The end of Obamacare?

Post Reply New Topic

Clinton was pretty damn conservative.
Obama ,like a lot of african americans, is a lot more conservative than most folks assume.

The Reagan years were actually quite radical a lot of things changed the government bloated.
its hard to call that conservative. Also Reagan was in a union so he was obviously a Commie.

Examples? The only places I can think of where Bush pushed a conservative agenda are his opposition to science (particularly stem cell research) and his dismantling of formerly effective government agencies such as FEMA.

good points
If being a hawk is conservative we will have to give him that.
(although bill did some bombing and conservatives are traditionaly aganst war)
oh meaningless costly tax breaks for the ultra-rich
(but thats not really fiscally resposible so it is not actually conservative.)
Ok I cave Bill Clinton was our last Conservative President.
making Richard Nixon are last Honestly LIberal one.
-Jake

Actually the only reason there was welfare reform was due to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of 1994. Then Clinton was persuaded by Dick Morris to move to the center and work with Newt, to balance the budget and reform welfare.

Clinton was actually about as liberal as Obama in his first two years of office. However, Clinton was able to move to the center/center-right, I don't think Obama can do that.

Ronald Reagan was dealing with a mess when he took office left over from Jimmy Carter, and he also was working to bring about the end of the Cold War.

George W. Bush should have told congress "no" a lot more than he did on some spending issues, however he was actually trying to deal with Fannie and Freddie back in 2003, but was stonewalled.

Maybe you can explain your random assertions. Until then I can't really comment.

The fact that the majority of the States are sueing the Federal Government concerning Obamacare is a fair indicator.

That doesnt answer where this $2000 figure came from.

That the rest of his post is an emotional appeal is easy to see. Well, for some of us it is.

That doesnt answer where this $2000 figure came from.

That the rest of his post is an emotional appeal is easy to see. Well, for some of us it is.

How about you give the kid a chance to post his source, he hasn't responded yet.

I was fine with waiting. But another kid came along and decided to butt his head in.

First Research problems caused by Obamacare:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -obamacare

Btw, I can't take certain generics because their tear up my stomach.


Here is something about costs:
Whether or not you now have health insurance, Obama’s health care bill will cost you dearly.

If you don’t have insurance, you will be required to buy it. The legislation specifies how much you will have to pay for the coverage before any subsidy kicks in. All during the campaign, Obama kept speaking about affordable coverage. Now it appears that his definition of “affordable” might be a bit elastic.

If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama’s health care bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income — about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month — to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy.

Even those making less will have to reach deep into their meager resources to satisfy Obama’s statutory requirement. Families scraping by on only $44,0000 a year will have to pay 7 percent of their income (about $3,000) on insurance. Even those making just $33,000 will have to ante up 4.5 percent of their income (about $1,500) for health insurance. The required payments reach so far down the scale that those who are living at the federal poverty level of $22,000 will have to shell out 2 percent of their totally inadequate incomes ($440) for insurance.

That Obama is charging premiums to those living at or on the border of poverty is absolutely incredible! And this from a candidate who pledged that he would not tax the middle class!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 206AAkLltU

Apparently he is understating the costs for some people.

Then don't forget the mandate:
[i]And if you fail to get insurance?:

In 2016, when the penalty is fully phased in, it will be $695 for an individual (up to $2,085 per family) or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will increase annually based on the cost of living.

■Section 7203 - misdemeanor wilful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
■Section 7201 - felony wilful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.


That mandate requires people to have health insurance, unless they are below a certain income threshold ($9,350 for singles, $18,700 for couples in 2009). Those who don’t get coverage will be subject to a tax of 2.5 percent of their adjusted income beyond that threshold, up to the cost of the average national premium.[/quote]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 206AAkLltU

The Newt Gingrich Republicans sponsored a bill (which Bill Clinton reluctantly signed) that repealed much of the Glass-Steagall bank regulations in 1999. This lead to the sub-prime housing bubble in the 2000s and the global financial meltdown.

Don't try to pin this on Newt, because he left Congress on his own accord in January, 1999. He had left before that bill ever reached his desk.

Also if you want to trace back the problems it started under Carter. Anyways I will admit some Republicans were dumb enough to push the reform without messing with Fannie, Freddie. That said Bush tried to get the problem fixed starting back in 2003.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 206AAkLltU[/quote]

Thank you!

People on here wonder why I join the Tea Party Movement.

Another poster just gave you the key stat.

The Govt CANNOT put a gun to someones head and make them buy health insurance.

@blue Jacket

Damn straight brother look how socialized medicine RUINED the economy of Denmark
Denmark hellhole of the north<--link
keep up the good work

-Jake