Focus: Health Care

When are the people of America going to wake up and see this impostor for what he really is? Why is Obama hiding his birth records and his school records with lawyers? Because they will show that Barry aka Obama cannot and should not be the President.

MarkLeavenworth, here is an area I would like changed. First that NO organization, whether a corporation, a union or a non-profit organization should be allowed to contribute money to any politician or political group. Now then, I also believe we should limit individual political contributions to ONLY those candidates and issues (political groups set up either as proponents or opponents of a proposition or initiative) for which THAT individual is eligible to vote. In otherwords, you can only contribute to candidates or issues that will be on your ballot.

Ryan, I'm just a regular guy, waiting to retire, hoping there will be something left when I get there. If I mess up the wording, maybe you could cut me some slack and try to understand what I am saying. I've tried to explain what I mean here. If you want to play your little games, that's fine. Go right ahead.

Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 25, 2009 5:56:49 PM

"it seems to me he is concerned about heavy government regulation taking away our personal freedom of choice." -TCT

The Founding Fathers wanted to guarantee personal freedom of choice? - Ryan C

All I'm saying is James is concerned about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit. That's all.

"God gave us free will and certain inalienable rights. But I guess you think that denying health care to someone because they ate too many twinkies (which is where we are heading with all this) is a good thing." - TCT

C'mon you can do better than a doom and gloom slippery slope argument. -Ryan C

By the track record of liberals, it is a slippery slope. Look at CA. You can't move over there any more without paying for something. Some of it is good - some not so much. Your snark is not helpful.

"And let's be truthful: liberals are just as corrupt as conservatives or right-wing extremists or whatever you are calling them these days" - TCT

Ideology does not confer upon someone a moral compass, that comes before any ideology. -Ryan C

I think you know what I mean. There is so much corruption and everyone being out for themselves, it knows no bounds - especially political ideology.

My proposal is the legislative reversal of the court opinion that created the 'corporate person' identity.

It doesn't take a scientist or a lawyer, only human beings to recognize that are worst problems are due to lack of human beings.

You would just have to know who is taking your electric bill, which is who you would go after if there were any problems with your service. That would motivate them to be responsive instead of motivate them to give transfers for service calls to machines and push-tone menus routed through India. If you bought a good, you would be paying a real, living man against whom you could file a complaint or send an actionable letter if the product was a lemon, even if the company was a fly-by-night. etc, etc

MarkLeavenworth, while I'm not a scientist, I am even more NOT an attorney. (I know that was not grammatically correct!) I don't know the full ramifications of such an idea. I certainly would have to see the specific proposal in writing before expressing an opinion. Just from what you describe, it could make it illegal to mail your bills to a company instead of to a named individual; or purchase goods or services online. I don't know!

Or is the 'corporate person' notion a box that you can't get out of?

James, maybe you want to pitch in on this idea I have of making it illegal to do business with any entity besides a real person. Any group would have to have a man at the helm to take personal responsibility for the actions of all agents, instead of the who-dunnit culture they all hide behind now.

Ryan C wrote: "What I do not like is conferring upon corporations rights like freedom of speech etc."

Do you also object to non-profit organizations (i.e., MoveOn.org or Media Matters) or unions having freedom of speech?

Ryan C, I am not a scientist. My source was wattsupwiththat.com.

Former VP Al Gore's data has been refuted by many scientists. One of the problems was the fact that an estimated 89% of the weather reporting stations in the United States failed to meet the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) standards. The temperature measuring equipment at these weather reporting stations are required to be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or reflecting and radiating sources. Yet many of these weather reporting stations were surrounding by parking lots and roads or too close to sidewalks and buildings. This results in greatly inflated "official" temperatures.

Sorry gang, I had to take my mother in for minor surgery (a previous attempt at removing a cancerous growth didn't get all of the cancer; they believe they got it all this time). By the way, she is very pleased with her healthcare plan (AARP--whatever Medicare does not cover, AARP covers; and they never send a statement), as well as her prescription plan (Express Script--$9/$27 for regular or $3/$9 for generic for 1mo/3mo supply).

Before I get into my reply, I want to offer my condolences to the Jackson Family. The "King of Pop" will be missed.

Yes, I was referring to our unalienable Rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

LIFE: Should the Left ever get full control of our healthcare, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to foresee, in the guise of cutting costs, that some elderly or severely handicapped infants MIGHT be denied healthcare. Also, it is not inconceivable that overpopulation might one day be declared a health risk, thus under their preventative healthcare plan, the Left might implement a "one-child policy" here in the United States.
China has a "one-child policy." Some claim to have been forcibly sterilized or forced to abort children; although officially large fines are imposed if a couple has more than one child. (NOTE: The Chinese claim that forced abortion and sterilization are strickly prohibited.) The Netherlands is debating the idea of forced abortion and contraception to deal with a crisis of unwanted children. Euthanasia is currently legal in the Netherlands and Belgium. Other European countries are having a very heated debate on whether to legalize euthanasia.

LIBERTY: Should Cap and Trade become the law of the land, restrictions on energy usage and strict controls on what products we can or cannot purchase will be implemented. Hefty fines or even possibly incarceration could eventually be imposed. While President Obama has stated his opposition to it, there are some Democrats in Congress who might consider imposing heavy fines--if not incarceration--for failing to purchase healthcare insurance. Currently we have the right to deny our own medical treatment. The Left could take that right away from us, under the guise of preventative healthcare. Also under the guise of preventative healthcare, the Left could deny healthcare or transplants to individuals who smoke or don't maintain a lifestyle that conforms to the Left's approved guidelines.

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS: The federal government is already limiting bonuses and salaries on some individuals who have accepted stimulus money. There are some Democrats who want to extend these limits to other industries who have not accepted stimulus money. This type of government interference will kill the Free Market and Capitalism. Furthermore the Left makes no bones about the fact that they want to redistribute the wealth. Punishing success inhibits the incentive to strive for success. And that ultimately hampers the pursuit of Happiness.

Add to that the impossibility of finding a person responsible for those policies of trans-national corporations, and the threat is very real.

Twice I've had to take issues up with lawmakers, when corporations, through complete control of a market or region, were able to enforce corporate policy on citizens that extended into rights not dis-allowed by the government. While the infringements were minor, the potential was enormous, especially given the complete blindness I discovered on the part of lawmakers to the potential threat to their own constitutional authority.

borneo:

I never suggested that I was against health care for all, nor is this a good vs evil situation. I was being specific in saying that I am against the concept of having some yet to be determined entity/group set guidelines of treatment for any given ailment. Some seem to think that this will only apply to the old, but it applies to all ages, young and old. Do I deny a premie baby with heart problems a valve replacement that could save their life or deny the surgery because their medical treatment could become too expensive down the line?

The was a concept of oversight was floated during Obama's discussion and if this is what medicine becomes, I want no part of it. I must live my life believing that I did everything I could to help one and all, rich or poor, not just those that meet the requirements of some checklist.

What I do not like is the fact that so many people hide their intentions behind a corporate purpose and a corporate brand. That makes it all too easy to have nobody truly personally accountable for the actions of the corporation. The momentum is with people on this. Just before the collapse of leveraged instruments, CEO's were, very reluctantly, made to sign an affidavit that they take personal responsibility for the reported account figures of the corporation. Why should that have been such a difficult request to meet? We should pursue that path, and eliminate the 'corporate person' status, replacing it with personal CEO responsibility beyond a threshold personal property limit.

"The whole notion of 'corporate person' was to give a man a sense of security to take on business risk without venturing his home and family life."

I understand a legal entity to limit liability to the company rather than expose every asset of principles.

What I do not like is conferring upon corporations rights like freedom of speech etc.

The whole notion of 'corporate person' was to give a man a sense of security to take on business risk without venturing his home and family life. There are other ways to accomplish that. I say corporations should be forced to do business by the name of the man at the healm. Let's nix the shadowy moral underworlds, foreign plots, and destructive tendancies shielded by the protected status of 'corporate persons'.

"From the context of James' post (and I'll try not to put words in his mouth), it seems to me he is concerned about heavy government regulation taking away our personal freedom of choice."

I was speaking from past discussion with James though I hope he will chime in at some point.

But let's skip that for a sec.

The Founding Fathers wanted to guarantee personal freedom of choice?

"God gave us free will and certain inalienable rights. But I guess you think that denying health care to someone because they ate too many twinkies (which is where we are heading with all this) is a good thing."

C'mon you can do better than a doom and gloom slippery slope argument.

"And let's be truthful: liberals are just as corrupt as conservatives or right-wing extremists or whatever you are calling them these days"

Ideology does not confer upon someone a moral compass, that comes before any ideology.

"Corruption aka sin aka evil is a human condition not a political association."

Agreed.

'Corporate persons' are, with certain qualifications, just as much, if not often more of a threat to the common man than government.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | Jun 25, 2009 5:41:59 PM

Can't disagree. Unfortunately, the failing of our legislative and judicial branches to keep them in check is just as much of a problem. They will get away with as much as we let them. And most politicians don't REALLY want to punish them because at some point they are benefitting. Might not be directly with that CORP, but they are getting greased somehow, somewhere. It's all hyprocritical outrage!