAME BULLSHIT. NWO.
And with everything that can and will be said about this whole thing....the NWO is gonna happen regardless....dont be fooled into thinking that theres a choice in it for us...
-
Permalink Reply by Lac on
-
I hear you, but right now anything would be better than what we have been enduring for the last century so why not change it right now. I have relatives with pre-existing issues that can't be insured because of the century law. There are so many people now that can't even afford insurance because it's so high. It's cheaper to just die. You have businesses that won't give healthcare benefits to save their pockets and could give a damn about you. As far as a chunk of change coming out of your pocket for health care, are you saying it's not already? I went to the dentist last month and they only did one side of my mouth at a time and it cost $400 dollars just for ONE SIDE. So I don't see how much adding $50- $100 can hurt. As a matter a fact, the increase will be able to help those that cannot afford it at all like Pookie and 'nem. I've heard people with the capitallistic thought saying why should someone who has no job and can't afford health insurance get treated with the same benefits of healthcare as they do. Dammit, cause we are all humans. Why should anyone have to suffer more than anyone else because of money status.
Thats just how I see it though. As far as what is going on so far:
House Democrats are pushing to the brink of passage a landmark, $940 billion health care overhaul bill that would simultaneously deliver on President Barack Obama's promise to expand coverage while slashing the deficit, a strategy aimed at winning over the party's fiscal conservatives.
The 10-year plan would provide coverage to 32 million people now uninsured through a combination of tax credits for middle class households and an expansion of the Medicaid program for low income people. Release of the legislation later Thursday sets the stage for a House vote on Sunday, and Democrats have already signaled they plan to go it alone, without Republican support. The GOP has steadfastly opposed Obama's plan from the outset.
It would restructure one-sixth of the economy, covering 95 percent of eligible Americans, in the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare was created in 1965. It would also impose new obligations on individuals and businesses. Beginning in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance. Medium-size and large companies that don't provide coverage for their workers would face stiff financial penalties.
Hospitals and doctors, drug companies and insurers would gain millions of new paying customers, but they would also have to adjust to major changes. Medicare cuts would force hospitals to operate more efficiently or risk going out of business, but seniors would see the coverage gap in their prescription benefits gradually eliminated. Insurance companies would face unprecedented federal regulation. Health care industries would be hit with new federal taxes. Upper-income households would face a new tax on investment earnings.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the total 10-year cost of expanding coverage at $940 billion. The nonpartisan analysts said the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over its first 10 years, and continue to drive down the red ink thereafter. Democratic leaders said the deficit would be cut $1.2 trillion in the second decade_ and Obama called it the biggest reduction since the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton put the federal budget on a path to surplus.
But House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said his party's lawmakers will "do everything that we can do to make sure this bill never, ever, ever passes."
The legislation would be vulnerable to attack after it passes, since the biggest changes would be phased in slowly. The major expansion of coverage would not come until 2014, when new health insurance marketplaces open for business.
In the meantime, the legislation calls for a series of new consumer benefits. Starting this year, insurers could not deny coverage to children because of an pre-existing health problem, nor could they place lifetime dollar caps on the amount of coverage. A high-risk health insurance pool would provide coverage to uninsured people who can't get private coverage because of health problems.
Democrats are following a complicated two-track legislative strategy for passing the bill. First, the House will have to approve a Senate bill that many of its Democratic members object to. Then both chambers will quickly pass a package of fixes agreed to in negotiations with the White House.
Since the House will vote first, Democratic leaders are seeking assurances from their Senate counterparts that they have enough votes to pass the follow-up measure as well.
Democrats are promising 72 hours for lawmakers and the public to review the legislation once it's released, so that would push a House vote on the bill until Sunday at the earliest — "during daylight hours," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Much of the legislation's long-term deficit reduction came from two key changes Democrats made in recent days, the budget office said. Starting in 2019, the bill would slow annual inflation increases in new federal tax credits available to help people pay health insurance premiums. Beginning in 2020, it would accelerate the impact of a tax on high cost insurance plan by indexing it to the general rate of inflation.
Unions had earlier succeeded in easing other features of the insurance tax, and Thursday the AFL-CIO executive council voted to strongly endorse the bill. The decision was virtually unanimous, said a union official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of an official announcement. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka plans to reach out to state labor federations to lobby undecided Democrats.
The long-anticipated measure is actually the second of two bills that Obama hopes lawmakers will send him in coming days, more than a year after he urged Congress to remake the U.S. health care system. The first cleared the Senate late last year but went no further because House Democrats demanded significant changes — the very types of revisions now being packaged into the second bill.
After heavy lobbying from Obama, liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, announced his support Wednesday, becoming the first Democrat to declare he would vote in favor of the legislation after opposing an earlier version. Shortly after Kucinich's announcement, a letter was released from 60 leaders of religious orders urging lawmakers to vote for the legislation.
The endorsement reflected a division within the Catholic Church. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes the Senate-passed legislation, contending it would permit the use of federal funds for elective abortions.
-
Permalink Reply by Lac on
-
Everybody have their belief in the NWO and Illuminati taking over and all of that. I won't knock anybodies belief though. Does it exist? Very highly. Are the people too stupid and powerless to NOT have any say so or power to speak in order to make changes? NO. This is nothing secret, so yes there may have been a plan, but you can only have a successful backdoor plan if no one is at that door. If you got everyone looking for you to come through the door, then it won't work. So let's just say people (majority) are looking at the back door also.
It's this has been in the works since Jesus was wearing shell toe flip flops then why aren't the pawns in place thousands of years later? How long does it take? But hey, I'm just in a different frame of mind than most though, so I'm sure i'm probably looked and judged as being the ignorant one. Peace.
PrincefromQueens said:LatinTemptress said:
communism----->socialism----->progressive-ism. SAME BULLSHIT. NWO.
And with everything that can and will be said about this whole thing....the NWO is gonna happen regardless....dont be fooled into thinking that theres a choice in it for us...
-
Permalink Reply by PrincefromQueens on
-
Never that Sun, your FAR from the ignorant one...you have a good point but in the same breath, everything is done in it's own time and for certain periods of time on purpose....and even though it's being exposed you have to realize that there are far more people who would rather wake up each day and take the "blue pill" and live in a false reality than take the "red pill" and see or acknowledge the truth....so exposure or not the plan can still be put into effect.....
Lac said:Everybody have their belief in the NWO and Illuminati taking over and all of that. I won't knock anybodies belief though. Does it exist? Very highly. Are the people too stupid and powerless to NOT have any say so or power to speak in order to make changes? NO. This is nothing secret, so yes there may have been a plan, but you can only have a successful backdoor plan if no one is at that door. If you got everyone looking for you to come through the door, then it won't work. So let's just say people (majority) are looking at the back door also.
It's this has been in the works since Jesus was wearing shell toe flip flops then why aren't the pawns in place thousands of years later? How long does it take? But hey, I'm just in a different frame of mind than most though, so I'm sure i'm probably looked and judged as being the ignorant one. Peace.
PrincefromQueens said:LatinTemptress said:
communism----->socialism----->progressive-ism. SAME BULLSHIT. NWO.
And with everything that can and will be said about this whole thing....the NWO is gonna happen regardless....dont be fooled into thinking that theres a choice in it for us...
-
Permalink Reply by Lac on
-
I forgot that I was suppose to come back and post some links. Here's one since i was slacking.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health-care
Badge
Young, Black, and Fabulous
Beyonce Preps TWO New Projects (Including New Album) For 2012
One of Beyonce's producers just spilled the beans that the new mom is--unsurprisingly--gearing up for her fifth solo studio album. Plus, she's got a second project up her sleeve for 2012. Deets inside...
Told y'all this chick was planning album content while she was breastfeeding and changing diapers. Baby Blue's mom is said to be already setting up to work on a new album. And yes, B.I.C. will likely be her muse. Producer/Songwriter Ryan Tedder, who just copped an award at last night's GRAMMYS for contributing to Adele's Album of the Year, 21, revealed some generalities.
He said it goes “without saying” that Bey’s work will have some reflection on her newborn child Blue Ivy, but that “the conversations about her next album literally just happened.”
“You feed her the best that you have. She’s just a phenomenal filter… she can identify what the next thing is,” Tedder said of the “Party” girl, noting that she has “two projects happening” this year. “You just let her go.”
Bey is also conducting a global remix competition for her fans. The best remix of her track "End of Time" will appear on a future release.
Here we go...
Drake And Rihanna, Matt & Gloria Govan, Gabby Union & Savannah Brinson PARTY IT Up At His Grammy Afterparty
Drake clearly enjoyed the Grey Goose sponsorship.
Tyga got his party on. No Blac Chyna?
Nicki Minaj Covers NEW YORK Magazine, Explains Controversial GRAMMY Performance
Nicki Minaj is talking about fashion--and why she's over that world. The "Stupid H*e" rapper tells New York Magazine that she's not about fitting into the IN crowd. And she tells Ryan Seacreast why she went the route she did last night....
In a series of candid shots with gritty special effects, Nicki poses for the Spring FASHION issue of New York magazine. Here's highlights from her interesting perspective about the fashion world--and why she's skipping NY Fashion Week for the most part:
Are you coming back to Fashion Week this time?
I’m not impressed to be in that world. I’m in my own world. I think sometimes the fashion world isn’t even about clothes anymore; it’s about this “in” crowd, and I’m not into that. But I’m doing a Barbie fashion show. They did a Barbie for me, and that is super friggin’ amazing.So is it safe to assume that you were always interested in fashion?
I’ve always been intrigued by color and by interesting hair. I was one of those weird little girls doing my own hair at the age of 9. I was, like, getting weird gels and new brushes and cornrow holders. I would tweak and perm at the age of 13. When I first went to get my hair colored, I was about 14 and I wanted blonde highlights. The beautician said, “No, you have to get your mother on the phone,” and I was just crying and begging. I’ve always been experimenting. Cyndi Lauper’s videos—that’s what intrigued me.And you definitely use your looks to get noticed.
I like the idea of doing something that everyone else is not. I get high off that. Just the idea that other people don’t have the balls to do something—that’s my thing.
Here's the rest of her pics:
And if you're still scratching your head about her performance last night at the GRAMMY Awards--you're not the only one.
She talked to Ryan Seacrest today on his radio show and revealed a few things:
On attending the Grammys with a Pope look-alike: “The religious figure is there because he was called on by Roman’s mom to rehabilitate him.”
On her debut performance of “Roman Holiday”: “I had this vision for him to be sort of exorcised—or actually he never gets exorcised—but people around him tell him he’s not good enough because he’s not normal, he’s not blending in with the average Joe. And so his mother is scared and the people around him are afraid because they’ve never seen anything like him. He wanted to show that not only is he amazing and he’s sure of himself and confident, but he’s never gonna change, he’s never gonna be exorcised. Even when they throw the holy water on him, he still rises above.”
On why she chose “Roman Holiday” for the Grammys: “The Grammys chose ‘Roman Holiday.’ The producers of the Grammys came to the studio and I played them ‘Roman Holiday,’ and I could not play them another record after they heard that. They went crazy. I could have chosen to do a no-brainer pop song, but I can’t do it anymore. I have to stay true to what I’m doing.”
Feel like we're listening to a 12-year-old during a tea party with her imaginary friends. But if that's what works...
Here's the audio in full:
Peep Nicki's performance from last night HERE in case you missed it.
And Nicki's Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards promo with Will Smith. The show airs live Saturday, March 31 at 8 p.m.
© 2012 Created by The Fam.
