And Obama Care...

Another big government power grab! I am opposed to big government.

"That government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson

The founding fathers were against wealth redistribution, they considered it to be theft.

In the United States, some of the founding fathers and several subsequent leaders expressed opposition to redistribution of wealth. Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

United States President Grover Cleveland vetoed an expenditure of federal aid explaining,

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. .... Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

The only real winners under Obamacare are the insurance companies! The losers are the younger people who are being forced to subsidize the cost of insurance for the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions.

Sounds like Social Security to me, I'll bet if you look back to when that program was started, it was also a very unpopular program as well. Now, people couldn't live without it. Whether this will be the same situation is up in the air. I don't so much have a problem with the program so much as I do with them ramming it down our throats right after a fellow named Paulson and Bush addressed the country and stated how much financial trouble the country is in and we had to bail out everybody and their brother. But that wasn't enough, we needed to take advantage of a bad situation and create another HUGE entitlement program. Like someone stated not to long ago, "Never let a good crisis go to waste".

Kind of like history repeating itself because the Social Security program was born out of the great depression and again "Never let a good crisis go to waste". This is the democrats playbook.

As for The Social Security Act, it was passed in April and June of 1935 by vast majority of both parties, not the vast majority of 1 party and none of the other!

We all know that once a government 'entitlement' (and I use that term very loosely), is bestowed, it will NEVER be taken away.
At least with Social Security and Medicare, working people pay into it their entire working careers and then draw benefits from the programs. Seems a bit more fair then just paying taxes to pay for someone elses healthcare!.

I think it's racist and unconstitutional to deny adults with prexisting conditions in US territories Obamacare.

The only real winners under Obamacare are the insurance companies! The losers are the younger people who are being forced to subsidize the cost of insurance for the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions.

No, the real losers are those of us in the VI who are self-employed, pay taxes, and are subsidizing everyone - yet still can't buy individual insurance to save our lives (literally).

I believe that Medicare is a better comparison to the division we are seeing with Obamacare. Opinion polls were pretty much equally divided on Medicare initially as it was obviously socialized medicine and an intrusion of the government into an area it did not belong. Medicare was also strongly opposed by the medical profession. Yet even with all of its problems it is pretty much universally accepted by almost all Americans today.

Interesting poll result. 40% of the well informed public said they hated "Obamacare", but liked the new "Affordable Care Act"....

That seems to be misinformation, Ms Information. From http://www.cnbc.com/id/101064954 "29 percent of the public supports Obamacare compared with 22 percent who support ACA. Forty-six percent oppose Obamacare and 37 percent oppose ACA."

I think the survey shows that wording is important, and not so much that Americans think Obamacare and ACA are two different things.

Actually, I saw the same report as Ms information.
The majority of those interviewed thought the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare were 2 different Health Care programs and while most said the did not like Obamacare, they wanted the Affordale Health Care Act. The dumbing down of America continues.

agentgarbo, how is it racist?

I think it's racist and unconstitutional to deny adults with prexisting conditions in US territories Obamacare.

Don't understand your point and it makes no sense. As discussed earlier, the USVI decided to opt out of the choice to extend Obamacare to its residents so what does the exemption of "adults with prexisting conditions" have to do with anything when nobody has the coverage?

Actually, I saw the same report as Ms information.
The majority of those interviewed thought the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare were 2 different Health Care programs and while most said the did not like Obamacare, they wanted the Affordale Health Care Act. The dumbing down of America continues.

That "report" was a bit from a late night talk show. Not an actual poll or study, simply a "man on street" segment edited to show ignorant people.

Look who is talking about ignorance.
Check the polls re: the repubs/tea party affilitations
I don't watch late nite TV but you do, it seems.

Look who is talking about ignorance.
Check the polls re: the repubs/tea party affilitations
I don't watch late nite TV but you do, it seems.

Please site the study/poll that shows what you state. The only thing I could find was the youtube videos of the late night skit. I research things, not watch late night TV. Please do not attack me - that is not what this board is for.

http://mashable.com/2013/10/01/obamacare-jimmy-kimmel/

Talk about hypocrites. Government shutdown is primarily a tool of the democrats.

Of the 17 shutdowns in America’s history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened under unified government! This makes sense. Government shutdowns are caused by legitimate and welcome disagreement between equal branches. They are certainly more likely to happen in divided government, but it is not a prerequisite.

The frequency with which America has previously reached this point betrays another inconvenient truth: the willingness to shut down the federal Leviathan is by no means limited to the advocates of small government. As my colleague Andrew Stiles notes today, during the supposedly bipartisan wonder years of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill — which are typically rolled out by revisionists to demonstrate what can happen if we all just “work together” — the government shut down no fewer than eight times, mostly at O’Neill’s insistence.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360142/government-shutdowns-history-charles-c-w-cooke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States#List_of_U.S._government_shutdowns

I guess shutdowns are only bad if those MEAN republicans do it.

Want to hear a joke? Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize! For What????

This is one of the recent polls about Obamacare. From CNN, a liberal news source.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/01/cnn-poll-will-obamacare-help-you/

The only real winners under Obamacare are the insurance companies! The losers are the younger people who are being forced to subsidize the cost of insurance for the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions.

No, the real losers are those of us in the VI who are self-employed, pay taxes, and are subsidizing everyone - yet still can't buy individual insurance to save our lives (literally).

Yep. This is in large part why I had to leave STX. No competent medical care, no money to pay for competent medical care, no insurance for the self-employed unless you can find an international policy that will let you join and, once I found a salaried job, my a**hole employer refused to offer group insurance because "it was too expensive". (Of course, he found a way to cover his wife -- the office manager -- and himself and his secretary, but none of the other staff.)

Talk about hypocrites. Government shutdown is primarily a tool of the democrats.

Of the 17 shutdowns in America’s history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened under unified government! This makes sense. Government shutdowns are caused by legitimate and welcome disagreement between equal branches. They are certainly more likely to happen in divided government, but it is not a prerequisite.

The frequency with which America has previously reached this point betrays another inconvenient truth: the willingness to shut down the federal Leviathan is by no means limited to the advocates of small government. As my colleague Andrew Stiles notes today, during the supposedly bipartisan wonder years of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill — which are typically rolled out by revisionists to demonstrate what can happen if we all just “work together” — the government shut down no fewer than eight times, mostly at O’Neill’s insistence.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360142/government-shutdowns-history-charles-c-w-cooke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States#List_of_U.S._government_shutdowns

I guess shutdowns are only bad if those MEAN republicans do it.

Want to hear a joke? Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize! For What????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I wondered that myself.

Actually, I saw the same report as Ms information.
The majority of those interviewed thought the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare were 2 different Health Care programs and while most said the did not like Obamacare, they wanted the Affordale Health Care Act. The dumbing down of America continues.

I saw it on both CNN and HLN morning news, a few days ago now.

I guess for those who say that republicans should just get over it because Obamacare is the law. They should just get over the shutdown, sequestration is the law, The Budget Control Act of 2011.

Just checked the exchange to see what it would cost for insurance. Let's just say that for my family it would be more than my mortgage payment.

Polls suggesting that 'the majority of Americans don't want Obamacare' point to the effectiveness of the vast disinformation campaign about the ACA. Opinion based polls are bought and sold and should not be construed as having any factual basis what-so-ever.

If anyone is interested in peeling off some of the layers of disinformation about the ACA, this article from way back in 2009 provides a good non-partisan place to start.

www.factcheck.org

tottsmom, more than your mortgage payment and then you have co pays and deductables

If you want to find out what this is going to cost you monthly and also the government subsidy to pay for it, you can go to:

I think most people would be surprised at how much their health insurance actually costs if their employer was not subsidizing the premium. When my wife and I moved to STX in 2005 we maintained our Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance via COBRA for a year or so until we found something cheaper. The top of the line insurance that we each paid well less than $100 per month for with our old employer (we each had individual coverage) went up to $370 each per month once we were paying the entire premium. In 2006 we were able to buy catastrophic health insurance through Amedex (now BUPA) for about $150 per month each, which I thought was pretty reasonable. The coverage is much more limited than what we had always had in the States but I am glad to have it, since they no longer offer individual policies here. Anyway, my point is that many people don't know the true cost of their health insurance because it is subsidized by their employer.

I think most people would be surprised at how much their health insurance actually costs if their employer was not subsidizing the premium. When my wife and I moved to STX in 2005 we maintained our Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance via COBRA for a year or so until we found something cheaper. The top of the line insurance that we each paid well less than $100 per month for with our old employer (we each had individual coverage) went up to $370 each per month once we were paying the entire premium. In 2006 we were able to buy catastrophic health insurance through Amedex (now BUPA) for about $150 per month each, which I thought was pretty reasonable. The coverage is much more limited than what we had always had in the States but I am glad to have it, since they no longer offer individual policies here. Anyway, my point is that many people don't know the true cost of their health insurance because it is subsidized by their employer.

Exactly right.

And furthermore, most people don't realize that the ACA is an attempt to rein in the cost to the consumer while maintaining a high degree of market freedom, both for the consumer and the provider.