White House hopeful Mitt Romney ran into a buzzsaw of criticism from black voters Wednesday when he told them he wanted to repeal President Barack Obama's landmark health care reforms. Duration: 00:47
Keywords: WEB, US, VOTE, ROMNEY, SOCIAL, HEALTH
Was provided by the reform makes it more accessible, the insurer maintains drawn more responsible, the scope extends to all Americans and making our system a sustainable manner.
It has now been just over 6 months since Obama's Healthcare Bill, also known as "Obamacare", passed Congress. The first of these Healthcare Bill benefits have just started. And Obama is spending his time reminding us to be grateful for his ingenious leadership.
But, especially as a senior citizen, what exactly are we supposed to be grateful for? Even if you're not a senior population now, you will be one someday (God willing), so in other words, every one, from every stage and walk of life should be asking themselves, and their Government, this question
What he has been telling us about his Obamacare is this: insurance companies will not be allowed to force yearly limits, lifetime restrictions on benefits, and all children will have the insurance of insurance (regardless of any pre-existing condition conditions). And the President promises more of these good things in the future.
What is so odd about being grateful for these spectacular, and good things, you ask? Nothing, as a matter of fact nothing. But what is not a blessing, and the query our Leader refuses to retort is this: Who is going to be forced to pay for all these spectacular, benefits? Even the allembracing website that his administration has set up does not address who will bare the cost of this great bill. In fact, the wording lends more to the idea that no one will be responsible to pay, it will plainly be "free".
One of the first things I remember hearing my father say is, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". You've heard that saying too. And it's still an precise statement (and always will be), the money has to come from somewhere. And all this spectacular, coverage The Healthcare Bill promises won't be cheap. While the individual beneficiary of Obamacare might not pay, someone, somewhere, sometime, will have to. And those persons, at that time, will pay dearly.
Our President has told us many times over that the rich and upper class should be shelling out more money, much more money, for their government than they already do. And in the case of Healthcare Reform, he says it's a great place for them to start. You know the population he's talking about - those who haven't been hit by the recession, those who have probably gained something from this economic hardship... The ones who had President Bush in their pockets.
According to a study done by Book and Capretts, that's not the precise answer. In actuality, those who will bare the brunt of the high cost of Healthcare Reform will be those with low-income, minorities; all the population who are currently struggling to pay their own healing bills will apparently, eventually, also be burdened with the bills for the rest of the country. And these are the population the President has promised the Healthcare Bill will help the most. Particularly since the current recession, those who are lower-income and elderly are struggling the most. The way to fix that isn't the Healthcare Bill.
Obamacare: Healthcare and Its BillThe sick person security and Affordable Care Act (Ppaca), the upcoming health assurance mandate (Obamacare) does not kick in until the year 2014 but it has already created controversy. One accusation in singular is that Muslims will be exempt from paying into the program. The act does not specifically exempt any singular religion from health assurance requirements. It does however include a general "religious conscious" clause which establishes a religious conscientious exemption. If your religion has an established history of spurning gambling then maybe you have a occasion of skipping out of the tax. Let's just bypass for a moment the injustice of my government placing one group of Americans over an additional one and seek the legalistic claim of gambling.
Is assurance easily a form of gambling? Gambling involves a obvious level of uncertainty but uncertainty does not equate to gambling. The purpose of assurance is to transfer risk elsewhere so that you are not burdened by catastrophic financial costs. In the event of property damage or loss for instance, the policy payout is not in the form of winnings but merely a "return of capital" to restore that asset to its pre-incident condition. In such an instance the settlement money received is not even taxed by the Irs. Distinction that with lottery and other gambling winnings which most easily are taxed.
Even religions that do not allow gambling allow exceptions for obvious types of assurance which are required by law, such as automobile insurance, homeowner's assurance and communal security. That's right; U.S. Muslims pay into the communal security law and also accept communal security payments.
Oasdi, which stands for Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, is a extensive federal benefits agenda that was established by Congress in 1935. The agenda includes resignation benefits, disability income, veteran's pension, communal housing, and even the food stamp program. The communal security tax is used to pay for the program. By law, the agenda is administered by the communal security Administration. Today we just commonly refer to this blessed agenda as "Social Security."
It is an assurance program. The government is prohibited from ordering you to pay assurance premiums and so therefore they prescribe the payroll contributions as a tax and use the Irs to regain the funds to pay for the whole thing. Oasdi (Social Security) is an assurance agenda and American Muslims are required to share in this program.
We are not perfect but Americans collectively believe in fairness. If government health care is required to provide benefits then all able recipients should be required to pay. What if you can opt out of Ppaca? If obvious groups collectively resolve not to share in government health care are we then to deny them medical attention? Are hospitals to potentially turn away injured and dying Muslims and their children because they refused to pay into the health system? Of policy not. If the benefits apply to everyone then so should the cost.
Let us take an additional one tack as we reconnoiter this gambling charge. As I sit here writing this record my personal communal security Statement shows that I have been paying communal security and Medicare taxes since the age of 16. The minimum legal gambling age in most states is either 18 or 21. If assurance is a form of gambling, then governments and even underground associates are breaking the law by collecting both communal security and Medicare taxes from minors. Since there is documented proof that my government forced me into sinful debauchery at such a young and impressionable age then America is guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If assurance equates to gambling then I interrogate a full refund plus interest, or at the very least some free therapy.
Muslim Exemption to Obamacare - Injurious Aspects of the Healthcare Reform Act