Roberts did what was right for the interests of doctors, Big Pharm, Insurers and the rest of the healthcare industry. It is a bailout. He is bought and paid for.
Roberts did what was right for the interests of doctors, Big Pharm, Insurers and the rest of the healthcare industry. It is a bailout. He is bought and paid for.
Roberts did what was right for the interests of doctors, Big Pharm, Insurers and the rest of the healthcare industry. It is a bailout. He is bought and paid for.
Think about this, for over 100 years Presidents and politicians have been trying to come up with a comprehensive healthcare law - Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, Carter, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton without success.
Now after finally getting something comprehensive we have two options
1) Completely get rid of what we just obtained
or
2) Tweak it, improve it and bang out the kinks
----
Even after Social Security was brought into existence by FDR it had to be tweaked over the years.
For pete sakes forget that Obama is involved here, which of the two options above make the most sense?
Give every Republican truth serum and strap them to a lie detector machine and I know what the truthful answer would be and you do too.
Your right. We need something better than what we had. Is this better? Only time will tell. But we also have to close the doors to our country til we get back on out feet. We have got to reduce welfare to a reasonable level, we have got to stop spending money we don't have. Everyone needs medical care, some were not getting it, others were getting it for free with you picking up the tab.
The plan is law, let's see how it works. If it fails, try something else. All the belly aching in the world will not change things.
Psalm 1[/color] and Job 28:28
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Joh 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
Your right. We need something better than what we had. Is this better? Only time will tell. But we also have to close the doors to our country til we get back on out feet. We have got to reduce welfare to a reasonable level, we have got to stop spending money we don't have. Everyone needs medical care, some were not getting it, others were getting it for free with you picking up the tab.
The plan is law, let's see how it works. If it fails, try something else. All the belly aching in the world will not change things.
Look at what your Country has come to!!! And some of you think you didn't vote for the Dictator. God would have never set your man in office unless you deserved him. You got what you asked for. A man who has taken over your country exactly as I told you over four years ago!!! ---- "Judgment without the end". Look it up!!
Paul -- 070112
---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
We have got to reduce welfare to a reasonable level, we have got to stop spending money we don't have. Everyone needs medical care, some were not getting it, others were getting it for free with you picking up the tab.
The plan is law, let's see how it works. If it fails, try something else. All the belly aching in the world will not change things.
Before reducing welfare for the poor I would put on the table reducing welfare for the rich, which we politely call subsidies, tax loopholes and tax breaks for corporations and high earners - then reduce welfare for the poor.
As to how it works - you can look at any of the strenghts and weaknesses of Romneycare in Massachusetts which has been in place since 2006.
Before reducing welfare for the poor I would put on the table reducing welfare for the rich, which we politely call subsidies, tax loopholes and tax breaks for corporations and high earners - then reduce welfare for the poor.
As to how it works - you can look at any of the strenghts and weaknesses of Romneycare in Massachusetts which has been in place since 2006.
And don't tell me about "we have to look out for the job creators" because the corporations have been sitting on a boatload of money for the last 2 years.
-----
There is little doubt that companies have a great deal of cash sitting around that they could use to invest...
...No matter how you slice the data, the Federal Reserve statistics show that companies are holding on to much more cash and liquid assets than they have in years past, so Obama's broader point is valid. It was also presented in general enough terms -- "$2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets" -- that it is defensible as an accurate figure...
So what else is Obama going to force you to buy into?
Electric cars? Oops, I mean coal powered cars?
Every one in the US already had access to health care.
You get what you pay for, there is no free lunch.
Health care is not a right. It is not an entitlement.
Allowing the free market system to work is self cleaning.
People learn what works and what doesn't.
Social security is broke. They have been stealing funds from it for years. It is a Ponzi scheme, it is dependent on more people paying into it for it to work.
Government has had decades to make SS work, they have failed. They have learned nothing. Government control of health care dooms healthcare to the same fate as Social Security. Unfunded.
Who is happy with socialism? only the leaders of it , and the lazy who leech off of it.
"Socialism works great until they run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
Greece has a give away government. Look at the absolute laziness of the people.
Obama wants to spend money we don't have.
Is it about the money? Yes that is an issue.
Tell you what, if you think Obamadon't care is such a good idea, why weren't you already paying the health insurance premiums for total strangers? You pay your own premiums, do you volunteer your pay check to pay the premiums for your co workers? Why not?
Obamadon'tcare is a catastrophe for the US.
oatmeal
"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42
"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" Psalm 6:5
Before reducing welfare for the poor I would put on the table reducing welfare for the rich, which we politely call subsidies, tax loopholes and tax breaks for corporations and high earners - then reduce welfare for the poor.
Billionaire Warren Buffett
"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone -- not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 -- shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."
Before reducing welfare for the poor I would put on the table reducing welfare for the rich, which we politely call subsidies, tax loopholes and tax breaks for corporations and high earners - then reduce welfare for the poor.
Between 2001 and 2007- a period during which poverty was rising and average household income had fallen - the 400 richest taxpayers saw their incomes double to an average of $345 million even as their effective tax rate was virtually halved.
Before reducing welfare for the poor I would put on the table reducing welfare for the rich, which we politely call subsidies, tax loopholes and tax breaks for corporations and high earners - then reduce welfare for the poor.
"The media attacks the poor and elderly for not paying federal income taxes, but the U.S. government doesn't see a cent of Exxon's $35 billion profit."
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
July 1st, 2012, 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbang123
"The media attacks the poor and elderly for not paying federal income taxes, but the U.S. government doesn't see a cent of Exxon's $35 billion profit."
Corporations should not be taxed.. its illegal double taxation.
Unless you concede the point that they are basically 'people'.. otherwise, since a corporation doesn't get to vote, it is being taxed without representation (the same thing we revolted against England for).
hmmm don't think it is illegal or corporations lawyers would of sorted that one out years ago. There not exactly under represented in the courts.
We are double taxed in lots of places, income tax when we get paid, sales tax when we spend it. Why should corporations be any different?
depends where you think the tax burden should fall
mainly on the working and middle classes as they pay income tax
or balanced across all income brackets, in proportion to there income
My view is the rich are so good at tax avoidance having personal income tax and corporation tax probably means they pay there way
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisServant
Corporations should not be taxed.. its illegal double taxation.
Unless you concede the point that they are basically 'people'.. otherwise, since a corporation doesn't get to vote, it is being taxed without representation (the same thing we revolted against England for).
Roberts did what was right for the interests of doctors, Big Pharm, Insurers and the rest of the healthcare industry. It is a bailout. He is bought and paid for.
WASHINGTON -- Republicans have said repeatedly that the landmark health care reform law, upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court last week, must be repealed and replaced. But the GOP leader in the U.S. Senate gave a surprising answer on "Fox News Sunday" when asked how Republicans would provide health care coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.
"That is not the issue," Sen. Mitch McConnell said.
..."Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace interrupted, "You don't think 30 million uninsured is an issue?"...
Wallace pressed McConnell, noting that the Affordable Care Act will prohibit insurance companies from not offering plans to individuals with pre-existing health conditions. "If you repeal Obamacare, how will you protect those people with pre-eexisting conditions?"
Linear Mode
