Wednesday, March 24, 2010

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms


by David Hogberg
Capital Hill
March 21, 2010

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

19 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

Q1. You are young and don’t want health insurance?

-------------------

A1: Everyone now faces the same position. When you're old and need it, the young and healthy will support you, just as today, thanks to this bill, the young and healthy must support the old and infirm today. It's called family, society, community, responsibility etc.
-------------

Q5: You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

A5: Want corporations to be able to refuse your children coverage because they're "slackers"? Even though they are ill? And their illness might be causing them to "slack" a little?
-------------

Q6: You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children?

A6: I thought conservatives cared about the family. Seems they don't.
-----------------

Q11: If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough.

A11: Imagine Doctor Bernie Madoff.
-----------------

Q14: You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

A14: You are the federal Reserve and you want to raise interest rates? Well, if that raise is deemed "unreasonable" by the government then you simply can't and it will be denied. [This is Larry's desired position for the FederalReserve]
-----------

Q15: The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry.

A15: Larry wants to do this to the Federal Reserve.

He doesn't want to do it to Big-Pharma.

Q17: The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies.

A17: See A15. Plus, it is clear Larry supports Big Pharma, and Big Insurance over the interests of the people Big Pharma and Big Insurance are supposed to ACTUALLY SERVE.
-------------------

Q18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.

A18: Suddenly Larry is exposed as a supporter of the finance industry and the obscene pay rises and rewards of its CEOs and stockholders.
-------------------

Q19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return.

A19: Gee - a whole .5% extra tax if you and your partner earn a half million dollars pa. Bill Gates and the banking/insurance execs are really gonna feel the pinch in these toughest of times, huh?

Pity them having to pay a little for the poorest to be able to get healhcare? Shocking, isn't it?
------------

Q20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure.

A20: What a disaster! Hollywood scalpels will come to a standstill.......

Larry said...

Funny, the whole article was about our "FREEDOMS" being taken away, and you didnt debunk ANY freedoms being taken.

"Everyone now faces the same position. When you're old and need it, the young and healthy will support you, just as today, thanks to this bill, the young and healthy must support the old and infirm today. It's called family, society, community, responsibility etc."

Yeah, but its NOT called "GOVERNMENT". That's who the Democrats think they are, they think they can run people's lives better than THEY can. Where's the personal freedom in that??

"A5: Want corporations to be able to refuse your children coverage because they're "slackers"? Even though they are ill? And their illness might be causing them to "slack" a little?"

Age 26 is WAY past the age of dependancy on your parents. If companies are forced to allow their workers kids on their insurance until age 26, then why as a parent can't I continue to claim them on my tax return until they are 26?? Since the IRS is overseeing this whole thing, they would be directly involved and should be able to grant me that as a parent. I can understand pre-existing conditions, but if the child gets the illness at age 20, the parents' insurance should not have to cover that.

"A6: I thought conservatives cared about the family. Seems they don't."

Oh brother, that response is so ridiculous--it's basically an admittance on your part that the health care bill is shit. Same with your Bernie Madoff response. This article is about FREEDOMS, NOT charity.

So, youre saying if I dont want children, my policy has to cover the cost of YOUR child being born?? WHY???? Tell me why????? Do you make it a habit right NOW to walk around your neighborhood giving away free money to people you dont know for their welfare?? Hmmmm? Do you? I'd actually like AN ANSWER to that.

"A14: You are the federal Reserve and you want to raise interest rates? Well, if that raise is deemed "unreasonable" by the government then you simply can't and it will be denied."

There's nothing wrong in an of itself for insurance companies to raise premiums to meet costs, so they should have the freedom to do that. [Remember, the article is about FREEDOM---you keep "forgetting" that]. However, insurance companies should be regulated as to not ABUSE raising premiums. BIG difference between regulation to stop abuse and greed and saying "you absolutely CANNOT raise premiums". That's fucking Nazi Germany [which you claim to be against]. Your Federal Reserve analogy was just plain ridiculous. The Fed is an independant agency [theyve admitted it] and have NO right to even EXIST let alone raise interest rates. The fact that you even brought the Fed into it shows your argument was weak from the get-go.

Larry said...

"Q15: The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry.

A15: Larry wants to do this to the Federal Reserve.

He doesn't want to do it to Big-Pharma."

HUH? I want to extract a fee from the Fed? ?????? I dont want them to EXIST---at ALL. They didnt exist before 1913 and our country ran GREAT without them for 137 years!!! Whats the Fed have to do with health care?

"A17: See A15. Plus, it is clear Larry supports Big Pharma, and Big Insurance over the interests of the people Big Pharma and Big Insurance are supposed to ACTUALLY SERVE."

I support the FREEDOMS of Pharma and Insurance companies-----NOT their ABUSES. So, youre saying if I dont become Stalin or Hitler and say to companies and citizens "you MUST do this, you MUST do that" then I support their abuses??? You need a straight jacket!!

"A18: Suddenly Larry is exposed as a supporter of the finance industry and the obscene pay rises and rewards of its CEOs and stockholders."

HUH??? Once AGAIN--- the article is about FREEDOM. Do I think a CEO is worth 500,000 a year? Probably not. Do I want a bill saying the government can step in and strip away a reward for personal achievement?? NO. Should they be REGULATED for ABUSES? YESSSSSSS. Starting to understand th difference now?

"A19: Gee - a whole .5% extra tax if you and your partner earn a half million dollars pa. Bill Gates and the banking/insurance execs are really gonna feel the pinch in these toughest of times, huh?"

Why punish personal achievement? If I become a success and make 2 million a year, why should I have to give that to YOU just because you were content at working at Taco Bell until age 40?? Id REALLY like an answer to that.

"A20: What a disaster! Hollywood scalpels will come to a standstill......."

So, Hollywood actors are the ONLY ones who get plastic surgery? Wow, I didnt know that.

What about numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16? Couldnt debunk those? Well, you didnt even debunk the ones you addressed so I guess not! LOL

the_last_name_left said...

You speak of "freedom" Larry. You want bankers, agents of the NWO whatever to have complete freedom?

They must be "free"? And so children must be "free" to die? We mustn't let our consciences be moved by poverty and sickness, we must instead defend the absolute liberty of the wealthy and privileged, the corporations, the financial sector, the insurance companies?

Where is the freedom in being too poor to avoid healthcare?

We're talking 30m people who didn't have healthcare insurance. What would you say to them about "freedom"? Freedom means they must suffer an early death - watch their children suffer when they might instead easily be treated - if only the wealthy would forego a few extra luxuries, or a few more dollars in their tax-free high-interest accounts? You know,like bankers, financiers, stockbrokers.....all these people you rail against day in day out?

And when it comes down to it you side with them, and their "liberty" over the lives and suffering of millions upon millions of poor and the good of the community, society, families, etc.

Yours is a strange sort of ethic. Millions must suffer - sometimes terribly - for the "freedom" of the wealthy and privileged?

L: I want to extract a fee from the Fed? ?????? I dont want them to EXIST---at ALL. They didnt exist before 1913 and our country ran GREAT without them for 137 years!!!

Interesting view, though unsurprisingly seemingly completely ignorant of the actual history. but there we are.

Would you like to expand on what you mean by "GREAT"? As in the USA "ran GREAT" for the 137 between 1776 and 1913?

What exactly was so "GREAT" about it?

the_last_name_left said...

Do you mean "ran GREAT" like this:

In 1790, a thousand tons of cotton were being produced every year in the South. By 1860, it was a million tons. In the same period, 500,000 slaves grew to 4 million. A system harried by slave rebellions and conspiracies (Gabriel Prosser, 1800; Denmark Vesey, 1822; Nat Turner, 1831) developed a network of controls in the southern states, backed by the laws, courts, armed forces, and race prejudice of the nation's political leaders.

Or like this:

The Standard Oil Company, by 1899, was a holding company which controlled the stock of many other companies. The capital was $110 million, the profit was $45 million a year, and John D. Rockefeller's fortune was estimated at $200 million. Before long he would move into iron, copper, coal, shipping, and banking (Chase Manhattan Bank). Profits would be $81 million a year, and the Rockefeller fortune would total two billion dollars.

Or this:

By 1886.....State legislatures, under the pressure of aroused farmers, had passed laws to regulate the rates charged farmers by the railroads. The Supreme Court that year (Wabash v. Illinois) said states could not do this, that this was an intrusion on federal power. That year alone, the Court did away with 230 state laws that had been passed to regulate corporations.

By this time the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were "persons" and their money was property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supposedly, the Amendment had been passed to protect Negro rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.

----------

Ah - the good old days. the GREAT days.

Larry said...

What I meant by running GREAT is that we were just FINE without the Fed. Our founders warned us of the dangers of central banks, and the Fed is THE central bank.

Your logic is so distorted and you have absolutely ZERO knowledge of our Constitution, arguing with you is like arguing with a 3 year old---pointless.

"Where is the freedom in being too poor to avoid healthcare?"

A person's financial state and their freedom are two completely separate issues. Take me for example, I'm between poor and middle class, but you dont see me asking anyone for anything. Know why? Because people who have lots of money achieved that and should not have to support OTHERS because they accomplished individual success. You didnt answer ANY of the questions I asked. I wonder why. Too hard?? Cant answer me without putting both feet in your mouth?

A person might be poor but they still have the same freedom to accomplish anything they want. It's called working your way to get it. Health care is NOT a right. If it was, it would be in the Constitution-----also, if it was a RIGHT, the health care bill would not FORCE us to buy it? Whe youre FORCED to do something and told you will be punished if you dont, that's NOT a RIGHT. What makes something a right is having the freedom NOT to choose it. For example, the second amendment says I have the right to bear arms. I dont have any guns, because it's my right to CHOOSE whether I want a gun. No one has come to my house, knoced on my door and said "Buy a gun, or face a fine, pal". Know why??? Because it's a RIGHT. Health Care is NOT a right.

I asked you this previously:

1. So, youre saying if I dont want children, my policy has to cover the cost of YOUR child being born?? WHY???? Tell me why????? Do you make it a habit right NOW to walk around your neighborhood giving away free money to people you dont know for their welfare?? Hmmmm? Do you?

2. Why punish personal achievement? If I become a success and make 2 million a year, why should I have to give that to YOU just because you were content at working at Taco Bell until age 40??

Now, please answer them.

Do I want health care reform??? YES. But this is NOT reform, it's Nazism. They could have done a 100 different things BESIDES this to change health care---and of all the things they could have done, this is by far one of the worse things I could imagine.

Larry said...

"In 1790, a thousand tons of cotton were being produced every year in the South. By 1860, it was a million tons. In the same period, 500,000 slaves grew to 4 million. A system harried by slave rebellions and conspiracies (Gabriel Prosser, 1800; Denmark Vesey, 1822; Nat Turner, 1831) developed a network of controls in the southern states, backed by the laws, courts, armed forces, and race prejudice of the nation's political leaders."

Hmmm, thought believing in conspiracies was "kooky"??

LOL

Larry said...

Funny how you [TLNL] was on my site two times this morning [at 10:19am, and 11:24am] for a total of 55 minutes and didnt post one goddamned thing, or answer my questions. That ALONE makes you a complete FRAUD--when you are on my site THAT long and youre too chickenshit to answer my questions or respond.

I also know you viewed 38 pages. Getting educated?? It would take me about 3 years to view 38 pages on YOUR blog. You view 38 in just ONE morning on mine. You STILL never answered why you spent over an hour on my blog a few weeks ago---and now you spend nearly an hour this time. That's an awful lot of time to spend on a blog you hate and from a "kook"---dont ya think???

LOL

Gonna tell me why you were here 55 minutes and viewed 38 pages????

the_last_name_left said...

Larry says:

people who have lots of money achieved that and should not have to support OTHERS because they accomplished individual success.

Elsewhere Larry writes and writes and writes again the following theme:

the incessant pillaging of America’s economic security by a handful of financial elites

and

the corporate media is owned by the same interests that control the pharmaceutical companies

and

the private bankers that now own the United States......

So how do you distinguish between these "elites" that "have lots of money" but "should not have to support OTHERS" and the "elites" that you complain about whom own everything, control everything, and corrupt everything?

How do you tell the difference, Larry?

Why do you speak with such a forked tongue all the time?

One moment you're suggesting you are dead against "elites" the next you are saying things like this:

A person might be poor but they still have the same freedom to accomplish anything they want

So what ARE elites Larry, if everyone has the same freedom to accomplish anything they want?

What does "elite" MEAN if "everyone has the same freedom to accomplish anything they want?"

What exactly is wrong with "elites" if "people who have lots of money achieved that and should not have to support OTHERS"???

---------------

You are guilty of this incoherence and two-faced attitude right throughout your blog, Larry.

See the next post.

the_last_name_left said...

Elsewhere at this site, Larry publishes some rubbish by PR-IS-PLAN(et):

God forbid should representatives actually try to pass something that would benefit the American

people and not the private bankers that are beyond all scrutiny and above the law.


What about the 30m+ who are much better off now, thanks to a Bill you hate, Larry?

Whilst you posture as a friend of "the poeple" and an enemy of what you like to call "elites", the

reverse is in fact true when it comes down to it.

Larry is today claiming:

I support the FREEDOMS of Pharma and Insurance companies-----NOT their ABUSES.

Yet you complain when the government seeks to PREVENT ABUSES, by, for example, the point 14 :

Q14: You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that

increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject

to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)


Why do you oppose this measure if you oppose insurance "abuses"?

You say you oppose ABUSE, but claim measures to prevent such abuse are a denial of FREEDOM.

You're facing both ways, Larry.

All over the place.

Today you claim wealthy people "deserve" being wealthy, and that it's all well and good.....and

that any efforts to curtail the ABUSES of the wealthy and instead help the poorest are taking away

Freedoms.

But you also write things like this:

Senate authorities, bought and paid for by the private bankers that now own the United

States......


Why do you complain about these "hard-working entrepreneurs" who "now own the United States"?

Is the freedom of these bankers a good thing? Or a bad thing? Are there actions a good thing or a

bad thing?

You are ALWAYS posing as some friend of "the people"....and warning of the dangers posed by all

sorts of PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT organisations:

eg:

the people who created the Fed were bankers, not politicians, that means the Fed was created by

people who were not elected into office.


So, these "elites and bankers" bankers can't run banks or business ethically and responsibly but

they can run healthcare?

And whilst private banks are run by supposed "elite criminals", when those same supposed "elite

criminals" are in charge of healthcare and are brought to heel for the benefit of poor american

citizens, you start screaming about loss of freedoms!

the_last_name_left said...

Elsewhere at your blog you publish:

Since the corporate media is owned by the same interests that control the pharmaceutical companies, who by the way will stand to profit in the billions and even trillions if a policy of mandatory vaccination is enforced, it is no wonder why the fearmongering is intensifying........

So "corporate media" are "owned by the same interests that control paharmaceutical companies"?

And all you want is to protect their "freedom"....regardless that poor american citizens must go without......

One wonders why you think so highly of corporate and privatised healthcare - and why you are so against regulation, when you write things like the following:

the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests

or

A privately-run informant program operating nationwide encourages Americans to anonymously turn each other in to the authorities for cash rewards........Government funding was cut after an outcry but private funding continues...

Well, that's their FREEDOM, right?

or this:

The Federal Reserve Act, passed by Congress in 1913, laid the foundation for the creation of a privately owned and controlled central bank and gave private bankers the power to control the nation’s money supply.

So, banking shouldn't be left to private bankers - healthcare should?

And banking should be regulated by government, but healthcare not? How bizarre.

more inflation and the continued devaluation of our dollar, hence devaluing the quality of life for Americans. Who cares, right? Move on, move on…nothing to see here.


Oh - suddenly the quality of life of Americans is more important than small government and private sector? Suddenly it's a factor! But not healthcare - no! To consider welfare or quality of life of Americans over healthcare is a threat to FREEDOM!

"Allowing the [private quasi-independent]Fed to operate our nation’s monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life," said DeMint.

Oh - a private, for-profit banking system leads to abuse and a lower quality of life, but that's immaterial when we consider the same peoples' control of healthcare? Bankers and the private sector can't bank properly but they sure can do miracles in healthcare! One wonders why and how
this works!?

The private, run for profit Fed has taken trillions in "stimulus" funds and refused to even

divulge where it has gone, even under threat of lawsuits file by Bloomberg.


What's this about the qualities of the private sector over government, Larry? What is it about

being "private" that can do such wonders for healthcare, yet can't manage banking? Eh?

You find private banking and industry a threat - "NWO ELITE BALH BLAH BLAH" - but considering

healthcare syuddenly these captains of industry are hard-working fellows who've worked for all they

have.

One moment you complain of elites, the next you are screaming about steps against the elites as

being THEFT OF FREEDOMs.

the incessant pillaging of America’s economic security by a handful of financial elites

Ah - but can't do anything about it - that'd be a threat to these elites' FREEDOM? Of course....

the_last_name_left said...

“We live in an age where the American people are sick and tired of this. They are sick and tired of secret government and government out of control....

So, you complain that "people are sick and tired" of government and financial elites etc..............but when they're ACTUALLY SICK and have no way of affording healthcare -

that's just TOUGH. Gotta protect ELITE FREEDOMS. Great.

The Fed is the primary instrument the bankers are now using to destroy the middle class, hand over all public assets and resources to them, implement a crushing austerity, usher in a new era of global corporatist feudalism and build a sprawling planet-wide slave plantation based on China’s
totalitarian model.

It is the ultimate dream of the banking cartel.


But Hell! Let's hand them over the healthcare of America too! They know best! They're all so hardworking and everything, and EVERYONE HAS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.....of course. That's why there's elites.....because everyone has opportunity! Oh hold on!? What about Elite opportunity?

The elites have the same opportunity? Then what makes them elite, exactly? And if they're not elites, then who the hell is it "taking over America" as you keep complaining about?

We never ran into huge deficits because the war was completely paid for by taxes from the American people.

Ah - even though you now say it's unconstitutional!

And lo! IS this an acknowledgement by Larry that taxation isn't wholly malign and evil?

Do something people, anything to save these globalist, money and power-hungry bastards from taking over.

Do ANYTHING? Like cover 30m+ for healthcare? No? That's not "anything"?

Prevent them hiking prices? No - apparently that's not "something or anything" either. Indeed - it's a removal of FREEDOM! Apparently.

At one point Larry claims:

the fraudulous activties of the IRS (how there is NO law that says Americans have to pay taxes
on their labor)


Whereas elsewhere describing daddy Bush he calls Bush a criminal for non-payment of taxes!

"and other crimes (evading taxes...)

But what about their FREEDOMS Larry?

the_last_name_left said...

if you think it's "NUTS" to be AGAINST sending more troops to a slaughterhouse over a LIE and not wanting more Americans to DIE--------then youre a worthless piece of shit who HATES our country AND our troops. I want them to LIVE!
January 3, 2007 7:03:00 AM EST


Ah - healthcare and the lives of American Troops are obviously sooooo important to LArry.

Not so 30m of America's poorest.

the fear that the elite will tarnish their political careers if they don't continually support the establishment.....

That'd be the good hard-working entrepreneurs? or the evil private bankers and elites who own and control everything?

the power monopoly of the Republican and Democrat establishment who have worked together for decades to slit America's throat in the interests of power, greed, and ego

I guess that'd be those elites again - the ones that own everything - the bankers and financiers and insurers.....whose absolute FREEDOM to continue their course LArry desperately defends.

The right-wing, war mongering buffoon won't ever see these dead troops as being tragic.

They will never see it through a parents eyes. They will never see it through a brothers eyes, a

sisters eyes, an uncles eyes, an aunts eyes or a friends eyes. They only see it through the eyes of one.....their own non-sacrificial, detached, inhuman eyes


Only troops have parents, brothers, sisters and children of their own --- poor americans don't, apparently.

Troops fighting (in a war Larry believes is illegal) deserve public-money for healthcare. But poor Americans - whom never engaged in illegal conflict overseas - don't.

You are all over the place LArry.

Do you even begin to get a hint of how wholly incoherent your political conceptions and

"principles" are? Why is it so incoherent? because it's all a mess of nonsense Larry.

Larry said...

Jesus Christ, you are so goddamned dumb it's pathetic.

First of all, most of the elitist bankers in this country and the world inherited their fortunes, didnt work a day in thir life for it---so, that doesnt fall under "individual success". Second, what's the connection between me saying people should enjoy their individual sucesses without having to share it with others and you quoting me on the elites and their billions?? They GOT their money FROM the people, MOST times ILLEGALLY. Youre just one bad analogy after another. There's NO connection whatsoever.

"What about the 30m+ who are much better off now, thanks to a Bill you hate, Larry?

Whilst you posture as a friend of "the poeple" and an enemy of what you like to call "elites", the

reverse is in fact true when it comes down to it."

HOW are the American people "better off?" 30 million being GIVEN something to them that the remaining 270 million EARNED by hard work??? The health care system in this country IS flawed and it sucks, but ObamaCare is NOT the answer.

"Why do you oppose this measure if you oppose insurance "abuses"?

You say you oppose ABUSE, but claim measures to prevent such abuse are a denial of FREEDOM.

You're facing both ways, Larry."

Did you conveniently IGNORE the part where I said I SUPPORT regulating insurance companies? Yes you did, because youre a JACKASS.

"Senate authorities, bought and paid for by the private bankers that now own the United

States......

Why do you complain about these "hard-working entrepreneurs" who "now own the United States"?"

YES, because no one is supposed to OWN the United States. It is supposed to be GOVERNED BY the people, of the people and for the people. You might want to read our Constitution once in your entire life.

"One wonders why you think so highly of corporate and privatised healthcare - and why you are so against regulation.."

Once again, assfuck, I previously said THIS:

"However, insurance companies should be regulated as to not ABUSE raising premiums. BIG difference between regulation to stop abuse and greed and saying "you absolutely CANNOT raise premiums". That's fucking Nazi Germany [which you claim to be against]."

Ahhh, I guess you "missed" that. You didnt even address it----know why? So you could claim you didnt see it so it would allow you to type all your bullshit.

Larry said...

"So, these "elites and bankers" bankers can't run banks or business ethically and responsibly but they can run healthcare?"

I haveno clue what this quesion even means. Im AGAINST them running healthcare!!! Jesus!

"And whilst private banks are run by supposed "elite criminals", when those same supposed "elite
criminals" are in charge of healthcare and are brought to heel for the benefit of poor american
citizens, you start screaming about loss of freedoms!"

Are you REALLY this stupid? Do you think ANYTHING just given to the American people is free? You actually think the government is just giving away something for free and NO ONE suffers for it? Are you REALLY this dumb? Do you honestly think these 30 million are just being handed something for nothing without ANY consequence ANYWHERE and to ANYONE? If you think so, youre even dumber than I already KNOW you are!

"But Hell! Let's hand them over the healthcare of America too! They know best! They're all so hardworking and everything, and EVERYONE HAS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.....of course. That's why there's elites.....because everyone has opportunity! Oh hold on!? What about Elite opportunity?"

What the fuck are you talking about? WHERE DID I EVER SAY I wanted ANYTHING handed over to banking elites???????? WHERE???? Im waiting.......

ME: We never ran into huge deficits because the war was completely paid for by taxes from the American people.

YOU: Ah - even though you now say it's unconstitutional!

STATE TAXES are not unconstitutional------FEDERAL taxes ARE. STATE TAXES are NOT. Jesus youre a fucking MORON.

WHEN DID I EVER SAY I WANTED HEALTHCARE TO BE RUN BY THE FED??????????

"What's this about the qualities of the private sector over government, Larry? What is it about

being "private" that can do such wonders for healthcare, yet can't manage banking? Eh?

You find private banking and industry a threat - "NWO ELITE BALH BLAH BLAH" - but considering
healthcare syuddenly these captains of industry are hard-working fellows who've worked for all they have.

One moment you complain of elites, the next you are screaming about steps against the elites as
being THEFT OF FREEDOMs."

I have NO clue what you are saying here---its complete, 100% gibberish, and you fucking know it.

Larry said...

"Ah - healthcare and the lives of American Troops are obviously sooooo important to LArry.

Not so 30m of America's poorest."

Oh brother. Yeah, troops dying because of LIES is EXACTLY the same thing as Americans dying because they're poor----theyre EXACTLY the same thing! Jesus, youre a complete idiot!

"I guess that'd be those elites again - the ones that own everything - the bankers and financiers and insurers.....whose absolute FREEDOM to continue their course LArry desperately defends."

Name ONE elite who didnt get their billions from inheritance and not their own hard work and also who is simultaneously pillaging the American people. I cant think of one. Its not about just that they HAVE billions, it's where and how they got it!

"Only troops have parents, brothers, sisters and children of their own --- poor americans don't, apparently.

Troops fighting (in a war Larry believes is illegal) deserve public-money for healthcare. But poor Americans - whom never engaged in illegal conflict overseas - don't.

You are all over the place LArry.

Do you even begin to get a hint of how wholly incoherent your political conceptions and
"principles" are? Why is it so incoherent? because it's all a mess of nonsense Larry."

Jesus Christ, you call ME incoherent???? "Poor americans who never engage in an illegal conflict....??" When have I EVER blamed the TROOPS for the wars?? Troops dont create foreign policy, POLITICIANS do. When someone enlists to fight, even if they already know its illegal, is STILL not responsible for the wars' cause. Troops receive health care because they are SERVING IN THE MILITARY, you JACKASS! It isnt just GIVEN to them! They are risking their fucking LIVES for all of us, the LEAST the government should do is give them health care. They are risking their lives you stupid mother fucker! How dare you equate military service with POOR PEOPLE, you piece of shit!!!!

Larry said...

Answer these fucking questions or you will be permanently banned from my site and you can go to your site and post that Im censoring all you fucking want to. Im deeply offended and very fucking angry about your equating troops with poor people, saying that if troops get health care, so should poor people. Fucking night and day, asshole. Like I really give a shit what you post on your blog---only 3 people read the fucking thing!

Answer these questions or youre fucking through here scumbag.

1. So, youre saying if I dont want children, my policy has to cover the cost of YOUR child being born?? WHY???? Tell me why????? Do you make it a habit right NOW to walk around your neighborhood giving away free money to people you dont know for their welfare?? Hmmmm? Do you?

2. Why punish personal achievement? If I become a success and make 2 million a year, why should I have to give that to YOU just because you were content at working at Taco Bell until age 40??

If youre very next post isnt the answer to these questions, you're history, scumbag.

Theonomist said...

Larry -
It's obvious that TLNL is just trying to jerk your chain. His mind is made up and cannot be confused by facts.
You don't have to go so far as to pull his posts (as others have done to you) but I don't think anyone who is really interested in your site will mind if you don't bother to respond to his foolishness

Real Truth Online said...

I noticed that TLNL has been on my site TWICE since my warning that he'd be banned unless he answered my questions.

Looks like given the choice between answering my questions or being banned, he chooses just to be SILENT. Guess my questions were impossible for him to answer without him putting both feet in his mouth over his OWN ideologies. Kinda like the global warming issue too. He never answered my questions asking him if uses light bulbs and drives a car.

He's a COMPLETE FRAUD. No wonder he doesnt reveal his REAL name.