Health Care Deform: No Coverage? Fines Again Proposed

In several media sources today it was announced that a "draft" of some changes on the proposed health care reform legislation was "leaked" to the AP media stating that the liberal and moderate Congressional members in both the Republican and Democratic parties have now scrapped the proposed public health care "option" and instead have now included a new provision that would mandate fines for Americans up to an amount of $3,800 for those that do not carry their own health care coverage.

Since the cost of health care coverage at its now industry set rates are more than most Americans can pay of those that remain uninsured in this country (which this Administration has pegged at over 50 million, without any statistical or factual data supporting this number, many of which are actually covered under state plans due to their lower income levels or inability to get coverage by state laws already at taxpayer costs), this "solution" really is quite laughable at this point the lengths that this Congress is going in order to shove what is not at all a "reform" of health care at all.

Simply another illusion and Act of Congress that is meant more to feed the financial and insurance sector most of all.

Included within the article was a proposal by Max Baucus (D-Mt) that was pegged a compromise measure, which included the fines and legislation that would mandate that health care providers were precluded from turning anyone down for insurance, although could charge higher rates and fees for smokers or older Americans.

Although if history is any indication, I can see that those exceptions in the not so distant future will be the subject of literally decades of "revisions" on just which Americans can be charged higher rates and premiums until it eventually includes all Americans.

In short, nothing more than a corporate welfare scheme as it has always been in order to gain additional taxpayer revenue that Washington can use for discretionary expenditures, while the same time feeding the banking and financial sector once again at the American public's expense.

Nowhere in this legislation is there any accountability, fines or regulation of those health care providers insofar as their honoring those politicies, or for refusing treatments. The fines are directed at the American public and citizens instead.

Mr. Baucus indicated that this provision in the legislation would be similar to mandatory auto insurance which all Americans must carry by state laws throughout the nation at the present time.

Although, of course, I beg to differ.

Not simply because the amount of coverage and also amounts of such fines are determined at the state level, which means that such needs are regionally determined by also a lot more regulation and accountability over some of those insurers in the different states, but also the very reason such also unconstitutional legislation was passed in the first place.

The reason that there were mandatory insurance laws for auto insurance and the focus of those laws are on liability only.

And the stated reasons were due to the fact that such legislation would end up saving taxpayers the costs of providing for the salaries of more judges to hear those property claims and losses through the courts.

And was also fundamentally unconstitutional to begin with in "mandating" the purchase of a product in order to drive a vehicle in this country, since there are no such provisions over foreign drivers in any manner whatsoever.

Especially those that come from Mexico, or even Europe where they drive on the other side of the road, and as this country has had more and more foreigners granted visas and as tourists, have impacted many larger metropolitan areas tremendously in property damages to American citizens.

Some states have realized these unconstitutional laws for what they are and do have provisions for bond coverage, or provision of bank statements to satisfy the minimum liabiity coverages mandated by state laws.

But still are in no way "lawful" due to the fact that now in this "globalization" that Washington has embarked on progressively, global tourtists are exempted from this law and have created thus higher rates now for U.S. citizen drivers in order to cover also those claims and losses.

And at the present time, every state in the country now has some type of catastrophic health care for those that are either indigent or cannot obtain coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

So this "reform" is nothing more than another move to centralize more and more authority, and more and more power in Washington now over American's future health care needs, and their very lives.

And with many now jobless and homeless due to Washington's now progressive "global socialism" agendas under both Republican and Democratic Administrations within the past twenty years in order to feed big business industries such as the health care and banking sectors, if you don't have a home at this point, and your credit has been ruined in the process, how are you going to afford health care - much less then be fined for not being in compliance with this "law."

Is Mr. Obama aware that the insurance industry also uses their own internal "credit reporting" insofar as rates charged already with respect to both property and auto insurance?

Are Americans lives and health care now going to be "rated" according to their "tables" for the amount of those premiums also without any regulation or oversight insofar as what goes in those reports?

I don't see anywhere in the enumerated poweres of Congress where mandatory taxation with respect to purchasing a product, or any single payer public plan is included within the Constitution.

In fact, the taxation already which is now inflicted is unlawful for those sums at the present time which are withheld and sent to Washington technically, as is the continuation of Social Security in its present form since it was meant merely to provide for those that, upon the inability to work in their chosen field due to medical conditions or afflications, or orphans, widows or children of those who lose a parent or primary wage earner were provided a subsistence for their survival needs.

Now we are contemplating taxation and fining the citizens for not purchasing a product and for which the costs are unaffordable, by merely addressing the symptom without even doing a cursory evaluation and backtracking in order to identify what actually lead to this problem to begin with.

Lack of regulation over these "corporate" commercial interests, that have progressively increased their profit margins and their shareholder dividends at the expense of their premium payers, for the most part.

And doctor fees which are now out of sight due to both the costs of professional liability insurance in high risk fields, and also the costs in getting those educations at state and public universities that are now charging tuitions that are not even close to the CPI nor bear any relevance to the actual costs of that training in any manner whatsoever due to negligence on the part of state governments.

In which some of these universities could subsist on the revenue collected from their football and sports programs alone.

The crackpots in Washington just passed one of the largest taxes ever in that Cap & Trade scam, and now are contemplating fining homeless and jobless Americans for not having health care coverage?

And those homeless and jobless, after all, are providing theirs. In spades.

I have a heads up for Congress and Mr. Obama at this point:

End the War in the Middle East, and maybe we won't have so many future Americans that will also be without health care and needing publicly provided care since last month saw the highest number of casualties in eight years in that war, and pass legislation that the AIG debt that is owed to this country by that London based global insurer can be satisfied in increments.

By providing free catastrophic health care to all Americans for the next twenty years.

And fine them a million per denial of claim.

Since they do, after all, have credit worthy and profitable subsidiaries in over 23 different countries other than that London Mayfair office whose practices impacted the U.S. offices due to Washington's globalism agendas.

They are, after all, in the health care business.

And we are now already paying for it.

Obama's Back To School Fireside Chat: FDR Reincarnate?

To Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

Posted today on many media sites due to the highly controversial intent of Barack Obama to initiate what can only be called a FDR "fireside chat" with America's youth through a televised "back to school" speech throughout the nation, my initial reaction to it as a 60's era Conserve-ative Constitution believing American was that it smacks of FDR's programs and agendas during a similar government initiated economic crisis in this nation - shifting the blame off those responsible (Washington) to asking the people to suck it up and endure.

Or silence and control the masses through using television instead of the radio for his message, since the message of hope and change Mr. Obama presented during his campaign rhetoric has clearly lost its glow for the parents of most of those children he is addressing.

His homey style of communication while wheeling and dealing with global corporate and foreign nationals to undermine both American labor and production that has been the focus of all his efforts since the inaugural appears he hopes such personal appeals can whitewash.

Last month saw the most casualties in the Iraq war almost since its inception. While Mr. Obama speaks of Twitter, Facebook and Google - an industry that is profiting the most actually from both the War in Iraq and the now domestic spying program.

And in using America's children for such a message, does seem to be the ultimate example of the hypocricy and self-aggrandizement that most on the Hill appear to be suffering. A social disease that is self-perpetuating, it seems, the longer thoy remain in Washington and out of touch with those to whom they are charged to serve. The Detroit GM workers I feel would have a clearly different reaction to Mr. Obama's youth message of working hard to reach your dreams.

Many of them, I'm sure, felt they had achieved given their circumstances a pinnacle of success in being involved in one of America's most vital and important inventions and achievements throughout the world.

It is clear that although Mr. Obama as one who graduated from one of America's most expensive and foremost Eastern univerisity's yet still has a basic lack of understanding of our Constitution and framework of government, that his ideas of the importance now in this country of a formal U.S. dictated education has lost its sheen due to the fact that the federal government has injected itself unconstitutionally into the education of America's youth.

Since that truly is something that the American people should decide for their own family's welfare. And also any such public educations would be better served with less federal involvement, and left to the states themselves to determine as was the founders also intention in Jefferson's establishment of the public school system, and the University of Virginia.

Nothing was said of the fact that there were quite a few of our U.S. president's themselves that had little formal education. One of the greatest, Lincoln, is a prime example. Our educational institutions "progressively" have gotten more and more liberal in their goals and agendas, and many American citizens are reacting also accordingly and pulling them out of public schooling in order to home school.

More and more each and every year. Too much of the wrong education can be more detrimental than studying quantum physics.

Or clearly the law and our jurisprudence system at this point in time.

Marxism and communist theories abounded in the Obama message, wrapped in an FDR media ploy and public relations move intended to sterilize Mr. Obama's image with America's youth given that his approval ratings are continuing to decline, as the parent's of those children Mr. Obama is addressing have watched their jobs and savings accounts dwindle due to Washington's global economic agendas and the world government agendas both parties on the Hill at the present time, the Global Socialist Party, now engender.

Creating new jobs is not Mr. Obama's primary function. Protecting the United States and its citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, actually is. Protecting and preserving the civil rights also of those first ten amendments for all Americans in even choosing how much or how long to formally school their own kids is fundamentally one of the most foremost individual rights and liberties there is. Not promoting the U.S. school system or public education in general which has progressively resulted in a losing of the basics in pursuit of the agendas of both Washington and the politicos in the educational system in this country in general.

Protecting America's and American's sovereignty, in other words, both individually and as a nation, as a sovereign nation whose interests are best served by breaking the ties that bind with other nations and agendas that are clearly at cross-purposes to protecting our own vital economic bases and industries and American jobs here in this country. And the future of America's children actually lies in their parent's also more primary input and goals as their primary caregivers - not the government.

And better served protecting those children and the American people in doing their actual jobs, protecting their very lives and livlihoods from any foreign threat compromising either.

Not abroad, or the global expansion of our industrial base to other countries, thus then compromising our own national security also in the process.

Or aligning ourselves for literally decades after World War II with Israel, Britain and other nations whose agendas and intererests are at this point clearly different than our own.

And costing us now American lives in the thousands progressively in the process by not simply facilitating trade agreements or economically beneficial in the present and short term and honoring their countries own sovereignty in the process.

Obama's message was clear. Even going so far as to use his own personal story of his rather unusual upbringing in Indonesia and cross-nationalism in the process in order to garner both support and sympathy from an emerging generation of Americans for his global cause, again, painted in FDR style socialism and "the greater good," that this communique was clearly meant to transmit in its origins and mouthpiece.

The teacher's union must be thrilled as it appears that is the audience that just might have been behind this particular fireside chat. And maybe also those "struggling" banks whose profit margins Obama and Congress have been inordinately interested in protecting and enlarging at the general public's now loss and benefit such as the bank bailouts and "foreclosure rescue" aimed at priimarily satisfying those foreign investors at the American people's yet again expense.

And don't forget also America. Many of our greatest investors and achievers had little "formal" education at all. And many were schooled in their professions and trades outside the classroom, but instead by parents or other caring adults in their lives. Even in my generation, the federal government had far less involvement in local state or community education and really the days of phonics and the basic three Rs turned out some of our greatest inventors and free thinkers whose basic skills and language development were stressed, but who gained far more from then their own initiatives to follow their strengths to wherever they might lead. Using the public libraries more for their further study, and goal directed individual class study in their selected fields. Not "proscribed" agendas formulated by politicians at all.

Forced attendance through the public schools for such a message to our nation's children does speak of desperation at this point, and also clearly an agenda that appears to be at cross purposes with the majority of those children's true authority figures whose knowledge of their child's true gifts and talents and choice in how to develop those gifts is also being undermined in the process through "progeressive" world socialists such as Mr. Obama represents.

For some parents, this might be a good day to let your kids take a "wellness" day.

Since Mr. Obama mentioned washing your hands and staying home from school in order to avoid catching any of those health compromising "bugs."

Let The Games Begin: Massachusetts Politicos Vying For Vacant Senate Seat

With the passing of Ted Kennedy last week and after the weeklong media coverage of both his life, and his politcal career now over, the media's attention has now been turned toward just who might fill the empty Senate seat occupied by Senator Kennedy.

Even going so far as to call it "a Kennedy seat," in the liberal media press.

And the term liberal spreads on both sides of the aisle, since a "liberal" is merely one who "liberally" construes the Constitution by not consulting it in any manner whatsoever.

Sort of like what is occurring now on the discussions and debates on the health care issue. Not a federal function in any manner whatsoever, but one in which the states and state citizens should decide for their own communities, and at levels that are more locally accountable for indigent or other public health services.

Not foreign ruler. With the exception of regulating those national and global insurers and their practices, not take them over or get into bed with these now huge megaconglomerate concerns, many of which now are not even based in the U.S., but want the U.S. market base without any accountability in the marketing or honoring of their products or services.

Especially since the only real revenue and reason for their existence is due to the ratepayers payment of their premiums, and it is their own divestitures that also have been involved in escalating the costs by using those premiums and stockholder investments to diversity into high risk investments and fields for greater returns. While Washington has sat on its thumbs giving them carte blance in order to so do.

Providing a public option is rather laughable when Congress hasn't done its primary job in overseeing those global and national carriers. And most likely, anyone that is involved in any public option will come from the private sector health insurance industry and bring their rogue practices also with them.

And we all see how well Congress oversees most of those regulatory agencies now, like the IRS and the Federal Reserve (who are, after all, no more than front men for the European banking houses, and we all see whose "economy" the Fed is concerned with. The global one. Not at all America's, but raping American citizens to feed the foreign investors).

Massachusetts, of course, already has such a universal health care plan which was started in its liberalism, and so this push now is also highly suspect since such plans really already exist in some form or another in every state across the nation.

This state's utter outrageous representatives interpretations of our Constitution have unfortunately spread throughout the country (think California, now receiving most of the Iraq war contracts and domestic spying programs for Silicon Valley venture capitalists)due to the untold celebrity this political family somehow created after the death of John Kennedy over 40 years ago on a political career that had as many lows as highs.

Beginning with the starting of the Viet Nam conflict, our first truly non-defensive, interventionist war and which lasted then far longer than it should have to begin with, given the "threat" of that small country to our own. With then the U.S. inheriting thousands of political refugees, not to mention the debt and Americans lives lost or forever changed by that conflict (as also never a legal or Congressionally declared war under a formal Declaration of War).

The entire week's review was rather unbelieveable in its scope, and the rather unbalanced reporting which occurred in any event.

The aura surrounding the Kennedy name at this point is a little overblown in a historical context.

Several U.S. presidents had been the victims of having their lives tragedically ended prematurely, after all. And only Lincoln's has historically also been used fundamentally to aggrandize the true facts and accomplishments while in office. And records historically altered in order to make the tragedies of their deaths in office somehow all out of proportion to what their individual contributions actually were.

Abraham Lincoln, who although was a great statesman, politician and orator, clearly lacked a true understanding that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to state sovereignty, which united to begin with in order to fight a foreign government and oppressor, the British, also provided in our founding documents the right to dissolve the union if for any reason it no longer suited either the state or people's best interests.

And only gave the states, with the people's consent and directive, the power to alter or abolish it, and not the federal government at all in its original form and legal provisions under the "contract," the U.S. Constitution. Which can only be amended by the states, and people, not by federal fiat, in any of the three branches. Not the president, Congress or U.S. Supreme Court without the "consent of the governed."

The South and the slavery issue, after all, was simply what some historians have used as the basis for the civil war in this country for also generations. When actually the entire war was over state's rights, with the slavery issue really even inconsequential to Lincoln.

His solution initially offered to the South when it stated its intention to leave the union, was to afford the slaves free passage back to Africa if they so desired, which is also well documented in Lincoln's papers as one from the industrial north. The lives of those in the Northern states were not a whole lot better than those in the South at that time either. Lincoln himself came from a farming background, after all.

According to his Christian beliefs also, no man without his own consent (such as indentured servitude in exchange for work performed, or more commonly in barter exchanges for room and board ) had a right to claim "ownership" over another. Most farm workers even in the North lived on the farms and were provided food and shelter, but simply migrated during crop season.

Which was fundamentally the disagreement the founders had. Lifelong servitude, as it were.

But the slavery at the time it was ratified was not the same as was practiced in the South and occurred progressively due to also federal transgressions on protecting domestic agricultural production over foreign competition also then at lower costs due to seasonal variations in U.S. production.

Those original slaves who existed at the time the Constitution was ratified were for the most part more than well treated, well respected by those such as Jefferson, and who were sent with those men and their families abroad for further study and education in Europe, after all, as was the practice.

And was such a bone of contention also at the time that it is well documented that the founders eventually forsaw when that issue would need to be addressed and rectified accordingly as soon as this new nation had its first generation of native born new Americans.

And most freed then upon their death as Jefferson did and was provided in his will, which was also recognized as a legal right and private arrangement to be dissolved.

Many slaves were "freed" by slaveowners also upon request for simply repayment of any debts incurred on their behalf since even medical needs and assistance was provided by many.

Most were also sold into slavery by warring tribes in Africa instead of being put to death rather than as history likes to relate, brought here unwillingly by American slavetrader opportunists. Most came by way of Britain, which is where the real active slavetrading had been occurring and also why so many of the founders objected due to this British originated practice.

But it was the "progressives" actually that used them for agricultural purposes, and in the mills and factories, that abused their authority over them rather than a somewhat mutually beneficial arrangement which it originally was which lead to all the slave revoltes.

People naturally wish to escape abusive situations, and that is really what was fundamentally what lead to all the slave revolts. Mistreatment. Not a desire for freedom or independence but more in order to escape mental and physical torment.

But I digress somewhat to even prove a point with respect to Senator Kennedy's passing.

Even after all the accolades and tributes made by those in political office and his Massachusetts constituency, the nation is now being made to be witness to this transfer of power rather than simply a matter of filling a public service position with another American to so do.

And it was the "progressives" in both parties in Congress and the President that fired many of those hardworking, middle class GM workers in Detroit, a city historically with a large number of unemployed due to the outsourcing and insourcing which has occurred now throughout the nation and escalated under both Democratic and Republican Congresses.

And in leaps and bounds during the past twenty years to the point where it is the Americans now who are subsidizing through their taxes those foreign now industries and labor workforce.

This week also reminded me more of what occurs after an employee of any of America's largest corporate entities is either fired or resigns. Before the door is closed behind them, the vultures remaining seek out anything in the former occupant's desk that can be captured and used in then the performance of their job related duties.

It appears a general election is the way Massachusetts has legislated to go in the filling of the seat, and all the political ballyhoo that goes with such a procedure now part of the process.

Not the provisions as provided in our original Constittuion, which would simply call for a replacement to be voted on and selected by the current members of the Massachusetts legislature.

Who would be the best able to fill it, since the Senators were, after all, intended to represent the state and state's interests at the federal level, with the House members supposed to be then representatives of the actual citizens and people.

Which has also been undermined and abridged since both are now selected upon general elections, and in which the original campaign finance laws also are being abridged in that originally in order to retain a representative government, then such candidates in the House could only accept "sponsorship" or donations from those in their own legislative districts - so as not to be tarnished in their representation from outside "foreign" monies and interests.

Which is the major reason why today we are living under global corporate socialism.

Due to a very fundamental Constitutional violation at its core, which has hijacked our intended form of government and replaced it with something not even close to that which the founders created and envisioned.

And the natives are clearly getting restless with the "misrepresentatives" and not "duly elected" individuals now holding court in both the state legislatures, and most of all the clearly "pretenders" on the Hill serving more as CEO's of U.S.A., Inc. now instead of our intended free republic.