Clinton: Obama should honor health ca...

Clinton: Obama should honor health care pledge

There are 31 comments on the Sacramento Bee Newspaper story from Nov 12, 2013, titled Clinton: Obama should honor health care pledge. In it, Sacramento Bee Newspaper reports that:

Former President Bill Clinton says President Barack Obama should find a way to let people keep their health coverage, even if it means changing the new insurance law.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sacramento Bee Newspaper.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
One Thing Is Certain

Glendora, CA

#27 Nov 17, 2013
We Know Who Clinton Is wrote:
Five years into this "presidency" we still don't know who or what Obama really is.
Why is Obama on a future 50 dollar British Federation Bill in the remake of Total Recall? He could have objected to it and had them remove it.
Take a good long look at that currency note.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum1/index.php...
That tells you who will be running the New World Order -namely London Banks with an enslaved China under their control. And guess who undermines and destroys America to make it all possible?
Obama is the George Washington of a global Nazi banking New World Order in the movie -and possibly real life if Americans don't wake up and defend America right away.
The man is just a disgusting manchurian candidate/traitor for offshore London/EU banks who is being directed to sell off all of America's assets to China. The man needs to be impeached -the smug bastard enjoys wrecking this country every way he can you can tell.
And he probably will get his face on that new NWO currency if we citizens allow America to be destroyed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wXDpMgGdoisXX
http://i.imgur.com/7ErG1.png
Impeach Obama through the courts (the right way)-there are plenty of impeachable offenses his administration has commited.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/immigration/T...
They want a damaged America.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#29 Nov 20, 2013
This lady`s story is the reality of Obama Care.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25103...

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#30 Nov 24, 2013
Here is a little "nugget" most people have not seen in the Affordable Health Care Act.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#31 Nov 24, 2013
Roudy The Second wrote:
Here is a little "nugget" most people have not seen in the Affordable Health Care Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =uOk0vOup4yAXX
Scary how Obama has taken away all of our privacy. He is what we told them he was.
Coal

Paducah, KY

#33 Dec 8, 2013
Obamacare was intended to do 2 things and it is doing both very well.

It was intended to provide free health care to Obama's political base, the professional welfare recipient class. It is doing that. They get Medicaid. Absolutely FREE.

It was also intended to punish the working class who are the rank and file voters of the Republican Party. It is doing that just fine too. They are being stuck with huge premium increases that they must pay of be fined.

Obamacare also has 2 built in mechanisms that will hurt workers even more than the individual mandate. First, by exempting employers with under 50 employees (and adding greatly to the cost of the premiums that they must pay if they do cover their employees) it encourages employers with just a few workers over 50, say 54, to lay off workers to get under the 50 limit. Many will do that. The employer will have no choice since they cannot afford the higher premiums that they must now pay. The loophole that allows big employers with hundreds or thousands of low wage employees to not cover part time workers is an incentive for those employers to cut people's hours.

The aim was to force low wage workers onto the expanded Medicaid. However, there is a Catch-22 in that too. Take this example:

A 55 year old coal miner who worked for good wages for many years and is laid off. He owns a house that is paid for, two or more vehicles, and maybe a boat or a little tract of land that he uses for hunting and recreation. He has some savings. After he is laid off, he takes a full time job at low wages. It is all that he can get. It pays the bills and he figures he can last until age 62 and Social Security and retirement kick in. Then Obamacare hits his employer. If he works for an employer with 50 workers and he's no. 50, he will be the one fired. Last hired; first fired. He has to pay his own Obamacare, but he can't afford it. "But," the Obamanites say, "He can get expanded Medicaid!" Well, yes, he can. But - and here's the Catch-22 - he's not eligible for Medicaid because he has too much in the way of assets - that house and everything that he has worked all his life for. He has to liquidate those assets and spend the money before he can get Medicaid. It will impoverish him. And that is just what Obama intended for it to do.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#34 Dec 8, 2013
Coal wrote:
Obamacare was intended to do 2 things and it is doing both very well.
It was intended to provide free health care to Obama's political base, the professional welfare recipient class. It is doing that. They get Medicaid. Absolutely FREE.
It was also intended to punish the working class who are the rank and file voters of the Republican Party. It is doing that just fine too. They are being stuck with huge premium increases that they must pay of be fined.
Obamacare also has 2 built in mechanisms that will hurt workers even more than the individual mandate. First, by exempting employers with under 50 employees (and adding greatly to the cost of the premiums that they must pay if they do cover their employees) it encourages employers with just a few workers over 50, say 54, to lay off workers to get under the 50 limit. Many will do that. The employer will have no choice since they cannot afford the higher premiums that they must now pay. The loophole that allows big employers with hundreds or thousands of low wage employees to not cover part time workers is an incentive for those employers to cut people's hours.
The aim was to force low wage workers onto the expanded Medicaid. However, there is a Catch-22 in that too. Take this example:
A 55 year old coal miner who worked for good wages for many years and is laid off. He owns a house that is paid for, two or more vehicles, and maybe a boat or a little tract of land that he uses for hunting and recreation. He has some savings. After he is laid off, he takes a full time job at low wages. It is all that he can get. It pays the bills and he figures he can last until age 62 and Social Security and retirement kick in. Then Obamacare hits his employer. If he works for an employer with 50 workers and he's no. 50, he will be the one fired. Last hired; first fired. He has to pay his own Obamacare, but he can't afford it. "But," the Obamanites say, "He can get expanded Medicaid!" Well, yes, he can. But - and here's the Catch-22 - he's not eligible for Medicaid because he has too much in the way of assets - that house and everything that he has worked all his life for. He has to liquidate those assets and spend the money before he can get Medicaid. It will impoverish him. And that is just what Obama intended for it to do.
I agree, hope the elk grove obama lover, cowboy dan doesn't get mad again.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#36 Dec 8, 2013
Coal wrote:
Obamacare was intended to do 2 things and it is doing both very well.
It was intended to provide free health care to Obama's political base, the professional welfare recipient class. It is doing that. They get Medicaid. Absolutely FREE.
It was also intended to punish the working class who are the rank and file voters of the Republican Party. It is doing that just fine too. They are being stuck with huge premium increases that they must pay of be fined.
Obamacare also has 2 built in mechanisms that will hurt workers even more than the individual mandate. First, by exempting employers with under 50 employees (and adding greatly to the cost of the premiums that they must pay if they do cover their employees) it encourages employers with just a few workers over 50, say 54, to lay off workers to get under the 50 limit. Many will do that. The employer will have no choice since they cannot afford the higher premiums that they must now pay. The loophole that allows big employers with hundreds or thousands of low wage employees to not cover part time workers is an incentive for those employers to cut people's hours.
The aim was to force low wage workers onto the expanded Medicaid. However, there is a Catch-22 in that too. Take this example:
A 55 year old coal miner who worked for good wages for many years and is laid off. He owns a house that is paid for, two or more vehicles, and maybe a boat or a little tract of land that he uses for hunting and recreation. He has some savings. After he is laid off, he takes a full time job at low wages. It is all that he can get. It pays the bills and he figures he can last until age 62 and Social Security and retirement kick in. Then Obamacare hits his employer. If he works for an employer with 50 workers and he's no. 50, he will be the one fired. Last hired; first fired. He has to pay his own Obamacare, but he can't afford it. "But," the Obamanites say, "He can get expanded Medicaid!" Well, yes, he can. But - and here's the Catch-22 - he's not eligible for Medicaid because he has too much in the way of assets - that house and everything that he has worked all his life for. He has to liquidate those assets and spend the money before he can get Medicaid. It will impoverish him. And that is just what Obama intended for it to do.
I think you have it pretty much figured out. Obama wants to destroy the small town people and punish those who did not vote for him. You nailed the rest.
lolol

Albuquerque, NM

#37 Dec 8, 2013
the name clinton or obama NEVER belong in the same sentence with 'honor', they don't have any.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#38 Dec 10, 2013
Here is Rep. Pelosi`s version of the health are bill her explanation of what the president sd.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#39 Dec 10, 2013
Roudy The Second wrote:
Here is Rep. Pelosi`s version of the health are bill her explanation of what the president sd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =gw3yoyIw3oMXX
it looks like nancy has had some recent face surgery again, but it doesn't cover up her lying face. She got ripped by the Obama news agency. How funny. LOL
Coal

Hopkinsville, KY

#41 Dec 22, 2013
Obama has done more damage to the United States than Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, and Mao combined.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

History in the News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Americans have rendered their verdict on the fi... 1 hr WEDONTKNOW 48
News Former White House aide says Clinton has dementia (Jun '15) Sun Sandra 15
News NBC Claims O'Reilly Story 'Stirs Up Memories of... Apr 20 Jeff Brightone 1
News Lynch: Americans must come before president, Co... Apr 19 spocko 114
News A history of chemical weapons in Syria Apr 6 James 1
News 'I've been living a lie for so long': Morbidly ... (May '16) Mar '17 Texxy 2
News Sex abuse victim targeted by her stepfather fro... (Mar '14) Mar '17 Bob 2
More from around the web