What freedoms have you lost since Barack Obama has been President?

[Spang]

I'm curious.

[samurai007]

The freedom to not have to pay for health insurance if I don't want to.

The freedom not to have a massive economy-crushing debt hanging over my head and those of my future generations.

[Laura Cereta]

Agreed and the freedom to post on a forum without Obama supporters calling names! I think Obama has created this type atmosphere in this country.

What???

[Jim744]

What???

Oooo....I knew I should have stayed of this beloved Spang thread! Me thinks I will stay away from his threads or posts for the most part.

[samurai007]

What???

Obama is divisive, and foments nasty attacks against those who oppose him. He and his people label all opposition "racist and bigoted", and give free reign and encouragement to attack back with no holds barred. Obama told his supporters to "punch back twice as hard" against anyone who opposes them, and 3 days later, a gang of SEIU thugs beat Kenneth Gladney severely. On the internet, his lackeys are fearless in attacking and calling names against those who oppose the Messiah and his plans. You saw this in the campaign, and it has continued under his Presidency. Frankly, I don't think there has been a more divisive President in my lifetime... he makes Bush look like a uniter!

[Laura Cereta]

Oooo....I knew I should have stayed of this beloved Spang thread! Me thinks I will stay away from his threads or posts for the most part.

It's fine for you to comment, I just don't understand how Obama is responsible for name calling on a forum. Plus, all this friction between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters and then Obama supporters and many Republcians was going on before he was ever elected.

[spikeytx86]

The freedom to not have to pay for health insurance if I don't want to.

The freedom not to have a massive economy-crushing debt hanging over my head and those of my future generations.
I know, up until January of 2009 the only thing we were talking about was the perpetual surpluses for the foreseeable future! :rolleyes:

As for Health Insurance, on the flip side your "freedom" should not come at the expense of others who would have to pick up your tab in the event you have a catastrophic illness or medical emergency in the form of uncompensated costs which are passed on to paying/insured customers.

[Foggy]

I lost the freedom to go bankrupt and lose my home and business from medical bills if I get sick or have an accident with no health insurance. X_X

I lost the ability to go without health insurance forever due to pre-existing conditions, but I'm not sure that was a freedom.

[observer21]

I am gradually losing the freedom to create conscientious decisions that aren't necessarily bad by myself by an overwhelming effort to enforce government-mandated things that will be decided for me that are most likely less efficient than what I had first planned.

[Foggy]

I am gradually losing the freedom to create conscientious decisions that aren't necessarily bad by myself by an overwhelming effort to enforce government-mandated things that will be decided for me that are most likely less efficient than what I had first planned.I don't understand. Please give us specific examples.

[cinnamongirl]

I don't understand. Please give us specific examples.

I'd also add the question of whether that has only started since January 2009.

[observer21]

I don't understand. Please give us specific examples.

Well, when something is enforced through a governmental body, it often limits the potential actions one may perform outside of that government regulation. The two largest pieces of legislation which Obama actively supported thus far are the spendulus and the health care bill. I will try to use both as an example of my statement, but the spendulus one may seem a little obtuse.

The spendulus, as we all know, was a piece of legislation designed help improve the economy and create some jobs. Also, it was notoriously expensive. So much so that the extra trillion or so in debt could arguably be said to have unnecessarily and negatively effected the stability of the United States economy. Of course, the government does have a precedent in taxing us, so it's not like this is anything new, only new on this scope (and, of course, I was against the prior bail-outs as well, but that wasn't the question). But I have always argued that that money could have been better used had the government not tried to coordinate so closely.

For the health care bill, on the other hand, it seems to try a method of regulating things that isn't quite tried and tested yet. While I think some of the things are good (such as the support for people with pre-existing conditions), there are also a few drawbacks. For example, what about those of us that simply do not want health care, or all of the things enforced in the law? Or what about those of us which had individual plans which will now most likely see our rates skyrocket in the coming years? These could have been viable alternatives, depending on the person, which are now less feasible due to overarching government intervention. If they had just targeted one or two issues at a time and gradually made changes, there wouldn't be so much doubt about the law, or so I am thinking.

My main point is not that government regulation doesn't work. In fact, I believe that some regulation is very important. However, I do feel that when something is regulated too closely or in too many ways, or an aspect of something is regulated without the facts around that aspect absolutely and concretely known, there are bound to be problems. In those situations, I think it would ultimately be better for only minimal regulation around the things we definitely know need it.

Essentially I am saying that we are gradually losing the ability to create free-market or non-invasive solutions to problems which might be more effective than government-sponsored ones.

[Foggy]

The spendulus, as we all know, was a piece of legislation designed help improve the economy and create some jobs. Also, it was notoriously expensive. So much so that the extra trillion or so in debt could arguably be said to have unnecessarily and negatively effected the stability of the United States economy.Except I read articles all the time that say economists are in general agreement that the stimulus saved us from a severe depression, which is where we'd be right now with McCain/Palin.

Of course, the government does have a precedent in taxing us, so it's not like this is anything new, only new on this scope ...Except your taxes went down this year. Did you compare your income and the amount of tax you paid to last year, before the cuts? Claiming that "taxing us [is] new on this scope" might sound better AFTER taxes really go up.

For the health care bill, on the other hand, it seems to try a method of regulating things that isn't quite tried and tested yet.Would we be able to fly on airplanes, if nobody ever tried something that hadn't been tried and tested before?

My main point is not that government regulation doesn't work.Wow.

I'm so glad food quality is regulated by the government. I love reading the scores in restaurants on government inspections. I'm glad buildings and infrastructure is regulated by the government, so we don't have a major disaster every time there's an earthquake. I'm glad for a TON of government regulations that keep shoddy businessmen from producing shoddy, dangerous, even lethal products. I'm glad the government regulated the folks who built my car.

In fact, I believe that some regulation is very important.Me, too.

However, I do feel that when something is regulated too closely or in too many ways, or an aspect of something is regulated without the facts around that aspect absolutely and concretely known, there are bound to be problems. In those situations, I think it would ultimately be better for only minimal regulation around the things we definitely know need it.Well, again, some specific examples. If you mean 1.6 gal. toilets, yeah, I don't like 'em either.

Essentially I am saying that we are gradually losing the ability to create free-market or non-invasive solutions to problems which might be more effective than government-sponsored ones.But the question was: "What freedoms have you lost since Barack Obama has been President?" Can you really claim that STARTED 16 months ago?

I own a retail business. I have investments in the markets. I'm an entrepreneur and capitalist. There isn't one single decision I could make for myself under George Bush that I can't make under Barack Obama. And I've gained the right to purchase health insurance with pre-existing conditions.

What free market solutions to problems have you lost the ability to choose?

[observer21]

Except I read articles all the time that say economists are in general agreement that the stimulus saved us from a severe depression, which is where we'd be right now with McCain/Palin.

I somewhat disagree. While no doubt the trillion or so dollars thrown around did something to support the economy, I definitely think there could have been a more efficient way of going around it had more time been spent analyzing the problem before voting on expenditures. And, of course, any analysis of what could have/would have happened cannot be verified in real terms. I think it is definitely a possibility that the harm to the nation's debt outweighed the gains we got from the package.

Except your taxes went down this year. Did you compare your income and the amount of tax you paid to last year, before the cuts? Claiming that "taxing us [is] new on this scope" might sound better AFTER taxes really go up.

That was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. I meant that the government has a precedent of using the collected resources of their constituents for projects that may be objectionable. The debt has to be payed for by the government at some point. The government gets a large part of its revenue from taxes. I am operating under the assumption that if the taxes are not raised to pay for that debt, the increase in cost of household items will make it seem as if we were taxed.

Would we be able to fly on airplanes, if nobody ever tried something that hadn't been tried and tested before?

Would you fly in an airplane with no autopilot with all of the pilots blindfolded because it wasn't tried and tested? There's an appropriate time and place for testing things.

I'm so glad food quality is regulated by the government...

Well I'm glad for all of that stuff too. But get down into the details of it, and you may find that there are a lot of outdated or inefficient measures being enacted which might drive up prices or artificially create problems. Or, on another note, you may find that some of the measures are impossible for the government to even enforce. That doesn't mean that regulation isn't necessary, but that it is not as impervious as many think.

Well, again, some specific examples. If you mean 1.6 gal. toilets, yeah, I don't like 'em either.

Well, as an example, consider the recently often-cited example of businesses hiring disabled persons being required to purchase an elevator for a 2-floor plus structure, when a ramp or some other solution would be far more efficient and plausible. Similarly, the regulation of medications has made the acquirement of alternative medications for those that are allergic to the standard or for who the standard doesn't work a much more time consuming and displeasing process (strong pain killers come to mind). That inefficiency could be lessened if the government required less paperwork. Also keep in mind that the more regulations there are to break, the more resources are needed to monitor that system of regulations, and the more resources a company needs to invest to make sure that they aren't breaking laws.

But the question was: "What freedoms have you lost since Barack Obama has been President?" Can you really claim that STARTED 16 months ago?

No, I can't say that it started 16 months ago. I can only claim that it appears that we have been traveling down this tack at an accelerated pace since 16 months ago. But I don't actively keep a list in my head of rights that may or may not be currently violated either.

[Foggy]

To me, the real problem with government -- ANY form of government -- is that we seem to let Earthlings be in charge. Which is unfortunate, since for all the genius them Earthlings show on some occasions, they're deeply flawed and make terrible mistakes on other occasions.

The Restore America Plan loonies are always talking about the "de jure" grand juries, but in April one of them was yappin' about how the military has already informed Obama that he isn't president anymore, and he added (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=170554):


Bonding will not be available for corporate entities. They will have to operate in the de jour government under the constitution.Maybe we oughta think about something along those lines ...





http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee232/foghorn_leghorn_photos/new/DUJOUR.jpg

[Suzan]

I'm waiting impatiently to lose the freedom to eat lethal quantities of salt in fast and processed food.

Seriously, though, I do feel less free to spend money because there's less to spend, but I'm blaming that on two terms of George Bush, Congress and WALL STREET!!! Obama will get the blame when my taxes actually do go up.

[sojourner]

I'm waiting impatiently to lose the freedom to eat lethal quantities of salt in fast and processed food.

Seriously, though, I do feel less free to spend money because there's less to spend, but I'm blaming that on two terms of George Bush, Congress and WALL STREET!!! Obama will get the blame when my taxes actually do go up.

Heinz is trying with their No Salt Tomato Ketchup.

Your state taxes are going up and they will go up higher as more Federal mandates kick in. And you might as well consider your increased health insurance premiums a tax since they are the direct result of government action.

[Horizon]

I've lost my freedom to log on here and not be attacked for being a Hillary Clinton and an Obama supporter.:rolleyes:

[vagabond]

I know, up until January of 2009 the only thing we were talking about was the perpetual surpluses for the foreseeable future! :rolleyes:

As for Health Insurance, on the flip side your "freedom" should not come at the expense of others who would have to pick up your tab in the event you have a catastrophic illness or medical emergency in the form of uncompensated costs which are passed on to paying/insured customers.

Healthcare charity was being paid for by us, before Obama.

We paid health insurance premiums PLUS....

a deductable, a co-pay, taxes to cover the un-insured, taxes for Medicare-Medicaid, charity to help someone in a death situation who as denied coverage or who could not afford the cost by themselves..

Americans were paying far more for quality healthcare than 36 other nations. If I remember right, the USA was just after Cambodia.

The deficit was an issue before Obama became president and he was faced with a crash he did not create.

Name calling and lies of politicians....let us count the numbers. They did not begin nor were the polished by Obama.

[Spang]

Americans were paying far more for quality healthcare than 36 other nations. If I remember right, the USA was just after Cambodia.

Correct. We pay more for healthcare than any other country, and only have the 37th-best healthcare system to show for it. Although, it's #1 if you can afford it.

[vagabond]

Heinz is trying with their No Salt Tomato Ketchup.

Your state taxes are going up and they will go up higher as more Federal mandates kick in. And you might as well consider your increased health insurance premiums a tax since they are the direct result of government action.

High taxes are far better than paying CEOs their un-earned bonuses and glutoness incomes.

In the 50's the CEOs earned 30 times the lowest employee. Now they get 300 times that, and often more. This is not a perfect situation for the middle income people of the nation.

The happiest people on earth are the nothern European nations. They pay high taxes but have more quality of life with less financial worries.

[sojourner]

The happiest people on earth are the nothern European nations. They pay high taxes but have more quality of life with less financial worries.

Happiness is a state of mind.It has very little to do with wealth or standard of living. My guess is that they do not have politicians, national media, and special interest groups haranguing them 24/7 about how unhappy they should be.

[vagabond]

My guess is that they do not have politicians, national media, and special interest groups haranguing them 24/7 about how unhappy they should be.

Why gues? There are numerous sites that give the info and the voices of their citizens. My guess would be that happiness comes with contentment and freedom from fear.

[sojourner]

Why gues? There are numerous sites that give the info and the voices of their citizens. My guess would be that happiness comes with contentment and freedom from fear.

Sounds about right. My point is that we have two political parties and their cohorts in the media that keep telling us why we should be discontented and fearful.

[jlynne]

I lost the freedom to go bankrupt and lose my home and business from medical bills if I get sick or have an accident with no health insurance. X_X

I lost the ability to go without health insurance forever due to pre-existing conditions, but I'm not sure that was a freedom.

Obamacare does nothing to prevent health care related bankruptcies. The law doesn't fix the problems with high deductibles, high co-pays, and non-covered services. It doesn't fix the lifetime cap on certain benefits, either. And it doesn't prevent a doctor or hospital from turning you over to a collection agency for those unpaid fees. So you still have the freedom to lose your home and your business to medical bills, not to mention your good credit.

Oh, and Obamacare does nothing to lower health care costs or the cost of health insurance. So we're all going to pay more for what we can only hope is the same level of care.

[foxyladi]

I've lost my freedom to log on here and not be attacked for being a Hillary Clinton and an Obama supporter.:rolleyes:

awwww hugs

[Foggy]

... you still have the freedom to lose your home and your business to medical bills, not to mention your good credit.So you're saying I haven't lost any freedoms at all under President Obama's administration.

And nobody yet seems to have made a cogent and rational claim that they've lost any freedoms at all, especially not any of the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, under his administration.


I wonder why all the whining about "socialism," then? :rotfl:

[jlynne]

So you're saying I haven't lost any freedoms at all under President Obama's administration.

And nobody yet seems to have made a cogent and rational claim that they've lost any freedoms at all, especially not any of the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, under his administration.


I wonder why all the whining about "socialism," then? :rotfl:

No, my post was correcting what I considered a factual error in your original post. Since you asked what freedoms I have lost since Obama became President, I will answer you.

After my husband passed away, I decided to sell his gun collection. I contacted an auctioneer who frequently holds gun auctions at his gallery. After the contract was signed, he ran the serial numbers of the guns through the ATF to ensure they were all legal. The ATF contacted him and said that he could no longer sell the guns through his gallery, that the only place he could conduct a gun auction was at the home of the seller. I would not agree to this for safety reasons.

So we made arrangements for a licensed gun dealer to be present at the auction to do the background checks and the actual transfers. I've been attending auctions conducted this way since the 1980s. Again, the ATF stopped the auction. The ATF agent I spoke to cited a rule change under the Obama administration that limited all gun auctions to the owner's home. He verified that he would arrest the auctioner if he tried to conduct the auction at his gallery, even with a licensed gun dealer present to do all the necessary paperwork.

The auctioneer then offered to purchase the guns from me (at a reduced rate, of course) because he is a gun collector and has the appropriate curio and relics license. The ATF agent said that I could not transfer the entire collection of guns to him under any circumstances. Because of the number of guns involved, I would be considered a gun dealer if I did. And I would need a federal firearms license to make the transfer legally.

I have contacted several of my husband's friends about this (all licensed firearms dealers) and each one has confirmed that the Obama administration has made significantly different interpretations of the gun sales laws than the Bush and Clinton administrations.

So my freedom to sell my firearms has been signficantly hindered by the Obama administration. I suspect my situation is fairly rare and I am certain that I can work out something with the ATF to rectify the problem. But it has been a hassle, nonetheless, and in the end it will probably cost me several thousand dollars. Plus I am uncomfortable having certain family members over (especially one with young children) while the guns are still stored here. So I am missing out on the comfort of having my family nearby.

I don't blame it on socialism, though, or even Obama directly. It's just a byproduct of an political belief that places society over the individual.

[Jim744]

Obama's health care will cause very high taxation on all working Americans. Taking even more of a person’s net income strips away that person’s freedoms. When someone has less disposable income, he/she has less choicesand when he/she has fewer choices, he she is less free.

Regarding health care, from what I can gather a person loses:

freedom to choose your doctors
freedom keep your existing plan
freedom to choose high deductibles
freedom to choose what's in your plan

[Kbentleyis]

Europe's stock markets are in a freefall. Think Greece. Socialist policies don't work--for long anyway. They are unsustainable. The IMF told Greece to eliminate "universal health care" and reform retirements. Their unions and retirement plans are alot like the many in this country--and they're bottoming out. Where they're getting money to donate to politicians is beyond me. But 150 billion is on the table for the teachers union today that we're paying for.

We're teetering. I know how perfect the BHOcare sounds, but troops, we can't afford it. Right now, BHO's administration is borrowing money to pay China on the interest of our loans.

47% of the people in the USA do not pay taxes.

So, please explain to me, (because I've lost my peace of mind which probably isn't considered a freedom), how would you resolve the deficit.

Bush was a starter, but BHO and congress has shown NO resolve on spending. Stimulus and bailouts didn't work no matter how many bloggers or drive-by media proclaim success.

[Suzan]

Obamacare does nothing to prevent health care related bankruptcies. The law doesn't fix the problems with high deductibles, high co-pays, and non-covered services. It doesn't fix the lifetime cap on certain benefits, either. And it doesn't prevent a doctor or hospital from turning you over to a collection agency for those unpaid fees. So you still have the freedom to lose your home and your business to medical bills, not to mention your good credit.

What do you mean by non-covered services? The bill doesn't allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. That helps to prevent health care related bankruptcies because pre-existing conditions are frequently involved in the cases that lead to bankruptcies. There are other ways it helps. I have the data somewhere, but I can't put my hands on it at the moment.

Oh, and Obamacare does nothing to lower health care costs or the cost of health insurance. So we're all going to pay more for what we can only hope is the same level of care.

The bill does lower health care costs in some areas. As for health insurance how can you say with certainty that we'll ALL be paying more?

[RE:]

Thank you Jlynne for sharing your story. I'm so sorry for your loss and the frustration you have gone through because of bureaucracy...even though this may be considered a small freedom lost, it's still a freedom that has been lost.:(

[spikeytx86]

Europe's stock markets are in a freefall. Think Greece. Socialist policies don't work--for long anyway. They are unsustainable. The IMF told Greece to eliminate "universal health care" and reform retirements. Their unions and retirement plans are alot like the many in this country--and they're bottoming out. Where they're getting money to donate to politicians is beyond me. But 150 billion is on the table for the teachers union today that we're paying for.

We're teetering. I know how perfect the BHOcare sounds, but troops, we can't afford it. Right now, BHO's administration is borrowing money to pay China on the interest of our loans.

47% of the people in the USA do not pay taxes.

So, please explain to me, (because I've lost my peace of mind which probably isn't considered a freedom), how would you resolve the deficit.

Bush was a starter, but BHO and congress has shown NO resolve on spending. Stimulus and bailouts didn't work no matter how many bloggers or drive-by media proclaim success.
They told Greece no such thing. Greece still has and will continue to have a Universal Healthcare Program, they just required major reforms and cuts. In fact I don't believe they can be a member of the EU without a universal healthcare program that meets certain benchmarks. Unfortunately most Mediterranean countries have very state centric healthcare systems, modeled after the bevridge type Health Services found in Britain and Cuba and are in no way comparable to what we have here, now and under the new reforms.

Expanding private for profit health insurance to tens of millions more people is by no means "Socialist".

47% of the people in the USA do not pay taxes.

So, please explain to me, (because I've lost my peace of mind which probably isn't considered a freedom), how would you resolve the deficit.

That's actually false. 47% do not pay INCOME taxes. They still pay other taxes like Payroll, Capital Gains, Estate, Excise, Tariffs, ETC. And if you got a problem with that take it up with Former President Bush, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts took millions and millions of people off of the Income Tax rolls.

Which is why I always find it Ironic when folks demand in one breath that the Bush tax cuts must be made permanent and then in the next breath whale that so many don't pay any income taxes.

[spikeytx86]

Obama's health care will cause very high taxation on all working Americans. Taking even more of a person’s net income strips away that person’s freedoms. When someone has less disposable income, he/she has less choicesand when he/she has fewer choices, he she is less free.

Regarding health care, from what I can gather a person loses:

freedom to choose your doctors
freedom keep your existing plan
freedom to choose high deductibles
freedom to choose what's in your plan
1. Nothing in the legislation changes who your Doctor is. It's still decided the same way it is now, your insurer negotiates with Doctors to establish a doctor. So it's up to your insurer and your Doctor whether they remain in your plans network. And if you don't have insurance, as long as you got cash you can still see any Doctor you want.

2. Whether you keep your plan is up to you. Unless it is an Employer Sponsored plan, then it's up to your Employer, just like always.

3. You can still choose deductibles of up to several thousand dollars. I think the cap limited the maximum deductible to either $5,000 or $7,500. So you can still choose a High Deductible Plan.

4. You can choose whatever you want in your plan. The only thing that limits you is what your Insurer offers. There is a minimum benefit requirement now, but that's really nothing new. Every state in the union requires dozens of mandated benefits in every plan. Not much has changed there.

[Foggy]

jlynne lost a freedom, I acknowledge that, and I join in offering my sympathy. That one is real.

But Jim744's "Obama's health care will cause very high taxation on all working Americans" is just a prediction, based on his opinions. Show me his record of predictions coming true, because predictions don't impress me unless the person making them has a long record of making ACCURATE predictions.

It's not a freedom he's lost, it's a freedom he thinks he's going to lose, which is like Frances Frago Townsend telling Ed Henry that the capture of Osama Bin Laden is "a success that hasn't occurred yet," so George Bush can't possibly be accused of failure to capture the man.

In fact, capturing Osama was a HUGE success for George Bush. Except it still hasn't occurred yet. McCain knows how to find Osama -- he promised that much during the campaign. But when he lost, he decided not to help President Obama with it, maybe because of pique, maybe because he wants Osama free and alive to cause trouble for this president.

But we did find one person who lost a freedom, and I support jlynne in her attempts to unload those guns without the stooopid bureaucracy.

[Kbentleyis]

Spikey, I disagree. Yes, Greece was told to lose the health care and reform retirements.

And, universal health care IS socialist.

You have to ask yourself, if universal health care, and the state of our USA unions are such a benefit to us--why is Europe stocks, and ours for that matter, falling?

I've listened to both sides of the arguments from economists, and believing more entitlements will help, is just plain day dreaming.

[foxyladi]

Thank you Jlynne for sharing your story. I'm so sorry for your loss and the frustration you have gone through because of bureaucracy...even though this may be considered a small freedom lost, it's still a freedom that has been lost.:(

this is exactly how take overs happen..one little thing at a time

[vagabond]

jlynne lost a freedom, I acknowledge that, and I join in offering my sympathy. That one is real.

But Jim744's "[COLOR=Black]Obama's health care will cause very high taxation on all working Americans" is just a prediction, based on his opinions. Show me his record of predictions coming true, because predictions don't impress me unless the person making them has a long record of making ACCURATE predictions.

But we did find one person who lost a freedom, and I support jlynne in her attempts to unload those guns without the stooopid bureaucracy.

The healthcare that went through has far too many Republican 'wants' in it to be called Obamacare.

If we had gotten what Obama wanted it would have been a national healthcare system, that was exactly what a government is supposed to do, take care of the population, somewhat like a police force or fire dept, does. I have never dealt with a crime, I have never had a fire...but I pay taxes for those things to be there for those who do. Good use of my money.

Obama did not push through a universal healthcare program that would have been his preferance. He began putting a lot of Republican footprints in it, and gave away more to them. He did say that he would be their president, too.

What it came to, meant that our dollar does not give us the best for all the people, because too much will stay the same. What we got, was some hope for more people getting some coverage, where before thay would not.

What US citizens pay for healthcare, right now, is NOT just the premiums and we do not get everything covered, nor the choice of doctors. We also pay for the co-pay, the charges out of pocket, charity for a sad and unjust healthcare story where there is a cure or treatment, but the child or patient can't afford it/healthcare provider won't provide, along with taxes that also pay for healthcare in some way.

To tell a story of an injustice is a sad thing. Without any government "interferance", there would be even more. What can anyone do to protect us all from every injustice. Are there no sad stories coming out of the 'free market' of healthcare insurance?

If it's about capitolism, then capitolism is not working so well if it does not give US citizens the best coverage for the money to the same % of other nations with national healthcare, who are not Socialist nations. In those nations it is easier, there is less paper work, etc. etc. Look it up. Find it out. If France isn't a perfect system, it is better than ours, and easier. Compare by the percent not one or two sad stories that are far more in this nation of un-insureds.

Over the last fifty years or so, capitolism has taken too much from the customer and given the profit to too few people. Too often, Capitolism has allowed for greed to be the measure of success, not quality for the customer.

Did we get to vote for that?

[sojourner]

Over the last fifty years or so, capitolism has taken too much from the customer and given the profit to too few people. Too often, Capitolism has allowed for greed to be the measure of success, not quality for the customer.

Over the last fifty years, our health care delivery system has moved so far away from free-market capitalism that to blame capitalism for the current state of affairs would be a huge stretch. The trend started during FDR's administration and has only gotten worse.

[RichardMZhlubb]

Spikey, I disagree. Yes, Greece was told to lose the health care and reform retirements.

And, universal health care IS socialist.

You have to ask yourself, if universal health care, and the state of our USA unions are such a benefit to us--why is Europe stocks, and ours for that matter, falling?

I've listened to both sides of the arguments from economists, and believing more entitlements will help, is just plain day dreaming.

So, can I safely assume that you never supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy?

[jlynne]

What do you mean by non-covered services? The bill doesn't allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. That helps to prevent health care related bankruptcies because pre-existing conditions are frequently involved in the cases that lead to bankruptcies. There are other ways it helps. I have the data somewhere, but I can't put my hands on it at the moment.



The bill does lower health care costs in some areas. As for health insurance how can you say with certainty that we'll ALL be paying more?

Having insurance isn't the answer to the health care crisis in America or at least isn't the complete answer. Most people who are bankrupted by illness had insurance, at least until their illness cost them their job.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Insurance doesn't pay for anything close to the services that someome with a serious/terminal illness actually needs. Copays, deductibles, prescription drugs that aren't on the insurance company's approved list, medical devices, skilled nursing care, etc., etc., etc. add up to thousands of dollars a year for a serious illness and tens of thousands of dollars for some terminal illnesses.

In my opinion, Obamacare opened the doors for care wider without fixing the problems with the care once people were inside the door. It wasn't the people on the outside that were causing prices to increase. It was the mismanagement of the care on the inside of the doors. Now we have more people using a broken system. So I fully expect that to increase the cost for everyone while lowering the quality of care even further.

[vagabond]

Over the last fifty years, our health care delivery system has moved so far away from free-market capitalism that to blame capitalism for the current state of affairs would be a huge stretch. The trend started during FDR's administration and has only gotten worse.

The blame game, is it?

We have a situation of abuses by Big Business not giving the customer the best quality at the best price. We have comparisons with other nations and the USA rates a low 37th....too many argue for those who can afford good coverage at any price (but still under the rules CEOs make) while 30 million get nothing at all.

Healtchare was not a citizen vote, after all. Politicians get to do that for themselves. All too often political-speak does not speak for the good of constituencies as much as with who is paying them the most.

We are being pursuaded by a political fight for power that keeps too many words going that blind us to what is true or reasonable.

I like the thought that, as Americans, we won't believe everything our political party tells us is good for us all, without verifying the % it is good for vs, the level of abuse.

Things have tipped and it was not done by FDR, by Obama, or even GWBush.
I think that we citizens have not done enough of our own fact finding and then ponder it well.

The blame falls back to all of us. But, that is, I suppose, just an opinion of a verifiable rebel.

….facts to check....
Landmark health reform legislation enacted by Congress in March will guarantee health security for all Americans and end the worst insurance company abuses, such as pre-existing condition exclusions. Thanks to the new law, insurance companies will have to spend more of our premiums on health care instead of soaring profits and executive pay, and they’ll have to defend their outrageous rate increases. States will get the resources they need to regulate insurance companies, and insurers that violate the rules will be punished.

Read more at:

http://hcfan.3cdn.net/d605c2281191ac1f04_kam6bn3ga.pdf

[sojourner]

The blame game, is it?
I quit reading your post here. Obviously you do not want to have a serious discussion.

[vagabond]

I quit reading your post here. Obviously you do not want to have a serious discussion.

I think the truth is about facts and thinking about them reasonably.

Opinions on what is being said only, is less valuable than facts and % of value.

Sorry, if I offended. I won't post again.

[Spang]

Sorry, if I offended. I won't post again.

Don't let sojourner get to you, he's anal-retentive. Keep posting.

[spikeytx86]

Spikey, I disagree. Yes, Greece was told to lose the health care and reform retirements.

And, universal health care IS socialist.

You have to ask yourself, if universal health care, and the state of our USA unions are such a benefit to us--why is Europe stocks, and ours for that matter, falling?

I've listened to both sides of the arguments from economists, and believing more entitlements will help, is just plain day dreaming.
Socialist:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Merriam Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

So how does expanding private for profit insurance to cover most, but not all, of the uninsured fit in that definition? Last I checked Aetna, Cigna, United Healthcare, ETC. are privately held companies.

And who said anything about Unions? But since you brought it up, even at the peak of Union power in the Fifties here in America, Labor never had anywhere close to the power Trade Unions had or have in Europe.

And why are things so bad right now in Europe and America? Because we have refused to pay for anything. Boomers have demanded more and more benefits like Part D and absolutely no cuts to Social Security and Medicare (which actually is a socialist, single payer program), with zero new taxes to pay for it. People complain about health care reform, but there was nothing cut, nor new taxes raised, to pay for Medicare Part D. Not even an attempt.

We could have a Government half it's current size, heck even a third, but if we refuse to pay for what we have we will still be in the same boat. People just don't get it. Most people think the solution is to end earmarks, $20 billion a year in savings, and across the board tax cuts, which is hundreds of billions a year in reduced revenue.

The math doesn't compute, no matter how many lines and circles are drawn on a chalkboard to try and make it so.

If the Tea Parties want to show they are against runaway spending, entitlements, and a Government more in line with what "Our Founders Intended", then let them lead by example. When Tea Partiers burn their SS checks and Medicare Cards at rally's I will take them seriously. What could be more dramatic and representative of the actual Boston tea party then that?

[sojourner]

If the Tea Parties want to show they are against runaway spending, entitlements, and a Government more in line with what "Our Founders Intended", then let them lead by example. When Tea Partiers burn their SS checks and Medicare Cards at rally's I will take them seriously. What could be more dramatic and representative of the actual Boston tea party then that?You are unbelievable.

[cinnamongirl]

Socialist:



Merriam Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

So how does expanding private for profit insurance to cover most, but not all, of the uninsured fit in that definition? Last I checked Aetna, Cigna, United Healthcare, ETC. are privately held companies.

And who said anything about Unions? But since you brought it up, even at the peak of Union power in the Fifties here in America, Labor never had anywhere close to the power Trade Unions had or have in Europe.

And why are things so bad right now in Europe and America? Because we have refused to pay for anything. Boomers have demanded more and more benefits like Part D and absolutely no cuts to Social Security and Medicare (which actually is a socialist, single payer program), with zero new taxes to pay for it. People complain about health care reform, but there was nothing cut, nor new taxes raised, to pay for Medicare Part D. Not even an attempt.

We could have a Government half it's current size, heck even a third, but if we refuse to pay for what we have we will still be in the same boat. People just don't get it. Most people think the solution is to end earmarks, $20 billion a year in savings, and across the board tax cuts, which is hundreds of billions a year in reduced revenue.

The math doesn't compute, no matter how many lines and circles are drawn on a chalkboard to try and make it so.

If the Tea Parties want to show they are against runaway spending, entitlements, and a Government more in line with what "Our Founders Intended", then let them lead by example. When Tea Partiers burn their SS checks and Medicare Cards at rally's I will take them seriously. What could be more dramatic and representative of the actual Boston tea party then that?

Many of them don't seem to see their own money from the government as entitlements or handouts--it's a very strange double standard. Keep the government out of my Medicare!

[Foggy]

So let's do our sums, children.

A thread about what freedoms you have lost under President Obama, that you still had before he took office.

And we've got one person, jlynne, who makes a credible case that she's lost a specific freedom, the right to sell her deceased husband's gun collection. Or at least the bureau cats have made it damned difficult for her.

All the other posts boil down to some amorphous, nebulous claims about how the government is slowly intruding into our lives, which is true but didn't start with President Obama ... and more crabbing about the health insurance reform law, which was one of his main campaign promises and a big reason 70 million Americans voted for him.



I'm not detecting a huge loss of freedoms here. But I still sympathize with jlynne and hope she defeats the ATF.

[Tybee]

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize three expiring provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. While the bill they passed strengthened civil liberties in several small ways, the Committee failed to make any meaningful improvements to the Patriot provisions that are most prone to abuse. Disturbingly, Obama Administration officials played a significant behind the scene role in opposing stronger civil liberties protections, directly contradicting Obama’s positions as a Senator.

Two of the most problematic surveillance powers the Patriot Act grants law enforcement are 1) National Security Letters (NSLs) and 2) Section 215 orders. As a Senator, Obama supported reforming both sets of powers “to protect the freedoms of innocent Americans while also ensuring that the government has the power it needs to investigate potential terrorists.” Senator Obama supported these protections through the SAFE Act, which he co-sponsored in the 109th Congress, and also in a signed 2005 letter to his Senate colleagues.

Under the Patriot Act, FBI agents may issue NSLs to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone, including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers. To do this, the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation. Anyone receiving one of these orders is prohibited by law from speaking about it to anyone else, except their attorney. The FBI issues tens of thousands of NSLs each year, most of them directed at U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

As a Senator, Obama favored raising the standard for issuing an NSL to require a link between the records sought and a terrorist, spy, or other agent of a foreign power. Yet the Obama Administration opposed an even weaker standard – one that would require that the government draft an internal statement of "specific and articulable facts" showing that the information sought was somehow relevant to an investigation. Instead, according to the deliberations of the Judiciary Committee, the Administration favored a mere relevance standard.

Section 215 works in a similar manner to NSLs, enabling the FBI to require anyone to produce "tangible things"—such as business records—relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism. As Senator, Obama supported an amendment to raise the standard for issuing a Section 215 order to require a link between the records sought and a terrorist, spy, or other agent of a foreign power. The Obama Administration opposed this very change to the Patriot Act, dooming its prospects in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

These expansive powers have already been abused. The Justice Department's own Inspector General (IG) issued two reports on the use of NSLs from 2003 to 2006. The IG found that the FBI issued NSLs when it had not even opened an investigation, and that the FBI retained information obtained through NSLs almost indefinitely, even when the person is not suspected of any crime. Often the information obtained with an NSL is made widely available to thousands of people in law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

So what happened? Why did President Obama about-face on the very civil liberties protections he supported a few short years ago as a Senator? Has the President now determined that the contraction of American civil liberties is outweighed by the political risk of something happening on his watch? With Democrats in charge of Congress and strong civil libertarians at the helm of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the time for Patriot Act reform is now. But with the Administration pushing in the wrong direction, the chances for reform have been diminished. Now it's up to the House Judiciary Committee to stand its ground. The opportunity for real reform will not come again anytime soon. Congress needs to do the right thing, even if Obama will not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/obama-versus-obama-on-the_b_315638.html

[samurai007]

So let's do our sums, children.

A thread about what freedoms you have lost under President Obama, that you still had before he took office.

And we've got one person, jlynne, who makes a credible case that she's lost a specific freedom, the right to sell her deceased husband's gun collection. Or at least the bureau cats have made it damned difficult for her.

All the other posts boil down to some amorphous, nebulous claims about how the government is slowly intruding into our lives, which is true but didn't start with President Obama ... and more crabbing about the health insurance reform law, which was one of his main campaign promises and a big reason 70 million Americans voted for him.



I'm not detecting a huge loss of freedoms here. But I still sympathize with jlynne and hope she defeats the ATF.
It doesn't matter if Obama campaigned for it, Obamacare mandates and penalties are a massive loss in personal freedom, and a huge power grab.

[Foggy]

It doesn't matter if Obama campaigned for it, Obamacare mandates and penalties are a massive loss in personal freedom ...Not to me they aren't. I gained a new freedom: the right to buy health insurance, even with pre-existing conditions.

[Tybee]

Not to me they aren't. I gained a new freedom: the right to buy health insurance, even with pre-existing conditions.

Have you bought a policy that allows pre-existing conditions yet? Oh wait... Don't forget that none of Obama's health care crap is remotely paid for yet. Maybe we can't some money from China................

[Laura Cereta]

There is really no point to this question since technically, freedom is. Rights are given. Though both are functions of human language, rights are an artificial construct. Natural rights refer to the inalienable ones we are born with and which are endowed (given) by our Creator. These rights can either be exercised or not but they cannot be given to us or given away by us. The Constitution doesn't give them; it simply lists them.

Other rights are given by the State. A person can be forcibly denied rights through sanctions without ever losing freedom. For example, a person is free to drive under the influence, wreck their vehicle, and flee the scene. Under the guidelines of the State, however, they do not have a right to do such things without sanctions.

[mcgowan.swan]

Having insurance isn't the answer to the health care crisis in America or at least isn't the complete answer. Most people who are bankrupted by illness had insurance, at least until their illness cost them their job.



http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Insurance doesn't pay for anything close to the services that someome with a serious/terminal illness actually needs. Copays, deductibles, prescription drugs that aren't on the insurance company's approved list, medical devices, skilled nursing care, etc., etc., etc. add up to thousands of dollars a year for a serious illness and tens of thousands of dollars for some terminal illnesses.

In my opinion, Obamacare opened the doors for care wider without fixing the problems with the care once people were inside the door. It wasn't the people on the outside that were causing prices to increase. It was the mismanagement of the care on the inside of the doors. Now we have more people using a broken system. So I fully expect that to increase the cost for everyone while lowering the quality of care even further.

we got universal health insurance, not universal health care. we are now mandated to the worst of both plans. and yes i supported hillary, but her health plan was the best of both worlds, there were differences. not major ones but ones that made all the difference. i remember reading her plan and his and hers was more appropriate but i am old and cant remember exactly what it was that impressed me as very important and making a difference in the two plans. and i dont care enough anymore to look it up. so dont ask.lol swan.

[mcgowan.swan]

Not to me they aren't. I gained a new freedom: the right to buy health insurance, even with pre-existing conditions.

the only good thing i see in obamacare is the abolishing of the pre-existing condition clause. but that clause is not a stand alone bill. and therein lies the problem.

as many are complaining about, you didnt gain the right to buy, the government gained the right to make you buy. so we lost the right to decide for ourselves whether or not we need, or can afford to buy health insurance and the right to decide when we might need to buy it.


the freedom to make our own life choices is a freedom i hold dear. i think i have lost that freedom in regards to health insurance purchasing. and i feel that losing that freedom is only the first small step in a much bigger plan of the obama administration. but alas, to say so makes me a conspiracy theorist and a racist in so many eyes and a prime target for the tin foil hat haters. lol

so, my apologies dear one, i was only joking. yeah!!! swan :laughing:

[spikeytx86]

You are unbelievable.

You know I was going to post something Redonkulous and smart ass here but I am way too tired from work and frankly I like your opinions on things, but we just seem to rub each other the wrong way most of the time. So as a goodwill gesture I will leave you this.

A funny kitty photo.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/27/128802461827909330.jpg

That's all for you Sojourner.

And your welcome. :)>-

[sojourner]

You know I was going to post something Redonkulous and smart ass here but I am way too tired from work and frankly I like your opinions on things, but we just seem to rub each other the wrong way most of the time. So as a goodwill gesture I will leave you this.
Your post just seemed a little over the top and out of character for you. I could be wrong. It is bound to happen sooner or later. :) People seem to have a large emotional investment in this topic.

[spikeytx86]

Your post just seemed a little over the top and out of character for you. I could be wrong. It is bound to happen sooner or later. :) People seem to have a large emotional investment in this topic.
I have been posting after work this week. And I must admit I was rather cranky.

[sojourner]

It is not that I have lost any freedoms. It is just that they have been diminished. My biggest loss has been the ability to sleep at night without fearing for my country.

That and the will to live.