Anti-Obamacare Republican Governor Paying Just $360 Per Year for Government Health Care
Florida´s Tea Party-allied Gov. Rick Scott swept into office on the strength of $73 million he was able give to his own campaign. While waging his anti-government agenda, he´s enjoying health insurance that costs his family just $30 a month.
While he´s laid off thousands of state employees and put added pressure on Florida´s retirees and Medicaid recipients, he pays just 20 percent of what police officers and teachers pay for health care. And he doesn´t want to comment on that.
A Scott spokesman called the family´s cheap insurance "private matters." Scott and other high-ranking state officials pay far less than an employee at the driver´s license bureau, who makes $32,000 per year and pays $2,160 for insurance.
We all know this lurker. Being a millionare and paying pennies for your cost of living is the conservitive american dream and it is alive and well. Funny how the GOP minions on this site never have anything to say about these stories.
is just a way to say things which the voters are likely to like. For the same reason that Perry dude before announcing his candidacy did those religious PR stunts. There is no honesty or consistency.
your forgetting teh millions of democrats on welfare paying NOTHING! you know, teh ones that time after time vote back in people like reid, boxer, polesi, miller, feinstein, etc?
your forgetting teh millions of republicans on welfare paying NOTHING! you know, teh ones that time after time vote back in people like bachmann, perry, retards, etc?
figures from both of our parties are so deeply entrenched in welfare, corporate, banking, subsidies that its no wonder nothing gets done. dont blame the people for following their representative´s examples.
It´s "the" you retarded monkey. "The." I suppose that "teh" is the natural progression of home schooling but do try to catch up, you retard.
It´s spelled "the." Every time you use "teh" you make yourself look stupid and honestly that´s a shame because even though I almost always disagree with you, in the last year you´ve shone considerable improvement...
...even though you´re still a retard who says "teh".
Feudal systems in antique societies usually had the common feature of being ruled by an extremely wealthy and powerful upper class (nobles and aristocrats) with nearly complete legal power over the lives and well-being of the impoverished lower classes of laborers, craftsmen, service professionals, farmer workers, and bond-servants (individuals with debts so excessive that their only legal options were debtor´s prison, life as homeless (outlaws) or service to the upper class as serfs or houseservants).
The feudal upper classes were not subject to the same set of laws as the lower classes. Thus one of the basic criteria for categorizing a society feudalistic might be simply that its laws and customs are designed to best serve the landed and wealthy while offering substantially lesser legal protections to the landless and working classes and those in debt.
and when u begin attking peoples spelling you are pretty much admitting you have no other defense to your arguement. and you´re last recourse is to tarnish your opponent by QQ over a typo? really?
I mean we all know he meant the. and so did u. why bother wasting time telling him how dumb he is for that and nothiing at all related to what was beingn argued.
as far as im concerned. you conceeded to shannox
@keyed. todays society if u have 10 grand u can get out of any DUI charge.. except for capitol crimes like murder its still true that money will buy your way out of it.
so is western culture closer to the antique feudal societies than that of the ´englightened´ ones?
@thedeeder: You´re right except for two things. 1) It´s not a spelling error. he does it intentionally in an effort to seem cool. It reminds me of stupid white kids who wear their hats sideways and speak in "ebonics" or "black vernacular". I just want to slap those kids. 2) I did NOT insult him because of a disagreement with what he said but because he is in fact a retarded monkey with internet access... Just kidding. Shannon is incapable(from experience) of saying anything positive. I´ve never witnessed him saying anything positive about anything ever. I challenge you to show me otherwise. IF I´M WRONG THEN I´LL ADMIT IT!
Regardless, I was rude "again" and to shannon I apologize. Not good to mix bourbon and the internet.
@my2cents: Yeah but that was the part of the comment where I was trying to be encouraging. Doesn´t count.
Both sides of the fence have great plans! But if we are going to play the bash Republicans game then wouldn´t it be fair to mention a year ago when Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in Obama Care, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers - the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts.
Should we mention that over 700 companies are now exempt from the requirements of Obamacare? Not only are there over 700 companies that are exempt from Obamacare, but a big percentage of those who are asking for exempt status are Obama supporters. Forty percent of the workers represented come from Unions and for the most part the Unions supported Obamacare.
That´s a good point and I´ll say right now I don´t know how to fix it but I will say I´d be pissed as hell if I got rear ended by some shmuck that opted out of car insurance.
I only say abortion because it, like many other good bills, were destroyed in the bipartisan congress. single-payer is where everyone pays in, and hospitals only deal with one agency. this agency would be a government agency, or contracted corporation. the benefits are the loss of inefficiencies. hospitals in america spend 10x the time of what hospitals in canada spend on paperwork alone. that and you wont ever get refused for not having care, or if your insurance doesnt want to pay for your emergency service. the individual mandate only encourages our current system. its the worst of the deals to come from the original deal
the economics benefits of single-payer are outstanding. the current system locks you into a job with benefits if you have a disease, or fear for a sick child. people are so scared to lose medical insurance that they cant pursue entrepreneurship.
It´s only called obamacare by the extreme right trying to create a negative connotation. Us on the left have friendlier names for it. (que the assholes)
"hospitals only deal with one agency. this agency would be a government agency, or contracted corporation. the benefits are the loss of inefficiencies."
I am not going to insult you by suggesting that you believe what you said.
In the name of "Tribal Knowledge," you should know that the "control freaks" in DC are against privatizing a federal program, for example, Social Security.
Secondly, you put that a benefit of having a gov´t agency would be efficiencies. Oh, please...who wants their health care managed by people with all the compassion of the IRS or FEMA? Allow me to illustrate my point: People in Louisiana are still waiting on FEMA in order to rebuild their home. http://abcnews.go.com/...
As for Rick Scott paying $360 a year for insurance and Obamacare, the latter is unconstitutional because it forces those who did not receive an exemption to buy insurance from the government. The problem is that this is a slipper slope with no end in sight of what we are forced to buy or not buy for that matter. This type of authority over us smells like a king, dictator, or just plan old tyranny.
The FEMA fiasco, as it pertains to Louisiana, falls directly upon those who the Bush administration put in charge of the agency... Up until that point FEMA was at least competent.
The federal government requiring everyone have insurance is no more or no less unconstitutional than state governments requiring drivers to be insured... In both matters, these laws had to be enacted to force some sort of cost controls within the liabilities incurred in each instance.
Trying to pin a national health care initiative on Obama and calling it horrific is selective amnesia... Republicans did not attack the issue until a democrat was credited with successfully putting one in place... Up to that point the G.O.P. was all in favor of the concept.
They are fighting against it NOW because it acts as a glaring example of G.O.P. ineffectiveness to address economic issues as they exist on a social level. Trying to fix such problems also runs contrary to the wishes of their corporate sponsors.
It is a HUGE failure on their part and they are doing everything they can to not have to be held accountable for failing to effectively / collectively work towards a solution.
In the meantime while the G.O.P. was failing to address a real problem... Democrats come along and at least get something in place... Beats a blank.
G.O.P. complains about the Heathcare initiative, but offer nothing in the way of solutions to address the problems that exist with out one.
Whose best interests do you REALLY think the G.O.P. has in mind? Yours, mine? The voters who elected them?
If you do not buy their insurance then you may end up behind bars. Just imagine telling your cell mate that you are in for not purchasing insurance, when he´s in for a real crime such as bank robbery.
As for the Elected Officials, unprincipled people on both sides of the isle are easily bought off. For example, The New Louisiana Purchase. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
As for FEMA, I thought that BO has been President for the past three years and for two of those years the DEMS held a Super Majority. But like BO, you blame Bush.
When will BO "man up" for what he does? He got everything he wanted; massive spending, raised debt ceiling to spend even more and blames Bush, earthquakes, high oil prices, etc. etc.
BO stopped drilling in the Gulf, which reduced oil supply that triggered higher prices. (Econ 101 stuff)
The dance continues but we want a new partner and come November 2012...
The principle related to requiring insurance is the same. Cost controls.
Beyond the fact that there are penalties that will effect a specific liberty, comparing the the end results relating to failures to comply with the requirement are inappropriate... plain and simple.
Where specifically in the Affordable Healthcare Acts does it stipulate "you may end up behind bars" I suspect that you are blindly accepting someones word for gospel...
To make it easy... Here is the entire Affordable Healthcare Act. Please tell me where you find the section that allows you to make such claims about jail time:
I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe what you wrote.
If Obamacare really was going to lower costs then why is there "waiver mania?" The list of companies that want out of it keeps growing on a daily basis.
First point to the section of the act that mandates imprisonment... I could not care less about Pelosis´ opinion... And I´m guessing that you have little regard for opinion either... so why bring it up?
The waivers are apples to oranges... Waivers pertain to those employers that already meet specific guidelines related to healthcare benefits for their workforce. On the opposite end of the spectrum - a national healthcare plan is designed to cover just the opposite... Those who DON´T have healthcare...
Here, this will start you towards the cost savings this plan is looking at...
"A new non-partisan report finds that the cumulative effects of President Obama´s health care reform package would be beneficial for the government´s efforts at debt reduction if the law is implemented fully:
Wow, are you gullible believing that any government ran program costs what the author says it will cost.
Historic research will tell you that every government ran program always cost more than stated and in some cases it is exponential growth not just simple multiplication.
The government´s use of force to make us purchase their healthcare. If you refuse to buy, you will be fined and/or serve time behind bars. This is a standard for all mandated laws.
Health Insurers Post Record Profits In the midst of a deep economic recession, America´s health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage. The nation´s five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion, according to a report by the advocacy group Health Care for American Now (HCAN). http://abcnews.go.com/...
The only thing laissez faire gives is wealthcare. Profit goes before care. Excessive greed poisons everything.
In addition to the kinds of justifications for the ´Affordable Heathcare Act´ such as those Kaleid brought up... Even your assertions about money running out and less treatments being available... We are at THAT point now!!!
The biggest thing is that the fact that there is something in place and that beats a blank.
G.O.P. have failed to offer any solutions whatsoever... they have not earned enough respect on the issue that would entitle / afford them the opportunity to criticize. They are part of the problem. They had a president and bi-paritsan support to put something in place during the Bush administration... and they failed to fix a huge problem... All because their corporate sponsored forbid it.
Show me the research that proves out your opinion that a government run healthcare would (or possibly could) cost more than the current system.
I provided you with proof that it will do just the opposite. It is not me believing someones opinion here... I am looking at well vetted research... And I provided citations.
Meanwhile you still are avoiding my original question. Though even the article you linked to contradicts you on this too.
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.If you read Rick Ungar´s excellent explanation of the bill, you´ll see it was a bit different than the individual mandate: It was a payroll tax that all sailors on private merchant ships had to pay, and in return, they were basically given access to a small public health-care system. But it was, in essence, a regulation against a form of inactivity: You were not allowed to not do something, in this case, pay for sailor´s health insurance.Thought you should Know
What does $14 or $16 bn have to do with this conversation (other than to further demonstrate the point I am getting at), There are methods that need to be put in place that stop or at least control the money the Federal government is spending... That is the exact reason for the Healthcare act... As far as sky color goes... What ARE you looking at? nothing you have brought up in the way of arguments is anything more than rhetoric... you have not supported even one of your assertions with anything factual -.
Hell, the one question I asked you to answer... I even provided you with the U.S.C.
What I am dealing in are what you appear to be rather uncomfortable with... FACTS.
You do have a great supply of baseless opinion and ad hominem though...
And I still believe you are naive about government spending and costs, in addition to political promises, which is a nice way to say liar.
It is you that has your head in the clouds believing that Obamacare will lower costs. BO has taken money from the budgets of other programs to help give the illusion of lower costs.
As for the "Act for the relief of sick and disable Seaman." In those days, that was our Navy and this only applied to Navel personnel not everyone in the country. Nice try but not the same as Obamacare.
That Washington Times item is Op-Ed and offers no facts (perhaps that is what you found so charming about it) and none of what it presents is backed up by anything but rhetoric. As they say {citation needed}.
At what point does an empty opinion replace well researched facts?
And employers who dump employees risk loosing tax breaks and can see other punitive pre-ACA penalties as well.
That FACT is also in the link to the U.S.C. I posted previously.
MANDATE - Where is it MANDATED... You are very wrong here and are trying hard to not have to concede it by way of ad hominem. You have all the tools you need to show me where there is a MANDATE... But alas, you must be certain that what you claim is without merit... What else that you assume is truthful and share here is also bearing out to amount to nothing but opinion and rhetoric...
Talk from employers who state that they will dump their healthcare plans is nothing but posturing. "When lawmakers debated the legislation, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected it would only have minimal impact on employer plans."
"~ The worry over employers shedding employees onto the exchange is exactly right, but in a different way than almost everyone seems to think. The real risk is NOT that employers will completely drop coverage, leaving their employees to purchase coverage on the exchange. Instead, it is that employers will offer all employees revised plans that are specifically designed to induce ONLY THE LEAST HEALTHY employees to opt for coverage on the exchange. Most seem to ignore this risk because such employees would not be eligible for subsidies. But employers would nonetheless find this an extremely desirable strategy because (i) they would avoid any penalty under the "employer mandate," (ii) their health care costs would decrease substantially by virtue of reducing coverage and shedding high-cost employees, (iii) high-cost employees would not be much worse off, as they could acquire coverage on the exchange with no medical underwriting or preexisting conditions. While coverage for high risk employees would cost more on the exchange than employer coverage, the employer could defray this cost by putting it´s normal contribution into a tax free HRA Account, which could be used for coverage. The employer and its employees would be better off, and exchanges would be subjected to the risk of adverse selection from a disproportionately risky pool of policyholders. For much more on this, see: http://ssrn.com/...
