It has taken me over a week to process the latest desecration of the United States Constitution promulgated by no other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts.
The Roberts Court I predict will go down as the most liberal Court in U.S. history.
And that's saying something.
Much has been made in the media of the decision reached by Justice Roberts on the most contentious provision contained within the 1,300 page "(Un)Affordable Care Act."
His holding in that respect defies any and all Rules of Law and the common law in this country, and wipes out any illusion that the Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual Americans from federal (OR STATE) overstep.
Upholding this provision was not only overstep, it was crushing the American people under federal jack boots.
Now the "talking heads" on the cable news networks, who make their profits over sensationalized news and cases such as this one they can milk for weeks and years to come, are arguing whether this mandate is a "tax" as Justice Roberts defined it (is this man insane, or what?) or a penalty.
From Websters:
Definition of PENALTY
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
-------------------------------------------------
It is, no question, a penalty and not a "tax," or within Congress or the Supreme Court's taxing authority under our Constitution or those founders intent.
But more importantly, just what was the purpose of Justice Roberts defining it in such a manner, since there did have to be an ulterior motive here with such an outrageous ruling.
Well, the Supreme Court has, for literally decades, refused to hear cases involving taxation due to a decision either it made independently, or after passage of another of those back door bills, that it will not hear any cases involving taxation.
Since, of course, the federal income tax itself and its passage was by no means a popular move by that Congress so very long ago...
As long as the Supreme Court defines it as such, it never, ever again has to re-examine its own ruling on this provision.
By its own edict...
In other words, Roberts both ruled it a tax, and then protected this Court (and any future Court also) from ever having to hear any more cases with respect to that provision in ObamaCare ever again.
I still haven't figured out how the Supreme Court has the power anywhere in the Constitution to refuse to hear any case brought by an American citizen, but it does so rather regularly.
This, in an of itself, is a demonstration of the high regard the Court holds for itself as the Court of last resort.
And it is still unclear to me just who the appealing parties were in this case, since it was announced that it was brought by several of the states (who also stand to gain revenue from this ruling, revenue which they can now use elsewhere in their states for more and more unconstitutional functions when they cut many of their also state funded programs).
From what I read in briefly having a chance to read the Supreme Court opinion in full before it was yanked from the web, it was brought by a "corporate" entity I had never heard of (and additional appellees).
This was not just a wacko ruling, it was a wacko ruling that had a further political purpose as its objective.
Which makes the Roberts Court one of the most liberal and political courts ever in this country.
I wonder just how much stock Justice Roberts has in the insurance and health care sector?
Since it is clear that most of those in Washington who hold all those insurance, hospital and pharma stocks will be making a killing on this ruling - and Mr. Romney is also no exception.
They all should be ashamed...as this provision actually was the most contentious, and yet most important provision within that 1,300 page bill.
Make no mistake about it....
It set a "precedent" like no other ruling before it...that the federal government's power is absolute with respect to using any means necessary to pass any old legislation it wishes...
And the first order of business in this country for any new Congress should be re-examining the law school curriculum in this country, particularly those Ivy League schools on the East Coast...
Since the amount they are charging for tuition for such a legal education as obviously Mr. Roberts must have received seems like highway robbery...or money down the drain.
I hope Mr. Roberts paid for that education, and not his parents...
And if the penalty was upheld as a tax, then it would stand to reason that the mandate to provide health insurance for individual Americans and that cost is also a tax, and all dollars paid by Americans for their own health care should then be fully deductible on their federal and state income taxes.
You can't have it both ways...
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
ObamaCare: The White Elephant Is Still In The Room
There has been much publicized in the mainstream media this weekend about the upcoming Supreme Court review of the controversial (and much contested) bill passed by the Obama Administration during the first year of his four year term in office.
Nothing much has changed.
The white elephant is still in the room...the United States Constitution.
This legislation not only flies in the face of that historic document and beacon of freedom in America.
It desecrates it.
Somehow, I find it rather odd that this legislation was passed at all. It also seems so very strange that it would be a black, "Constitutional" lawyer who would be behind this legislation, and his party "of the people."
Almost seems like it was ordained that way before the election was even held.
What better way to attempt to fool and re-educate the public that this bill will be one which the people will benefit, by a party supposedly known to be more representative of the people, than the Republicans - the party of corporate America.
Just who will benefit from this legislation....hmmm...
The medical community. The insurance and financial sector. The lawyers. The politicians.
The big four.
Who will be the victims?
The American public.
I listened today while some of those "political analysts" spoke of just how difficult this review would be, and how both sides can see it going either way. Using every tool in their arsenal in order to back up the positive merits of this legislation.
Which, way back when, was presented to the public with a carrot and stick.
The carrot? No insurer can refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions (no mention of any governmental regulation on just how MUCH those insurers then can charge individuals seeking insurance after a death sentence diagnosis, or chronic illness, or on the level of profits and money those insurers will be making hand over fist if Washington can shore up the "search and seizure" portions of the bill which enforcement of that individual mandate will involve).
Many of the Democrats and Republicans keep citing the "commerce clause" as being the fundamental linchpin in whether or not this legislation will eventually be deemed Constitutional.
Using past "judge made case law" as their argument as precedence.
I've got news for those media pundits, lawyers and others who continue to murky those waters.
The Commerce clause as it was written was intended to protect the individual Americans FROM the corporate, and protect state funded industries from "foreign" (outside the U.S.) or domestic (outside the state) undue competitition across state lines.
Meaning, it is the clause that gives Washington the power to "regulate" those insurance companies, huge medical clinics, and health care networks.
Problem is, due to all the monies Washington has poured into the "tech" industry, including medical technology, unfortunately the mindset seems to be that it is now the American people that will need to pay the piper for Washington's past largesse.
Since so many Americans are living longer (although those actuarial tables have changed little the past three decades) or due to the fact that there will be a larger aging public with the baby boomers, than there was with the World War II generation (if we all don't die from starvation, or homelessness first).
The Commerce clause gives Washington the power to "mandate" that Americans (individually) must purchase health insurance OR ELSE?
Hardly.
The insurance sector is also simply another branch of Wall Street and the financial sector. And many of those national insurance companies are not even domiciled in the United States, those "free trade" agreements have become so generous to foreign countries the past thirty years.
I see that individual mandate as one included in order to gradually phase out Medicare over time and turn the entire "life and death" decisions over to insurance companies (foreign or domestic).
Without having to give any of those monies the boomers, especially, have paid into that program over the years since 1964.
Another banner year in legislation.
While then also raising the Social Security age at the same time in order to marginalize as many of the boomers under those programs as possible.
My question, though, is this...
How in the world does Washington believe or expect that Americans, especially those over 40, who are now homeless AND jobless (due to the mortgage mess, and tax credits now given for hiring younger workers to those national corporations) will be able to afford to buy health insurance, no matter what the price.
When their unemployment is running out, and the job market shrinking (except those jobs which would be created by passing this legislation in the public sector (enforcement) and private sector (a few insurance agents, since most of those "cut rate" programs will be "buy online," without involvement of a human, I assure you).
Just how can Washington justify this legislation, given that in many states throughout the nation those older workers contributed to both the building, and budgets of those hospitals through their property taxes, and the tuition for those doctors through also those same property taxes at local universities?
Except, of course, for all those foreign doctors who are being trained in U.S. medical schools from India and South America, for lower wages for those corporate health care networks.
Will Washington be putting all those homeless and jobless Americans who do not or cannot comply with the mandate in the privatized state or federal jails, in order to at least make their revolt beneficial to another corporate campaign donor.
The White Elephant lives on...still.
If this law is upheld by some legal slight of hand by those black robed arbiters of Constitutional understanding (using case law, rather than intent, as their standard) - do Americans who have contributed to Medicare since 1964 get their money back so that they can pay those cut rate premiums? Or the Social Security that won't be collected by all those boomers who are not wealthy enough after this past ten year economic tsunami given to their next of kin as suvivor's benefits?
I hope that is also deliberated this week.
The "taking" of the cash for fraudulent purposes, without refund.
Nothing much has changed.
The white elephant is still in the room...the United States Constitution.
This legislation not only flies in the face of that historic document and beacon of freedom in America.
It desecrates it.
Somehow, I find it rather odd that this legislation was passed at all. It also seems so very strange that it would be a black, "Constitutional" lawyer who would be behind this legislation, and his party "of the people."
Almost seems like it was ordained that way before the election was even held.
What better way to attempt to fool and re-educate the public that this bill will be one which the people will benefit, by a party supposedly known to be more representative of the people, than the Republicans - the party of corporate America.
Just who will benefit from this legislation....hmmm...
The medical community. The insurance and financial sector. The lawyers. The politicians.
The big four.
Who will be the victims?
The American public.
I listened today while some of those "political analysts" spoke of just how difficult this review would be, and how both sides can see it going either way. Using every tool in their arsenal in order to back up the positive merits of this legislation.
Which, way back when, was presented to the public with a carrot and stick.
The carrot? No insurer can refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions (no mention of any governmental regulation on just how MUCH those insurers then can charge individuals seeking insurance after a death sentence diagnosis, or chronic illness, or on the level of profits and money those insurers will be making hand over fist if Washington can shore up the "search and seizure" portions of the bill which enforcement of that individual mandate will involve).
Many of the Democrats and Republicans keep citing the "commerce clause" as being the fundamental linchpin in whether or not this legislation will eventually be deemed Constitutional.
Using past "judge made case law" as their argument as precedence.
I've got news for those media pundits, lawyers and others who continue to murky those waters.
The Commerce clause as it was written was intended to protect the individual Americans FROM the corporate, and protect state funded industries from "foreign" (outside the U.S.) or domestic (outside the state) undue competitition across state lines.
Meaning, it is the clause that gives Washington the power to "regulate" those insurance companies, huge medical clinics, and health care networks.
Problem is, due to all the monies Washington has poured into the "tech" industry, including medical technology, unfortunately the mindset seems to be that it is now the American people that will need to pay the piper for Washington's past largesse.
Since so many Americans are living longer (although those actuarial tables have changed little the past three decades) or due to the fact that there will be a larger aging public with the baby boomers, than there was with the World War II generation (if we all don't die from starvation, or homelessness first).
The Commerce clause gives Washington the power to "mandate" that Americans (individually) must purchase health insurance OR ELSE?
Hardly.
The insurance sector is also simply another branch of Wall Street and the financial sector. And many of those national insurance companies are not even domiciled in the United States, those "free trade" agreements have become so generous to foreign countries the past thirty years.
I see that individual mandate as one included in order to gradually phase out Medicare over time and turn the entire "life and death" decisions over to insurance companies (foreign or domestic).
Without having to give any of those monies the boomers, especially, have paid into that program over the years since 1964.
Another banner year in legislation.
While then also raising the Social Security age at the same time in order to marginalize as many of the boomers under those programs as possible.
My question, though, is this...
How in the world does Washington believe or expect that Americans, especially those over 40, who are now homeless AND jobless (due to the mortgage mess, and tax credits now given for hiring younger workers to those national corporations) will be able to afford to buy health insurance, no matter what the price.
When their unemployment is running out, and the job market shrinking (except those jobs which would be created by passing this legislation in the public sector (enforcement) and private sector (a few insurance agents, since most of those "cut rate" programs will be "buy online," without involvement of a human, I assure you).
Just how can Washington justify this legislation, given that in many states throughout the nation those older workers contributed to both the building, and budgets of those hospitals through their property taxes, and the tuition for those doctors through also those same property taxes at local universities?
Except, of course, for all those foreign doctors who are being trained in U.S. medical schools from India and South America, for lower wages for those corporate health care networks.
Will Washington be putting all those homeless and jobless Americans who do not or cannot comply with the mandate in the privatized state or federal jails, in order to at least make their revolt beneficial to another corporate campaign donor.
The White Elephant lives on...still.
If this law is upheld by some legal slight of hand by those black robed arbiters of Constitutional understanding (using case law, rather than intent, as their standard) - do Americans who have contributed to Medicare since 1964 get their money back so that they can pay those cut rate premiums? Or the Social Security that won't be collected by all those boomers who are not wealthy enough after this past ten year economic tsunami given to their next of kin as suvivor's benefits?
I hope that is also deliberated this week.
The "taking" of the cash for fraudulent purposes, without refund.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Capitalizing on Gabby: Giffords Interview Poses Questions
As a former long term Arizonan of 45 years, I just could not bring myself to watch the entire much publicized interview with Gabrielle Giffords, the Congresswoman from Tucson who was shot ten long months ago by a gunman in a Tucson grocery store parking lot along with six others who perished in the incident.
Why?
It was far too personal, and painful for me personally...
Ms. Giffords was not my representative, but from a state that I hold dear to my heart and in which I grew up in long ago when times were different, and things were much simpler.
She, too, is a native and long term Arizonan from the second largest city in Arizona, in the still wild and wooly west (if you speak to any Easterner, that is, who has never been there for any length of time other than possibly for rehab).
I had seen snippets of the interview, which Diane Sawyer seemed to publicize on every ABC affiliated program and station in the nation the past several weeks.
Gabby is courageous, that much is evident.
And still very much healing...
What I found totally unbelieveable is that this interview comes on the heals of a book that she supposedly "wrote" with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly.
Ms. Giffords has come a long way, but is still having a great deal of trouble with her speech, although is remarkably improved from where she has been to where she is now. But capable of even corroborating on a book, while continuing her intensive therapy?
I highly doubt it.
Not to mention the fact that most of the entire segment seemed geared also toward extolling the virtues of the medical profession and her somewhat unusual therapy for her traumatic brain injuries at TIRR Medical Center in Houston, Texas (which also just so happens to be the home of her husband, a non-Arizonan).
In Ms. Giffords present condition, though again remarkable, I just wonder how much she understood and consented to this interview, given her still healing brain function, and seemed she was once again being used clearly for a political agenda.
It is, after all, less than a year until the next major election, and the Supreme Court today "advised" the public that it would be hearing the lawsuits which have occurred in light of the passage of ObamaCare, and that dreaded and unconstitutional "mandatory" provision contained within it.
Gaining public support and sympathy prior to the hearing of that case, seems to be also a focus of both the medical profession (who will benefit ultimately) and also the politicians who sold out the American people with the passage of that provision and those founding fathers.
Gabby Giffords did vote for that bill, although is receiving care that will and is far exceeding that which would be given to any "regular" American citizen under some of those "low cost" health care plans marketed through those "co-ops" Mr. Obama envisions.
And in states such as Arizona, most of the "native" citizens have been paying for many of those hospital research grants, and also operating costs through their state property taxes, in addition to the monies they contribute to their state through the income tax, and also at the federal levels.
Here's to Ms. Giffords full and complete recovery, whenever that may be...
But let's hope that Diane Sawyer, and those media types leave her alone until then...and the politicians, lawyers and the Supreme Court start arguing their case for ObamaCare on Constitutional grounds.
On which, there really aren't any...
Why?
It was far too personal, and painful for me personally...
Ms. Giffords was not my representative, but from a state that I hold dear to my heart and in which I grew up in long ago when times were different, and things were much simpler.
She, too, is a native and long term Arizonan from the second largest city in Arizona, in the still wild and wooly west (if you speak to any Easterner, that is, who has never been there for any length of time other than possibly for rehab).
I had seen snippets of the interview, which Diane Sawyer seemed to publicize on every ABC affiliated program and station in the nation the past several weeks.
Gabby is courageous, that much is evident.
And still very much healing...
What I found totally unbelieveable is that this interview comes on the heals of a book that she supposedly "wrote" with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly.
Ms. Giffords has come a long way, but is still having a great deal of trouble with her speech, although is remarkably improved from where she has been to where she is now. But capable of even corroborating on a book, while continuing her intensive therapy?
I highly doubt it.
Not to mention the fact that most of the entire segment seemed geared also toward extolling the virtues of the medical profession and her somewhat unusual therapy for her traumatic brain injuries at TIRR Medical Center in Houston, Texas (which also just so happens to be the home of her husband, a non-Arizonan).
In Ms. Giffords present condition, though again remarkable, I just wonder how much she understood and consented to this interview, given her still healing brain function, and seemed she was once again being used clearly for a political agenda.
It is, after all, less than a year until the next major election, and the Supreme Court today "advised" the public that it would be hearing the lawsuits which have occurred in light of the passage of ObamaCare, and that dreaded and unconstitutional "mandatory" provision contained within it.
Gaining public support and sympathy prior to the hearing of that case, seems to be also a focus of both the medical profession (who will benefit ultimately) and also the politicians who sold out the American people with the passage of that provision and those founding fathers.
Gabby Giffords did vote for that bill, although is receiving care that will and is far exceeding that which would be given to any "regular" American citizen under some of those "low cost" health care plans marketed through those "co-ops" Mr. Obama envisions.
And in states such as Arizona, most of the "native" citizens have been paying for many of those hospital research grants, and also operating costs through their state property taxes, in addition to the monies they contribute to their state through the income tax, and also at the federal levels.
Here's to Ms. Giffords full and complete recovery, whenever that may be...
But let's hope that Diane Sawyer, and those media types leave her alone until then...and the politicians, lawyers and the Supreme Court start arguing their case for ObamaCare on Constitutional grounds.
On which, there really aren't any...
Friday, November 5, 2010
Posturing Republicans To Reverse Obamacare?
On the "high" tide of the Republican victory re-establishing themselves as the voice of the House (and, by inference, then the people although clearly those corporate special interests rather that financed that Citizens United case), it was declared that the first order of business would be to reverse that monumental Constitutional faux pas of the Democratic controlled Congress, Obamacare.
Right.
And bite the hand that actually feeds them?
Although only two Senators "officially" voted for Obamacare in order to get it through and made into "law," clearly that political move was seen by most Independents, and the non-corporate affiliated Tea Party members even for what it was.
Pure politics.
After all, Nixon was sitting in the Oval Office when the disastrous HMO concept was hatched in order to purportedly save the American people a bundle on both their insurance costs, and their out of pocket health care costs.
That, of course, didn't happen.
Instead, there is now a chain of command and numerous individuals who get a part of those insurance proceeds before you even get a diagnosis, in many cases, or treated for the malady that ails you in most of those "clinics."
With the staff of those clinics now also billing according to the amount of time each doctor spends with you, and also for filling out all those lengthy and numerous now insurance forms.
Instead of one, they now get to bill for three or four for your average physical.
Obamacare simply has increased the "corporate" control over patient care, and also the eventual costs to the public when those that are now homeless and jobless cannot pay for those even "cut rate" co-op plans that were put forth as bait in order to simply quell the outraged public and masses.
Those global and national "chains" of hospitals and health care providers have been given carte blanche over the American people's future health, especially the upcoming boomer generation, again without even a minimum of oversight or regulation other than a few "foreign" lackeys in Washington and "yes men," for their administrative decisions depending on their occupancy, budgets, and shareholders needed profit margins.
There definitely was a reason that "privatized" hospitals also were not the intent of those founders, but state and county hospitals and faith based primarily donor supported facilities.
Lower costs overall, since no shareholder profits or "advertising" expenses were needed in those budgets. And those expenses add plenty to that final bill.
And not to be a doom and gloom pessimist, but having recently experienced a three year ordeal in just how progressive and major illnesses are now treated under Medicare, can only wonder just what "cut rate" health care for the boomers will be like.
I mean, we have stepped up these death row executions within the past few years in most states throughout the nation, testing all those new lethal injection drugs on those prisoners as was recently done in Arizona using a British made drug that has been in use in this country since the 1920's (sodium pentathol), but somehow during that highly publicized event, we were "out?"
Those DNR forms also are getting attached to most admissions forms upon emergency treatment when Americans reach a certain age, so I wonder just what will happen if some of those mega-health care providers need that bed instead for a lucrative, elective plastic surgery?
And most of the boomer generation have paid far longer, and much more than the previous generations for the building of those hospitals and clinics, in both the state and federal grant monies extended to them for their building, operating and research costs through both their "income" taxes, and also their state property taxes in most states throughout the nation.
It was interesting to note a recent article that even some of the faith based hospitals are excited about ObamaCare, since it makes the value of those hospitals, built with public donations mind you, so much more valuable for them to sell to the highest "global" bidder.
Doctors are now performing for many procedures, assembly line operations for heart disease and other common degenerative diseases due to age, six and seven before even lunch.
Between ObamaCare, that carbon tax, and the foreclosure mess the Republicans certainly won't have to concern themselves much with their platform positions on the "death tax."
The boomers won't have anything left at all, when they face those DNR forms.
And this particular generation may have the shortest life span of all, for those "global" profits.
And AARP its lowest membership in their decades long history also progressively.
No wonder they start sending out those enrollment forms at 50.
Right.
And bite the hand that actually feeds them?
Although only two Senators "officially" voted for Obamacare in order to get it through and made into "law," clearly that political move was seen by most Independents, and the non-corporate affiliated Tea Party members even for what it was.
Pure politics.
After all, Nixon was sitting in the Oval Office when the disastrous HMO concept was hatched in order to purportedly save the American people a bundle on both their insurance costs, and their out of pocket health care costs.
That, of course, didn't happen.
Instead, there is now a chain of command and numerous individuals who get a part of those insurance proceeds before you even get a diagnosis, in many cases, or treated for the malady that ails you in most of those "clinics."
With the staff of those clinics now also billing according to the amount of time each doctor spends with you, and also for filling out all those lengthy and numerous now insurance forms.
Instead of one, they now get to bill for three or four for your average physical.
Obamacare simply has increased the "corporate" control over patient care, and also the eventual costs to the public when those that are now homeless and jobless cannot pay for those even "cut rate" co-op plans that were put forth as bait in order to simply quell the outraged public and masses.
Those global and national "chains" of hospitals and health care providers have been given carte blanche over the American people's future health, especially the upcoming boomer generation, again without even a minimum of oversight or regulation other than a few "foreign" lackeys in Washington and "yes men," for their administrative decisions depending on their occupancy, budgets, and shareholders needed profit margins.
There definitely was a reason that "privatized" hospitals also were not the intent of those founders, but state and county hospitals and faith based primarily donor supported facilities.
Lower costs overall, since no shareholder profits or "advertising" expenses were needed in those budgets. And those expenses add plenty to that final bill.
And not to be a doom and gloom pessimist, but having recently experienced a three year ordeal in just how progressive and major illnesses are now treated under Medicare, can only wonder just what "cut rate" health care for the boomers will be like.
I mean, we have stepped up these death row executions within the past few years in most states throughout the nation, testing all those new lethal injection drugs on those prisoners as was recently done in Arizona using a British made drug that has been in use in this country since the 1920's (sodium pentathol), but somehow during that highly publicized event, we were "out?"
Those DNR forms also are getting attached to most admissions forms upon emergency treatment when Americans reach a certain age, so I wonder just what will happen if some of those mega-health care providers need that bed instead for a lucrative, elective plastic surgery?
And most of the boomer generation have paid far longer, and much more than the previous generations for the building of those hospitals and clinics, in both the state and federal grant monies extended to them for their building, operating and research costs through both their "income" taxes, and also their state property taxes in most states throughout the nation.
It was interesting to note a recent article that even some of the faith based hospitals are excited about ObamaCare, since it makes the value of those hospitals, built with public donations mind you, so much more valuable for them to sell to the highest "global" bidder.
Doctors are now performing for many procedures, assembly line operations for heart disease and other common degenerative diseases due to age, six and seven before even lunch.
Between ObamaCare, that carbon tax, and the foreclosure mess the Republicans certainly won't have to concern themselves much with their platform positions on the "death tax."
The boomers won't have anything left at all, when they face those DNR forms.
And this particular generation may have the shortest life span of all, for those "global" profits.
And AARP its lowest membership in their decades long history also progressively.
No wonder they start sending out those enrollment forms at 50.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Obama On Road Trips For DNC?
Apparently, post the Obamanation of the Health Care Deform Act and fallout which has and continues to occur over that massive Constitutional violation of the citizenry in their Bill of Rights protections against "mandatory" laws such as the provisions in this one provides, Mr. Obama is hitting the road again on one of his many road trips in order to sell his deformed version of health care reform, and protect the careers of his fellow political party members.
It was announced by the APP that Mr. Obama is now sweeping the country holding meetings with small businesses in order to point out the benefits of this latest travesty on our Constitution, stopping for a weekend meet and greet on behalf of the DNC for his political parties benefit.
Apparently, using time as President in order to campaign and meet with his political parties corporate organization on behalf of his parties membership is not precluded while serving in office.
He is paid more than a full time salary, after all, especially with all those benefits, not a part-time one.
Although the DNC I would assume is picking up the costs for Mr. Obama's travel expenses, he is campaigning on their behalf at the expense of all the American people, however, Republicans, Democrats or Independents, since he is paid his salary from all those taxes which are collected from the American people and which it appears he and the 111th Congress don't feel is enough to sustain the federal trough.
Especially that House of Misrepresentatives, since the violations of the Senate, as representatives of the "states" interests, put them in conflict in many respects on Bill of Rights issues to begin with - since the state's interests many times can be diametrically opposed to those provisions also in the Bill of Rights for state revenue and gain at the cost of the general citizenry.
Such as what is increasingly occurring today. Corporate interests over American's "unalienable" rights progressively.
I hope those small business owners give him an earful, since this bill has absolutely no benefits to those owners in that piddly tax credit he is attempting to focus on if those employers will tow the federal government's line and provide health care benefits to their employees.
That credit is most likely less than it will be for the costs to provide those plans to their employees at their current levels.
And I wouldn't hesitate to guess, will be reduced over the course of years also if history is any indication of Washington's methods of bribery and extortion.
Which costs were what the problem was to begin with actually, which has been lost in the "process" and politicking.
Right now small businesses, and all businesses, get to deduct the costs of any health care insurance premiums from their overhead, thus inherently reduce their tax burdens in the process.
What should have happened is that the American public and sole proprietors should also be afforded that "privilege" and immunity, and all Americans should be able to deduct the expense of any monies spent on their medical care. Whether it be by insurance premiums and their costs, or directly to those physicans and hospitals for the amounts of those deductibles and uncovered expenses.
If you are placing a tax on labor illegally as that 16th Amendment provides, then any and all expenses in order to stay and remain productive throughout your lifetime in any way absent death, should be tax deductible.
I mean an elderly person in a nursing home until their last moment of life is still productive, in even educating their nearest and dearest in family history, if nothing else.
Work doesn't always equal compensation, in God's definition, since his Son carried out his work without monetary compensation whatsoever, for the most part.
It's apparent those in Washington have either entirely too much time on their hands for all the bogus legislation which now is coming down the pike, some of which even overlapping existing legislation in many respects, or have lost their ways on what their true priorities should be.
And do seem to have forgotten that their primary purposes are delineated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Give him an earful, small business owners.
And ask for the breakdown of all the expenses and hours expended on behalf of the Democratic Party, which are also being billed to the taxpayers ultimately, rather than being at his desk according to the federal holiday schedule for the Easter break and holiday.
Since it seems he started his vacation a little early in order to stump on behalf of his political party honchos and constituents now doing damage control for them, the DNC, and why he now deigns to meet with you "non-stakeholders" at all.
And this goes for all those U.S. Senators and Congressmen now attempting to do use this deform bill also as a political tool and campaign issue.
Since just where were all of them when this legislation was being hatched behind those closed doors, rather than filing the criminal charges and directing that Sargeant at Arms to earn his pay by arresting those who were behind this heinous legislation in its current form which is clearly contrary to the provisions of America's actual law, the Constitution?
Drawing their straws, or speed dialing their marketing and political strategists ala Karl Rove (also paid at the taxpayer's expense) for their own personal damage control marketing strategies?
I wonder where this country would have been if Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln had political strategist or media marketing representatives?
Perish the thought.
Oh, wait. Isn't that where we are?
It was announced by the APP that Mr. Obama is now sweeping the country holding meetings with small businesses in order to point out the benefits of this latest travesty on our Constitution, stopping for a weekend meet and greet on behalf of the DNC for his political parties benefit.
Apparently, using time as President in order to campaign and meet with his political parties corporate organization on behalf of his parties membership is not precluded while serving in office.
He is paid more than a full time salary, after all, especially with all those benefits, not a part-time one.
Although the DNC I would assume is picking up the costs for Mr. Obama's travel expenses, he is campaigning on their behalf at the expense of all the American people, however, Republicans, Democrats or Independents, since he is paid his salary from all those taxes which are collected from the American people and which it appears he and the 111th Congress don't feel is enough to sustain the federal trough.
Especially that House of Misrepresentatives, since the violations of the Senate, as representatives of the "states" interests, put them in conflict in many respects on Bill of Rights issues to begin with - since the state's interests many times can be diametrically opposed to those provisions also in the Bill of Rights for state revenue and gain at the cost of the general citizenry.
Such as what is increasingly occurring today. Corporate interests over American's "unalienable" rights progressively.
I hope those small business owners give him an earful, since this bill has absolutely no benefits to those owners in that piddly tax credit he is attempting to focus on if those employers will tow the federal government's line and provide health care benefits to their employees.
That credit is most likely less than it will be for the costs to provide those plans to their employees at their current levels.
And I wouldn't hesitate to guess, will be reduced over the course of years also if history is any indication of Washington's methods of bribery and extortion.
Which costs were what the problem was to begin with actually, which has been lost in the "process" and politicking.
Right now small businesses, and all businesses, get to deduct the costs of any health care insurance premiums from their overhead, thus inherently reduce their tax burdens in the process.
What should have happened is that the American public and sole proprietors should also be afforded that "privilege" and immunity, and all Americans should be able to deduct the expense of any monies spent on their medical care. Whether it be by insurance premiums and their costs, or directly to those physicans and hospitals for the amounts of those deductibles and uncovered expenses.
If you are placing a tax on labor illegally as that 16th Amendment provides, then any and all expenses in order to stay and remain productive throughout your lifetime in any way absent death, should be tax deductible.
I mean an elderly person in a nursing home until their last moment of life is still productive, in even educating their nearest and dearest in family history, if nothing else.
Work doesn't always equal compensation, in God's definition, since his Son carried out his work without monetary compensation whatsoever, for the most part.
It's apparent those in Washington have either entirely too much time on their hands for all the bogus legislation which now is coming down the pike, some of which even overlapping existing legislation in many respects, or have lost their ways on what their true priorities should be.
And do seem to have forgotten that their primary purposes are delineated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Give him an earful, small business owners.
And ask for the breakdown of all the expenses and hours expended on behalf of the Democratic Party, which are also being billed to the taxpayers ultimately, rather than being at his desk according to the federal holiday schedule for the Easter break and holiday.
Since it seems he started his vacation a little early in order to stump on behalf of his political party honchos and constituents now doing damage control for them, the DNC, and why he now deigns to meet with you "non-stakeholders" at all.
And this goes for all those U.S. Senators and Congressmen now attempting to do use this deform bill also as a political tool and campaign issue.
Since just where were all of them when this legislation was being hatched behind those closed doors, rather than filing the criminal charges and directing that Sargeant at Arms to earn his pay by arresting those who were behind this heinous legislation in its current form which is clearly contrary to the provisions of America's actual law, the Constitution?
Drawing their straws, or speed dialing their marketing and political strategists ala Karl Rove (also paid at the taxpayer's expense) for their own personal damage control marketing strategies?
I wonder where this country would have been if Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln had political strategist or media marketing representatives?
Perish the thought.
Oh, wait. Isn't that where we are?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
ObamaCare: The Snake In The Grass Rears Its Ugly Head
In listening to Barack Obama's Western "Sell ObamaCare" tour, as a child of the 1950's and 1960's, the only impression that I had listening to a small fraction of his hard sell spiel in the various Western states on this ludicrous legislation in its current form is to that of the old Al Wilson song, "The Snake" ("Take me in, tender woman....take me in for goodness sake").
Since the lyrics are copyrighted but are on the internet for "educational purposes," I'll leave it to the reader to do that research on their own.
The most egregious portion of this legislation actually is one that has not been brought up in any significant manner whatsoever during the public townhalls that Congressional members have been conducting across the nation in order to also propagandize the entire unconstitutional focus of this legislation and Washington power move.
And according to the 9th Amendment, would appear to undertake such an action at all would take a formal amendment of the Constitution, with the "consent of the governed," given voice and vote as not at all within the parameters of Washington's enumerated powers even in light of the abridgements which resulted in both Franklin's New Deal with respect to Social Security, and many other power moves since then in violation of it.
Social Security, after all, was original presented to the public as a "temporary" measure due to World War II, and also was to provide for orphans, widows, children and the affirmed most of all from that war. And ease this country back also from the stock market crash and depression which preceded it after World War I.
And there were at that time lids on eligibility as understanding that those that had profited then from those wars, should help pay the costs in both blood and treasure that were the result as a Godly nation. Of course, those wars too were manipulated for bank profits also most of all and debts from World War I actually also lead to World War II.
Right now there does exist in all 50 states already catastrophic coverage for all citizens who are either unable to afford private health care coverage, or are uninsurable for any reason. So in effect all this is really is another method in order to centralize more and more power in Washington, and less and less local accountability to state citizens in the process and gain more revenue for the states for discretionary purposes - along with the corporate entities that will also profit.
Within the stimulus and tied into this legislation is the establishment of a National Health Care Database using Bill Gate's technology and college grant monies to students in order to input all Americans health records into a "Big Brother" database.
If you think straightening out your credit report is next to impossible when it is inaccurate or there has been any "identity theft," just imagine the potential for error or mistaken identity on a national database of your personal medical information. Or that such a database in the future could be used against you for future unrelated reasons.
You think this is Obama's definition of "scare tactics?"
If history serves and never more so than in recent history, the "rights" of the public and citizens under our Bill of Rights is not at all recognized by either the legislative officials at federal or state levels even, nor the judiciary. Rather, the new buzzwords in order to deny or disparage those rights have been "in the interests of public safety" or "state interests."
In other words, the "corporate" not "individual" rights at all.
Just imagine how those corporate lobbyists will eventually gain access to those records under progressive legislation in order to deny employment to those with chronic (although not work related) health conditions such as AIDs, HIV, asthma, heart murmur, previous cancer treatments, addiction counseling, etc.
Just imagine how lawyers special interest groups, one of the most active group of lobbyists bar none for their welfare, can then also eventually gain access to those records without warrants or subpoenas for civil or criminal actions.
Just where is the supposed largest "civil rights" organization, the ACLU right now? Probably helping the lawyers write this 1,000 for their eventual "corporate" welfare. I wonder how much the taxpayers costs will increase now also in order to handle all these potential civil rights abridgement cases once that behemoth database and its bugs start to rear their ugly head in denied coverages, loss of life, etc.
Those costs are nowhere in the economic projections that I can determine.
What Mr. Obama is clearly asking is the American people to deny history.
What happened when so many Americans were the victims of the abusive practices of the IRS in their out of control pursuit of Americans for past due taxes, even for sums that were not taxes at all but simply agency determined interest or penalties?
Washington merely created another "agency" called the Taxpayer Advocacy Office that is nothing more than another branch of the federal government and also a benefactor of tax collection. It did not provide adequate oversight or regulation of the IRS in any manner whatsoever, even though there is much debate to this day about the 16th Amendment and how it was ratified "without the consent of the governed" for taxation of the people's income and diametrically opposed to the founder's intent for taxation in this nation.
Skirting around in providing that these extra taxes would be technically indirect taxation through corporate employers doesn't erase the inherent Constitutional violation such legislation entails. It is not within the original parameters of the Constitution, and is a seizure of wages (property) for governmental purposes most of all at its most basic level transferring the fruits of their labor back to Washington's "sovereign" governmental contractors and "approved" providers. And violative of the Bill of Rights with respect to even religious provisions for many, not to mention "search and seizure" of personal and private records by federal personnel without any recourse for misuse or access with respect to that federal database.
What did Washington do after all the complaints of citizens on the practices of collection agencies and the credit reporting bureaus in their unregulated practices?
Simply provide legislation that allows citizens to file a two sentence "dispute" of items contained in the report, which are sent to the reporting agency for their "version," which for all intents and purposes was no solution at all. Especially against the agencies which rebundled debts and continued to attempt to collect even on satisfied principal balances attempting to then gain more sums each time those debts were resold for their own profit.
Obama is attempting to actually reassure a younger generation that does not remember that Washington's word with respect to legislation such as ObamaCare and a host of others has been about as trustworthy as The Snake's.
Case in point: the foreclosure "rescue" which already has proved it was more for the banks and lenders, than the defrauded homeowners who are being stalled while collecting all those bogus fees included in those contracts and even more for the services of mortgage advisors and "new" appraisals, prior to carrying out those eventual foreclosures in order for the banks and realtors to get most of those properties on the cheap in order to flip for their profits.
So next time the Snake charmers come to your town, or Mr. Obama makes another of his folksy speeches, our younger generation might remember the addage that was the battle call of their parents generation upon which Mr. Wilson's song actually was based and had political ramifications for many.
The "Don't Trust Anyone Over 35 Mantra" was directly related to politicians and politicos during that era of the first true pre-emptive war. It might be expanded to now include politicians that use scare and terrorism tactics themselves in order to forment their political agendas.
The history in this country which has brought us to where we are now with respect to health care provision, is like the story of The Snake, proves that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It has been "progressive" power moves and Constitutional violations that have created this "crisis," after all.
Silly woman.
Since the lyrics are copyrighted but are on the internet for "educational purposes," I'll leave it to the reader to do that research on their own.
The most egregious portion of this legislation actually is one that has not been brought up in any significant manner whatsoever during the public townhalls that Congressional members have been conducting across the nation in order to also propagandize the entire unconstitutional focus of this legislation and Washington power move.
And according to the 9th Amendment, would appear to undertake such an action at all would take a formal amendment of the Constitution, with the "consent of the governed," given voice and vote as not at all within the parameters of Washington's enumerated powers even in light of the abridgements which resulted in both Franklin's New Deal with respect to Social Security, and many other power moves since then in violation of it.
Social Security, after all, was original presented to the public as a "temporary" measure due to World War II, and also was to provide for orphans, widows, children and the affirmed most of all from that war. And ease this country back also from the stock market crash and depression which preceded it after World War I.
And there were at that time lids on eligibility as understanding that those that had profited then from those wars, should help pay the costs in both blood and treasure that were the result as a Godly nation. Of course, those wars too were manipulated for bank profits also most of all and debts from World War I actually also lead to World War II.
Right now there does exist in all 50 states already catastrophic coverage for all citizens who are either unable to afford private health care coverage, or are uninsurable for any reason. So in effect all this is really is another method in order to centralize more and more power in Washington, and less and less local accountability to state citizens in the process and gain more revenue for the states for discretionary purposes - along with the corporate entities that will also profit.
Within the stimulus and tied into this legislation is the establishment of a National Health Care Database using Bill Gate's technology and college grant monies to students in order to input all Americans health records into a "Big Brother" database.
If you think straightening out your credit report is next to impossible when it is inaccurate or there has been any "identity theft," just imagine the potential for error or mistaken identity on a national database of your personal medical information. Or that such a database in the future could be used against you for future unrelated reasons.
You think this is Obama's definition of "scare tactics?"
If history serves and never more so than in recent history, the "rights" of the public and citizens under our Bill of Rights is not at all recognized by either the legislative officials at federal or state levels even, nor the judiciary. Rather, the new buzzwords in order to deny or disparage those rights have been "in the interests of public safety" or "state interests."
In other words, the "corporate" not "individual" rights at all.
Just imagine how those corporate lobbyists will eventually gain access to those records under progressive legislation in order to deny employment to those with chronic (although not work related) health conditions such as AIDs, HIV, asthma, heart murmur, previous cancer treatments, addiction counseling, etc.
Just imagine how lawyers special interest groups, one of the most active group of lobbyists bar none for their welfare, can then also eventually gain access to those records without warrants or subpoenas for civil or criminal actions.
Just where is the supposed largest "civil rights" organization, the ACLU right now? Probably helping the lawyers write this 1,000 for their eventual "corporate" welfare. I wonder how much the taxpayers costs will increase now also in order to handle all these potential civil rights abridgement cases once that behemoth database and its bugs start to rear their ugly head in denied coverages, loss of life, etc.
Those costs are nowhere in the economic projections that I can determine.
What Mr. Obama is clearly asking is the American people to deny history.
What happened when so many Americans were the victims of the abusive practices of the IRS in their out of control pursuit of Americans for past due taxes, even for sums that were not taxes at all but simply agency determined interest or penalties?
Washington merely created another "agency" called the Taxpayer Advocacy Office that is nothing more than another branch of the federal government and also a benefactor of tax collection. It did not provide adequate oversight or regulation of the IRS in any manner whatsoever, even though there is much debate to this day about the 16th Amendment and how it was ratified "without the consent of the governed" for taxation of the people's income and diametrically opposed to the founder's intent for taxation in this nation.
Skirting around in providing that these extra taxes would be technically indirect taxation through corporate employers doesn't erase the inherent Constitutional violation such legislation entails. It is not within the original parameters of the Constitution, and is a seizure of wages (property) for governmental purposes most of all at its most basic level transferring the fruits of their labor back to Washington's "sovereign" governmental contractors and "approved" providers. And violative of the Bill of Rights with respect to even religious provisions for many, not to mention "search and seizure" of personal and private records by federal personnel without any recourse for misuse or access with respect to that federal database.
What did Washington do after all the complaints of citizens on the practices of collection agencies and the credit reporting bureaus in their unregulated practices?
Simply provide legislation that allows citizens to file a two sentence "dispute" of items contained in the report, which are sent to the reporting agency for their "version," which for all intents and purposes was no solution at all. Especially against the agencies which rebundled debts and continued to attempt to collect even on satisfied principal balances attempting to then gain more sums each time those debts were resold for their own profit.
Obama is attempting to actually reassure a younger generation that does not remember that Washington's word with respect to legislation such as ObamaCare and a host of others has been about as trustworthy as The Snake's.
Case in point: the foreclosure "rescue" which already has proved it was more for the banks and lenders, than the defrauded homeowners who are being stalled while collecting all those bogus fees included in those contracts and even more for the services of mortgage advisors and "new" appraisals, prior to carrying out those eventual foreclosures in order for the banks and realtors to get most of those properties on the cheap in order to flip for their profits.
So next time the Snake charmers come to your town, or Mr. Obama makes another of his folksy speeches, our younger generation might remember the addage that was the battle call of their parents generation upon which Mr. Wilson's song actually was based and had political ramifications for many.
The "Don't Trust Anyone Over 35 Mantra" was directly related to politicians and politicos during that era of the first true pre-emptive war. It might be expanded to now include politicians that use scare and terrorism tactics themselves in order to forment their political agendas.
The history in this country which has brought us to where we are now with respect to health care provision, is like the story of The Snake, proves that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It has been "progressive" power moves and Constitutional violations that have created this "crisis," after all.
Silly woman.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
AARP: Voice Of Seniors, Or Senior Commecial Providers?
For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:
It has been interesting to note just how much press has been give in the health care reform nightmare in mentioning that the needs of senior citizens are being addressed in that one of the groups that Obama and this Congress has included is the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons).
Years and years ago, AARP was formed in order to be an organization primarily in order to address any and all legislation with respect to senior Americans as a resource site and public forum for senior concerns.
However, that has not been the case now for several decades, and is now more of a trade group of vendors which market their wares through AARP offering discounted rates for their services.
Hence, AARP is one of the largest sellers of supplemental insurance plans now marketed to senior citizens since the advent of medicare and medicaid under those governmental bare bones health care plans. And thus would be fundamentally supportive of any legislation in the government retaining or gaining more profit or control in and of the health care industry and representing its various vendors and not senior citizens at all in that respect. Most of those supplemental plans never do have to provide for any costs of care, since right now under medicare the government has the say as the primary care provider, and most of those supplements now are merely backups which are no backups at all when it comes to the more expensive treatments which are needed for heart conditions or cancer, the two most common diseases which occur to citizens in late middle or older age.
You do need to pay for their membership fees for those discounts, so in affect it is a commercial organization marketing to seniors, not a representative of them.
So the media's use of this organization also in order to foster some sort of false legitimacy that Washington is taking into consideration this legislation from a citizen and consumer standpoint is again mere propaganda
It has been interesting to note just how much press has been give in the health care reform nightmare in mentioning that the needs of senior citizens are being addressed in that one of the groups that Obama and this Congress has included is the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons).
Years and years ago, AARP was formed in order to be an organization primarily in order to address any and all legislation with respect to senior Americans as a resource site and public forum for senior concerns.
However, that has not been the case now for several decades, and is now more of a trade group of vendors which market their wares through AARP offering discounted rates for their services.
Hence, AARP is one of the largest sellers of supplemental insurance plans now marketed to senior citizens since the advent of medicare and medicaid under those governmental bare bones health care plans. And thus would be fundamentally supportive of any legislation in the government retaining or gaining more profit or control in and of the health care industry and representing its various vendors and not senior citizens at all in that respect. Most of those supplemental plans never do have to provide for any costs of care, since right now under medicare the government has the say as the primary care provider, and most of those supplements now are merely backups which are no backups at all when it comes to the more expensive treatments which are needed for heart conditions or cancer, the two most common diseases which occur to citizens in late middle or older age.
You do need to pay for their membership fees for those discounts, so in affect it is a commercial organization marketing to seniors, not a representative of them.
So the media's use of this organization also in order to foster some sort of false legitimacy that Washington is taking into consideration this legislation from a citizen and consumer standpoint is again mere propaganda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
