It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are Americans prodominantly against Obamacare?

page: 22
42
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
Why would any civilized person complain about making primary healthcare available to all instead of just those that have the cash to pay for it?

Because we were founded on the individual's freedoms, not the collective.



Originally posted by michael1983l
How can a population of a developed nation like the USA complain about paying extra taxes for this when their current government invests more money in war than all other nations combines accross the globe?

Just saying.


Using war as your arguing point is weak at best.
More taxes is just the grip of slavery tightening on the America Citizen. Plan and simple.




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's true. People don't like change. But I suspect that if it were "McCainCare" or "BushCare" or even "RomneyCare", the same people protesting it so strongly now would be the ones who would support it 100%...



No. It is the idea of, on a federal level, that Conservatives and Libertarians are against, no matter who tries to implement it



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
The traditional american system is either you can afford it or its tough, if you cant afford healthcare then its tough you'll die unless someone feels generous (chairity)


Please provide me the stats that show people are denied treatment, due to non payment.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
Why would any civilized person complain about making primary healthcare available to all instead of just those that have the cash to pay for it?

How can a population of a developed nation like the USA complain about paying extra taxes for this when their current government invests more money in war than all other nations combines accross the globe?

Just saying.


I think a significant amount of intellectual minded people who oppose Obama-care oppose it because of what it seems to imply. Supporters and promoters of Obama-care called it "Victory for the American People." But what it actually seems like is a coup de grâce for the American dream. Victory for the American people would be a dramatic re-tooling of the establishment to allow for individuals to fairly earn enough income to not only afford healthcare, but to afford their aspirations. The American people have traded upward mobility and financial prosperity for something else.

To take it a step further, one should consider how this heathcare law fits inside the grand scheme of things. Mom&Pop operations will struggle, inevitably they will naturally want a team of part-time employees instead of two or three full time employees who require health benefits (by law). This pushes masses of people toward finding full time work in an establishment big enough to absorb this burden (the corporate ladder).

This isn't to imply a "conspiracy"

instead, it could be better described as brilliant synergy.
edit on 2-7-2012 by Shinchter because: added this and that.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phantom28804
I would vote that the majority of people that are against Obamacare is fear of Socialism. Even though there is already a lot of Socialism in America already I think people feel this would be kind of a nail in the Democratic coffin so to speak, or at least something that couldn't be so much denied. I personally am not all against the concept as Socialized Medicine as it does have a good basis for working.

What scares me about it the most is not so much the Socialized part of it as the government controlled part. For example. Let's say that you are 40+ years of age or older and you come down with a rare disease that is only treatable with a specific and expensive treatment plan. So with the new mandated insurance coverage comes mandated procedures. So let's say they don't feel there is a good reason to waste that kind of money on someone who is already over the age of 40. Not going to be able to work all that much longer, and we should use this money to treat people that are younger and can work longer etc.

I know it's not a nice thought to think about but it is a viable reality.


It's a shame that so many of the good posts seem to go un-noticed, however, I do agree with you and it seems that so do most of the population according to polls.


Proponents responded by arguing that NBC's tinkering with the language of the question (which it had also done in its July survey) had contributed to the drop in favorability for a public plan.

SurveyUSA's poll, which was commissioned by the progressive group MoveOn.org, a proponent of the public plan, gives credence to those critiques. While arguments about what type of language best describe the public option persist --"choice" is considered a trigger word that everyone naturally supports -- it seems clear that the framing of the provision goes a long way toward determining its popularity.

Source






edit on 2-7-2012 by RobinB022 because: Added info.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Universal health care is not the problem. It's the crap that is in the Obamacare. It's a complete take over of the pharmaceutical companies, it's all part of the eugenics program. They now get to charge u a arm and leg and u don't know because it's going to come from your taxes, no receipt trails. Not to mention there is a section in the healthcare to mandates everyone to be chipped. Not sure when they will implement this, but they will as soon as the get the rest of the sheeples on board.
edit on 2-7-2012 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by amfirst1
 


Can you provide the portion that revolves around being ID/chipped?
That would be a great read and fun kick in the groin from the Govt.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Romneycare, Obamacare - the only problem those two have is in the name.

Just because you sipped the kool-aid and found it to your liking doesn't mean the rest of us have.


Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   


Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


You have and you do? Explain yourself. It surprises me that you claim you have read the entire bill and have nothing to say about it accept you agree and it should go further? Further how? How long did it take you to read/study it?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScatterBrain



Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


You have and you do? Explain yourself. It surprises me that you claim you have read the entire bill and have nothing to say about it accept you agree and it should go further? Further how? How long did it take you to read/study it?


I must say, how many pages are in that bill? Over 2000? Some impressive reading skills that person has.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
The problem with is it does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare (unless they plan to ration it) while it adds more government control and taxes over our lives. As for need, bull#. You can get healthcare if you work at Walmart earning 9 bucks an hour. I know someone who is diabetic and she gets everything she needs from this low end plan. It does zero to contain healthcare costs. They don;t deal with HMO profits or medical lawsuits. On top of it all, it is adding another expensive entitlement to a system that should be reducing entitlements because we are 16 trillion in debt. We will be Greece in 3-5 years and people argue about it as if that fact is up for debate. IN the end, they will cut all of it. There will be massive rationing of healthcare. Oh, and they will allow one million immigrants in a year and put them on Obama care also so they can buy their votes. This system will collapse because it is based on giving people things and no politician can say no. Think of Greece. Oh, and by the way, healthcare sucks in the uk. I have a friend who was in the hospital and they left a corpse in the bed next to him for 24 hours before they even noticed. Just sayin.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Ummm it would be because I don't want to pay for someone else's health care , in other words I work and if there is someone out there who dosent , yet again my tax dollars go towards that dip# who dosent have a job , sooooo why should I have to pay for someone who is too lazy to pay for themselves ?!?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


It's a penalty tax only for those who can afford health insurance, but refuse to buy it.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


You liberals are going to have a hard time defending this as a penalty. Here is why:

Well Obama has a problem here because according to the IRS a penalty is a tax penalty by definition. So he better go to the IRS publication and change the definition. "You may be able to get the IRS to drop the tax penalty if you can show that your mistake was an honest error. Tax penalties can be avoided if the relevant facts affecting the item's tax treatment are adequately disclosed in the tax return. However, disclosure cannot be used to avoid incorrect valuation tax penalties." definitions.uslegal.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Originally posted by ScatterBrain



Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


You have and you do? Explain yourself. It surprises me that you claim you have read the entire bill and have nothing to say about it accept you agree and it should go further? Further how? How long did it take you to read/study it?


I must say, how many pages are in that bill? Over 2000? Some impressive reading skills that person has.


Yes. adrenalinesshadow.files.wordpress.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScatterBrain



Kool-aid? You mean like what Fox "Liar" News serves to their ignorant audience 24/7? FYI I have read the bill that is now law. I understand the law. It is good law, and it is desperately needed. I think it should have even gone farther.
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


You have and you do? Explain yourself. It surprises me that you claim you have read the entire bill and have nothing to say about it accept you agree and it should go further? Further how? How long did it take you to read/study it?


I say Matthew 7:6 to you, Dear Sir.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


do u realize how much our taxes are going to rise because of this bill. the big question is who is going to pay for it? there is no way this can sustained for a long period of time. especially since we are in such bad debt, the economy is not getting better, nor is the unemployment rate. people can barely afford to live now, not because they supposedly live beyond their means, its because things are getting more expensive while the cost of living is also going up, and wages are going down. its also about FORCING someone to buy a product they dont want and I dont want it and alot of other people dont want it either. take a week and read this bill and you will change your mind. forget what u hear the media or anyone say, read the bill



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
We have spent 1.3 trillion dollars on war since 2001. But republicans assert we cant afford health care? Funny how they always find the money to fund their wars, but are woefully short on cash when its something for the little people. I bet if we had to match every dollar spent on war with one for social programs, we would suddenly find the money to fund them.
edit on 3-7-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
Why would any civilized person complain about making primary healthcare available to all instead of just those that have the cash to pay for it?

How can a population of a developed nation like the USA complain about paying extra taxes for this when their current government invests more money in war than all other nations combines accross the globe?

Just saying.


Um, because the founding fathers never intended to mandate you to purchase ANYTHING.
Because in many circles this was sold as Universal Health Care (or, free for those that cannot afford, which is the biggest lie in this entire debacle) You are now FORCED to buy health insurance or PAY higher taxes.
Because it should be up to the states, not the fed, to regulate such issues
And let's not forget what a burden this is on small businesses, thus totally railroading the "recovery". If you own a company just under 50 employees, and decide expanding to say 55 or 60 will help grow your biz, forget it because of THIS BILL. It is HELL for the little guy.

Let's also not forget that we needed to pass it to understand what was in it. This coming from the former MAJORITY LEADER of the house of representatives. The leader of one of the branches of our Congress uttered these words. And we (well, you, not me) continue to elect these crooks like Charlie Rangal Found guilty on 11 of 12 counts from Congress, his constituents voted him back in. Check out his bio on wiki - makes Nixon look like George Washington (I only reference wiki in this case because it's concise on his "background:.

Chicago nonsense from the beginning. I love how people complain about Congress but keep voting "their guy" in.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Very simple. It is not the governments job to force citizens to pay for health care. Each person has the right to purchase health care or not. If they choose to purchase a large flat screen instead of health care I should not have to foot the bill. If they would rather purchase a XBox 360 than health care I should not have to foot the bill.

It is called RESPONSIBILITY.

Something you are lacking if you are in favor of Obamacare.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join