3 Things You Probably Don’t Know About ObamaCare’s Welfare State

The Democrats who wrote the ObamaCare law believe there are two types of people in America: 1) People who need to be screwed over and 2) People who need to be put on welfare. What may surprise you is just how many people are discovering that they are now both.

Here are 3 things that most people don’t know about ObamaCare:

 —————————————————————————————————–
1. It makes health insurance more expensive for EVERYBODY
—————————————————————————————————–

suprisedcat123“My premium is now HOW much?”

Yes, this first point does make Obama a liar when he swore that “premiums will drop for the average family by $2,500 a year”. So what about all those things the propaganda media outlets are reporting that premiums are lower than expected and that people are now finally getting affordable coverage? Yes, if you throw your critical thinking skills out the window, a lot of what Democrats say sounds very good. First of all, when the news proudly announces “premiums are lower than expected”, they are NOT saying “premiums are lower than they are now.” They know that Democrat voters are so desperate for good news from their side they won’t question what they are told and/or aren’t smart enough to be able to tell the difference.

To normal people, the reasons health insurance premiums are soaring are obvious. After all, ObamaCare pretty much throws your healthcare customization options out the window by demanding insurance companies to cover everything under the sun, even if you don’t need or want it. You see, in a free market, a single guy wouldn’t need pregnancy insurance. Of course Obama, in his infinite wisdom, decreed: too bad. You’re paying for it if you want it or not. So using our common sense, we can see how it is impossible for health costs to go anywhere but up.

“But”, you may ask, “but what about those people with pre-existing conditions? Aren’t insurance companies now forced to accept their applications and are forbidden from charging them more?” Yes, that is true. But of course, if they are already sick, it’s not health INSURANCE that they’re getting now is it? The concept of “insurance” is to protect yourself in case something bad happens.

Yaris Smashed by Rock“Uh, hello Geico? I need to get insurance . . . how do you define pre-existing condition exactly?”

There is a reason you can’t buy home owner’s insurance AFTER your house burns down. Coverage for pre-existing conditions is not “insurance” but actually a form of welfare. Which brings us to point number . . .

—————————————————————————————————–
2. ObamaCare “subsidies” is really just another word for “welfare”.
—————————————————————————————————–

Since prices for health insurance are obviously skyrocketing, going up by 200% – 600% for some people, how is Obama going to try to hide this fact and sell it to his fan base? Simple: he puts them on welfare. Of course, Democrats are smart enough to use a different, nicer sounding word:  subsidies. In all practical aspects though, they are exactly the same. Government raises taxes, takes people’s income and redistributes it back to their loyal supporters. When the government finally lumbers up with a working website (it only cost 3x more than they promised it would), they’ll hide the real prices from insurance seekers and instead say: “Hey, take a government subsidy to buy something you used to be able to afford! Now you’ll never vote Republican again!”

healthcaregovGovernment: “We apologize we couldn’t make a working website despite having 3 years and $500 million. But we are sure we are perfectly capable of making your medical decisions for you. Just trust us . . . and take a number.”

Since the average Democrat voter has no qualms on depending on the government for survival, this will not faze them. For people who consider themselves as part of the middle class however, being forced into a situation where you are being trained to depend on government handouts is outrageous. As for people who already have health problems, they are getting complete government protection and support (aka “welfare”) because health care in this country is simply just too expensive to pay for out of pocket. Which brings us to point number . . .

 —————————————————————————————————–
3. Saying we need ObamaCare to control healthcare costs is like asking OJ Simpson to find his wife’s killer.
—————————————————————————————————–

One reason for the fervent belief among Democrats on the need for the government takeover of healthcare  is because healthcare is just too ridiculously expensive to pay for on your own. What you may not know (and average Democrat certainly doesn’t know) is the REASON health care is so expensive in the first place is because of . . . . government regulations!

So isn’t this like asking the Joker in the Batman movies to perform reconstructive plastic surgery to help with the sudden increase in mutilations in Gotham City? Yes, yes it is.

Nurse-JokerJust think of him as ObamaCare’s version of “Patch Adams”.

Although we could write a book on the thousands of ways government interference in the healthcare industry can cause one toothbrush to cost $1,000 (I’m not kidding), here is just a quick list of innumerable ways the government created the problem they are now claiming to fix.

  1. Disengaging the customer (you) from the costs of healthcare
  2. Legal rules allowing multi-million dollar lawsuits
  3. Government restricting the sale of insurance policies across state lines
  4. Artificial limit on number of doctors
  5. Ridiculously high costs on medical innovation
  6. Regulations limiting the amount of medication that can be made
  7. Refusing to enforce immigration laws

Well, that’s enough discussion of some of the ugly secrets hidden in ObamaCare. After all, if our politicians are willing to live under the same rules they wrote for the rest of us, how bad can it really be? Oh wait . . . .

ObamaCare Exemption

Advertisements

Thank Goodness for Income Inequality

“(Income Inequality) is the defining issue of our time.” – President Barack Obama

“The envious man thinks that if his neighbor breaks a leg, he will be able to walk better himself” – Helmut Schoeck

Well it looks like the topic of “income inequality” is going to be a hot one this summer! With President Obama attacking “the rich” for not paying enough taxes and the Occupy Wall Street movement geared to create public chaos to get attention for “the 99%” this summer, it would help if we had a better understanding of what the issue really was.

Attacks you will hear:

  • The top 1% of people TAKE almost a quarter of nation’s income.
  • The Rich are getting richer and the Poor are getting poorer!
  • The Rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes!
  • Pay for CEOs in 1970 was 39 times pay of average worker. In the year 2000, CEO made more than 1000 times of average worker!

If there is one theme that runs though all of this, it is that liberals are jealous that there are people who have more than they have. An often cited study from the Congressional Budget Office states that the top 1 percent of earners saw their incomes rise by 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, while the bottom 20 percent of earners saw their incomes rise by less than 20 percent, and the middle 60 percent of earners’ incomes rose by less than 40 percent during the same time.

So although everyone, including the poor, saw their incomes rise (despite the popular “the poor are getting poorer” line), the “superstar” earners were able to make a lot more.

So what?

That’s the beauty of capitalism, though if seen through the eyes of envy, nothing can make you more hateful. To understand this, there are some basic economic principles that need to be learned, such as the concepts of “leverage” and the “global economy”. Simply put, if you can take your special skills and offer it to the world, you will get a lot more reward for it than if you offered it to just your neighborhood.

Let’s take movie actors for example. If there was no national or global economy, each town or state would have to make their own movies. They wouldn’t be very good or very well funded. Actors would get paid in drinks and applause. But if you take movies to a national economy, you get bigger budgets and the actors make more money. Take it to the world level, actors are now making huuuuge paychecks. If we ever colonize thousands of planets like in the movie Star Wars, actors wouldn’t be able to spend all their money in a 100 lifetimes. Do us movie goers lose because actors make more? No, we also benefit from increased movie choices and higher quality.

If you’re thinking “Big budget Hollwood movies stink!” , then just imagine being stuck with low budget movies, like the ones above, forever. (On the plus side, playing outside or watching paint dry will seem a lot more attractive in comparison.)

What about the middle class? Will a unionized worker who gets paid to move lights around a movie set get paid in the same exponential numbers? No. Although he certainly gets paid a lot more on a big budget film, he will never get paid millions like the actors because he still is just moving the same light around. Is it fair? Well, the 10 people who would love to have his job certainly think so.

The fact is, income inequality is simply a liberal tactic that has been used to stoke the fires of jealousy. This has been used to spark communist revolutions around the world in the name of the “working people”. To be fair, communism certainly reduced income inequality. Everybody (except the government) was poor. In Ukraine, the breadbasket of the Soviet Union, about 7 million were starved to death by the government in an artificial man-made famine. But hey, at least they were all equal!

Other quick facts to keep in mind:

  • Most taxes that take from the middle class start with promises from Democrats to only tax “the rich”: e.g. the income tax, gasoline tax, medical device tax, tanning bed tax, cigarette tax, etc.
  • The top 5% pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 95%.
  • More than 96% of millionaires today did not inherit their fortunes but actually made their money themselves. Mitt Romney is one of them.
  • The top 1% do not TAKE a quarter of the nations income. They CREATE it. For example, did Steve Jobs make his billions by TAKING from the poor? No, he created amazing products and we’re all richer for it.

Next time you hear Democrats attacking the rich and griping about “income inequality” just ask yourself: when was the last time a poor person offered you a job? This is America, we are all fortunate to live in a time where we can choose to be one of the rich if we want to with nobody to stop us but ourselves . . . and maybe the government soon . . . if we let them.

“Surely resentment destroys the fool, and jealousy kills the simple.”

Job 5:2 (NLT version of the Bible)

It’s Now Ethically OK to Kill Babies

There are a lot of bad things that happen in this world. Religious people say this is because humanity is detached from God. Liberals, atheists and people in the media laugh at such thinking and declare religion is soooo passé. Only nut jobs and the intolerant are religious these days. After all, if people kill in the name of God, how can religion be good?

Religious Conservative: “Without God and religion, moral values have no foundation and make no sense.”

Politically-Correct Liberal: “Pfffffttt, don’t be stupid. I know plenty of atheists who are good people and do great things for others! More than even many so-called Christians!”

Religious Conservative: “Well . . . don’t you think that maybe the reason we have so much bullying, violence and murders in school is because we kicked God, religion and even the suggestion that there is good and evil in this world out of schools?

Politically-Correct Liberal: “Seriously, I don’t know where you get your crazy ideas from. That’s why we have classes on ethics and tolerance! Stop trying to push your radical religious beliefs of others!”

Since religious people hate being called radical, they meekly bow down and let politically-correct teachers and shows like Glee teach their kids what is ethical or not.

But have you ever wondered if this was enough? If a religious person says that without God, “ethics” is flexible enough to change over time into accepting behaviors once thought horrible, are they just a stupid Bible-thumper who is close-minded and ignorant? As it turns out, and answer is “No”. They actually knew exactly what is going to happen.

Christians. How the liberal mainstream media portrays them to be.

On Feb. 23, 2012, the Journal of Medical Ethics, a leading, peer-reviewed international journal that influences the ethical decisions of medical professionals around the world, published a paper advocating “after-birth abortions”. Or in other words, infanticide should be acceptable if the baby would cause any burden on the mother (has any baby ever NOT caused any burdens on their mother?).

“ … to bring up such children (with disabilities such as Down’s syndrome) might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

. . . Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.“

Remember all those crazy pro-life (or as the media sometimes calls them, “anti-choice”) people predicting that our abortion culture being pushed by feminists and liberals will cause us to lose respect for life? It turns out crossing that line between killing babies in the womb and out of the womb wasn’t that hard to cross after all. It’s actually very logical to liberals and all non-religious people. If you think about it, the only difference between a ‘fetus’ and an ‘infant’ is a few minutes and a couple inches of flesh.

“Hold on Burn Adams!” you might say. “This is only a paper published in a leading international medical journal of ethics! No one will be influenced in America!”

Actually, our very own Barack Obama voted FOUR times against laws that would protect babies who survived abortions from being killed. Like the paper’s authors argued, Obama said he didn’t want to “burden” mothers with having to take care of their child. Instead, let nature take its course and the babies will starve or freeze to death within 8 hours. Think this is horrible and unthinkable that this is happening? Well, as Obama and the rest of the Democrats in this country made quite clear this month, leave the moral judgements up to the government and just do as you’re told.

So welcome to a world without religion or God. If we re-elect Obama or any other of his liberal comrades, we wouldn’t have to worry about the “wall of separation” between church and state. God and every other moral value would be surgically removed like tumors from the now all-powerful federal government.

But go ahead and don’t believe what I’m saying. Don’t even believe the facts that popping up all around you and are being purposefully ignored by the liberal mainstream media.

After all, I must be just another one of those extreme right-wing religious fanatics that NBC and CNN warned you about.