Tis the Season: Beware of Parking Lot Predators

With the holiday season upon us with everyone rushing to and fro from one retail outlet to another, and especially with the insurance focus of this latest disaster of a bill feeding the health care industry and lobbyists (mostly lawyers) once again due to the length of the bill, and actually no real accountability measures in it for those supposed "regulatory" measures included in it, maybe some reminders of what "mandatory" insurance has wrecked (pun intended) since it was enacted also over heavy objections of the public years ago in creating a "job stimulus" for lawyers.

Recently, someone related a story to me of an incident that happened to them regarding a rear end collusion, and I had a similar situation occur to me also.

Apparently, what is going on is that there are many "employees" of the scores of personal injury lawyers in this country who set up victims of parking lot mishaps (on private property), and then use the "hit and run" laws in order to then make claims on the "victims" of their scams through their employer lawyers for accident claims - especially during the holiday season when so many are pre-occupied.

As one who worked in the legal profession, I do know that most insurance companies will not litigate claims such as these due to the expense involved and time and staff constraints, and usually will offer a settlement on the accident as a "nuisance" claim, no matter how many prior accidents the claimed "victim" has been involved in even in one year with almost identical circumstances prior to that time.

Now this does happen to the best of drivers really a great deal due to our hurried lifestyles now, and also especially during the holidays (and especially due to the many distractions now of cell phones, kids, the shear number of errands most of us run now in the course of a week, etc).

These are a little different though as most occur in retail parking lots with an abundance of cars anyway, and the claim goes on the record of the stooge, and their insurance then goes up, creating additional profits then for the insurance company for the next three years. Times that times the amount of accidents, and that is quite a profit for both the disreputable personal injury lawyers, their "employees," and also the insurance company - all at the true victims expense.

Usually picking an older vehicle maybe with a few dings on it to begin with, in order to bulk up their "case,"

And since so many are distracted and in a hurry now, few or absolutely no witnesses to what actually occurred.

So as a safety and budgetary precaution from two such victims (and this occurs much more in large or midsize metro areas), look twice before you back out in this holiday rush these last two days.

Because the next "victim" of one of the "job stimuluses" created by the mandatory insurance laws could be you.

Most insurance industry experts will tell you that accidents such as these go up during the holidays. In fact, due to distraction and rushing, this week is by far the greatest job stimulus for the health care and insurance industries - which is maybe why those "economic" forecasts are up for this upcoming quarter also.

And have those laws truly reduced the amount of local expenditures needed for judges, juries and the like?

Absolutely not, because at least with jury trials on those property damage claims, even for minor damages, formerly in small claims courts the costs were low, and then appeals for the major accidents or bodily injury claims were also reduced since no judge can re-examine any fact matter placed before a jury.

Interestingly enough also, these same personal injury lawyers in quite a few states now are allowed and do also own several "corporate" chiropractic clinics then, where they send their "clients" and then inflate those bills also which are billed for those claims from their "employee" doctors.

Or use their employee doctors then as expert witnesses then on personal injury cases at lowered rates without that "fact matter" being placed before juries - that many of those experts are actually employees of the lawyers involved in some of these cases now and not "independent" medical witnesses at all as also had been the case year ago in selection of experts for personal injury civil trials.

And due to most court rules in most states throughout the country, those predatory lawyers and their employees also know (as does the insurance industry lawyer also) that in any court proceeding, serial fender bender histories over the course of even a year with paid out damage awards granted and determined by the insurers, not by juries, are not allowed to be used as an evidence against these individuals.

Of course, the "stooge's" lawyers then can bring in their witnesses for rebuttal, but of course then the costs of those claims go up for that stooge and his insurance company, while the costs of the employee client's doctors are really no skin off the noses of those disreputable personal injury lawyers at all, as also actual employees of the "corporate" lawyers due to their practices true "ownership."

I suffered an injury upon a move up north, and had a flare up of the injury and went to seek a chiropractor in order to treat it, and was denied treatment at one of such clinics since I hadn't been referred to it by one of their "partner" personal injury lawyers, and did not treat the public, but only upon those referrals.

So this is also why your auto insurance rates are off the charts, and the same obviously will occur with a 2,000 page bill full of legalese, with no "teeth" on the industries whatsoever in accountability - while the IRS is busy collecting those fines on the small business owners, those denied insurance and self-employed mainly for which this bill does absolutely nothing to address in any truly accountable fashion.

Of course, actually this is a mere drop in the bucket really for the insurers after all, although no less of a "crime" and why there are more insurance lawyers also now than all of the European nations combined - just look at how many and how expensive all those lobbyists were for this new health care deform, and the campaigning that went on - and all with your premium dollars.

Using your dollars then in order to lobby for legislation to get even more is what is occurring, and selling their policies now not through marketing but through legislation in addition to lobbying to also reduce their risks and losses at both the state and federal levels such as the now "criminal" victimless low level DUIs at the level they are at this point in time - cough medicine or a puff on an inhaler will brand you as "under the influence."

What a racket.

So when Obama uses the mandatory insurance laws (which actually are not at all similar in any respect to this travesty of health care legislation and its "mandatory" unconstitutional also focus on the citizens, rather than the industry), just think now at 2,000 pages how bogged up our courts will become once again - and how this will in the end raise, not lower, both the taxes, and personal expenses and budgets of all Americans.

And quite possibly, create another job stimulus for the criminal element.

Obama Speak: Baucus Measures Not A Tax?

CNN today carried a report that Mr. Obama has stated that the new proposals for mandated health care coverage as proposed by Max Baucus (D-Mt) is "absolutely not a tax" on the middle class or American people.

I think, Mr. Obama, that Patrick Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and those other great framers and founders would dispute your claims. Since "mandating" a seizure of property (money) from the American people to buy a "product" which is what health care insurance actually is, is not within your powers or duties of office nor of the U.S. Congress.

Not without their express consent. Not simply political party publicity focused townhall meetings, not public opinion polls.

Mr. Obama attempted again to spin the measure likening it to mandatory auto insurance which is mandated by most states throughout the nation. Also which laws and statements were really a falsehood and those laws unconstitutional in and of themselves, since there are provisions also in many states that merely provide that you must show proof of financial responsibility in other forms, not mandatory insurance coverage at all.

And that coverage is, after all, determined correctly at the state level, not by federal mandates.

And is, after all, simply for any and all personal liability you might have which might damage the property or other automobile of another driver. And the laws also provide for alternate provisions than insurance, and without such alternatives also technically in violation of most state and the federal Constitution anyway and have made a great business for those professional auto wrecker criminals and their activities, many of whom are employed in the insurance industry themselves or their "preferred vendors", in the process.

And many Americans already, correctly so, dispute those laws on Constitutional grounds also.

Since the entire reason they were passed in the first place actually was in order to lessen the burden to the taxpayers also in the amount of small claims and fender bender property damage court actions that had progressively occurred as more and more Americans started owning automobiles.

And really was a gold mine for the auto insurance industries, and many state residents have been calling for long overdue reform in those laws also progressively, and regulation and accountability of those insurers whose premiums also have increased over and above the CPI levels for many who have never made even a claim, or have had substandard provision under those policy or contractual provisions "progressively" ever since gaining that access to the public's purse unconstitutionally during the last recession in the 70's.

Especially since many states then even took it one ludicrous step further and mandated that you now must have "uninsured" and "under-insured" coverage, which laws are definitely unconstitutional. Meaning you must carry coverage in order to protect yourselves from the damage or fault of another if they object to those laws or are uninsured for any reason.

And strangely enough, foreigners of course are not required to carry auto insurance in this country at all, which has resulted in the higher rates for citizens now in the borders states especially due to accidents caused by uninsured foreign visitors to those mostly tourism focused states, or the Mexican illegals crossing at will.

Since driving is a risk in and of itself, than what actually is lawful and legal in that respect is also making insurance a choice. If you have an expensive automobile than as a piece of property you can choose whether or not to insure that property for risk of loss. If it is damaged due to willful or deliberate negligence of another driver, than the courts are there for such reasons. The entire passage of mandatory insurance laws and that illegal move is now being used in order to somehow paint this Baucus measure as similiar, when it is fundamentally not.

And any such laws mandating the taking of an Americans property for corporate gain and welfare is actually a tax, so I hate to break it to Mr. Obama, but Harvard's law school curriculum at this point truly is suspect in its Constitutional Law courses. That much also is abundantly clear at this point.

Congress and the President have no such authority, period - all their representations to the citizens and public to the contrary. They work for the people, not the other way around, nor do the people work for the insurance industry in this country and their profits and gains at the public's ultimate expense.

What is within their authority is regulation and oversight of these massive global and national insurers. Not getting into bed with them, nor the also huge supplemental plan organizations such as AARP, which sell those policies that are nothing more than gravy for the insurance industries, since they rarely have to provide any benefits under them, using the primary care provider such as Medicare then as the heavy whenever treatments are denied, or the payment of benefits refused. It's all in that fine print.

So how Mr. Obama can NOT paint this as an additional tax on the middle class I haven't a clue. And his amazing oratory skills really are wearing thin on many in this respect and many others. We know a sales gimmick when we see it. The dumbing down of the populace has not reached those proportions quite yet.

The fact that this "proposal" came from a Senator from the State of Montana, a Western state also historically known for its conservatism in Bill of Rights protections and also less populated due to its expansive Western mountain ranges and areas, bespeaks also politically putting a public face on this unconstitutional legislation for public consumption which is, while not socialism that can be outrightly labeled as such in governmentally mandated and taxed provision, nothing more than "corporate" socialism masked as in the "public interest." Which it is not.

Since it is clear that there is a sizeable majority of Americans that see this for what it is. No reform. Simply feeding the insurers and industries once again at the public's ultimate expense since there is little, if any, regulatory or accountability measures included over those insurers and health care providers, or the financial sector and these Wall Street traders that own a great stake in these industries, and also have progressively divested these industries into high risk financial investments which have also impacted the American public in the costs for health insurance in general.

And the middle class auto workers in Detroit, and homeless in Arizona, truly not those you can fool once again in just how much Washington and those on the Hill actually care for the welfare of its lawful and legal citizens, rather than foreign and industry backers at this point in history.