Obamacare just ruined my life

[emilynghiem]

Dear Foxfyre and CCJones: The whole legal system needs to be revamped.
Lawyers will tell you if they cannot receive enough compensation it costs to pursue
big cases against big corporations for legit class actions damages (such as Paxil where they cheated on tests/warnings/referrrals to prescribe drugs to women during pregnancy and created deformed babies whose health care will cost millions in medical costs)
then these injustices will not be addressed.

Civil Rights issues are already neglected because lawyers cannot afford the work
it takes to research these on a probono basis, and/or with no way to pay the expenses
in advance much less guarantee any recooperating costs after they win or lose, etc.

This is NOT EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

We either need to sandblast that slogan off the Supreme Court Bldg,
admit the legal/justice system is in breach of Constitutional contracts,
or else create a peace division under the justice system that gives
parties the option of mediating for free to reach consensus on restitution
for damages so we can actually have "free speech and press, right to
petition and unabridged due process". Without consensus on decisions,
how can we promise equal protections of the laws, when politics
buys and sells one side out or the other. To be EQUAL then both
sides' interests must be accommodated with respect to the other.

Thus, mediation and consensus based decisions would be required.
If we only hired lawyers to pursue constitutional solutions, what a
great country we could be again. We could hire lawyers to collect
damages and debts on behalf of taxpayers and quit selling ourselves and justice short.

Just follow the laws already on the books, and we'd all have to
mediate, resolve conflicts and agree on fair restitution and corrections:
ethics-commission.net

If we keep using money to decide justice and politics, we'll never be equal.
Especially not with corporations having both individual rights as persons
under the Constitution but not equal responsibility as Govt for not
abusing collective influence/resources/authority to respect the Bill of Rights.

That's what has most thrown off our balance of power and separation of powers.
Corporations have crossed the line between individual and collective authority
WITHOUT adequate check and balances, but take advantage of both sides!

Dblack. . . .

C Clayton Jones had written

And there’s no evidence that tax credits, exchanges, and tort ‘reform’ would even help to lower costs, particularly tort ‘reform'

To which you replied

Agreed.

Disclaime: These two comments were excerpted from much longer posts offered by both of you.

Having worked with medical insurance claims, I would respectfully disagree.

There does need to be a limitation on the size and type of lawsuits that can be filed by opportunistic legal sharks. Pharmaceuticals and the cost of various kinds of testing equipment have skyrocketed purely because if a new drug or procedure does any harm to the victim, these days they can almost always sue and receive damages.

We need laws protecting the pharmaceutical companies who do the R&D and provide a drug with the potential to help millions of sufferers but that contains side effects as all drugs do. Yes, there should be adquate testing and yes, the government should review and approve the drug for sale and use. And THEN, if somebody takes the drug and suffers a known side effect, they have no legal leg to stand on. Only withholding known hazards from the public or other forms of dishonesty or gross negligence should be grounds for legal compensation.

It is positively obscene that you can't turn on your television these days without seeing an ad from some law firm fishing for a class action suit. It is costing we the consumers billions in unnecessary costs while the plaintiffs in the suit collect pittances and the law firms collect mega millions.

And doctors and hospitals should be able to give medically accepted treatment to their patients and not have to order dozens of non-medically indicated tests and procedures to avoid being targeted for lawsuits. That too is costing we consumer billions in the costs of the unnecessary tests and increased insurance premiums while lining the pockets of opportunistic attorneys and helping the patients little or not at all.

There has to be a better way short of denying patients just compensation when there is gross negligence and without restricting our unalienable rights.

 

[Snookie]

Well said. Plenty of solutions are available.

However solving problems isn't the business our gov is in.

Government's main driver is to create reasons for more gov.

The purpose of Obama care was to create more poverty by lowering the number of full time employees, and increasing the cost of health insurance. Why? The same reason 95% of blacks vote democrat. The Dems are building a dependent voter base.

Dependent voters are loyal voters.

It's not all that one sided.

Corporations get welfare too.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well said. Plenty of solutions are available.

However solving problems isn't the business our gov is in.

Government's main driver is to create reasons for more gov.

The purpose of Obama care was to create more poverty by lowering the number of full time employees, and increasing the cost of health insurance. Why? The same reason 95% of blacks vote democrat. The Dems are building a dependent voter base.

Dependent voters are loyal voters.

This post only gives insight into who and what YOU are, not Democrats, liberals and progressives.

 

[daws101]

Well said. Plenty of solutions are available.

However solving problems isn't the business our gov is in.

Government's main driver is to create reasons for more gov.

The purpose of Obama care was to create more poverty by lowering the number of full time employees, and increasing the cost of health insurance. Why? The same reason 95% of blacks vote democrat. The Dems are building a dependent voter base.

Dependent voters are loyal voters.

something reeks of racism in here.
the same could be said for the christian reich..in that case it would be true..unlike what you're proposing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well said. Plenty of solutions are available.

However solving problems isn't the business our gov is in.

Government's main driver is to create reasons for more gov.

The purpose of Obama care was to create more poverty by lowering the number of full time employees, and increasing the cost of health insurance. Why? The same reason 95% of blacks vote democrat. The Dems are building a dependent voter base.

Dependent voters are loyal voters.

That was the purpose, huh?

 

[Snookie]

Well said. Plenty of solutions are available.

However solving problems isn't the business our gov is in.

Government's main driver is to create reasons for more gov.

The purpose of Obama care was to create more poverty by lowering the number of full time employees, and increasing the cost of health insurance. Why? The same reason 95% of blacks vote democrat. The Dems are building a dependent voter base.

Dependent voters are loyal voters.

That was the purpose, huh?

Not really. He was talking out of his ass, again.

 

[eagle1462010]

I never thought I'd see the day when the Unions would tell the Dems to fix Obamacare or Repeal it.

The most rabid of defenders and supporters of the Dem Party are ticked off at the current results of the Law.

If that doesn't tell you that Obamacare is a BOVINE POS then nothing will.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I never thought I'd see the day when the Unions would tell the Dems to fix Obamacare or Repeal it.

The most rabid of defenders and supporters of the Dem Party are ticked off at the current results of the Law.

If that doesn't tell you that Obamacare is a BOVINE POS then nothing will.

What part of the law are unions upset at? Do you know?

Do you know that they are not upset at Obama..and that they blame the GOP for the problem?

They have not said anything about repealing it. Did you know that?

Do you know anything?

 

[RKMBrown]

Well said. Plenty of solutions are available.

However solving problems isn't the business our gov is in.

Government's main driver is to create reasons for more gov.

The purpose of Obama care was to create more poverty by lowering the number of full time employees, and increasing the cost of health insurance. Why? The same reason 95% of blacks vote democrat. The Dems are building a dependent voter base.

Dependent voters are loyal voters.

That was the purpose, huh?

Yes the purpose of "free" and/or "discounted" health care for millions of people paid for by fines on the rest of us was to force more of the rest of us into dependency. Same with SS. Same with medicare. Same with TSA. Same with DOE.

Govco creates an idiotic program that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The few become dependent loyal repeat customers.

No different than crack cocaine. Here take your free crack.

 

[Snookie]

Well said. Plenty of solutions are available.

However solving problems isn't the business our gov is in.

Government's main driver is to create reasons for more gov.

The purpose of Obama care was to create more poverty by lowering the number of full time employees, and increasing the cost of health insurance. Why? The same reason 95% of blacks vote democrat. The Dems are building a dependent voter base.

Dependent voters are loyal voters.

That was the purpose, huh?

Yes the purpose of "free" and/or "discounted" health care for millions of people paid for by fines on the rest of us was to force more of the rest of us into dependency. Same with SS. Same with medicare. Same with TSA. Same with DOE.

Govco creates an idiotic program that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The few become dependent loyal repeat customers.

No different than crack cocaine. Here take your free crack.

So you don't give a dam about the fifty million uninsured? Typical social darwinist rhetoric.

 

[dblack]

That was the purpose, huh?

Yes the purpose of "free" and/or "discounted" health care for millions of people paid for by fines on the rest of us was to force more of the rest of us into dependency. Same with SS. Same with medicare. Same with TSA. Same with DOE.

Govco creates an idiotic program that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The few become dependent loyal repeat customers.

No different than crack cocaine. Here take your free crack.

So you don't give a dam about the fifty million uninsured? Typical social darwinist rhetoric.

Let's give a damn about fifty million (or more) of us who can't afford health care. When an average person can't afford average health care bills, something is fundamentally wrong. Insurance is delusion.

 

[RKMBrown]

That was the purpose, huh?

Yes the purpose of "free" and/or "discounted" health care for millions of people paid for by fines on the rest of us was to force more of the rest of us into dependency. Same with SS. Same with medicare. Same with TSA. Same with DOE.

Govco creates an idiotic program that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The few become dependent loyal repeat customers.

No different than crack cocaine. Here take your free crack.

So you don't give a dam about the fifty million uninsured? Typical social darwinist rhetoric.

Typical marxist rhetoric.

You want to steal food money from my family to pay your bills. Why use government guns to do your theft? Be a man and come get it yourself. I'll roll out the red carpet for you.

 

[Snookie]

Yes the purpose of "free" and/or "discounted" health care for millions of people paid for by fines on the rest of us was to force more of the rest of us into dependency. Same with SS. Same with medicare. Same with TSA. Same with DOE.

Govco creates an idiotic program that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The few become dependent loyal repeat customers.

No different than crack cocaine. Here take your free crack.

So you don't give a dam about the fifty million uninsured? Typical social darwinist rhetoric.

Typical marxist rhetoric.

You want to steal food money from my family to pay your bills. Why use government guns to do your theft? Be a man and come get it yourself. I'll roll out the red carpet for you.

No thanks, I don't believe in insurrection.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you don't give a dam about the fifty million uninsured? Typical social darwinist rhetoric.

Typical marxist rhetoric.

You want to steal food money from my family to pay your bills. Why use government guns to do your theft? Be a man and come get it yourself. I'll roll out the red carpet for you.

No thanks, I don't believe in insurrection.

I see, so you believe redistribution is a passive activity.

 

[Foxfyre]

Within the sociopolitical spectrum, there seems to be four kinds of people:

1. The clueless

2. The fanatical government loyalist who refuses to believe his/her political party can do any wrong.

3. Those who look for somebody to accuse and blame but cannot focus on what would be better or agree on any solution.

4. Those who seriously want us to choose the best approach for the largest number of people.

So I look at a recent poll that suggests a strong majority of people are seriously worried and concerned about their healthcare under Obamacare, but a majority also don't want the Republicans to shut down the government in order to do something about it if that is what it takes. The dichotomy continues.

For myself, it is only common sense to structure systems to serve the large majority and then, in addition, figure out how to serve the few. Obamacare has it bass ackwards. Because of a few, it disserves the whole. Except for the precedent it sets, it would not be so serious if it was not dismantling what was the best healthcare system in the world and reducing it to third world medicine as a sacrifice to big government power.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No thanks, I don't believe in insurrection.

The Federal Government itself is an insurrection, it is our Duty to Restore the Rule of Law.

The Second Amendment exists for when the government revolts against the Republic.

 

[thanatos144]

one of the scariest things ever said is " I'm from the government I'm here to help"

 

[Foxfyre]

one of the scariest things ever said is " I'm from the government I'm here to help"

Yes. And the mind boggling thing is that we can look over the relatively short history of our great nation and see again and again and again that 'help' from the government all too often results in huge inefficient, ineffective, unbelievably expensive, and incompetent bureaucracies that are slowly but surely swallowing up whole our choices, option, opportunities and liberties. It is slowly and surely draining the lifeblood from everything that once made this nation a great nation.

And yet so many still blindly defend the ever encroaching and authoritarian government and condemn those of us who protest. Has America really been dumbed down that much? Is it hopeless?

SecondAmendment's plight is being repeated by the millions all over the country as the people do what they can to retain any control of their own lives and livelihoods. But ultimately we all know it will eventually be futile unless the people stand up and demand that it be turned around.

 

[Dot Com]

one of the scariest things ever said is " I'm from the government I'm here to help"

Yes. And the mind boggling thing is that we can look over the relatively short history of our great nation and see again and again and again that 'help' from the government all too often results in huge inefficient, ineffective, unbelievably expensive, and incompetent bureaucracies that are slowly but surely swallowing up whole our choices, option, opportunities and liberties. It is slowly and surely draining the lifeblood from everything that once made this nation a great nation.

And yet so many still blindly defend the ever encroaching and authoritarian government and condemn those of us who protest. Has America really been dumbed down that much? Is it hopeless?

SecondAmendment's plight is being repeated by the millions all over the country as the people do what they can to retain any control of their own lives and livelihoods. But ultimately we all know it will eventually be futile unless the people stand up and demand that it be turned around.

You talking like Caribou Barbie (Palin) now?

Guess which admin presided over the creation of DHS? Republican Come to the light/away from the repubs Foxy

 

[daws101]

No thanks, I don't believe in insurrection.

The Federal Government itself is an insurrection, it is our Duty to Restore the Rule of Law.

The Second Amendment exists for when the government revolts against the Republic.

wrong; The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[1]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[3][4]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[4] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision that held expressly that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[5][6] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[7]