It sounds like you are one of the few lucky ones. Here are several states and the percentage increases. Oklahoma up as much as 76% among other states that have at least 30% increases in one year. http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-price-increases-2017-states/
My SIL's company pays his, but they have to buy her and the kids. I'm guessing whatever insurance they get for her and the girls is the big jump. On the other hand, my wife and i's company provided has increased modestly.
The best ACA Gold plan in Colorado costs $1,237.84 a month for a family of four. - - - Updated - - - Interestingly, the Framers felt differently. In the Militia Act of 1792 every able bodied male 18-45 was required to belong to the militia and to provide their own rifle or musket along with a basic load of powder and ball. The OP is similar in its requirements.
My premium actually went down, making my policy even more affordable. I have my own small biz and the ACA has allowed me to get affordable insurance without being beholden to a corporation. The ACA is great, we will see how bad the GOP screws us.
And there are more affordable plans out there. There are also plans that work on a sliding scale according to your income. - - - Updated - - - Times were a lot different in 1792. I am pro rights, and no the government cannot force me to be with or without a weapon. That is MY choice.
They certainly seemed to be able to force you to have health insurance or pay a tax. That's exactly what the OP is proposing.
What happens when I turn 55? Does somebody show up to confiscate my guns? Tick tock. I turn 50 in 3 weeks.
Nothing like this is included in the OP. It's your gun - why would you have to give it up? - - - Updated - - - Pity, that.
I just wanted to make sure that being in the militia was not what guaranteed my right to gun ownership. I would exempt anybody from mandatory training or fines if they serve in the active duty military for at least 4 years, but I'm still not sure about the "program" yet. What about women or men with disabilities? A guy in a wheelchair because of a car accident doesn't lose his 2A rights, but can't serve in a militia either, unless he has enough skills to serve behind the lines.
Authoritarians are more a threat to liberty than gun-banners ever were. While I support the idea of a more well-regulated militia, and I support the idea of government sponsorship towards that end, I must vote "no" on the idea of any more participation-or-punishment programs, such as you have proposed here. There should always be the option to dissent and abstain without an imposed penalty.
Of course not. There's nothing that even remotely implies such a thing in the OP. Something could be added to that effect - a post-duty grace period, and any current active/reserve/NG service are exempt Able bodies only. Others exempt, if they so choose.
What if an individual can legally own such a firearm, but is economically disadvantaged in a way that renders them unable to afford the required rifle, the required amount of ammunition, and a method of safe storage? What if they can afford one but not the other two? What if they live in an apartment and cannot legally secure the safe storage option?
This is technically true. The federal government does not possess rights, but rather authority. And it has long established that it has the authority to dictate what you can and cannot do. The supreme court even ruled that government has the authority to penalize a farmer for growing wheat for his own private use, because that private use interfered with interstate commerce.
The tax penalty funds a subsidy to cover these things, not just the purchase of the rifle. As you are required to own a rifle and store it on the premises by federal law, state and local restrictions are overridden.
Bull. Apples and oranges comparison. - - - Updated - - - Anyways, this is an exercise in futility because it's never going to happen.
And who is the largest proponent of individuals being in the united states illegally, when their mere presence serves to create taxpayers getting shafted when people go to the emergency room to get treatment and have no insurance and don't pay their bills?
