# Obama Care at it again....



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Remember when the people who passed the law stated it would not hurt anyone only help....

Well here is another business owner going to cut hours so they won't have to pay. So in a tough economic time you are getting hours cut... Great bill right uke:

Where are all the people who praised this bill. Also there was an article i read this past week or so saying health insurance premiums are raising about 4% this year.... I will try to find it and post it up. But again....wasn't this bill supposed to lower premiums..... uke:



> Wendy's franchise cuts hours to avoid Obamacare
> The action is the latest in a series of challenges against next year's implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
> By Bruce Kennedy Wed 10:13 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is an quip in an article titled 12 things that will cost more in 2013.....

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/ ... 9cedab323a



> Health insurance premiums
> Obamacare notwithstanding, employee health care premiums are expected to rise an average of 6% in 2013, according to Aon Hewitt, a human resource consulting firm. That amount will vary by state and type of plan, but overall, employers will face higher premiums, and the increased costs will be passed along in part to employees.


I think I even read more in another article i will try to find it. But 6% average raise for employers....hmm.....another involuntary pay decrease thanks to the federal goverment.....ie SS taxes.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Two things to take out of this article......The first one highlighted and shows you that premiums will keep increasing because cost of health care is increasing.....ie the price of surgery, medicines, treatments, etc are not going down. What does insurance pay for.....surgery, medicines, treatments, etc. So if one goes up so does the other.

The second part......which is a part i liked about the bill..... companies have to show 80% of premium goes towards medical treatments or needs to be refunded. Like i said....I like this part of the bill. IT will get rid of the "big" bonuses that were sometimes being paid out to CEO's. Now will that mean premiums will go down....not really. But it holds the company more accountable.



> January 9, 2013 10:36 AM ET
> 
> SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - *California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones said Tuesday that Anthem Blue Cross' proposed rate hike for some of its small-group members is unreasonable, but the insurer says the increase reflects the rising cost of health care.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The latest that I have heard is that Obama and others have stated that under Obamacare anyone who owns a gun may have to be insured differently ie. higher premiums. Maybe an extra $5000 a year or something like that. Sure they respect the second amendment, but they will try get to gun ownership one way or another.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The latest that I have heard is that Obama and others have stated that under Obamacare anyone who owns a gun may have to be insured differently ie. higher premiums. Maybe an extra $5000 a year or something like that. Sure they respect the second amendment, but they will try get to gun ownership one way or another.


*DISCLAIMER: EXAMPLES OF WHAT INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL PAY FOR ARE IN THE STATE OF MN. EVERY STATE HAS DIFFERENT LAWS SO PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR AGENT IF AN EXAMPLE PERTAINS TO YOU*

Where did you hear this? I would really like to know. But i did read an article where they were trying to say if you own a gun you need to be insured different. by the title you would think it was a hit towards gun owners but the article was pretty accurate. IE: Most homeowners policies only have automatic coverage for guns up to $2500 or less.

Lets say you have 4 hunting guns stolen from your home....one is a benelli SBE 2, Browning Citori O/U, Kimber Rifle 30-06 with a 3x9 Swarski scope, and a ruger 10/22. Now the value of those guns is around $6000+. The company will only pay you $2500 or what ever it states on the policy. Minus the deductible. So what the article advised was to put a rider or floater on your home owners policy. Which you state the gun and value.....so the above example....SBE 2 $1600, Browning O/U $2000, Kimber w/scope $2500, ruger $150. So now if they get stolen, burned up in fire, etc you will get the stated value and what ever deductible you choose...which I would recommend is $0. The cost is roughly $10 per $1000 in value for your guns with the insurance companies i represent.

If they are going to try and raise your homeowners or renters policy i don't see how they can. Insurance is risk of certain insured perils. How does owning a gun increase the risk of fire, wind, lightning, theft, vadalism, smoke, riot or infestation (mice, insects, etc), etc.

If they are going to charge you for having a gun in your home for "health insurance"..... I don't see how they can. Again how does owning a gun increase your health risk. If they do they better start to charge for kitchen knives, owning car, baseball bats, etc.

If the Dem's or any other group trys this it shows how blinded they are or stupid. Because I gave you a prime example of what homeowners insurance covers or what they cover or why they cover it (perils). If they want to increase your liability exposure because of that....they will need data to prove the increase or that insurance companies are paying for the liability exposure. Which intentional acts are not covered by anyone over the age of 15 (could be older with other companies). Example of this is if your 10 year old shoots out the neighbors car window with a BB gun. Your home owners will pay for that window through liability section.

Again they better be able then to charge for other things that can do harm....like in another thread on this site it shows you how many people are killed with guns vs other objects (cars, hammers, clubs, knives, etc). So then the company can charge for them as well. Imagine the uproar that would happen or the outrage people would feel if this happens. But again it is risk that is out there. So again that is why i don't see Insurance going up because you own a gun.

*DISCLAIMER: EXAMPLES OF WHAT INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL PAY FOR ARE IN THE STATE OF MN. EVERY STATE HAS DIFFERENT LAWS SO PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR AGENT IF AN EXAMPLE PERTAINS TO YOU*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I seen an article on the Drudge Report two days ago. I don't see how homeowners has anything to do with health insurance so the only reason I can see Obama talking about it is if it had something to do with health.

As far as my coverage for firearms I already have $10K and they will have to get into one heck of a safe. I can see them dictating that you have to have a safe. I don't remember what state it is, but you have to pull the bolt from your firearm and store separately, and also store your ammo in a third place. Then they are talking about background checks to buy ammo. They are nuts. This has nothing to do with safety and is all about power.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I don't remember what state it is, but you have to pull the bolt from your firearm and store separately, and also store your ammo in a third place. Then they are talking about background checks to buy ammo. They are nuts. This has nothing to do with safety and is all about power.


I don't see how they can enforce your bolt out of your gun, ammo in a separate place thing can be enforced? They need probable cause to enter your home or a search warrant. Good luck with all of that. Like our law enforcement wants to deal with that.

The one thing I can see and would not mind have happen is that with your NIX (spelling) Check or the back ground check they do on firearm purchases is link in any mental health issues to be included in your background. Right now they are not. Example if you have been convicted of a felony or any assault charges it throws a red flag up on that check and will delay your purchase. Why not include if you are on any mental medicines or have been hospitalized for any mental issues to be apart of that check and that throws up a red flag and delay.

In todays society information can be shared and passed on very rapidly. Why not include those into that check. Put it all in a data base or join those two data bases. I mean it is not saying if someone was hospitalized for depression cant buy a gun. But it might take them a few days to get that gun. Once it has cleared. They just can't walk into a store and then an hour later walk out with it.

Will this stop big massacres like at the school .....probably not. Because he took his parents guns. But the guy in Colo. I can't remember if he had past mental issues. But if he did.....guess what those red flags could have possibly kept him from getting a gun. Who knows. Or a more familar example will it keep a guy down on his luck, feeling horrible, wife is thinking about leaving him and has been hospitalized for depression in the past has been prescribed depression medications. From going to a store and buying a gun then go kill himself or murder suicide. I see where this will all help.

Heck even most hand gun permits (MN purchase right to purchase permits) that law enforcement gives you don't check for mental health issues. It is all just criminal backgrounds. (this permit makes it so you don't have to wait. you can go into a store show that permit and walk out with a handgun)

But again.....this is the type of laws that need to be in place. Not get rid of guns or certain types of guns. Or fine people with guns.....increase insurance for people with guns....etc.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is another article slamming Obama Care and the mandate.....and it is coming from a Liberal!!!



> Whole Foods CEO calls Obamacare 'fascist'
> John Mackey originally called the health care mandate socialist. Both declarations bum out his liberal buyer base.
> By Jason Notte 22 hours ago
> 
> ...


----------

