To The Daily Sun,
Nancy Parsons needs another Obamacare lesson. It seems her mind overloads easily, so I will deliver the instruction in segments maybe even she can grasp. Honestly, I think Nancy has the capacity to learn new things. I am going to keep shoving it down her throat until she gets it. The same method Obama uses with people — she seems to like that approach.
Today's lesson Nancy: How the young fare under Obamacare.
I assume Nancy must be particularly interested because the young represent the future of our country. Nancy professes her concern for people. So lets find out if Nancy has emotional feelings for the YOUNG people who are getting their chestnuts blackened under the Unaffordable care act...
A few general facts:
1. The young, identified as the 18 to 40 age group represent the LEAST wealthy quintile of people in all of America. Any person concerned with income INEQUALITY would be doing their best to help this age group before all others.
2. We have managed to saddle our YOUNG with a bone crushing, record setting, TRILLION dollars in college debt. Universities REFUSE to control costs or become more efficient in the delivery of their product because these places are controlled by labor unions. Unions see improved education efficiency as a reason to cut labor, that cuts professor ranks. Democrats decided it is far better to placate labor unions and screw the YOUNG to the rafters with life crippling debt. Student loan defaults are now at record highs, and the job market for the young under Obama is more than DISMAL.
3. The age 18 to 36 group is the lowest user of health care and the least costly to insure. Their insurance rates have reflected this. Under Obamacare, the average 27 year old will experience a 90 percent INCREASE in health insurance costs under Obamacare. These are astronomical price increases. Some young person should cut the word AFFORDABLE out of plywood and tell Obama to stick it where the sun don't shine.
4. The new law limits insurers from charging the old and sick more than THREE TIMES what it charges the youngest and healthiest customers. The old, use SIX times the health care than the young, but will be charged 50 percent less while the young will be FAR OVERCHARGED for the amount of health care they consume (which is little). The POOREST quintile of America, the YOUNG will be SUBSIDIZING the old, who have three to four times the wealth. Obamacare puts a GUN to the head of the poorest among us (the young) to pay the health costs of those with far more money. Nancy Parsons LOVES IT. Why? Because she only takes instructions from OBAMA. She has lost the ability to think critically and independently for herself. This is no accident, the objective of donkeyism is to accomplish exactly that ending. A brain dead voter who only takes instruction from government central, high command out of DEPENDENCE.
5. Wealth inequality doesn't just happen randomly or because the rich are more successful. It happens because DEMOCRATS keep as many people POOR as long as possible with their policies for THEIR DEPENDENT VOTE. Obamacare is just the latest rendition of how this happens. Social Security with its miniscule 3 percent or less return on assets is another way. It is TOTAL FRAUD and invisible, that is why Democrats like it. Tens of millions of beneficiaries are ripped off for trillions by Social Security and they do not even know it. Why? Brain DEAD.
Last Updated on Thursday, 14 November 2013 10:46
To The Daily Sun,
As a vendor who participates in many craft fairs, large and small, throughout the year I'd like to publicly thank The Future Business Leaders of America at Belmont High School and their advisor, Ben Hill, for the outstanding job they do with their annual Belmont High School Holiday Fair. This past Saturday was their 7th annual event and my sixth year as a participant in it, and I can only say it gets better and better each year! It is the best organized and best promoted non-profit event in which I have ever participated. The students solicit and thoughtfully use the feedback of their participants in order to ensure that it is a successful event not just for their own interest/organization, but also for their vendors. They also exhibit excellent customer service to their vendors during the event by helping us unload/load our inventory, watch our booths if we need a break, and deliver lunch/drinks to us throughout the day — all of which is very much appreciated.
As a business owner and taxpayer of Belmont, I am happy to see firsthand that our students are being well taught solid principles of business and marketing that will certainly qualify them as Future Business Leaders of America. Kudos to Mr. Hill and the Future Business Leaders of America at Belmont High School for a job well done!
Independent Team Leader
Usborne Children's Books
Last Updated on Thursday, 14 November 2013 10:43
Look, I've done my best to support the poorly nicknamed "Obamacare." Funny, we don't have Roosevelt Security or Johnson Care, but that's another column.
These cancellations were 100 percent predictable. Honestly, they were more than predictable; they were required.
Absent Obamacare, there is no guarantee that you get to keep your insurance. Individual policies, the kind that are getting canceled, tend to be one-year deals. They are subject to cancellation. Period. So that's not the president's fault, and he never should have suggested that Obamacare would stop the practice.
But Obamacare doesn't just leave the status quo intact. It establishes minimum requirements for health insurance policies, expanding the coverage people get (whether they want it or not). Many of the canceled policies were cheaper than the new ones because they covered less — less than the law now requires and less than any insurer would provide without charging more.
So, if you had one of those cheap policies that only covered you in the event of a catastrophe, with high deductibles, no preventive care, no pregnancy coverage, no prescription drugs, if you had a cheap policy that provided minimal benefits and you were happy with it, then guess what? You were going to lose your policy. No rocket science required.
Of course, the answer is: But now you will get a better policy, and you might even get a subsidy to help you pay for it. And that is a very good thing — if you get sick. If you don't get sick, it just means you pay more.
That's why people are angry. They don't plan to get sick, and they don't want to pay more.
Again, guess what? Many of those people who don't plan to get sick are actually right. That's because they're young and healthy right now. And the reason they need to sign up for policies that are more expensive than they want (and likely need) is precisely because they aren't going to get sick and require expensive health care. But some of us (older and sicker) are, and so we need them to subsidize us.
That is how the system works. People who don't get in accidents subsidize people who do. People who don't get sick subsidize people who do. If you get rid of the exclusions for pre-existing conditions (which is certainly a very good thing for anyone with pre-existing conditions), then you need a whole lot of healthy people to subsidize the sick people who otherwise would either not get coverage or have to pay a large fortune for it.
I'm not saying President Obama was wrong to insist that everyone get better coverage. Actually, I think it's a good idea. One way or another, all of us end up paying for the people who didn't plan to get sick but did. Prevention is a good thing.
The problem is that the president had to know that when he told people they could keep their policies, he wasn't including the people who had cheap plans that didn't cover as much as the new law requires. He had to know this. So why did he say otherwise? Why did it take so long for him to own up? This is a mess of the administration's own making, and for all the talk about fixes, it's not the least bit clear that it can be fixed.
(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
To The Daily Sun,
It seems to me we are a people easily lead and influenced by administrative policies that justify on-going war and conflicts in several nations that pose no threat to our safety. This mania comes out of the event of 9/11 which caused the greatest upheaval of widespread fear affecting the American psyche as no other singular incident has! Consider: as a nation we allowed our military to assault Iraq and Pakistan with devastating force, killing more than a half-million people. Looking back 10 years ago, many say Iraq was a mistake! In a cold, calculating arrogance we simply write off this immense tragedy as if it was failure, and go on our way? What kind of people are we, after all.
We watch television shows that often depict gun violence by both men and women with apparent disdain. Even cartoons display graphic violence time and again. If we disagree and protest the amount of violence in media, television, and literature — why don't we speak out strongly about its affect on our children, and our own lives?
We have a violent past. As a people (read American history) we usually take what we what, and do as we want. Heroic at times: often we have used violence to assert our pre-eminence and authority regardless the cost of human life! We have instilled fear and distrust around the world because of our brute force on lesser nations — unable to defend themselves! We have violence on the streets and cities, further dividing people and isolating others. People in manufacturing who refuse to accept the fact that assault weapons have no place in a civilized society!
The time is overdue for us to take charge and dislodge purveyors of violence and crimes by the military. This nation belongs to you and me and everyone who yearns for peace — at home, in our families, and in foreign lands. God help us in this endeavor!
Leon R. Albushies
Last Updated on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 09:29
To The Daily Sun,
If President Obama, the leader of the most powerful nation in the Free World, can negotiate and compromise with the Russians over Syrian chemical weapons, why did President Obama allow a "shut down" (President Obama's words) of the U.S. government, instead of negotiating a compromise with his own U.S. Congress?
Why was President Obama willing to inflict all this "pain and discomfort" on we, the people, the citizens of the United States of America, by allowing this so-called "government shut-down", a term that substantially overstates the actual situation. As part of this so-called "government shut-down", President Obama ordered the placement of barriers around our national open-air monuments such as the WW I Memorial on the DC Mall; President Obama ordered the furlough of military chaplains who were willing to celebrate Mass and baptisms for our men and women in uniform for free, but were told they would be punished for performing their religious rites. President Obama allowed that the D-Day Memorial in Normandy, France should be barricaded and the public excluded. President Obama allowed that our National Parks be closed in spite of the fact that the U.S. Treasury actually makes money from rent paid by private companies who employ about 400-500 individuals at these national parks in about a dozen states. President Obama allowed that the National Park Service place "traffic cones" along highway viewing areas outside Mount Rushmore, barring visitors from pulling over and taking pictures of the this universally recognized National monument. President Obama even attempted to block visitors from the privately funded George Washington's Mount Vernon estate (the president later backed down on this one due to the overwhelming outcry from we, the people). Perhaps the most outrageous move of all by President Obama was the "slap in the face" to our American military heroes, when he allowed that the families of four soldiers killed in Afghanistan in early October would not receive death benefits or the money to pay for their funerals because of the government, so-called, shutdown. The list of transgressions perpetrated by President Obama against the American people in October 2013 alone can be extended even further!
Yes, the non-negotiator in chief, President Obama, in an earlier attempt to "fundamentally change America", an attempt that we, the people, must not forget, was President Obama's "sequester-prompted" termination of the public tours of the White House, a brazen insult to the American people continuing even after offers from reliable private sources to fund continued citizen access to this national icon were summarily rejected.
Here we are, then, in the aftermath of the so-called "government shutdown" of October 2013, we, the people, are told by the progressive/liberal media that conservatives should get the blame for this so-called "government shutdown", even when it was known that the conservatives in the U.S. Congress would have been happy to negotiate (compromise) for a delay of the, so called, Affordable Care Act "individual mandate". Folks, this compromise would afford no different treatment than the delay many businesses and unions have already received under this so-called Affordable Care Act! Due to software problems we, the people, are now experiencing an extended delay in the, so-called, Affordable Care Act implementation anyway! Even if the web access is fixed over the short term a 12 month delay for individuals seems a fair compromise to me. Oops; there's that word again: "compromise". Is President Barack Obama going to foist this same fiasco on us, the American people, again when our country comes to the same "can in the road" in four months? A sad state of affairs, indeed.
Omer C. Ahern, Jr.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 09:22