Performance Boats Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
-- And you could be forced to spend $13,000 of your own money toward this effort!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care system he wants to foist on the whole country -- and it isn't pretty.
It won't be pretty for your pocket book... OR FOR YOUR GUN RIGHTS!
But first, let us explain what TeddyCare is all about.
At the center of the plan is what's called a "universal mandate." What this means is that you -- and virtually everyone in the country -- will have to buy as much health insurance as the government demands, and that insurance plan will actually have to be approved by the government.
If you work for a small business, the business will buy the insurance on your behalf. But you may be saddled with an enormous part of the cost. And, if the employer's contribution is too large, you will be fired.
If you fail to buy TeddyCare, as the government orders you to do, the IRS will fine you, garnish your wages, put a lien on your house, and, ultimately, put you in prison.
How much will you have to spend on your TeddyCare insurance? Teddy's not saying.
The portion of your paycheck that will have to be forked over to Teddy's latest social experiment will be revealed ONLY AFTER THE MASSIVE HEALTH CARE BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW.
This should set off alarm bells in your brain, because, for instance, the average family policy is currently $12,700. "So," proclaims Teddy, "everyone's going to get a subsidy to pay for this." There's going to be a "chicken in every pot," and no one's going to have to pay for it.
Yeah, right. If you're a welfare mother, the government will pay for your TeddyCare, and it would pay for it -- the first time -- by taxing employer-provided health benefits of working Americans. But if you a "working Joe" your Kennedy-subsidy will be a microscopic fraction of the cost of your mandated TeddyCare insurance policy.
Okay, all of this sounds ominous... but why is this a gun issue?
The answer is that TeddyCare will allow radical left Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print in every TeddyCare policy -- which you will be required to buy under penalty of imprisonment.
Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of computerizing all of your most confidential medical records and putting them into a federal database.
So remember when your son was asked by his pediatrician about your gun collection? That would be in the federal database.
Or remember when your wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago -- thereby potentially barring both her and you from ever owning a gun again? That would be in the database.
Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he's had emotional stress since coming back to the States, that would be in the database.
Or remember when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, thereby making him a "mental defective" who would have to relinquish his life-long gun collection? That's in there too.
And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE'S private data in a database with a stroke of a pen.
When we say "everyone," we don't mean quite everyone.
Teddy has conveniently excluded Washington bureaucrats from his TeddyCare mandate.
Also, Teddy and his friends in the media don't want you to hear about the details until after the bill is passed. That's why they're trying to slam it through within the next month and a half before anyone's had a chance to read or debate it.
In fact, the TeddyCare proposal is currently circulating around Capitol Hill without even a bill number.
ACTION: Urge your two U.S. Senators to oppose Sen. Ted Kennedy's mandate that will result in the registration of all your gun information.
 

·
E-7 Sheepdog (ret)
Joined
·
6,834 Posts
Teddy needs to go take a drive across an old bridge......:|err
A very short bridge, with a span missing.

I'll super-glue the seat belt latch. :|err
 

·
E-7 Sheepdog (ret)
Joined
·
6,834 Posts
Hey coward, do explain why Snopes (who you used to bash on when I posted it for corrections to your Bushisms the last 3 years) has Obama listed as being born a one Hawaii hospital, while Obama's writings himself (letter on White House Stationary) state he was born at another Hawaii hospital???

You swear by Snopes when it serves you.........................................
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
Hey coward, do explain why Snopes (who you used to bash on when I posted it for corrections to your Bushisms the last 3 years) has Obama listed as being born a one Hawaii hospital, while Obama's writings himself (letter on White House Stationary) state he was born at another Hawaii hospital???

You swear by Snopes when it serves you.........................................
Wassup SmokinPole haven't seen you around in awhile. Guess the rock you live under is gettin pretty hot these days. :D You got balls to call John a coward when almost none of your heroes in the Rethuglican Party of No Ethics have even been in the military and they keep mistresses like the Frenchies do. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,364 Posts
Have you ever looked up who is running SNOPES? Just wondering if they have the same political leaning as you do? Just saying...

Steve
if you get a chance go to the snopes "discussion" forum and look around. There's plenty of Bush bashing and very little if any O bashing. pretty much the opposite of the PR forum here.
 
G

·
if you get a chance go to the snopes "discussion" forum and look around. There's plenty of Bush bashing and very little if any O bashing. pretty much the opposite of the PR forum here.

GB, I don't believe that any fact check site is 100% but snopes seems to the most accurate I've come across. Most on both side believe Snopes to be among the most accurate

Do you have a link to the forum you are referring to?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,364 Posts
I don't either which is I try to verify things with more than just one resource. There is more than just snopes. Funny, I consider snopes to be no more or less accurate than any other. The thing with snpoes is to check the source at the bottom of each issue. Many times there isn't any citation at all but the many they do cite are left leaning org's. they are just blatantly wrong. Actually snopes is a good starting point for research but not reliable enough for an immediate and emphatic "true" or "false" conclusion.

http://message.snopes.com/
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top