PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare supporters can be happy....



sanfran22
11-12-2011, 03:11 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-s-passage-millions-have-lost-employer-sponsored-health-insurance_607994.html
This is why you take the CBO garbage with a grain of salt.....

OnePimpTiger
11-12-2011, 06:30 PM
Shocking...simply shocking...no one saw this coming...

OnePimpTiger
11-12-2011, 06:31 PM
Shocking...simply shocking...no one saw this coming...

INTIMADATOR2007
11-12-2011, 06:42 PM
He also said the avg. premium would go down 2500 but according to this "So in addition to costing about $2.5 trillion (http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20091123_Senate_Bill_Cost_Chart.pdf) over its real first decade (2014 to 2023), looting nearly $1 trillion from Medicare" that is not going to happen either .with alot of insurance cost already breaking people .

And the Democrats keep on saying it's the Rep. that want to end medicare/medicade it looks very well like the democrats are already doin it .

Hilfiger1975
11-12-2011, 06:45 PM
Maybe we should elect who got insurance for all in Canada...:winking0071:

habsheaven
11-12-2011, 07:34 PM
Keep trying guys. History will prove Obama right. You can take whatever polls you want, whatever numbers you want and SPIN it all you want. Bottom line, universal health care is LONG OVERDUE in the States.

Hilfiger1975
11-12-2011, 07:36 PM
keep trying guys. History will prove obama right. You can take whatever polls you want, whatever numbers you want and spin it all you want. Bottom line, universal health care is long overdue in the states.
+1

theonedru
11-12-2011, 09:09 PM
Now everyone's rates are going to skyrocket to gargantuan levels......

Hilfiger1975
11-12-2011, 09:21 PM
Now everyone's rates are going to skyrocket to gargantuan levels......

Welcome to poor America...wave to the rich people with insurance...

theonedru
11-12-2011, 09:24 PM
Welcome to poor America...wave to the rich people with insurance...

Remember Insurance is going to be mandatory, if they make it so then they can raise rates to whatever they want for everyone and they have no choice but to pay or go to jail.....

Hilfiger1975
11-12-2011, 09:26 PM
Remember Insurance is going to be mandatory, if they make it so then they can raise rates to whatever they want for everyone and they have no choice but to pay or go to jail.....
Aren't jails overcrowded now? I'm sure they don't have room...if they do, three hots and a cot will be the NEW welfare, aye? :winking0071:

Hilfiger1975
11-12-2011, 09:32 PM
They better start building prisons now for a jump-start...the good thing is that the gap between "poor" and "rich" will even be more wider, aye?

It just amazes me that America is the "wealthiest" country in the world, but we can't have universal health care like Canada...maybe we need to ask Canada to help us instead of us helping everyone else...

freethrowtommy
11-12-2011, 11:25 PM
The Weekly Standard? You call that right wing rag a source? Come back when you have something credible. Seriously...

duane1969
11-12-2011, 11:33 PM
They better start building prisons now for a jump-start...the good thing is that the gap between "poor" and "rich" will even be more wider, aye?

It just amazes me that America is the "wealthiest" country in America, but we can't have universal health care like Canada...maybe we need to ask Canada to help us instead of us helping everyone else...

Last time I checked, we have a national debt that amounts to about the rest of the worlds national debt combined. Where is the wealthiest country in the world supposed to come up with the money to give everyone everything for free?

Question. If we take all of the rich people's money and give it to the poor, won't that make the rich people the new poor? And wouldn't it then be fair to take the money that was taken from the rich and given to the poor and give it back to the formerly rich but now poor people?

duane1969
11-12-2011, 11:42 PM
The Weekly Standard? You call that right wing rag a source? Come back when you have something credible. Seriously...

The article is based on a poll by Gallup. Are you suggesting that the data is false simply because you do not like the reporting agency?

Do you have proof that Gallup and The Weekley Standard are working together to falsify reports and mislead America? I ask because all that TWS did was report on the Gallup poll results. If you have proof that Gallup is putting out fraudulent polls then it would be quite interesting information.

freethrowtommy
11-12-2011, 11:56 PM
The article is based on a poll by Gallup. Are you suggesting that the data is false simply because you do not like the reporting agency?

Do you have proof that Gallup and The Weekly Standard are working together to falsify reports and mislead America? I ask because all that TWS did was report on the Gallup poll results. If you have proof that Gallup is putting out fraudulent polls then it would be quite interesting information.

No where did I say the data was false. The data is there, but quoting the Weekly Standard in interpretation of the data is dishonest at best. How about linking directly to the Gallup data and let people interpret it for themselves, rather than having the Weekly Standard throw in all the Obamacare garbage quotes when they really have no idea what is causing the downturn. Weekly Standard is going to find any shred of info that they can use to throw Obama under the bus... you know it.

This from the Gallup info...


The health insurance system in the United States is experiencing numerous changes. Governments and businesses have and will continue to cut back and/or reform their health coverage offerings to handle tough economic circumstances, rising healthcare costs, and requirements of the Affordable Care Act.
The nation's largest private employer, Wal-Mart, announced in October that new part-time employees who work less than an average of 24 hours a week would no longer be able to get their health insurance from the company. Wal-Mart laid out several other cuts to its health insurance offerings, including some workers' ability get coverage for their spouses. Other companies have already made and will likely continue to make similar changes to their health insurance benefits.
Employer-based health insurance has declined since 2008, falling from 49.8% in the first quarter of that year to 44.5% in the third quarter of 2011. If Wal-Mart's decision is a precursor of how employers intend to manage their healthcare costs, the downward trend in employer-based healthcare will likely continue.
At the same time, the percentage of Americans who are uninsured is on the rise again after remaining fairly steady throughout 2010. If more employers stop offering health insurance and the cost of purchasing insurance for individuals remains a barrier, it is possible that the uninsured rate will continue to rise -- at least until additional parts of the 2010 healthcare legislation take effect.
Is way different from this from the Weekly Standard:

It’s time to repeal Obamacare.But you know... continue the right wing rag fest that owns this forum... whatever.

Hilfiger1975
11-13-2011, 12:03 AM
Last time I checked, we have a national debt that amounts to about the rest of the worlds national debt combined. Where is the wealthiest country in the world supposed to come up with the money to give everyone everything for free?

Question. If we take all of the rich people's money and give it to the poor, won't that make the rich people the new poor? And wouldn't it then be fair to take the money that was taken from the rich and given to the poor and give it back to the formerly rich but now poor people?
If Canada can do it we can do it...America chooses not too...see the difference? Not unless you want to admit America is ran by complete morons (both republican and democrats). And we should not be bickering about who is a liberal, or democrat or republican because none of them have done anything to help this country from it's long history of fail...

Wow, you love to go to extremes, huh? Since you made a hypothetical question i'll ask you one too. Why did you ask me take all the rich's money and give it to the poor, instead of only half of it? Do you do these things to make your point LOOK more relevant?

mrveggieman
11-13-2011, 04:08 PM
Aren't jails overcrowded now? I'm sure they don't have room...if they do, three hots and a cot will be the NEW welfare, aye? :winking0071:


This reminds me of the guy in NC who robbed the bank to go to jail on purpose to get free health care.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/nc-man-allegedly-robs-bank-health-care-jail/story?id=13887040

So sad the people have to go through desperate measures nowadays in order to get healthcare to say alive. SMH.

duane1969
11-13-2011, 04:46 PM
If Canada can do it we can do it...America chooses not too...see the difference? Not unless you want to admit America is ran by complete morons (both republican and democrats). And we should not be bickering about who is a liberal, or democrat or republican because none of them have done anything to help this country from it's long history of fail...

Wow, you love to go to extremes, huh? Since you made a hypothetical question i'll ask you one too. Why did you ask me take all the rich's money and give it to the poor, instead of only half of it? Do you do these things to make your point LOOK more relevant?

Canada has an income tax rate considerably higher than ours. That is why most non-hockey sports teams have failed or struggle and why many sports teams have a hard time getting top athletes. Use this tax calculator and you will see that your current income tax would double or triple in Canada. http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax

Also, since they can count on the American military to come to the rescue they invest minimally in their own military efforts leaving lots of extra money for social programs.

Most Americans are not and would not be OK with dismantling our military and giving up half of their paycheck so that everyone can have free health care. I doubt that you would be either.

Additionally, the free health care in Canada must not be all that great. Most people who can afford it buy supplemental insurance to give themselves access to better private care rather than the free public care. Do a little Googling and you will find thousands of stories of people denied care under Canada's system.

My hypothetical was based on prior statements by you that imply that you think that the rich should or will have it all taken from them by force.

Theodor Madison
11-13-2011, 05:04 PM
What irks me is that All fed, state, city Unionemployees, get all they need.
1 reason companies are not hiring is Obamacare. No idea the cost.
Why do some get waivers and some do not.> where is the equality Here?

habsheaven
11-13-2011, 07:41 PM
Canada has an income tax rate considerably higher than ours. That is why most non-hockey sports teams have failed or struggle and why many sports teams have a hard time getting top athletes. Use this tax calculator and you will see that your current income tax would double or triple in Canada. http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax

Also, since they can count on the American military to come to the rescue they invest minimally in their own military efforts leaving lots of extra money for social programs.

Most Americans are not and would not be OK with dismantling our military and giving up half of their paycheck so that everyone can have free health care. I doubt that you would be either.

Additionally, the free health care in Canada must not be all that great. Most people who can afford it buy supplemental insurance to give themselves access to better private care rather than the free public care. Do a little Googling and you will find thousands of stories of people denied care under Canada's system.

My hypothetical was based on prior statements by you that imply that you think that the rich should or will have it all taken from them by force.

Do you Americans really believe we need your help? We do not spend a lot on the military because our FOREIGN POLICY doesn't require it.

As for our "not so great free health care", check all the worldwide ranking on the subject. Most of the supplemental insurance covers non-essentials, like private and semi-private rooms, eyeglasses, birth-control, braces, etc.

theonedru
11-13-2011, 09:46 PM
Last time I checked, we have a national debt that amounts to about the rest of the worlds national debt combined. Where is the wealthiest country in the world supposed to come up with the money to give everyone everything for free?

Question. If we take all of the rich people's money and give it to the poor, won't that make the rich people the new poor? And wouldn't it then be fair to take the money that was taken from the rich and given to the poor and give it back to the formerly rich but now poor people?

riding monster debt doesnt qualify us as the richest nation, its like people living off credit cards, now if we had surplus instead of debt then you could claim richest nation standard.

theonedru
11-13-2011, 09:51 PM
Canada has an income tax rate considerably higher than ours. That is why most non-hockey sports teams have failed or struggle and why many sports teams have a hard time getting top athletes. Use this tax calculator and you will see that your current income tax would double or triple in Canada. http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax

Also, since they can count on the American military to come to the rescue they invest minimally in their own military efforts leaving lots of extra money for social programs.

Most Americans are not and would not be OK with dismantling our military and giving up half of their paycheck so that everyone can have free health care. I doubt that you would be either.

Additionally, the free health care in Canada must not be all that great. Most people who can afford it buy supplemental insurance to give themselves access to better private care rather than the free public care. Do a little Googling and you will find thousands of stories of people denied care under Canada's system.

My hypothetical was based on prior statements by you that imply that you think that the rich should or will have it all taken from them by force.

" Also, since they can count on the American military to come to the rescue they invest minimally in their own military efforts leaving lots of extra money for social programs."

They do not need to invest heavily in their military for one simple reason, the rest of the world likes Canada, they are not smug, egotistical and self centered like America and our holier than thou attitude towards the rest of the universe....

duane1969
11-13-2011, 10:41 PM
Do you Americans really believe we need your help? We do not spend a lot on the military because our FOREIGN POLICY doesn't require it.

As for our "not so great free health care", check all the worldwide ranking on the subject. Most of the supplemental insurance covers non-essentials, like private and semi-private rooms, eyeglasses, birth-control, braces, etc.

It wasn't a personal attack on Canada. I realize you like to think that Canada is a military powerhouse and would need no help and that is fine.

As for your health care, all of the things you mentioned are covered under my private health care now, so I am going to have a hard time seeing how I should pay higher taxes for a public health care program that covers less than my private health care does now. I will keep my lower taxes and better health coverage, thanks.


" Also, since they can count on the American military to come to the rescue they invest minimally in their own military efforts leaving lots of extra money for social programs."

They do not need to invest heavily in their military for one simple reason, the rest of the world likes Canada, they are not smug, egotistical and self centered like America and our holier than thou attitude towards the rest of the universe....

Actually it probably has more to do with their lack of strategic value. Canada is a few major cities along the US border and a lot of rural towns and vast forest and tundra that is under ice and snow most of the year.

The only reason anyone would have to want to invade Canada is for better position to attack the US and since the US knows that, Canada is safe.

habsheaven
11-14-2011, 03:46 PM
It wasn't a personal attack on Canada. I realize you like to think that Canada is a military powerhouse and would need no help and that is fine.

As for your health care, all of the things you mentioned are covered under my private health care now, so I am going to have a hard time seeing how I should pay higher taxes for a public health care program that covers less than my private health care does now. I will keep my lower taxes and better health coverage, thanks.



Actually it probably has more to do with their lack of strategic value. Canada is a few major cities along the US border and a lot of rural towns and vast forest and tundra that is under ice and snow most of the year.

The only reason anyone would have to want to invade Canada is for better position to attack the US and since the US knows that, Canada is safe.

I have never claimed Canada is a military powerhouse. Again, for the 100th time, try reading what I write. How you came to that conclusion says more about your delusions than anything.

How much does your private health care cost per month? How much would it cost per month if you had an employer that doesn't offer it? I like how you make your comparisons. I think you meant to say, "lower taxes plus premiums and better health coverage".

Strategic value? What strategic value is the US protecting? More cities? Larger population? I don't get it. Where do you get MOST of you oil from? Where does Canada rank in wealth of natural resources? You really need to expand your horizons. Your bias is clouding your view of what the WORLD really looks like.

AUTaxMan
11-14-2011, 04:12 PM
Keep trying guys. History will prove Obama right. You can take whatever polls you want, whatever numbers you want and SPIN it all you want. Bottom line, universal health care is LONG OVERDUE in the States.

It is not financially sustainable.

duane1969
11-14-2011, 04:29 PM
How much does your private health care cost per month? How much would it cost per month if you had an employer that doesn't offer it? I like how you make your comparisons. I think you meant to say, "lower taxes plus premiums and better health coverage".



About $60 per month per family member.

My Fed taxes currently amount to around 15% of my income. A 35% increase to cover a health care program would be a heck of a lot more than my insurance premium.

Option A: "Free" health care that costs me around $45,000 a year in taxes and I still have to pay extra for supplemental insurance.

Option B: Private health care that costs me $3600 a year plus $13,500 a year in taxes.

it doesn't take a free health care brain surgeon can figure this one out. Pun intended.



Strategic value? What strategic value is the US protecting? More cities? Larger population? I don't get it. Where do you get MOST of you oil from? Where does Canada rank in wealth of natural resources? You really need to expand your horizons. Your bias is clouding your view of what the WORLD really looks like.

The strategic value to the US is border protection. By ensuring that Canada is unaccosted we protect ourselves. The same can be said for Mexico. If you don't understand the logic then look up the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As for oil, according to this report that just came out today Canada supplies 18% of our oil. I don't consider that to be MOST of our oil.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/research/crude-oil/where-the-us-gets-its-oil-from/

And since you are so sure that Canada needs nobody else but Canada, read this. It would appear that you don't even supply your own country with the bulk of it's oil, just like the US. Kettle meet pot.
http://www.canadians.org/energy/issues/energy_strategy/Canadian_oil.html

freethrowtommy
11-14-2011, 06:35 PM
It is not financially sustainable.

Canada, the UK, and every other developed country that has National Healthcare disagree with you...

freethrowtommy
11-14-2011, 06:39 PM
About $60 per month per family member.

My Fed taxes currently amount to around 15% of my income. A 35% increase to cover a health care program would be a heck of a lot more than my insurance premium.


I promise you that your healthcare costs are much greater than that $60 per person that you are paying for right now. Your company is covering the brunt of your costs. For example, to get on a high deductible plan at my place, I pay $130 per month for my wife and I. My company pays around $900 of the remaining costs of that (because they tell us they do). How much of that goes to CEO bonuses and advertising for that health care company? Why? Maybe, if the company doesn't have to pay it, they can pay you more (wishful thinking, I know), so even if you do pay more in taxes, it is covered in what the company would be paying out for your health care anyhow.

Take out all the for profit stuff, advertising, CEO bonuses, and I think the government can cut a lot of cost out of your insurance premium. If other countries can do it, why can't the richest country in the world? Maybe we could cut military spending a bit a refocus some of that cash. There are ways to do it... I promise you that.

Hilfiger1975
11-14-2011, 06:39 PM
" also, since they can count on the american military to come to the rescue they invest minimally in their own military efforts leaving lots of extra money for social programs."

they do not need to invest heavily in their military for one simple reason, the rest of the world likes canada, they are not smug, egotistical and self centered like america and our holier than thou attitude towards the rest of the universe....
+1!

AUTaxMan
11-14-2011, 06:42 PM
Canada, the UK, and every other developed country that has National Healthcare disagree with you...

Yes. Their healthcare systems are all in prime fiscal condition. They also don't have the sheer number of people to support with their systems that the U.S. does.

freethrowtommy
11-14-2011, 06:47 PM
Yes. Their healthcare systems are all in prime fiscal condition. They also don't have the sheer number of people to support with their systems that the U.S. does.

Most have a better fiscal situation than we do... health care or not.

AUTaxMan
11-14-2011, 06:56 PM
Most have a better fiscal situation than we do... health care or not.

So we need to make it worse?

freethrowtommy
11-14-2011, 07:06 PM
So we need to make it worse?

Why do we need to make it worse?

That money we are spending on wars and the military can be reused for infrastructure and health care? We spend money tearing down and building back up other countries... why can't we build up our own instead? Creates jobs at home and reinvests the money back in our economy...

I know it isn't as profitable as war to our government contractors and the people that pull the strings... but hey, wishful thinking, right?

theonedru
11-14-2011, 07:16 PM
why do we need to make it worse?

That money we are spending on wars and the military can be reused for infrastructure and health care? We spend money tearing down and building back up other countries... Why can't we build up our own instead? Creates jobs at home and reinvests the money back in our economy...

I know it isn't as profitable as war to our government contractors and the people that pull the strings... But hey, wishful thinking, right?

+1

habsheaven
11-14-2011, 07:48 PM
About $60 per month per family member.

My Fed taxes currently amount to around 15% of my income. A 35% increase to cover a health care program would be a heck of a lot more than my insurance premium.

Option A: "Free" health care that costs me around $45,000 a year in taxes and I still have to pay extra for supplemental insurance.

Option B: Private health care that costs me $3600 a year plus $13,500 a year in taxes.

it doesn't take a free health care brain surgeon can figure this one out. Pun intended.



The strategic value to the US is border protection. By ensuring that Canada is unaccosted we protect ourselves. The same can be said for Mexico. If you don't understand the logic then look up the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As for oil, according to this report that just came out today Canada supplies 18% of our oil. I don't consider that to be MOST of our oil.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/research/crude-oil/where-the-us-gets-its-oil-from/

And since you are so sure that Canada needs nobody else but Canada, read this. It would appear that you don't even supply your own country with the bulk of it's oil, just like the US. Kettle meet pot.
http://www.canadians.org/energy/issues/energy_strategy/Canadian_oil.html

Here we go again.

First bold: Your numbers suggest that you have 5 people covered under your insurance. Our supplemental insurance doesn't make any consideration for number of children. It covers them all for the same cost ($65/mos for the family). You state your 15% would increase by 35%. Are you implying you would now be paying 50% ($45,000) in Fed tax. Or are you saying a 35% increase to your current 15%, which would be approx. 21%? Regardless, based on your salary or mine, and our ability to access insurance through our employers we both would be better off under the American way. The pros of our system are seen best for those not in your position or mine. The people who do not have employer sponsored insurance pay alot more than us.

Second bold: You stated Canada is safe because they have no strategic value to other countries. I was asking you what strategic value does America have that requires you to spend so much to defend yourself.

Third bold: Wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said who is your largest supplier of oil. Not most of all your oil imports.

Fourth bold: What are you talking about here? If I implied Canada doesn't need anyone else, I was talking about militarily, not oil imports. Once again, you attribute statements to me that I never made.

Edit: And for the record, the taxes I pay cover more than just health care. So once again your comparisons are skewed.

duane1969
11-14-2011, 08:23 PM
Here we go again.

First bold: Your numbers suggest that you have 5 people covered under your insurance. Our supplemental insurance doesn't make any consideration for number of children. It covers them all for the same cost ($65/mos for the family). You state your 15% would increase by 35%. Are you implying you would now be paying 50% ($45,000) in Fed tax. Or are you saying a 35% increase to your current 15%, which would be approx. 21%? Regardless, based on your salary or mine, and our ability to access insurance through our employers we both would be better off under the American way. The pros of our system are seen best for those not in your position or mine. The people who do not have employer sponsored insurance pay alot more than us.



I don't understand exactly how the Canadian tax system works. I over-stated the percentage. I have been told that income tax in Canada hovers around 40%. I meant an increase of 25%, not 35%. I was typing fast because it was my quitting time.

You must also remember that along with regular Federal taxes (which 75% of funds welfare/Medicaid), we also have FICA taken out, which funds Medicare and we have Social Security tax taken out which goes into a retirement system that is being bled dry and will probably not be available for me when I retire. If I am already paying taxes and already funding a health care system for the poor and a retirement system then why am I expected to pay even more taxes to fund another health care program and how is it fair that I keep paying more and more and getting less and less for my money?

I agree it doesn't benefit the working class and that is exactly who is going to be hurt to have a nationalized health care. Any way you slice it, it isn't fair to make the "haves" suffer so that the "have-nots" can have better. My wife and kids should not have diminished health care so that someone else can have better health care and then I have to pay for it on top of it all.


Second bold: You stated Canada is safe because they have no strategic value to other countries. I was asking you what strategic value does America have that requires you to spend so much to defend yourself.

I think you misunderstood me or I didn't articluate myself very well. I was saying that a large part of Canada's safety lies in their strategic value to America. What I meant by "no strategic value" was from a military perspective. Yes, Canada has a large value as far as natural resources goes, but if a country is going to risk war to invade Canada it will most likely be to gain strategic position for an assault on America, not for natural resources.


Fourth bold: What are you talking about here? If I implied Canada doesn't need anyone else, I was talking about militarily, not oil imports. Once again, you attribute statements to me that I never made.

Ignore that oil thing. Like I said, was about to leave work, rushing and didn't make my point very good. Ignore it.

I guess Canada's military support needs depend on who the invading country is. If it is Greece or Sweden you are probably safe. If it is Iran, Brazil or Pakistan you might want to give us a call.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/


Edit: And for the record, the taxes I pay cover more than just health care. So once again your comparisons are skewed.

As I am sure mine would as well. I just have issue with having my taxes being raised and being forced to join a lesser health care program than what I have now and then having to spend out-of-pocket anyway to get the quality care for my family that I want them to have, and all of that so that someone else can have free health care. I am sorry, that is not right.

habsheaven
11-14-2011, 08:54 PM
I don't understand exactly how the Canadian tax system works. I over-stated the percentage. I have been told that income tax in Canada hovers around 40%. I meant an increase of 25%, not 35%. I was typing fast because it was my quitting time.

You must also remember that along with regular Federal taxes (which 75% of funds welfare/Medicaid), we also have FICA taken out, which funds Medicare and we have Social Security tax taken out which goes into a retirement system that is being bled dry and will probably not be available for me when I retire. If I am already paying taxes and already funding a health care system for the poor and a retirement system then why am I expected to pay even more taxes to fund another health care program and how is it fair that I keep paying more and more and getting less and less for my money?

I agree it doesn't benefit the working class and that is exactly who is going to be hurt to have a nationalized health care. Any way you slice it, it isn't fair to make the "haves" suffer so that the "have-nots" can have better. My wife and kids should not have diminished health care so that someone else can have better health care and then I have to pay for it on top of it all.



I think you misunderstood me or I didn't articluate myself very well. I was saying that a large part of Canada's safety lies in their strategic value to America. What I meant by "no strategic value" was from a military perspective. Yes, Canada has a large value as far as natural resources goes, but if a country is going to risk war to invade Canada it will most likely be to gain strategic position for an assault on America, not for natural resources.



Ignore that oil thing. Like I said, was about to leave work, rushing and didn't make my point very good. Ignore it.

I guess Canada's military support needs depend on who the invading country is. If it is Greece or Sweden you are probably safe. If it is Iran, Brazil or Pakistan you might want to give us a call.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/



As I am sure mine would as well. I just have issue with having my taxes being raised and being forced to join a lesser health care program than what I have now and then having to spend out-of-pocket anyway to get the quality care for my family that I want them to have, and all of that so that someone else can have free health care. I am sorry, that is not right.

First bold: That's a matter of opinion I guess. I think the most significant reason we are safe is because of our standing in the world. Although it doesn't hurt having the US as a friend.

Second bold: If we look like we are getting invaded I will give you a call. If the line is busy, I am sure I can call on Britain or France to lend a hand. Afterall, they still owe us one for WWI and II.

Third bold: Here we just have to agree to disagree. I am perfectly fine being taxed more so that my government can provide for people who can't afford/qualify for health insurance.

duane1969
11-14-2011, 09:20 PM
First bold: That's a matter of opinion I guess. I think the most significant reason we are safe is because of our standing in the world. Although it doesn't hurt having the US as a friend. Agreed.

Second bold: If we look like we are getting invaded I will give you a call. If the line is busy, I am sure I can call on Britain or France to lend a hand. Afterall, they still owe us one for WWI and II.

Don't call France. Haven't you heard what their battle cry is?

Third bold: Here we just have to agree to disagree. I am perfectly fine being taxed more so that my government can provide for people who can't afford/qualify for health insurance.



Here is the kicker. I already pay for free health care for those who don't have it. That is why I have an issue with Obamacare or a national health program. 75% of every tax dollar taken in by the US government goes to welfare/free health care/etc. I had a link for this but can't find it right now.

If the welfare system is scrapped and all of that money is put into a free health care program then my taxes probably won't go up or won't go up much. I can live with that.

Additonally, our Social Security system is being bled dry by politicians who keep borrowing from it and by people who are on it but it wasn't intended for (persons on disability and children of deceased workers). Why should I trust the government to not do the same thing with money intended for a national health care system?