With the ongoing challenges which are now being raised in many states throughout the nation regarding the recent passage of the Obama Administration's Health Care Reform Act, this boomer has watched the progression in health care delivery from the 1960's to today, and can truthfully say that while costs have exploded in those four decades, the degree of care for the American public overall has seen better days.
In order to reduce costs for many of the public and private health care clinics and hospitals, more and more Americans are not receiving the care they deserve, but what will reduce the bottom lines for the nationalized corporatized health care system that is predominant across the nation after Nixon's HMO legislation passed in the 60's. Many even public clinics and hospitals are now "owned" through various contracts by "private" corporate entities as they have become privatized, even after their initial building costs and research grants were funded by the American public.
Upon even emergency room visits, more and more patients are being seen initially by not medical doctors or those with advanced diagnostic degrees, but by physician's assistants or other support staff but at costs that far exceed those fees and charges in the past for trained physicians and without the expertise to accurately diagnose complex medical conditions.
Throughout many states, there are even signs posted at many of these emergency clinics and hospitals advising that they are not accepting new Medicare patients. Thus, the future for the boomers and their offspring at this point in America's history has not even begun to be addressed by those in Washington or at the state levels in just why health care costs have risen so out of proportion to the cost of living even though the entire HMO concept and "free market" privatized clinics were sold to the public in order to reduce costs and provide better care when that legislation was proposed back in the 60's.
Instead, it has resulted in numerous trips to several different doctors or providers in order to get accurate diagnosis, or physicians more geared toward treating the symptoms rather than the disease and using medications which many times create even more problems or different health issues in concert due to drug interactions and complications.
Changes are needed, but not the changes that Washington appears to be focused on in merely consulting the "stakeholders" in corporatized medicine. But the American public that is paying a larger share than ever before for their health care costs, both nonemergency and emergency.
How much of the health care dollars now provided by the taxpayers and insurers are now being earmarked for all those ads on television mostly directed toward choosing a hospital for maternity and childbirth needs? Or elective procedures?
Or advertising their facilities and services for non-English speaking patients for all those federal and state grant monies in providing care for non-citizens at the general public's ultimate expense? Or the increased costs in those ten to twenty page bills passed on to the public for those highly paid lobbyists at the state capitols and Washington?
It appears to this boomer in the end, the Health Care Reform Act is more similar to the mandatory auto insurance laws throughout the nation, with the same mindset and ultimate costs in increased taxation for all in passing on governmental functions, such as the settlement of property claims, or life and death issues to the financial sector, banks and insurers who will be more concerned with THEIR bottom lines and business needs, rather than quality of care.
I mean, unlike mandatory auto insurance, an unpaid or disallowed claim has a greater likelihood and much higher percentage of eventually ending in death or bankruptcy rather than a fender bender so the analogy used in order to include that "mandatory" provision left much out in regulating both those costs, and the provision and most likely will also then, as with the insurance laws, end up again costing the taxpaying public more in providing all the courts that will be needed in order to address those "breach of contract" or "wrongful death" actions.
Progress in this area, as with it appears so many others in the new millineum to many Americans, just may come at a much greater cost than even in those Nixon years.
And it appears to this boomer that the great Health Care Reform Act just may become the precursor to the Great Health Care AND Bank bailout of 2025 or sooner, when this patient dies.
Showing posts with label corporate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate. Show all posts
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Global Corporate Olympics Are Finally Over
I hope most Americans felt like I did after Sunday night.
Relieved.
At last the Global Corporate Olympics were over, and no more news blurbs about the latest drama coming out of British Columbia, or lame joke about some of the events.
Each evening I couldn't wait for the McDonald's Medal Count, where McDonald's was mentioned at least three times: (1) before the scoreboard appeared, (2) above the tally count, and (3) after.
And those commercials for the "sponsors" of the Olympics, or the numerous Visa commercials ("the only card accepted at the Olympics") were utterly inane.
As was the commercial from the British Columbian Tourism Board featuring Kim Cattrell, Michael J. Fox, and some lesser BC born celebrities. That commercial ran five or six times every single prime time evening.
Not to mention that the closing ceremonies in and of themselves, as the opening ceremonies were also, mostly a "feature" for the host countries in order to highlight their country's unique and special complement, but with all those global corporate commercials interspersed throughout.
The closing ceremonies in part appeared to be one big commercial for the next location in Russia, and the high tech commercial which previewed all those live acts was a little surreal to me and did not have much to do with athletism at all.
Seemed more like an ad for The Matrix.
And I have never seen so many Red Bull patches in my entire life as were on those skiers, or the number of times Red Bull was mentioned by those skiing announcers as picking up the tab for most of their competition fees.
Give me the good old days of the Olympics.
Where Peggy Fleming's mother sewed her skating costumes, and not costumes such as those Russian ice dancers had that consisted of rope so that now we need gimmicks in order to satisfy the masses (and the commercially motivated judging panel - I mean there wasn't a stocky athletically built skater ala Janet Lynn or Dorothy Hamill in the final bunch really, with the exception of maybe Rachel Flatt and who unfortunately fell flat with those judges in that last program).
And, of course, there were the tragedies as this venue now is known for.
This time the death of the Georgian luger, and host country's female ice skater's mother suddenly - which was milked by those commentators for all it was worth, even conducting interviews with those bereaved yet without even the opportunity to fully grieve their untimely personal losses of friend and family member.
But the show must go on....and on....and on.
I just would like to know what those luge track engineers and the Vancouver Olympic Committee and IOC were thinking with such an obvious hazard to those athletes with those pillars on that luge track designed as they were and unpadded to boot so near a deadly curve in the track - ratings, maybe?
Higher ad revenues for the next one, since that's part of the Olympics too. Highlighting the risks those athletes take for that little round gold piece hanging on a ribbon as the best in the world, and all those before them that get injured on the quest.
For that one day.
I mean how many times was that American downhill skier winner's past injuries and the "will she or won't she ski" drama due to a bruised shin mentioned?
And then the drama of the fall and broken thumb due to the then poor weather conditions (but to delay would really mess up the travel schedules of all those corporate advertisers and their families or employees which held most of the tickets, far outnumbering even those of the family members of the actual competitors, and most likely out of the reach of most of your average Canadians or Americans living nearby).
It's too bad Wayne Gretsky didn't make the Canadian cut for the new and upcoming "Senior" division.
I figure that's only a few years down the road, since health care will be so unaffordable for most of the boomers under any government or private insurance the way things are going with the economy here continuing to decline, that a Senior Olympics could be concocted then to wipe out a few of us old-timers.
Better on an ice rink or ski slope with the wind rushing by, than in one of our globally owned hospitals at this point, especially if you hang on far longer than your health care benefits provide, or the hospital's share of the pork, or taxpayer funded government grant.
Better still in holding down costs for some of those products now throughout the world when a great deal of those profits and taxes are going into the costs for some of these countries simply making their bids for the Games, and constructing all those new stadiums needed and required by the IOC, next time how about just a simple coin toss for the location of the existing locations, and banning the publicly paid travelogues and limiting the number of corporate advertisers free commercial time to one per sponsored event?
That way it could be more commercial, and more lucrative, and help rebuild that global economy all those economists keep talking about at least in this country, rather than the free falling U.S. economy, and the fact is that it is the international viewers, mainly the Americans, that are paying for those costs of those athletics in their purchases of those global corporation's products, and not those corporations per se at all.
"Sponsors and advertisers for the American Bobsled, Skating, Skiing, (Fill in the blank) Team" seems a whole lot more "truth in advertising" than honking their global corporate horns as "supporters of the Olympics."
Just where did they get those dollars to donate or "sponsor" those athletes anyway, or pay for those high priced Olympic ad slots except from the viewing public? Who also pay those salaries for that "commercially" focused IOC, in a roundabout way, and their front and center seats.
Or maybe instead the newest label, "Scouts" for our next Olympic pitchman?
I mean with all those never-ending commecials, back to back and repeated over and over again, that two week study in excess literally wiped me out, if not the snowboarders, along with the previous one just two short years ago.
This message brought to you by the U.S. "Bring Back the Amateur Commercially Limited Olympics" Committee.
I really wish the American economy would pick up, and those bankers realize just why the U.S. home market isn't improving, and I could afford TiVo, that new American invention.
Relieved.
At last the Global Corporate Olympics were over, and no more news blurbs about the latest drama coming out of British Columbia, or lame joke about some of the events.
Each evening I couldn't wait for the McDonald's Medal Count, where McDonald's was mentioned at least three times: (1) before the scoreboard appeared, (2) above the tally count, and (3) after.
And those commercials for the "sponsors" of the Olympics, or the numerous Visa commercials ("the only card accepted at the Olympics") were utterly inane.
As was the commercial from the British Columbian Tourism Board featuring Kim Cattrell, Michael J. Fox, and some lesser BC born celebrities. That commercial ran five or six times every single prime time evening.
Not to mention that the closing ceremonies in and of themselves, as the opening ceremonies were also, mostly a "feature" for the host countries in order to highlight their country's unique and special complement, but with all those global corporate commercials interspersed throughout.
The closing ceremonies in part appeared to be one big commercial for the next location in Russia, and the high tech commercial which previewed all those live acts was a little surreal to me and did not have much to do with athletism at all.
Seemed more like an ad for The Matrix.
And I have never seen so many Red Bull patches in my entire life as were on those skiers, or the number of times Red Bull was mentioned by those skiing announcers as picking up the tab for most of their competition fees.
Give me the good old days of the Olympics.
Where Peggy Fleming's mother sewed her skating costumes, and not costumes such as those Russian ice dancers had that consisted of rope so that now we need gimmicks in order to satisfy the masses (and the commercially motivated judging panel - I mean there wasn't a stocky athletically built skater ala Janet Lynn or Dorothy Hamill in the final bunch really, with the exception of maybe Rachel Flatt and who unfortunately fell flat with those judges in that last program).
And, of course, there were the tragedies as this venue now is known for.
This time the death of the Georgian luger, and host country's female ice skater's mother suddenly - which was milked by those commentators for all it was worth, even conducting interviews with those bereaved yet without even the opportunity to fully grieve their untimely personal losses of friend and family member.
But the show must go on....and on....and on.
I just would like to know what those luge track engineers and the Vancouver Olympic Committee and IOC were thinking with such an obvious hazard to those athletes with those pillars on that luge track designed as they were and unpadded to boot so near a deadly curve in the track - ratings, maybe?
Higher ad revenues for the next one, since that's part of the Olympics too. Highlighting the risks those athletes take for that little round gold piece hanging on a ribbon as the best in the world, and all those before them that get injured on the quest.
For that one day.
I mean how many times was that American downhill skier winner's past injuries and the "will she or won't she ski" drama due to a bruised shin mentioned?
And then the drama of the fall and broken thumb due to the then poor weather conditions (but to delay would really mess up the travel schedules of all those corporate advertisers and their families or employees which held most of the tickets, far outnumbering even those of the family members of the actual competitors, and most likely out of the reach of most of your average Canadians or Americans living nearby).
It's too bad Wayne Gretsky didn't make the Canadian cut for the new and upcoming "Senior" division.
I figure that's only a few years down the road, since health care will be so unaffordable for most of the boomers under any government or private insurance the way things are going with the economy here continuing to decline, that a Senior Olympics could be concocted then to wipe out a few of us old-timers.
Better on an ice rink or ski slope with the wind rushing by, than in one of our globally owned hospitals at this point, especially if you hang on far longer than your health care benefits provide, or the hospital's share of the pork, or taxpayer funded government grant.
Better still in holding down costs for some of those products now throughout the world when a great deal of those profits and taxes are going into the costs for some of these countries simply making their bids for the Games, and constructing all those new stadiums needed and required by the IOC, next time how about just a simple coin toss for the location of the existing locations, and banning the publicly paid travelogues and limiting the number of corporate advertisers free commercial time to one per sponsored event?
That way it could be more commercial, and more lucrative, and help rebuild that global economy all those economists keep talking about at least in this country, rather than the free falling U.S. economy, and the fact is that it is the international viewers, mainly the Americans, that are paying for those costs of those athletics in their purchases of those global corporation's products, and not those corporations per se at all.
"Sponsors and advertisers for the American Bobsled, Skating, Skiing, (Fill in the blank) Team" seems a whole lot more "truth in advertising" than honking their global corporate horns as "supporters of the Olympics."
Just where did they get those dollars to donate or "sponsor" those athletes anyway, or pay for those high priced Olympic ad slots except from the viewing public? Who also pay those salaries for that "commercially" focused IOC, in a roundabout way, and their front and center seats.
Or maybe instead the newest label, "Scouts" for our next Olympic pitchman?
I mean with all those never-ending commecials, back to back and repeated over and over again, that two week study in excess literally wiped me out, if not the snowboarders, along with the previous one just two short years ago.
This message brought to you by the U.S. "Bring Back the Amateur Commercially Limited Olympics" Committee.
I really wish the American economy would pick up, and those bankers realize just why the U.S. home market isn't improving, and I could afford TiVo, that new American invention.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Supreme Court, Obama and Congress Pass The Scepter
The political battle rages on post the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with respect to campaign financing, and its horrendously unconstitutional new "interpretation" of the First Amendment.
In light of all the commentary that has been made with respect to the decision "rolling back" the campaign finance laws in order to afford unlimited corporate spending by special interests groups in national campaigns, quite a bit has been left out in just what an egregious decision this actually was, in my opinion.
Starting off with truly "rolling back" the campaign finance laws by the Supreme Court would have negated "corporate person-hoods" as having any place in Bill of Rights protections in the first place.
Meaning, that in order to have a truly "representative" government, no political candidate vying for public office should be afforded to be able to accept ANY campaign financing outside his own legislative district, whether corporately or otherwise.
The fact is that in the commentary and published opinion, it appears, there was not even any distinction made between grassroots citizens groups funded primarily with individual contributions, corporate commercial concerns, national domestic corporations with their primary home offices in the United States, or foreign global corporations whose domiciled home offices are outside this country, although of course it WAS a U.S. based PAC organization that brought the action, and thus would seem only applicable to PAC organizations gaining most of their revenues from individual contributions, but already the drums are sounding as the corporate lawyers gear up to broaden now this rendering, which I would imagine was the entire reason those Supreme Court justices selected this case to begin with. (Since this action was simply brought against a federal regulatory agency, the FEC, by a "corporate" PAC grass roots purportedly special interest organization, and most likely the states, as history is replete with examples, will now follow suit granting unlimited special interest contributions also at the state level which also was one of the primary purposes in the Court "selecting" this matter to begin with, I'll bet. That and the feeding frenzy the true agenda of this case was meant to insure, as a job stimulus for the corporate lawyers also throughout the land in all the cases that will be brought due to this "precedent" expanding this rather narrow holding into making it applicable for national and even global "commercial" corporations).
So that it may be used as a "precedent" and expanded, and expanded and expanded. Sort of like Roe.
And then if there are any further appeals, just watch those Supremes in the future, for political reasons, "refusing" then to clarify this broad based travesty of an interpretation of the CITIZENS, and definitely not national or global commercial corporate concerns, right to free political SPEECH which corporate money for campaign expense purposes is not "speech" per se but campaign funding, and only public monies should be used to fund any and all candidates for public office in amounts according to the number of voters in any electoral district.
Just wait until AIG (a London based global insurer) selects our next president, or Goldman Sachs by contributing to key legislative districts with committee leadership positions at stake - alone.
It was bad enough what occurred in those bank paybacks for the 2006 candidates for their donations, just watch now what happens in the years ahead.
Maybe new disclosure laws should quickly be enacted making it mandatory that in the future all candidates for public office should be required to wear patches like those Indy 500 drivers do for all contributions over $1,000, say.
That way those corporations can also get free advertising and more bang for their bucks.
Mark my words, this decision opens the door and will become a feeding frenzy for the lawyers to bring case after case stripping away the narrow holding the Court actually made with respect to a purported "grass roots" citizens group (although with a claimed "educational" focus I'm wondering if this group actually also receives federal grant monies and funding, which would really mean that this case was partially funded by the taxpayers in this country - the actual citizens - in order to strip them basically of their Bill of Rights protections and voice in the election process over the "corporate.")
Which seems to be becoming more and more the case with many of these grassroots organizations with an "educational" focus now, many of them actually nothing more than "liberty as commerce" commercial concerns with conventions, T-shirts and book displays the actual reason for their existence - many of which are actually headed by lawyers or educators in order to divert and deflect the American people from what is truly going on here.
None of these groups are bringing the civil suits or filing the charges necessary against some of these Congressmen and judges for "high treason" as is the actual provision within the Constitution for continuing to undermine its provisions and amend its terms outside Article V and the 9th and 10th Amendments due to this progressive political party agenda on the part of both parties who have actually hijacked the entire election process progressively.
I wonder if the nationally based companies now vying and competing against those foreign based domiciled corporations will be as happy with this outcome as they actually appear to be since it is basically only the "global" Fortune 100 companies, and some of those international unions which will ultimately be benefitting, especially in those countries whose currency is higher than the U.S. dollar due to the currency exchange rates, such as the European countries and China.
Thus, the foreign bankers can use foreign governments and countries in order to influence and reap more and more foreign aid redistributing the wealth once again - global socialism does appear to be the goal here and the United States through that Supreme Court decision appears to be the country that is being "taken over" by those foreign bankers through our misrepresentatives in Washington.
Much like the East India Company and their "sovereign status" with King George that lead to the first American Revolution in this country, so have become the foreign bankers.
In other words, the Supreme Court took a step taking this country actually more and more toward British government once again (since the London banks and bankers are the majority shareholders in our Federal Reserve), and global corporate socialism, not simply in violation of the Constitution, but in violation of the sovereign status of this nation and also its people from foreign governmental or corporate interests and control.
It opened the floodgates to a massive "takeover" of our government and political process by China, Great Britain or any other foreign interest or government through currency manipulation, or a wealthy "immigrant" whose loyalties still may remain with his birth country or due to his family's holdings in other countries, even more so now than what already occurs, such as the buying up of much of our media and print newspapers by an Australian, Mr. Murdoch, and his Fox networks (which is, after all, the national animal of Great Britain).
Our entire Federal Reserve Banking System is funded by the British bankers, by and large, the result of that first unconstitutional public/private partnership under Wilson, and has resulted in our continued financial and military support to foreign nations long past World War II has ended up costing this country a bundle in both blood and treasure also "progressively", fighting on behalf of the British, a country which took in the majority of the Jewish refugees from World War II even though the Balfour Doctrine establishing the Nation of Israel pre-World War I was based on a British accord, and not a U.S. one at all.
It appears the goal is that ultimately the United Nations and their dictates will continue to supercede the true Rule of Law in this country and undermining its national sovereignty in a great many of the war resettlements, and in redefining the boundaries with respect to Israel after the '67 war.
Our federal government actually just sold out this country lock, stock and barrel to foreign interests without a shot being fired, simply the stroke of those Supreme Court justices pen, of course since the federal judiciary I predict will "liberally" construe the Court's holding purportedly in order to "guarantee freedom of speech" protections for not simply individually funded grassroots organizations(?) such as in the case before the Supreme Court, but commercial corporations also.
And would bet this finding was made with that entire agenda in mind, since it will be the corporately owned medias (Fox, CNN, etc.) that will gain a bundle for these ads for their corporate profits and bottom lines. In fact, I wonder if any of those justices just might become "political commentators" when they retire from the bench for one of the mainstream media networks, like Mr. Rove, Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Palin have become? When will we have our first former Supreme Court justice as a political analyst and commentator?
I wonder if Mr. Souter has been approached at this point, and wouldn't at all surprise me at this point.
Wonder where all your premium dollars will go, America, for that mandatory health care and your mandatory auto insurance? I'll bet a major portion will be set aside for their new marketing representatives, their local Congressman's next campaign.
Between the "extra" fees and costs levied on those policies in order to pay off dividends to those shareholders, fulfill those executive bonus contracts outside shareholder approvals, and make donations to candidates throughout the nation - I wonder just how much higher those premium costs will soar, or how much reshuffling now there will be of priorities with those premium dollars Americans will be forced now to pay, much of which will go to candidates that many of those insureds have been calling for true "change" in booting the entire Congressional delegation at this point out of office since approval ratings are at an all time low, and the two mainstream political parties losing their members now progressively.
In fact, in my former home state there actually was an initiative in order to "privatize" voting even proposing that a lottery be instituted with a cash prize awarded from the voting pool simply for voting, turnouts have become so low in non-presidential year elections.
Meanwhile Mr. Obama, one who was foremost in his leadership role during the banking bailouts and crisis, and also government takeover of General Motors and pushing the bankers agendas in the housing crisis focusing on "refinances" and "new home buyers," yells the proverbial foul mostly for his corporate political party for this latest Court unlawful amendment.
Even those two political parties that have also overtaken the U.S. political process and who have "progressively" hijacked our Constitution in the process scored a win in this one, since both are "corporately" also funded by most of those special interest groups in one form or another. Great way to also continue to guarantee that party platforms, rather than the U.S. Constitution, will continue to be the order of the day on Capitol Hill.
You know, the two political parties that more and more Americans have left due to their "corporate" agendas also superceding the Constitution now "progressively."
Now even the sham of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has been removed and instead it is now whichever industry or CEO has the most wealth which will be in power, or whichever foreign global special interest - especially those foreign lenders and bankers.
Interestingly, a chastizing by the Service Employees INTERNATIONAL Union has been much publicized in the mainstream media reports.
An international "corporation" that is and will also benefit "corporately" with those excessive union dues it collects, although apparently doing so to save face and present an image that it is, once again, there for their members and not their corporate "global" special interest who spread their members cash from their labors to select candidates whether their dues paying members support some of those candidates generally or their platorms, or not.
The unions, insurers, homebuilders and such really have no chance over any future legislation actually, since the entire wealth of this country is held, when push comes to shove, by those European bankers manipulating and valuing our currency outside Congressional oversight, and which was a major duty and function of our Congress - not a shell corporate entity (the Federal Reserve) for the British banking houses.
It is the bankers since Wilson's Administration that hold our gold, as security for their "debt notes" until, of course, those "debt notes" are eventually called in and our entire currency - and that of the world - will be through interbank transfers using those computer transfers and keystrokes and plastic instead rather than expensive paper, which can then potentially shut down the entire world's economy at the push of a button, or manipulate it really almost at will from country to country in a matter of seconds.
And save the cost of then printing all those dollars, euros and yen.
And while Mr. Obama continues to yell "foul" wasn't he also the candidate that refused to accept public taxpayer monies to fund his campaign, and instead relied on those "corporate" special interests dollars who apparently are now being paid back at the American public's expense in spades.
I'm surprised these guys, in all honesty, can continue to conduct these press conferences, or "townhalls," and look their fellow Americans in the eye. Or read those teleprompters without choking.
Hail, Britainia.
Your "legal" representatives just handed over the scepter. Almost 250 years it took, but just goes to show you that the pen actually is mightier than the sword.
I guess that is why those U.S. Supreme Court justices wear black, and not the red, white and blue. They just don't wear those wigs.
Anyone ready to consider throw throwing their dish satellite into Long Beach Harbor or for those that have cable, at least think about seriously cancelling that subscriptions before the propaganda, ala the Boston Tea Party, because these 2010 elections are going to be chock full of political incorrectness, and promises, promises, promises that none of those unduly elected representatives intends to keep just like the last one and all that redlining, ending the war, flag waving and Joe the Plumber rhetoric.
And just wait until 2012 and the long two years worth of analyzing by those corporate media pundits of the prepared speeches, double speak and propaganda once again for those keys to the White House, and that expense account with the three new presidential jets that have been ordered in this ever downward spiraling depression/recession with more and more becoming jobless and homeless by the day, which began in 2006 as a "stimulus" for the politicians and their political parties platforms and those bankers profits as payback for their "contributions" for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I wonder what terrorism threat or economic crisis will be manipulated by those bankers and politicians for the next one?
It does seem that such arrogance and political tyranny as what has been coming off the Hill post 9-11 appears that either those in Washington are clueless as to the actual pulse of the American people at this time - since it seems they are attempting to facilitate another war from within with such absolute disregard for the rights of the people over the corporate special interests.
Since that was, of course, the entire reason in addition to taxation (such as the new global warming taxes - taxing even the air Americans breathe at this point) those founders fought that original war due to the British monarchial rulings and favoritism granted to "sovereign subjects" such as this one the Supremes have ruled are "corporately" entitled to under the Bill of Rights which was clearly meant to secure the rights of the people against corporate abuse, governmental or otherwise.
In light of all the commentary that has been made with respect to the decision "rolling back" the campaign finance laws in order to afford unlimited corporate spending by special interests groups in national campaigns, quite a bit has been left out in just what an egregious decision this actually was, in my opinion.
Starting off with truly "rolling back" the campaign finance laws by the Supreme Court would have negated "corporate person-hoods" as having any place in Bill of Rights protections in the first place.
Meaning, that in order to have a truly "representative" government, no political candidate vying for public office should be afforded to be able to accept ANY campaign financing outside his own legislative district, whether corporately or otherwise.
The fact is that in the commentary and published opinion, it appears, there was not even any distinction made between grassroots citizens groups funded primarily with individual contributions, corporate commercial concerns, national domestic corporations with their primary home offices in the United States, or foreign global corporations whose domiciled home offices are outside this country, although of course it WAS a U.S. based PAC organization that brought the action, and thus would seem only applicable to PAC organizations gaining most of their revenues from individual contributions, but already the drums are sounding as the corporate lawyers gear up to broaden now this rendering, which I would imagine was the entire reason those Supreme Court justices selected this case to begin with. (Since this action was simply brought against a federal regulatory agency, the FEC, by a "corporate" PAC grass roots purportedly special interest organization, and most likely the states, as history is replete with examples, will now follow suit granting unlimited special interest contributions also at the state level which also was one of the primary purposes in the Court "selecting" this matter to begin with, I'll bet. That and the feeding frenzy the true agenda of this case was meant to insure, as a job stimulus for the corporate lawyers also throughout the land in all the cases that will be brought due to this "precedent" expanding this rather narrow holding into making it applicable for national and even global "commercial" corporations).
So that it may be used as a "precedent" and expanded, and expanded and expanded. Sort of like Roe.
And then if there are any further appeals, just watch those Supremes in the future, for political reasons, "refusing" then to clarify this broad based travesty of an interpretation of the CITIZENS, and definitely not national or global commercial corporate concerns, right to free political SPEECH which corporate money for campaign expense purposes is not "speech" per se but campaign funding, and only public monies should be used to fund any and all candidates for public office in amounts according to the number of voters in any electoral district.
Just wait until AIG (a London based global insurer) selects our next president, or Goldman Sachs by contributing to key legislative districts with committee leadership positions at stake - alone.
It was bad enough what occurred in those bank paybacks for the 2006 candidates for their donations, just watch now what happens in the years ahead.
Maybe new disclosure laws should quickly be enacted making it mandatory that in the future all candidates for public office should be required to wear patches like those Indy 500 drivers do for all contributions over $1,000, say.
That way those corporations can also get free advertising and more bang for their bucks.
Mark my words, this decision opens the door and will become a feeding frenzy for the lawyers to bring case after case stripping away the narrow holding the Court actually made with respect to a purported "grass roots" citizens group (although with a claimed "educational" focus I'm wondering if this group actually also receives federal grant monies and funding, which would really mean that this case was partially funded by the taxpayers in this country - the actual citizens - in order to strip them basically of their Bill of Rights protections and voice in the election process over the "corporate.")
Which seems to be becoming more and more the case with many of these grassroots organizations with an "educational" focus now, many of them actually nothing more than "liberty as commerce" commercial concerns with conventions, T-shirts and book displays the actual reason for their existence - many of which are actually headed by lawyers or educators in order to divert and deflect the American people from what is truly going on here.
None of these groups are bringing the civil suits or filing the charges necessary against some of these Congressmen and judges for "high treason" as is the actual provision within the Constitution for continuing to undermine its provisions and amend its terms outside Article V and the 9th and 10th Amendments due to this progressive political party agenda on the part of both parties who have actually hijacked the entire election process progressively.
I wonder if the nationally based companies now vying and competing against those foreign based domiciled corporations will be as happy with this outcome as they actually appear to be since it is basically only the "global" Fortune 100 companies, and some of those international unions which will ultimately be benefitting, especially in those countries whose currency is higher than the U.S. dollar due to the currency exchange rates, such as the European countries and China.
Thus, the foreign bankers can use foreign governments and countries in order to influence and reap more and more foreign aid redistributing the wealth once again - global socialism does appear to be the goal here and the United States through that Supreme Court decision appears to be the country that is being "taken over" by those foreign bankers through our misrepresentatives in Washington.
Much like the East India Company and their "sovereign status" with King George that lead to the first American Revolution in this country, so have become the foreign bankers.
In other words, the Supreme Court took a step taking this country actually more and more toward British government once again (since the London banks and bankers are the majority shareholders in our Federal Reserve), and global corporate socialism, not simply in violation of the Constitution, but in violation of the sovereign status of this nation and also its people from foreign governmental or corporate interests and control.
It opened the floodgates to a massive "takeover" of our government and political process by China, Great Britain or any other foreign interest or government through currency manipulation, or a wealthy "immigrant" whose loyalties still may remain with his birth country or due to his family's holdings in other countries, even more so now than what already occurs, such as the buying up of much of our media and print newspapers by an Australian, Mr. Murdoch, and his Fox networks (which is, after all, the national animal of Great Britain).
Our entire Federal Reserve Banking System is funded by the British bankers, by and large, the result of that first unconstitutional public/private partnership under Wilson, and has resulted in our continued financial and military support to foreign nations long past World War II has ended up costing this country a bundle in both blood and treasure also "progressively", fighting on behalf of the British, a country which took in the majority of the Jewish refugees from World War II even though the Balfour Doctrine establishing the Nation of Israel pre-World War I was based on a British accord, and not a U.S. one at all.
It appears the goal is that ultimately the United Nations and their dictates will continue to supercede the true Rule of Law in this country and undermining its national sovereignty in a great many of the war resettlements, and in redefining the boundaries with respect to Israel after the '67 war.
Our federal government actually just sold out this country lock, stock and barrel to foreign interests without a shot being fired, simply the stroke of those Supreme Court justices pen, of course since the federal judiciary I predict will "liberally" construe the Court's holding purportedly in order to "guarantee freedom of speech" protections for not simply individually funded grassroots organizations(?) such as in the case before the Supreme Court, but commercial corporations also.
And would bet this finding was made with that entire agenda in mind, since it will be the corporately owned medias (Fox, CNN, etc.) that will gain a bundle for these ads for their corporate profits and bottom lines. In fact, I wonder if any of those justices just might become "political commentators" when they retire from the bench for one of the mainstream media networks, like Mr. Rove, Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Palin have become? When will we have our first former Supreme Court justice as a political analyst and commentator?
I wonder if Mr. Souter has been approached at this point, and wouldn't at all surprise me at this point.
Wonder where all your premium dollars will go, America, for that mandatory health care and your mandatory auto insurance? I'll bet a major portion will be set aside for their new marketing representatives, their local Congressman's next campaign.
Between the "extra" fees and costs levied on those policies in order to pay off dividends to those shareholders, fulfill those executive bonus contracts outside shareholder approvals, and make donations to candidates throughout the nation - I wonder just how much higher those premium costs will soar, or how much reshuffling now there will be of priorities with those premium dollars Americans will be forced now to pay, much of which will go to candidates that many of those insureds have been calling for true "change" in booting the entire Congressional delegation at this point out of office since approval ratings are at an all time low, and the two mainstream political parties losing their members now progressively.
In fact, in my former home state there actually was an initiative in order to "privatize" voting even proposing that a lottery be instituted with a cash prize awarded from the voting pool simply for voting, turnouts have become so low in non-presidential year elections.
Meanwhile Mr. Obama, one who was foremost in his leadership role during the banking bailouts and crisis, and also government takeover of General Motors and pushing the bankers agendas in the housing crisis focusing on "refinances" and "new home buyers," yells the proverbial foul mostly for his corporate political party for this latest Court unlawful amendment.
Even those two political parties that have also overtaken the U.S. political process and who have "progressively" hijacked our Constitution in the process scored a win in this one, since both are "corporately" also funded by most of those special interest groups in one form or another. Great way to also continue to guarantee that party platforms, rather than the U.S. Constitution, will continue to be the order of the day on Capitol Hill.
You know, the two political parties that more and more Americans have left due to their "corporate" agendas also superceding the Constitution now "progressively."
Now even the sham of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has been removed and instead it is now whichever industry or CEO has the most wealth which will be in power, or whichever foreign global special interest - especially those foreign lenders and bankers.
Interestingly, a chastizing by the Service Employees INTERNATIONAL Union has been much publicized in the mainstream media reports.
An international "corporation" that is and will also benefit "corporately" with those excessive union dues it collects, although apparently doing so to save face and present an image that it is, once again, there for their members and not their corporate "global" special interest who spread their members cash from their labors to select candidates whether their dues paying members support some of those candidates generally or their platorms, or not.
The unions, insurers, homebuilders and such really have no chance over any future legislation actually, since the entire wealth of this country is held, when push comes to shove, by those European bankers manipulating and valuing our currency outside Congressional oversight, and which was a major duty and function of our Congress - not a shell corporate entity (the Federal Reserve) for the British banking houses.
It is the bankers since Wilson's Administration that hold our gold, as security for their "debt notes" until, of course, those "debt notes" are eventually called in and our entire currency - and that of the world - will be through interbank transfers using those computer transfers and keystrokes and plastic instead rather than expensive paper, which can then potentially shut down the entire world's economy at the push of a button, or manipulate it really almost at will from country to country in a matter of seconds.
And save the cost of then printing all those dollars, euros and yen.
And while Mr. Obama continues to yell "foul" wasn't he also the candidate that refused to accept public taxpayer monies to fund his campaign, and instead relied on those "corporate" special interests dollars who apparently are now being paid back at the American public's expense in spades.
I'm surprised these guys, in all honesty, can continue to conduct these press conferences, or "townhalls," and look their fellow Americans in the eye. Or read those teleprompters without choking.
Hail, Britainia.
Your "legal" representatives just handed over the scepter. Almost 250 years it took, but just goes to show you that the pen actually is mightier than the sword.
I guess that is why those U.S. Supreme Court justices wear black, and not the red, white and blue. They just don't wear those wigs.
Anyone ready to consider throw throwing their dish satellite into Long Beach Harbor or for those that have cable, at least think about seriously cancelling that subscriptions before the propaganda, ala the Boston Tea Party, because these 2010 elections are going to be chock full of political incorrectness, and promises, promises, promises that none of those unduly elected representatives intends to keep just like the last one and all that redlining, ending the war, flag waving and Joe the Plumber rhetoric.
And just wait until 2012 and the long two years worth of analyzing by those corporate media pundits of the prepared speeches, double speak and propaganda once again for those keys to the White House, and that expense account with the three new presidential jets that have been ordered in this ever downward spiraling depression/recession with more and more becoming jobless and homeless by the day, which began in 2006 as a "stimulus" for the politicians and their political parties platforms and those bankers profits as payback for their "contributions" for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I wonder what terrorism threat or economic crisis will be manipulated by those bankers and politicians for the next one?
It does seem that such arrogance and political tyranny as what has been coming off the Hill post 9-11 appears that either those in Washington are clueless as to the actual pulse of the American people at this time - since it seems they are attempting to facilitate another war from within with such absolute disregard for the rights of the people over the corporate special interests.
Since that was, of course, the entire reason in addition to taxation (such as the new global warming taxes - taxing even the air Americans breathe at this point) those founders fought that original war due to the British monarchial rulings and favoritism granted to "sovereign subjects" such as this one the Supremes have ruled are "corporately" entitled to under the Bill of Rights which was clearly meant to secure the rights of the people against corporate abuse, governmental or otherwise.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Obama and Congress's Non-Universale Health Care Plan: Are States Ceding Powers?
What is now being presented in "politically correct" terms as is being reported on the universal health care plans now being "hatched" in Washington is nothing more than using "politically correct" corporate logic and analogy to justify a plan under which the Nazi's operated.
Evaluate life on a cost/benefit ratio, and genetic superiority by subjective criteria. And that criteria will be some lackey in Washington trained as an actuary according to the health care provider (since this will be a huge government contract, I would imagine that it will be Warren Buffett and AIG, the global insurer "bailed out" on the backs of the American people that get the contract, in another public/private partnership to "stimulate" the global economy and as payback for Mr. Buffett's campaign support of a great many of those on the Hill over the years no matter which party "officially" was in office, since he has expressed interest in expanding his empire to global investment as recently as two to three years ago).
And Buffett is a zero population growth guy (although has three children of his own, so zero growth must not apply to those who consider themselves as genetically superior and apparently own businesses that provide fundamental "life" costs and owe their very livelihoods to the public as now more a financial services company than a solely publicly funded "product" which it is).
What is needed is regulation over the health care industry, which was actually circumvented under Nixon who allowed medicine to be corporatized with that HMO concept. Which has resulted in Boards of Directors, rather than doctors, now determining levels of treatment. And the "caps" placed back on punitive damages for medical malpractice awards that stood at the treble levels under the common law throughout our nations history until the TLA went across the country getting those lids removed for their own "welfare."
Not getting into bed with the unions and insurers, or taking over health care which is determined then by the "distant ruler." And also evaluating just why it is that the costs to train new doctors has far exceeded the cost of living and bears no relevance at all to the actual costs.....since the taxpayers themselves fund those universities in which they are trained.
This is a nightmare, and all those that think this is a solution, you are talking Orwell here now.
Not to mention that even at its most basic level, the entire socializing of our health care is actually not at all a governmental function under our existing law, the U.S. Constitution.
What is needed is what the founders provided. Strict regulation of those national and global insurers, and also better oversight of doctors independent of the AMA, and also breaking up those "monopolies" and health care networks that are using business models now in order to evaluate health care provision, and incompetent and morally challenged doctors who are supplementing their practices and services for governmental cut rate costs by upping their charges on the insureds and those who they profile CAN afford the higher costs.
Some of their support staff know how to work those health insurance forms to the max, and are actually given bonuses if they reach certain quotas set by these health care networks and mega doctor's practices.
Neither business models, nor governmental actuaries have any moral fibre or background. And if anything this is not an "industry" at all, it is a basic service that is a need at one time or another for all Americans.
So the lax oversight of this industry and favoritism for the health care leeches such as the unions and providers is what has lead to this. And Nixon's crap with the HMO concept, and over-inflated costs to train new doctors for the banker's profit margins which makes most of them bankrupt before they even begin their practices.
But I think what is being missed by most Americans is that whether or not to provide or "socialize" health care really is a state issue, not a federal one at all. That is why the local governments were to be the most powerful, not the federal government for such matters as public education, and health costs.
And that the states are voluntarily ceding their power to the federal government, all representations in the 10th Amendment movement to the contrary. Because then the states don't have to come up with those "matching sums" and then have more of the public purse to spend on unaccountable and pork projects for their campaign backers.
So I think the true picture here is being obscured by both Congress and the media reports. Because right now the feds are already providing health care for the underinsured and less fortunate, and also now even "illegal" and non-Americans. This "universal" health care that Obama is proposing is nothing more than putting another party, the federal government, now DIRECTLY involved in determining care, rather than the state.
And Americans will have no recourse then other than suing the federal government if denied coverage, and there is a federal statute that provides only for the reimbursement for the actual demonstrated losses, not punitive damages or even the costs or bringing the suit itself. This entire plan will remove actually any and all accountability for health care provision from insurers and also the medical community. Which is why, also all "public faces" to the contrary, the medical community and insurers are also behind it.
That way the insurers can also sell those "supplemental plans" at ridiculous rates, but then fail to pay on them and blame the federal government (the primary insurer) for the denial of also their provision if the federal government denies the coverage.
The truth is actually much more Machiavellian than what is being portrayed. And the headlines so far really tell it all. It is "cut rate" and loss/benefit care, and it appears the boomer generation is one which the federal government would like to get rid of at the earliest opportunity. And also those that are not productive, and each successive generation thereafter.
Until pretty soon, the life expectancy in this country will eventually equal the birth rate survival and be less than third world countries.
I just love that NO ONE ever thinks to examine just why in most of these areas we now are where we are with respect to health care, and our economy. No one examines our history to see how veering from the Constitution and Constitutional intent, has brought us to where we are.
And I disagree on the economy. The reason things haven't "picked up" is because the market is speaking, and by that I mean the American people. Who would buy a home today with the way those loans are written, since the terms of the loans which also created this disaster have not been addressed or changed in some of their usurous terms and rates?
Nothing has changed, Obama is simply attempting to entice the new home buyers and refinancing in order to trap another generation in the boom and bust cycle -which is the fault of the unregulated and uncontrolled Federal Reserve and its policies.
No one is buying into the stock market, because Obama and Congress proved that when push comes to shove, it is the unions and foreign investors that are protected, not the individual American investor.
Do you really think these lessons have not been lost on most educated or aware Americans? And how many that have lost their homes now can qualify for new ones, what with the lack of regulation also over the credit reporting services?
These guys are in their own bubble. The market is speaking, and so are the Americans. We aren't buying your products because you are all a bunch of scam artists.
The people have spoken.
Evaluate life on a cost/benefit ratio, and genetic superiority by subjective criteria. And that criteria will be some lackey in Washington trained as an actuary according to the health care provider (since this will be a huge government contract, I would imagine that it will be Warren Buffett and AIG, the global insurer "bailed out" on the backs of the American people that get the contract, in another public/private partnership to "stimulate" the global economy and as payback for Mr. Buffett's campaign support of a great many of those on the Hill over the years no matter which party "officially" was in office, since he has expressed interest in expanding his empire to global investment as recently as two to three years ago).
And Buffett is a zero population growth guy (although has three children of his own, so zero growth must not apply to those who consider themselves as genetically superior and apparently own businesses that provide fundamental "life" costs and owe their very livelihoods to the public as now more a financial services company than a solely publicly funded "product" which it is).
What is needed is regulation over the health care industry, which was actually circumvented under Nixon who allowed medicine to be corporatized with that HMO concept. Which has resulted in Boards of Directors, rather than doctors, now determining levels of treatment. And the "caps" placed back on punitive damages for medical malpractice awards that stood at the treble levels under the common law throughout our nations history until the TLA went across the country getting those lids removed for their own "welfare."
Not getting into bed with the unions and insurers, or taking over health care which is determined then by the "distant ruler." And also evaluating just why it is that the costs to train new doctors has far exceeded the cost of living and bears no relevance at all to the actual costs.....since the taxpayers themselves fund those universities in which they are trained.
This is a nightmare, and all those that think this is a solution, you are talking Orwell here now.
Not to mention that even at its most basic level, the entire socializing of our health care is actually not at all a governmental function under our existing law, the U.S. Constitution.
What is needed is what the founders provided. Strict regulation of those national and global insurers, and also better oversight of doctors independent of the AMA, and also breaking up those "monopolies" and health care networks that are using business models now in order to evaluate health care provision, and incompetent and morally challenged doctors who are supplementing their practices and services for governmental cut rate costs by upping their charges on the insureds and those who they profile CAN afford the higher costs.
Some of their support staff know how to work those health insurance forms to the max, and are actually given bonuses if they reach certain quotas set by these health care networks and mega doctor's practices.
Neither business models, nor governmental actuaries have any moral fibre or background. And if anything this is not an "industry" at all, it is a basic service that is a need at one time or another for all Americans.
So the lax oversight of this industry and favoritism for the health care leeches such as the unions and providers is what has lead to this. And Nixon's crap with the HMO concept, and over-inflated costs to train new doctors for the banker's profit margins which makes most of them bankrupt before they even begin their practices.
But I think what is being missed by most Americans is that whether or not to provide or "socialize" health care really is a state issue, not a federal one at all. That is why the local governments were to be the most powerful, not the federal government for such matters as public education, and health costs.
And that the states are voluntarily ceding their power to the federal government, all representations in the 10th Amendment movement to the contrary. Because then the states don't have to come up with those "matching sums" and then have more of the public purse to spend on unaccountable and pork projects for their campaign backers.
So I think the true picture here is being obscured by both Congress and the media reports. Because right now the feds are already providing health care for the underinsured and less fortunate, and also now even "illegal" and non-Americans. This "universal" health care that Obama is proposing is nothing more than putting another party, the federal government, now DIRECTLY involved in determining care, rather than the state.
And Americans will have no recourse then other than suing the federal government if denied coverage, and there is a federal statute that provides only for the reimbursement for the actual demonstrated losses, not punitive damages or even the costs or bringing the suit itself. This entire plan will remove actually any and all accountability for health care provision from insurers and also the medical community. Which is why, also all "public faces" to the contrary, the medical community and insurers are also behind it.
That way the insurers can also sell those "supplemental plans" at ridiculous rates, but then fail to pay on them and blame the federal government (the primary insurer) for the denial of also their provision if the federal government denies the coverage.
The truth is actually much more Machiavellian than what is being portrayed. And the headlines so far really tell it all. It is "cut rate" and loss/benefit care, and it appears the boomer generation is one which the federal government would like to get rid of at the earliest opportunity. And also those that are not productive, and each successive generation thereafter.
Until pretty soon, the life expectancy in this country will eventually equal the birth rate survival and be less than third world countries.
I just love that NO ONE ever thinks to examine just why in most of these areas we now are where we are with respect to health care, and our economy. No one examines our history to see how veering from the Constitution and Constitutional intent, has brought us to where we are.
And I disagree on the economy. The reason things haven't "picked up" is because the market is speaking, and by that I mean the American people. Who would buy a home today with the way those loans are written, since the terms of the loans which also created this disaster have not been addressed or changed in some of their usurous terms and rates?
Nothing has changed, Obama is simply attempting to entice the new home buyers and refinancing in order to trap another generation in the boom and bust cycle -which is the fault of the unregulated and uncontrolled Federal Reserve and its policies.
No one is buying into the stock market, because Obama and Congress proved that when push comes to shove, it is the unions and foreign investors that are protected, not the individual American investor.
Do you really think these lessons have not been lost on most educated or aware Americans? And how many that have lost their homes now can qualify for new ones, what with the lack of regulation also over the credit reporting services?
These guys are in their own bubble. The market is speaking, and so are the Americans. We aren't buying your products because you are all a bunch of scam artists.
The people have spoken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
