?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Let's be Role Models; Not Pawns!

  Chick Fil-A has given 5 million dollars to anti-gay causes in the last five years.  This is nothing new.  As a matter of fact, persons in the GLBTQi (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed) community, their allies, and the human rights campaign have urged a boycott of Chick Fil-A for a long time now.  So what's behind the explosion now?

  Basically, a few mayors of cities, Chicago and Boston, have decided to challenge Chick Fil-A's stance on marriage by wanting to ban the business from their city.  As a defender of individual freedoms, there are a few viewpoints to understand in this scenario on both sides.  First, Chick Fil-A has the freedom to support any cause they wish.  Second, people have the right to support or boycott Chick Fil-A.  As stated before, this has been going on for years.  Chick Fil-A funds anti-gay causes and people have been boycotting them.  There is really nothing new about it.

  The mayors of cities have a right to freedom of speech.  They have the freedom to voice their opinion on anything they want.  Regardless, of what is said, the city does not have the right to rule any business out of their feedom of speech or their freedom to do business.  However, people do have the right to support or boycott Chick Fil-A based on their views and be aware of what any business funds or does not fund

  There are no winners in this controversy.  As a matter of fact, it has brought out the worst in people.  These mayors stance against Chick Fil-A did not help marriage equality.  Instead, it was seen as an attack on a businesses freedom of speech and right to do business.  Worst of all, it pinned people in the world against each other once more.  Now you have people supporting Chick Fil-A while others protest.  The whole scene is very ugly.

  I understand not everybody on here is religious or even Christian.  From my point of view, all of us regardless of views, have the responsibility of being role models as Christians, Religious Others, or Atheists.  Role model citizens defend individual freedoms and love all people in this world as a child of God who deserves love and support.  Fighting excessively with each other and supporting hate is not the role model this world needs.  Who is this fight really supporting?  In the end we are supporting corrupt politics.  We are supporting the mayors that started the controversy and the ugly fight it has brought out once again to divide the citizens of the U.S.

  I don't believe this is the way Jesus would want us to act.  We are not suppose to be hating each other, supporting hate in any manner, dividing each other, and fighting each other.  We all have seen how politics have divided us already.  As role models, we must be better than politic divisions.  We must stand up for individual freedoms.  This controversy is not doing anything good for anybody on either side.  It has brought out the worst in everybody.  Encourage individuals to go back to their life regardless of which side they support.  This ugliness is not becoming of any of us.   

  If some of you want to donate money to charity, that's wonderful.  Give money to the charities which will miss out because people gave to Chick Fil-A instead.  There are plenty of charities that need money right now, especially woman's shelters which run low on giving during the summer, school supplies for needy children, food banks, health care for the homeless, or pregnancy crisis centers/homes to name a few.  There are so many places out there that need attention right now.  I'm not saying to support or not support Chick Fil-A; what I am saying is let's get back to normal life.  Out of love for each other and healing of divisions, which should not exist, lets be the bigger people.  I encourage you to consider giving to places which desperately need our donations right now instead of being consumed by another political game.  I refuse to be a game peice.  I have stopped playing.  Let's be role models; not pawns!

  

Obamacare Repel Vote in early July

  There hasn't been any recent news on the Obamacare front.  I will do my best to try and write about other issues in the bill I have not written about. This post is mainly about my previous post about the Obamacare repel vote in early July.  At the time, I did not understand the need for another Obamacare repel vote.  I saw it as repetitive and a waste of time.  However,  I did find out the reasoning for the "symbolic" vote was to assist voters in knowing their candidates true vote on Obamacare when elections roll around in November.  You can always visit http://www.house.gov or http://www.votesmart.org to retrieve information on how your candidate voted.  

  I don't expect Mitt Romney to outline his exact plans to reform healthcare, but if more information comes out about it then I will make sure to cover the details.  Peace be with you all, until I find a time to write again.  I wish you all blessings on any vacation endeavors!  This is the first time, I've had time to breathe in a long time!  If you have a busy life like me; please make sure to take time to breathe for yourself!

Love,
Katelyn

 
    It's hard to speak of Obamacare without talking about Illegal Immigration. Obamacare expanded medicaid to cover more people; hence, illegal immigrants. Due to illegal immigration, we have hospitals that are going bankrupt from providing care to this population. Let's go through and see how Repbulicans and Democrats generally feel about illegal immigration.

    Democrats, for the most part, support illegal immigrants. They realize these people are coming to the U.S. to seek a better life. It's also a well known fact that the Mexican government is not working with the U.S. government to find solutions to this problem. Additionally, if democrats allow illegal immigrants to come over, make them citizens so they can vote; they will vote democratic because this party supported them. Most Democrats are against spending tax dollars to build a fence along the boarder or sending troops to secure our boarder.

    Republicans, for the most part, do not support illegal immigration. They fight for a fence along the boarder and more troops to strengthen boarder control and prevent the drug wars from spilling over onto American soil. They only want people to immigrate to the U.S. legally; to prevent possible criminals from becoming U.S. citizens. They understand illegal immigrants as persons who do not pay taxes through "under the table work," but feed off of the U.S. government through Social Security, bankrupting our hospitals, and basically putting a strain on the U.S. economy.

    Since I am a minister and believer in love of all God's children, I've done a great deal of thinking about this issue. I believe a good bipartisan compromise could satisfy both parties and still assist illegal immigrants. First, biblically speaking in the Old Testament, God made it clear that we needed to save food out for aliens from other countries, because Moses had to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Therefore, God's chosen people had to be liberated through immigration; counting on God and others to provide. Thus, it's our duty to assist in liberating the oppressed. It's apparent the Illegal Immigrants from Mexico are being oppressed by their country and are fleeing to the U.S. for liberation. I do believe it's our responsiblity to figure out a way to welcome them. But how?

    Immigration Reform does need to happen. A better Immigration system can solve problems across party lines. One of the main problems, is in order for mexican immigrants to come to the U.S. legally, the government of Mexico has to provide them the necessary documentation (like proof of identity, birth certificates, etc.).  The Mexican government has denied these documents to its own citizens requesting them. This is the reason why it's almost impossible for any mexican immigrant to apply for to U.S. immigration legally.

    Therefore, the following is my personal suggestion. First, we allow illegal immigrants to come over and give them temporary visas, fingerprint them, and provide them with an ID. Unless we can prove otherwise, we have no other choice but to accept their claimed identity. I think this temporary visa should last seven years, therefore, if they are indeed a criminal we can recall their visa and deport them back to Mexico immediately. We have their fingerprints, we know who they are, and they cannot try to immigrate back into the U.S. again. Additionally, the ones who prove themselves to be worthy in their temporary visa years, can then seek to become full U.S. citizens. Second, this will take care of the illegal immigrants being paid "under the table" problem. They will now have visas, be legally able to work, get a fair wage, pay into the Social Security system, and pay yearly taxes. Third, this will also put immigrants into a place where less of them will live in poverty and they will be able to buy health insurance rather than being a strain on our hospital system. Third, we should increase our boarders to protect us from harm on the U.S. soil from the drug wars. A well built fence (that will actually work), along with heavy boarder patrol should be in place to protect us from terrorism and human trafficking as well.

    If immigration reform in this capacity happened, then better health care reform could be put into place, since there will not be an enormous need to expand medicaid to illegal immigrants at the expense of cutting medicare and medicaid to U.S. citizens. Under Obamacare, medicaid will only cover persons who live133% below the poverty line. It will be harder for U.S. citizens to get medicaid. Additionally, those who do not qualify for medicaid will be punished by tax penalty for not buying health insurance. So, if you live below the poverty line but not 133% below the poverty line, there's no way you can afford to buy health care insurance, much less be able to pay the tax penalty. Obamacare will keep the poor and low middle class even more oppressed. Obamacare is not good news.

Tags:

    It's often heard from the biased media which uses race baiting language to make people believe that conservatives are racist.  As a matter of fact, the opposite is true.  Even from my own experience,  I have recently heard self-avowed democrats say they will refuse to vote for Obama because he is Black.  I have never once heard that from a Republican mouth.

    Today I recieved an e-mail from the National Black Republican Association that I wanted to share with you.  The author of the article explains how Obama and the democratic party have neglected the Black and African American community.  Additionally, the article explains everything the Republican party has done to defend them.  If you have concerns about the information in her article, the author's information is at the end for contact purposes.  I encourage you to do so; Frances Rice is the expert.
Monday, July 9, 2012 3:25 PM

WHY OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT POOR BLACKS

By Frances Rice

In a recent interview, Princeton University Professor Cornel West and journalist Tavis Smiley railed against President Barack Obama, saying: "He’s rightly associated much more with the oligarchs than with poor people."

When the black intelligentsia decides to speak the truth about how Obama does not care about poor black people, it’s a sure sign the average black American has long ago come to grips with this troubling reality. A black commentator, George E. Boykin, gives credence to this assertion in his scathing article “All Hype: Are Black Americans Abandoning Obama in Droves in 2012?”

Another journalist, Andres Stiles, published his shocking article “Stunning lack of diversity in Obama campaign”, which shows how Obama has refused to put blacks in his Chicago campaign headquarters.

Notably, in 2008, a journalist with the Boston Globe, Binyamin Appelbaum, was so appalled by what Obama did to poor blacks in a Chicago slum that he wrote a lengthy expose entitled “Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy.”

According to that article, then Illinois Senator Obama funneled tax payer’s money to his slum lord buddy and chief fund-raiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who is now a convicted felon. Rezko took tax money but refused to rehabilitate dilapidated housing in a poor black neighborhood in Obama’s district, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where they were no longer habitable.

Applebaum’s article also reports that five other developers who raised campaign money for Obama received tax dollars as well. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama’s own accounting. Obama also made a shady deal with Rezko in 2005 that helped Obama buy an expensive house in an upscale Chicago neighborhood, well away from poor blacks.

Since becoming president, Obama has created 17% black unemployment. He also terminated welfare reform in his budget, which stopped the use of the money to help blacks get jobs and off of welfare. Republican intervention in Congress forced Obama to reinstate welfare reform. Obama has sided with his left-wing supporters in the teachers’ unions, acting against the best interest of poor black children. He eliminated funding for the DC school choice opportunity scholarship program that was helping black parents get their children out of failing schools. The article by Dick Armey “School Choice = Good for Kids, Bad for Unions. Can't Politicians Do the Math?” explains how Republicans made Obama reinstate the school choice program in DC.

Obama has done nothing to solve our nation’s housing crisis that was created by Democrats who forced banks to make loans to people who could not pay them back. To see just how blacks were devastated by the housing market crash read the article “How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners.”

In a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama had the gall to tell black people to stop complaining and stop whining about the harm he has caused and go out to vote for him. Thomas Sowell in his article “Stop Whining'?” points out just how insulting Obama is to black Americans, while catering to other groups, such as gays and Hispanics.

A hard-hitting article “Race In America - Are blacks hypocrites or stupid?” by Ben Kinchlow addresses the issue of why blacks are voting 80-90% for Obama in the face of his utter disdain for black Americans.

Kinchlow wrote the eye-opening book “Black YellowDogs”, which further explores why black Americans now vote monolithically for the Democratic Party, even though, as author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

There are two articles which demonstrate in stark detail Obama’s socialist end-game for America, an end where our entire country looks like the black communities he has destroyed. One article is “Detroit: The Moral of the Story” by Kevin D. Williamson .

The other article is the Investor’s Business Daily editorial “Decline In Obama's Chicago Clue To His Second Term.”

To understand how Obama could be so morally bankrupt that he would deliberately hurt poor black children, one need only look into his background that he and his liberal media allies have tried to either downplay or keep hidden from the public.

Obama’s white mother was a socialist from Kansas and his black Kenyan father was a Marxist, as was his Indonesian step-father. His childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was an avowed Communist. Obama had a 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright who spewed out hateful, anti-American rhetoric. Obama also consorted with domestic terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn.

In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, Obama bragged about how he sought out Marxists professors and used drugs while in college. The article “Obama and His Pot-Smoking ‘Choom Gang’” by ABC News reporter, Jonathan Karl, sheds light on Obama’s pot-smoking past.

Another journalist, Gavon Laessig, went into further details about Obama’s drug abuse in the article “A User's Guide To Smoking Pot With Barack Obama.”

While in Chicago, Obama took his Marxist leanings to a new height and joined a third party dedicated to socialism. Details are provided in the article “Obama’s Third-Party History - New documents shed new light on his ties to a leftist party in the 1990s” by Stanley Kurtz.

An even more disturbing account of Obama’s radical socialist past is provided in the article “Barack Obama — portrait of a socialist as a not so very young man” by Paul Mirengoff .

Obama launched his 2012 re-election campaign based on the Marxist tenets of class warfare and wealth envy. He has been the most divisive president in our nation’s history as explained in Salena Zito’s article “Obama's Hyphenated America.”

He is also governing against the will of the people, witness how he is refusing to enforce our laws and crammed that tax-laden ObamaCare down our throats while the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during Obama’s first two years in office. Charles Krauthammer wrote a chilling article “The imperial presidency revisited” that exposes how Obama is functioning like a socialist dictator.

Come November, we, the American people, will decide between two competing visions for our country. Will we remain a free and prosperous pro-market nation, governed by the people and for the people through our elected representatives? Or will we continue down the path of totalitarianism, ruled by an all-powerful federal government controlled by Obama, a tyrannical Marxist dictator?


Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.info

Reply to Chairman@NBRA.Info
Send
 

Tags:

    In January of 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal Obamacare and it passed.  However, the Obamacare repeal did not pass the U.S. Senate.  In January 2011 is when Republicans took control over the House of Representatives.  They knew the Obamacare repeal would pass the House and not the Senate, however, they did it as a symbolic move of the efforts the Republican party intends to make on behalf of the people they are representing.

     I understand why the House wanted to symbolically vote against Obamacare in 2011.  I can even understand why the House wants to symbolically vote once again to repeal Obamacare after the Supreme Court ruling.  It's a great way to tell the American people that they plan on repealing it as soon as possible.  Once again, I understand the symbolic repeal Obamacare votes, but I can't help but think that they are wasting time.  There is work to be done; other measures to be discussed and bills to be passed.  The House will vote to repeal Obamacare again on July 11, 2012.

    There is an awful lot of discussion around whether Obamacare can be repealed or not.  It's possible to repeal Obamacare, but it requires that Mitt Romney wins the 2012 Presidency Election and a majority of House and Senate politicians to vote in favor of repealing it.  Therefore, repealing Obamacare is possible, regardless of the Supreme Court's decision. 

    Here is what people are neglecting to realize at this point: I don't believe Mitt Romney will repeal Obamacare and leave health care reform alone.  Since he instituted socialized medicine in his home state; I believe he's got a better idea of the issues regarding health care reform.  His experience in this area gives me hope that he will do a better job at fixing our broken health care system.

    The second reason why I believe Mitt Romney will choose to reform health care is because of his statement within these past two weeks.  He stated in an e-mail to me, that from day one in office he was going to work to repeal Obamacare.  The second half of his sentence included......and work to provide real health care solutions while protecting taxpayers.  

    There is unilateral party line thinking about health care reform.  The fact is, both republicans and democrats realize there is a need for health care reform.  However, they disagree on how health care should be reformed.  The people in America who are against Obamacare are not necessarily against health care reform.  This is a major misconception.  People are against Obamacare because there is numerous problems associated with it (I have outlined in previous enteries).  Thus, I support another parties idea of health care reform. 

Tags:

Let's enjoy our freedom and liberty while we still have it. As soon as certain laws take effect, if not repealed, this will no longer be the case. So live it up this 4th! Have one more Independence Day when we can remember the true intentions of our founders!

My Country, 'Tis of Thee

My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing; Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountain side; Let Freedom ring!

My native country, thee, Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love; I love thy rock and rill,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills; Like that above.

Let music swell the breeze, And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song; Let moral tongues awake;
Let all that breath partake;
Let rocks their silence break, The sound pro-long.

Our fathers' God, to Thee, Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing; Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King.
Amen.

Tags:

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Obamacare law.

The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to impartially admnister the law.

It's very difficult to impartially administer the law as a Supreme Court Justice if you wrote the law.


Let me explain. Elena Kagan was elected to the Supreme Court and voted in the ruling on the Obamacare law.

However, Elena Kagan helped write the Obamacare law. Thus, it's extremely unethical for her to be voting on a law she wrote. This makes it completely impossible for her to impartially administer the law.

I am not saying, the outcome would have been any different if Kagan was not a voting Supreme Court Justice.

However, I am saying that it's unethical for any Supreme Court Justice to vote on a law they wrote.

I am thinking citizens of the U.S. needs to be aware of this fact in the Obamacare ruling.

Also, there does need to be an ethical procedure put in place which protects the impartiallity of adminnistering the law by not allowing any Supreme Court Justice to vote on their own law.

Of course, this would change the rules on Supreme Court voting and I'm not sure how to rectify such a problem.

The only thing I am certain about is, "It's impossible to impartially admnister the law as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice when ruling on a law you assisted in writing." This is plain eithics.

Tags:

I'm all about defending our Individual Freedoms! One of our biggest freedoms is voting. How do we make informed voting decisions?

People are often swayed by the media. However, in our society today there isn't a media which isn't extremely biased. So, how do we know what's true anymore?

Here's how to sort all the confusion out:

1) visit http://votesmart.org/ to look up all the voting records of the candidates.
This site tells you what every candidate voted for or against. Additionally, it allows you to read the bill in question. Remeber, it's important to read the bill. A candidate may have chosen not to vote for a bill because something was attached to it which was against their platform. If this ends up being a question, it's best to contact the candidate via phone or e-mail for clarification.

2) Often times the news speaks about the U.S. Senate Bills. If you plan to watch the news, I suggest to watch several media stations to get the basis of the extreme left and right side of the arguement. Then look it all up for yourself to decide which news station is more accurate and unbiased in your opinion. All you have to do is look up the bill under the legislation tab at http://www.senate.gov/ it will also tell you how the candidates voted.

3) Often times the news speaks of the U.S. House of Representatives. All the bills can be read at http://www.house.gov/ (click on the legislative activity tab). It will also show you how each candidate voted.

For example, people are often confused about Obamacare. What's in this bill? Now you know how to find and read it. I love my readers so much that I went ahead and attached the link here for you!
http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf
(Please remember this document is large you will have to be patient in downloading it.)

The issues around the constitutionality of Obamacare surround the penalty fine.  Basically, those who choose not to get insurance and do not fall below 133% of the poverty line (which would qualify them for government insurance) will pay a penalty fine.

The U.S. Supreme Court could not pass Obamacare as constitutional with the penalty fine, because the penalty fine is considered unconstitutional. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court could deem Obamacare as constitutional if they called the penalty fine a "tax" instead. The controversy comes in here because the Obamacare law was never introduced or passed as a tax. This gives room for the repeal of Obamacare.

Tags:

Misconceptions About Obamacare, Part 2

For my first time readers I will reinterate, "I completely affirm that health care is a human right. Everybody should have the right and access to health care. With this being said, there are many misconceptions about the Obamacare law."

There is a misconception that with the recent Supreme Court ruling that Obamacare will immediately go into effect. This is not true; the Obamacare law will not go into full effect to cover individuals until the year 2014. However, certain portions of the law do go into effect or already have gone into effect. There has already been money set aside for the Obamacare law. As a matter of fact, one of the debates was if the Obamacare law was struck down what is going to happen to the money already collected? Obviously, there's no need to discuss that matter. Since Obamacare is costly, it's clear money is having to be allocated ahead of time. Thereby, when Obamacare does take full effect in 2014; the tax hike won't seem as enormous as it really will be in the next year after it's been in place. The government loves to try and slowly ease citizens into complete takeovers which leave them with no other options or ways of dismantling a poor system already in place.

The Obamacare law has been emphasized to lower premiums on health care insurance. However, with the new evidence coming out by insurance companies right now; this statement is indeed false. Currently, some colleges and universities have already dropped insurance coverage for their students because insurance premiums have already doubled. Imagine how much health care is going to cost when the full Obamacare law goes into effect in 2014; when insurance companies are already doubling premiums now. Therefore, it's clearly obvious that Obamacare does not lower health care insurance premiums; it's raising premiums.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/15/catholic-university-drops-student-health-insurance-cites-obamacare/

The Obamacare law will give a tax credit to small businesses for providing health insurance to their employees. Unfortunately, the Obamacare law will hurt small businesses and employees of small businesses anyways. Let me explain. The Obamacare law requires business that have 50 or more employees to provide them with insurance coverage. If the employer does not provide insurance, then they will have to pay a tax penalty. With the doubling of insurance premiums, small businesses will not be able to afford to give insurance coverage to their employees. Therefore, small business owners could choose not to hire more than 50 employees, leading to less job creation. Also, small businesses could decide to let go of some employees so they have less than 50, leading to a rise in unemployment. Another possibility is that small businesses decide to go ahead and pay the penalty tax because even with the tax credit, providing insurance coverage for their employees is still too unaffordable.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1711204840001/what-does-health-care-ruling-mean-for-small-business

The Obamacare law expands medicare and medicaid to illegal immigrants as well. However, this is at the cost of cutting health care to these individuals. The expansion of medicare and medicaid actually have nothing to do with assisting U.S. citizens who currently do not have medical coverage. The expansion of medicare and medicaid in Obamacare is made to fund medical coverage for illegal immigrants. Make no mistake, I believe immigration reform needs to happen on a bipartisan level and I don't believe in discriminating against anybody based on immigration status. The point I am trying to make is the expansion of medicare and medicaid was not meant to cover more U.S. citizens. The expansion was made to cover illegal immigrants who will fall 133% below the poverty line. Thus, U.S. citizens will see cuts in their medicare and medicaid services at the expense for paying for illegal immigrants.

The problems in health care reform that both political parties believe need to be changed is unjust insurance company policies. The political parties agree on the fact that insurance companies need to cover people with pre-existing conditions, should not have the right to drop somebody due to a pre-existing condition or current health condition, and insurance coverage should be provided to dependents through the age of 25. The problem in the health care reform issues between the parties consist of the financial and freedom issues. Obamacare infringes on individual freedoms, raises taxes, insurance premiums, provides less coverage to U.S. citizens to support illegal immigrants, forces individuals who are not 133% below the poverty line to buy insurance they cannot afford, forces small business to buy insurance coverage they cannot afford or let employees go, forces individuals in health care to participate in abortions regardless of their religion or conscious rights, and forces insurance companies to provide abortion care regardless of their religion or conscious rights.

Romney, however, has experience in dealing with the health care system through Romneycare and knows how to reform it better. Romney believes in repealing obamacare in order to put into place a better system. A system which doesn't cut heath care coverage to medicare and medicaid or raise taxes. Granted Romneycare does have major flaws, but the fact remains is that Romney has more experience in implementing and fixing a health care system than Obama. Romney is for a health care system that doesn't infrige on the individual's rights and freedoms in the first amendment. If we want a fair and just health care system that doesn't cut medicare, medicaid, raise taxes, or infringe on our freedoms; then Romney is our guy. As far as his anti-gay stance is concerned, that's the reason why gay republicans, such as myself, exist.

Tags:

Misconceptions About Obamacare

I completely affirm that health care is a human right. Everybody should have the right and access to health care. With this being said, there are many misconceptions about the Obamacare law.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the Obamacare law is a tax. This is important because Obamacare was not introduced as a tax; raising taxes would make the Obamacare law less appealing. Therefore, Obamacare was originally introduced as penalizing individuals who did not have health insurance. This means if you do not have health insurance now and you do not live 133% below the poverty line that you will be penalized in fines by the Individual Mandate. The Individual Mandate would be held as unconstitutional if it was not a tax. Hence, in order for the Obamacare law to remain constitutional the U.S. Supreme Court had to uphold it as a tax.

One of the big misconceptions is that all currently uninsured people believe Obamacare will cover them. This is far from the truth. You have to be 133% below the poverty line in order to be covered by Obamacare or the expansion of medicaid. If you aren't covered by medicaid now; then you more than likely will not be covered by Obamacare. This means you will be forced to pay the penalizng tax. If an uninsured person cannot afford insurance right now, then they are not going to be able to afford the tax penalty for not having it. This is an unfair tax on the poor and burdening people even more financially.

Another big misconception is that individuals believe only the rich will be required to pay the majority of the tax for the Obamacare law. I wish I could tell you this was the case, but it's not. Minimally, 75% of the tax will be paid for by individuals or a household which makes up to 250,000 annually. Yes, I agree 250,000 annually can constitute a person or household as rich. The point is whether you make 20,000 or 30,000 a year; you will be paying 75% of the Obamacare tax. This will drastically hurt our economy, poor, and middle class. Most people do not realize that a person who makes 100,000 annually already has over 50% of every paycheck going to taxes. So, if a father makes 100,000 annually with 50% or more going to taxes. Then he brings home only 50,000 to his family and that's not including the deductions in his paycheck for health insurance, life insurance, etc. So now we are looking at a father bringing home less than 40,000 a year to his family. Did you know that 40,000 annually in 2006 was considered poverty line in San Fancisco? I grew up in a family of this income with a total of four siblings. Life was hard; we barely made it. I can't imagine paying more in taxes for the Obamacare law. My middle class family would have never survived. The lower middle class will definitely not survive. People in middle class families will not survive these economic times with a huge raise in taxes. Obamacare will hurt the people of the United States more than it would help them.

It's not a misconception that Obamacare will expand medicare and medicaid, but it expands these services with severe cuts to the amount of health care a person will receive under these benefits. I will give a few examples of the cuts. The government will now decide the medications you can or cannot receive; not your doctor. So if the government says Midrin works better than Maxalt then the doctor can only prescibe you Midrin. Let's say the Midrin doesn't work and you go back to the doctor. The doctor will not be able to prescribe you any other medication because the government says they are only allowed to prescribe Midrin. I heard Obama say, "If we know the purple pill works better then the blue pill; then we go with the purple." This is a severe cut to medical care. As can be clearly seen in any medication, every individual reacts differently. Every individual has a unique biological system and may require different medications. Obamacare makes getting different necessary medications impossible. There is also a clause in Obamacare which states that once the government denies you health care; it's illegal for you to go somewhere else to get it.

Additionally, there is a misconception that the death panels in Obamacare is only education and forms based on the will of an individual at death. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The death panels are made up of ethicists, not doctors, who decides whether a person lives or dies. The individal's documented will is not taken into account, their insurance coverage or lack of is not taken into account, and even if the person can outright pay for the treatment is still not taken into account. Basically, the government decides if a person lives or dies. The government decides if you get the necessary surgery or you don't. Obamacare is so unaffordable they exapanded the services to medicare and medicaid at the expense of the people. Everybody currently on medicaid and medicare right now will have less health care coverage due to large cuts. The death panels are necessary so individuals will die and the government won't have the burden of covering them because Obamacare is unaffordable. Obamacare is only affordable at the cost of less health care coverage and an individuals right to life.

I have my fair share of problems with Mitt Romney, for example I don't agree with his anti-gay stance, however I can say that he isn't completely against the idea of everybodies right to health care; he instituted Romneycare. He stated yesteday, that he wants to repeal obamacare and put into place a better system. A system which doesn't cut heath care coverage to medicare and medicaid or raise taxes. Granted Romneycare does have major flaws, but the fact remains is that Romney has more experience in implementing and fixing a health care system than Obama. Romney is for a health care system that doesn't infrige on the individual's rights and freedoms in the first amendment. If we want a fair and just health care system that doesn't cut medicare, medicaid, raise taxes, or infringe on our freedoms; then Romney is our guy. As far as his anti-gay stance is concerned, that's the reason why gay republicans, such as myself, exist.

Profile

defendfreedom
Defending First Amendment Invidivual Rights

Latest Month

August 2012
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars