I just received the fabulous news that my premium has gone up another 31% on top of the 22% increase last year. When I called my provider, to inquire about the increase, I was told that due to mandates of the ACA this increase was necessary, and that I may actually lose my plan at the end of this year because my plan is not 100% ACA compliant. That is of course provided the President doesn’t change his mind again and make more unilateral changes as he is known to do.
Many of you may remember our President’s 2008 campaign promise:
“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
Well I can tell you from a personal experience, I am paying now more than $3,000 per year for my healthcare insurance. Not surprising, a recent poll indicated that:
Almost 9 in 10 respondents said Obamacare would be “important” in determining their vote, and 60 percent said debate on the health care law should not be over.
We need to get rid of this law, we need to get rid of this President, we need to electorally wipe out progressives, and we need bring back that “shining city on the hill”! So I don’t know, or care who the GOP candidate is in your district – vote for him or her, because any Democrat in any district in any state, only becomes a tool for the progressive agenda. It’s that simple.
I will also make one more obvious observation – the VA IS single payer Government Healthcare, so the problems we are seeing with that, is what we all have in store if we don’t shed ourselves of this cancer. No pun intended – well ok pun intended.
Blogs For Victory 
I would like to apply this “undue burden” standard in re: to Voter ID a progressive mentioned in the previous thread to the ACA and the amazing increases in people’s premiums and deductibles. In fact this “undue burden” is a common talking point amongst progressives in regards to Voter ID, but strangely never mentioned in regards to the ACA, yet the actual “burden” of the ACA is 50 fold. How can a one time payment of $15 be an undue burden, but a few hundred dollars increase in monthly payments not be? Furthermore, people are not mandated to vote, but people are now mandated to have health insurance. And in re: to “rights” which progressives love to tout, I have many progressives sell healthcare as a “right”, which of course we all know it is not, but the advocation of that by the left puts healthcare on the same level as voting. So again, why is the ACA not an “undue burden”?
You are so right. “Individual rights” are not considered when it comes to personal decisions, such as what kind of light bulb I want to use, what kind of toilet I can buy, whether or not I want ethanol in my gasoline (or want to pay the massive subsidies to have it made, or object to the environmental damage caused by its creation) or whether I can choose what kind of insurance policy I want.
When we met with an insurance broker to talk about changing our company plan, I said that I am very healthy and can afford my basic health care costs, and I wanted to buy a very high-deductible, very high-benefit, catastrophic plan to cover really big expenses, such as cancer or a serious accident. And I was told the government would not let me do this. Her words: “The government WON’T LET YOU DO THIS”. The government will not let me enter into a private contract with a company willing to provide certain benefits under certain circumstances at a certain cost.
So much for “individual rights”.
If I want to vote, I have the right to vote, but I also have the obligation to meet requirements for doing so as long as they are equally applied to all, and do not unfairly restrict that right. For example, I could not be told that the only way I could vote would be to climb 320 stairs to the voting booth at the top, or vote only in an underwater voting booth, or only vote between midnight and 4 a.m. But if there is a legitimate reason for a regulation, and it applies to everyone, and the requirements can be easily met and are not onerous, then yes, there can be some requirements. Theoretically, you have to be a citizen to vote, and if someone is not a citizen and wants to vote it is a long and complicated path to citizenship. But it’s not only a reasonable requirement, it is a necessary one, to protect the integrity of the system.
And it begins. Insurance Company bail outs:
The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1
“adjusted”
They must have a whole Euphemism Department to come up with weasel words.
“No, Your Honor, I did not break the law. I merely adjusted it to allow me to take property that was not mine.”
Maybe this is how they look at their distortions of the Constitution.
“We did not violate the Constitution—we just adjusted it a little.”
“We did not violate the Constitution—we just adjusted it a little.”
Amazona,
That’s EXACTLY how they look at it. They’ve been making small, incremental “adjustments” to the Constitution for the last century.
I have a couple questions for any Progressives reading this; Assuming ObamaCare will eventually be fully implemented, how will it look any different than the VA medical system of today? If they can’t get it right for the small percentage of us who have laid their lives on the line for the cause of liberty, how can we reasonably expect them to get it right with the population at large?
Clearly, when the insurance companies, whose support for Obamacare was essential to give the Left the ability to point at them and say “Even the insurance companies are behind this”, went into the Washington D.C. casino they were told “If you win you get to keep what you win, and if you lose we’ll cover your losses, so bet on us”.
What a deal.