Does Obamacare cost anything to citizens that are covered under private insurance?
There will be rate shock.Contrary to claims by the HHS and the Obama administration, individual insurance rates will be substantially higher to those who already have individual insurance, particularly for young Americans. The HHS claims of lower rates are disingenuously based on comparisons to their own previous projections, not in comparison to real rates prior to the ACA. The reality will be rate shock for individuals who purchase their own insurance who don't qualify for government subsidies."Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.""For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.""The Obama administration knows this, which is why its 15-page report makes no mention of premiums for insurance available on today’s market. Silence, they say, speaks louder than words. HHS’ silence on the difference between Obamacare’s insurance premiums and those available today tell you everything you need to know. Rates are going higher. And if you’re healthy, or you’re young, the Obama administration expects you to do your duty and pay up."Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women
Why is Obama a traitor to America?
In response to OPs additional question, yes the military has had the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial prior to December 31, 2011. See the Japanese American internment during World War 2.
Why not order drone strikes against gang members?
Liberal logic says if there is a law against it, it cant be done. Here's another version of Liberal Logic http://www.flickr.com/photos/57856066@N02/8449536006/in/photostream Plus if you programed the drone to go after gang members it would head for the White house
Are Americans with Muslim names hit by drone strikes covered under Obamacare for their injuries?
This question is ridiculous but I'll answer it from a theoretical standpoint because it does address some items that most people don't realize aren't covered by their health insurance plan.Assuming an individual is enrolled and actively paying (or receiving subsidized coverage) for a plan purchased through healthcare.gov, and happen to get hit by a drone strike, it would most likely not be covered by the insurance plan. I'm ignoring the whole name bit because it's really irrelevant to the answer.Almost all health insurance plans sold in the US have several exclusions written into them with the three most pertinent exclusions in this theoretical example being:(1) Injuries occurring due to acts of war, declared or undeclared(2) Injuries related to acts of terrorism(3) Injuries sustained while committing a felonyI cannot think of a situation involving a drone strike that wouldn't fall under one of these three exclusions, with the first one being the most likely reason not to cover the claim.
How do Democrats justify Obama's use of drone strikes?
I think most people who are upset by Drone strikes tend to not fully understand or have unease with the idea of a new technology.What is the fundamental difference between a bomber plane launching a bomb and a drone doing so?The drone isn’t selecting targets on its own, it’s controlled by a human operator doing target acquisition and following multiple levels of command authority for dropping a munition. The only difference with a drone is you are not putting a pilot into jeopardy.One Sided Reporting. The Intel community also takes a fair amount of required criticism because it doesn’t , to preserve secrecy of sources, defend against foreign press “puff pieces” on who was hit. Typically they’ll interview the deceased’s wife and neighbor and they’ll go “oh so-and-so was a gentle kind man this is an outrage”. It’s not really that much different from how you see interviews of the neighbors of serial killers with “oh he’s a quiet guy”. BS. So and so was just on the phone with a contact in the US and was on his way to purchase high explosives, this along with the several other overt acts he took was reviewed by military commanders, presented to the national security adviser, in many cases vetted by the justice department , and finally approved by the President for a strike.The Presidency comes with a duty to defend. Why do people think a candidate who was more or less “anti-war” during his campaign suddenly and whole heatedly embraced the use of global strikes? The simple but not so nice answer is that America has enemies globally people who for a variety of reasons wish to do us harm, when they attempt to acquire the means to do so or take a step in furtherance of an attack on us personnel they become a declared enemy. The President can come into the office with whatever pre-cognitions about that he wants but seeing actual verifiable intelligence on what a person is doing , plotting, and actions they are taking has a way of changing ones tune pretty quickly.
What is Obama's strategy/plan to destroy ISIS?
Obama has plans to appease ISIS into submission in much the same manner in which he appeased the Iranians into submitting to his nuclear deal. Obama firmly believes that the best way to deal with the enemies of America is to give them what they want.