About Me

Name: novelator
Location: Vaughn, MT
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Tort Reform: A moot point

Many people attending the Town Hall meetings are asking the question: why isn't tort reform addressed in the pending healthcare legislation?

None of the politicians holding these meetings are answering the question.

But the answer is relatively simple.

If this legislation is passed, as is, there will be no need for tort reform in a few years.

The unstated intent of this legislation is for doctors and nurses, all healthcare professionals to be working for the Feds eventually, their mistakes and/or malpractice to be protected under the Fed's umbrella by legislation that will not allow anyone covered by the government's health insurance plan to sue the Federal government or, by extention, the doctors and nurses working for the Fed's plan.

I can't stress this enough: READ the bill, HR 3200, then read the editorial from Investor's Business Daily, from which I quote:

"What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law."

Tort reform will be a moot point if this legislation is passed. And that's why the issue of tort reform is not addressed in the legislation, nor will the politicians holding these public meetings even begin to answer the question.

This bill was clearly written and designed to be rushed through Congress WITHOUT anyone reading it. But once this rush job failed, the intentions of the legislators behind this attempt to give the Federal government even more control over the lives of individual Americans are very clear--in what is mentioned in the bill as well as what is omitted from mention in the bill.







Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I Oppose the Healthcare Legislation

From an article in the Washington Post: "Health-care reform comes in several different flavors these days, but the basic minimum is that it allows all people to buy health insurance regardless of medical history, and it provides subsidies to help poor and middle-income families buy health insurance. That means that if you get sick and lose your job, you will still be able to get health care. That is something that everyone should be in favor of -- because everyone can get sick and lose his or her job."

Right. So if you get sick and lose your job, and lose your health insurance that went with said job, with what funds are you then going to purchase healthcare insurance from the government? There's no logic here.

And as for the liberals railing on about insurance companies and computers and nurses deciding care, just what do you think the government will be using to decide whether or not you qualify for treatment? The biggest problem is that the government's computers will be scoring your ability to receive treatment based on your age as well. Ever see Ezekiel Emanuel's little life chart? This modern-day Mengele would deny treatment to the youngest and oldest among us, including newborns, based on expected years of productivity--and this is the man advising Obama on...say it with me, kids...healthcare. He's also the brother of Rahm Emanuel of "never let a good crisis go to waste" fame. And why would Obama surround himself with sicko's like these two if he didn't subscribe to their thinking?

Since when should we Americans support a bill that says in the best of government doublespeak, "this tax shall not be considered a tax." Hello? Anyone got a clue out there?

Why should any halfway-informed American support a bill that allows the government to reach into their bank accounts on a whim? Or run an end-around play on Real ID by issuing us all a national health ID card? Excuse me, but why is this stuff, and more like it, even included in the bill? Are the 1000-plus pages supposed to act as a deterrent to anyone who might want to read the damn thing? Oh, I think so. If Obama and his unhappy socialists want to provide healthcare reform, I'm quite sure they could do so in plain English, without all these other hidden perks designed to give them total control. The bill, as written, was designed to be rushed--unread--through Congress, like the stimulus, but now that we've managed to slow those spendy b*st*rds down long enough to read what's in the bill, their sell has become ten times harder because they've learned, the hard way, that the American People are not as dumb as they think.

I'm not at all convinced the new Health Czar created under this bill--or should I say Health Commissioner--will be any more sympathetic to my needs or that of my family than the computers they're going to use to calculate who lives and who dies, who's worth treating and who isn't.

Occasionally, at the insurance companies, you can actually get a real live person on the line who can help you. What kind of customer service do you think we're all going to get from a government whose social security reps already take four months or more to get back to you? Please. Look at all the above and tell me why Congress and the president have exempted themselves from coverage.

One other thing: at least now, under the present system, if I have a gripe with my insurance company, I can sue. But under this bill, you can't sue the government for letting your children die because they dragged their heels making a decision. Says so, right in the bill.

My last point, however, is something every American should seriously consider--why haven't the stimulus funds been spent yet? Why is the economy of this country being allowed to shed hundreds of thousands of jobs every month without those funds being spent? Why is the Congress even considering Cap and Trade now, when everyone agrees that it will raise prices on everything across the board? Now, think about that "never let a crisis go to waste" philosophy, then ask yourself if Rahm meant to say "never let a manufactured crisis go to waste." Because that's what I think is going on here, a manufactured crisis in economy, in healthcare, and soon, immigration reform, etc, to drive us all like mindless cattle to embrace Obama socialism. I'm going to be very curious to see if, in the next few months and certainly before Obama's term expires, whether he and his thugs will have the audacity to find some reason to invoke martial law and suspend elections "in the interest of national security" you understand.

If you want to snitch on me for being an unAmerican American patriot, don't bother. I already did that myself.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Reusable Grocery Sack Scam

The environmental movement wants you to do your part to save the environment so you purchase reusable grocery sacks to bring again and again to your local grocery store. And what do you fill these environmentally-safe sacks with? Plastics of all sorts--drink jugs and microwave dinners, cellophane-wrapped packages of cookies and six packs of soda with plastic rings that throttle wildlife, etc and so forth.

Never once do you step back from the media hype and consider what you're actually doing by purchasing these "green" sacks.

For one, you're giving the store your hard-earned money for these reusable sacks, so the store is profiting. And you're saving the store money by not using their free sacks, thus increasing the store's profit. You're also keeping a lot of folk in China who labor to produce these "environmentally safe" sacks gainfully employed, the same China whose government has no stringent EPA requirements for their manufacturers to follow. Not only that, but you're showing everyone else standing in line without their own bag of reusable sacks that you are, indeed, a sheeple and easily led because you've bought into the idea that you can significantly reduce your carbon footprint on the earth by buying reusable grocery sacks.

Never mind the fact that your environmentally-safe reusable sacks are filled with plastics. Forget the fact that you, for all your environmental awareness, most likely drove your fossil-fuel burning vehicle to the store to use your reusable sacks. Or that no one in the environmental movement appears to be interested in asking and/or reporting on how much the Chinese manufacturers are polluting the Earth to produce your environmentally-safe sacks.

So, how green are you anyway?

Tenderfoot comes to mind--specifically, tenderfoot left holding the "bag."










Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »