
This is a placeholder text
Group text

by GSD Admin on 28 June 2012 - 17:06

by Keith Grossman on 28 June 2012 - 17:06
I know; right? Maybe this will help explain the mindset of those so opposed to it...I saw a post a couple of hours ago in which someone was so upset over the ruling he said he was going to move to Canada. Uh, yeah...lol!

by Keith Grossman on 28 June 2012 - 17:06


by GSD Admin on 28 June 2012 - 18:06
by joanro on 28 June 2012 - 18:06

by Keith Grossman on 28 June 2012 - 18:06
I'm sure I already do and guess what? I don't have a problem with that.
You people have no issue whatsoever with the government spending massive amounts of money on weapons used to destroy lives but God forbid we spend even a small fraction of that making some better.
by joanro on 28 June 2012 - 18:06

by fawndallas on 28 June 2012 - 18:06
I pay my taxes; I do not ask for hand outs; I take nothing from the government. We manage our health risks responsibly, but we are still considered a high risk coverage. What choice will I have now?
The reason this new concept works in Canada is that medical costs in general are controlled. In the US, there is no control over the costs; free enterprise and all. In order for this to really work, both sides of the equation needs to be controlled. This law only controls one side; so yes, normal Americans that fall on the risker side of the line, but not to the extreme will loose.
Insurance companies work on the bases of risk; not as an individual, but as a group; the average risk is what counts. Best example I can give is with Home Insurance. If you live in a flood zone, your premiums are higher; this is because the risk to the insurance company is higher. Insurance companies are for profit.
As more Americans are forced to take private insurance, the risk bases will go more towards the individual and not a group. Individual risk is always higher than group as the "averages" are higher.
Yeah, gotta love government.
by Blitzen on 28 June 2012 - 18:06
What does the Affordable Health Care bill have do with our paying for the families down the road? As Keith said, we are paying for them NOW if they are uninsured. If that's a result of being out of work or another unpreventable circumstance, then count me in, I'll do my share to help them out. However if they are sitting around 24/7 smoking, drinking, eating so much junk food that they are obese and diabetic, then I resent paying their freight. "Obamacare" mandates that those who can afford to pay their own way do so. We will be relieved of paying for most of the uninsured we are paying for now if they pay their own way.
The insurance companies are NOT going to benefit, they will lose money in the end compared to what they are raking in now. Why do you think big business has spent so much money trying to send this bill down the proverbial toilet? Hint - it's not because they want to see a better America, it because they know their profits are going to tumble after Etna et al can no longer legally rape the American public with ultra high fees, refusing to insure due to pre-existing conditions or by making their customers jump through hoops of fire to get life saving treatments for their 4 year olds with leukemia. Poor insurance execs might even have to scale back their golf outings from 4 a week to 3.
Cheers to the Supreme Court for doing what's right for America!!!
BTW I love that cartoon and it's bittersweet message.... "My first goal is to make Obama a one term President".
READ THE BILL AND THINK.............don't be a sheep.
by Blitzen on 28 June 2012 - 18:06
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top