jump to navigation

January 28, 2012

Posted by Coonsey in Uncategorized.
trackback

Obama’s a Socialist that Likes Mandates – Say What?

It just occurred to me that Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are contradicting themselves with their own claims about Barack Obama being a “food stamp president” who wants to “maximize dependency” of the poor on the government and him, thereby providing guaranteed votes come election day.

How can a person want people to be dependent on them for their benefits and at the same time tell those same people they will have to come up with their own money to buy something?

That’s right folks.  President Obama wants people jobless, getting unemployment benefits and on food stamps while also demanding (mandating) that they pay for their on health insurance premiums.  Does this sound like a socialist plan to you?

Exactly how would that work Newt, Mitt or Rick?  If they are jobless and on unemployment and getting foodstamps, how in the world would they be able to buy health insurance coverage?

Lastly, if people are purposely made to be unemployed, getting foodstamps and being forced to buy health insurance — exactly how does that produce Votes for Obama?  Ya think maybe those same folks would be a tad upset with the President for getting them in such a bad situation?  Why on earth would they bother voting for such a person?

Comments»

1. G. P. McGinness - February 1, 2012

Wow !!!! That is an incredible work of fiction. The burden of healthcare will be shifted to the few remainning workers through the premiums that those same workers pay. Jobless individuals will never be forced to pay. If you don’t think the President is trying to turn America into a socialist nation modeled after the failure in Europe you are just not paying attention.

2. Coonsey - February 1, 2012

My point exactly G.P., a socialist would never MAKE any one group pay for something, the bill and benefits would be shared by ALL
. Besides, The new law works with existing employer-based health insurance market while adding consumer protections (gov regulations just like we have NOW). Families and individuals that don’t have access to affordable coverage can receive tax credits to help them purchase coverage in the private health insurance market. There is no government-sponsored, public, or “single payer” plan in the law.

3. G. P. McGinness - February 2, 2012

Not true a socialist will steal the wealth of the workers and give it to those content to play the system. That is how the President bought votes in the last presidental election and how he is trying to buy them in this election cycle. Remember spread the wealth. There is a government plan in place in the law. It is illeagal for any hospital to refuse medical service to any person reguardless of there ability to pay.You know that any for profit hospital will recoupe that from the government and in the billing of the people who pay. So please stop spreading the lie.

4. Coonsey - February 2, 2012

I do not spread lies G.P. You can rewrite the meaning of something anytime but we are not spreading the wealth…in fact the wealth is getting even more wealthy and the poor/middle class are much much poorer – FACT. The wealthy are the ones PLAYING THE SYSTEM and BUYING their way into government leadership roles, just look at Romney and Gingrich of late.

Yes it is illegal to deny coverage if you are a ‘participating hospital’, however, with the obamacare REQUIRING everyone that ‘can’ to pay a portion of the bill(their own premiums), in the LONG run it should help to curb the cost of those uninsured bills being added to OUR (insured folks) bill. That’s only logical. Even if you require each individual to pay at least $10 a month for health care, that alone would keep $10 from being added to somebody else’s bill.

As far as gov setting REGULATIONS on what is covered and what is not — they do that NOW in everything we do in life….you do realize that don’t you? We are forced to buy car ins, wear seat belts, get specific miles per gal, brakes on a cars, have clean water, fresh food, no smoking, special levels of gasoline, our cell phone use, etc… I would rather a Congress of over 500 people deciding what is covered then a few FOR PROFIT insurance companie bureaucrats deciding what I get for my health coverage. I want people to be able to afford health ins even with pre-existing conditions. I happen to think HEALTH is a RIGHT TO HAVE item, just like water and basic food items. It’s something we NEED to survive. So if we can get everybody covered and everybody pays in at least a little and we regulate the care that is given we are all better off. If I need a heart and you need a heart and you have a million to pay for it and I don’t…who should get the heart? The least healthy or the wealthiest person? In your view it sounds like you’d pick the person with most money because health is a PRODUCT to sell.

5. G. P. McGinness - February 4, 2012

Don’t you understand when the government gets involed they decide what procedures will get done what drugs will be used. Just look at England and Canada two examples of the model that you and the President want to follow. If you need a heart and a millionare needs a heart who are 500 bought and payed for politians going to choose. Will they save you or someone who can fill there campaign chests. In fact those decisions will be made by untouchable bureaucrats that answer only to themselves and there pocketbooks. With privite insurance you and your doctor decide drugs and procedures. Then insurance company says what they pay and what you pay. The government has no place there. Why do insist that I am responsible for anyone other than myself and my dependents? The wife says quit harrassing you and HI

6. Coonsey - February 4, 2012

With all due respect…bullwicky. Insurance companies do NOT allow doctors to do anything without THEIR permission and even limit the doctors ability to pic and choose….what ins company do you have that allows doc to decide 100% of your care?

Your example of letting congress decide the rules and they will choose who pays them more — happens right now with ins companies. This is exactly why you should be FOR removing money from corporations AND unions from campaigns. They are NOT people.

You tell the wife I said thanks for the support and that she needs to put you AWAY to get your HEAD fixed….lol HI back to everybody!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 118 other followers