Obama, with dictatorial mien, insists that 30 million voluntarily uninsured Americans be compelled to buy health insurance (constitutional?). Eighteen million of the uninsured citizens may be paid for by us taxpayers. Present insurance premiums will rise, and insurance payouts will shrink. Is Obama’s motive in this whole wily procedure to increase his own power immensely over how American citizens can function?
In the health care bill, as well as in other pieces of Obama legislation, are hidden billions of dollars of federal spending and taxing. The rude fact that a raft of big tax due-bills will be collected in 2013 will come as no surprise to many in the community. In the already passed gargantuan Obama health care bill is a provision that will collect an additional 3.8 percent sales tax from you if you sell your house — is this an example of the costs of doing future business with greedy Obama?
Can the new Republican House obliterate Obama’s monstrous health care bill before it becomes a permanent blight on our domestic landscape?
Strange: Although President Obama asks every citizen for proof of health insurance, he has not asked them to prove that they themselves are citizens at all!
Bill O’Reilly says, instead of ObamaCare:
“1. The federal government should have passed tort reform so that doctors and other medical personnel could protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits generated by greedy lawyers who know how to manipulate the system. 2. The feds should also allow all health insurance companies to compete nationwide. This free-market approach would undercut pricing and possibly introduce more options to the people. 3. The feds should ‘fine the hell’ out of health insurance companies if they fail to pay a legitimate claim, or throw a client off the rolls because he got hurt or sick. Warning: Creating a monstrous bureaucracy that will spend or misuse trillions of dollars is not in the best interest of the nation. There is no cure for national bankruptcy.” (Amen)
Wouldn’t Steve Forbes be an ideal secretary of the treasury?
DDT which is effective on bedbugs was outlawed several decades ago. New York City is being overrun with bedbugs. Ergo: Because of the infestation with bedbugs, hasn’t the time come to give DDT a temporary reprieve as the lesser of two evils?
(If it isn’t “the lesser of two evils,” it may be “the evil of two lessers” that does us in!)