March 15, 2017
Call or Write your Senators and Representatives
and tell them to VOTE NO on H.R. 1215!
The U.S. Congress is fighting hard to take away your rights and the power of individual states to protect those rights.
The influence of BIG BUSINESS over your elected representatives is being used protect careless and greedy companies and their insurers from the responsibility to pay for their own misconduct. They are working to transfer to taxpayers the expense of caring for the victims of corporate misconduct. And if the responsibility to pay for the harm they do disappears then a primary motive for manufacturers and drug companies to make safe products disappears with it.
Let’s Get Specific
If your loved one ends up in a nursing home, and develops fatal bedsores because the nursing home chose to understaff to maximize profits, it won’t matter. This bill leaves victims of nursing home abuse with no practical remedy.
Is it okay with you if your hospitalized child suffers brain injury and dies because there were not enough health care professionals to provide proper supervision? Under this bill, Congress says your child does not have enough value to matter.
Congress is considering a devastating anti-justice wish list in H.R. 1215. The bill would federalize (so long states’ rights!) health care malpractice lawsuits, severely limiting victim’s access to justice.
Oppose H.R. 1215: Congress Should Protect Patients. Period. As many as 440,000 Americans die from preventable medical errors every year, making it the third leading cause of death in the U.S. behind heart disease and cancer.
XYZ drug company produces a drug that is hazardous to people taking it. Doctors are told that the drug “has problems”, but some doctors continue to prescribe it because they enjoy benefits from the drug company. You will not be permitted to sue those physicians under this law.
How Will It Cost Tax Payers?
Injured people must get care somewhere. If they cannot receive compensation from the party at fault, they will have to go elsewhere.
*Private health insurance costs can be expected to go up.
*Medicare will get hit for more payments.
*Medicaid will see increased claims.
*Social Security will see increases in disability claims.
*Healthcare costs will rise to cover the uninsured who seek treatment.
*Unemployment claims should be expected to rise as injured workers, uncompensated by the real wrongdoers, will make claims that would otherwise have been unnecessary.
*If you are somehow able to receive a jury verdict or settlement in any of the cases under this bill, the responsible party can require that any amounts over $50,000 be paid out over time; will it be one year, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years?? And what happens to your compensation if the wrongdoer goes out of business before the debt owed to you is paid?
So Why Would Congress Do This?
Because members of Congress owe big corporations and insurance companies for getting them elected. What other reason would cause Congress to pass laws they know will hurt Americans and add to an already heavy tax burden?
February 18, 2011
One knows they reside in a country where apparently the saying years ago by the current Secretary Of State “It takes a village to raise a child” crashes into another of my favorite sayings “Somewhere a village is missing its idiot” to create: The Village Composed of Missing Idiots
I present to the reader my proof:
Malfatto noticed Officer Truscott writing a group of teenagers citations for not wearing helmets and thought it would be a good chance to use the flat part of the park to continue teaching his son to skate without any other people around. His son was equipped with a helmet, elbow pads, kneepads and wrist guards. More
September 14, 2010
Articles, corruption, Government, HEALTH, nullification/federal mandates, propaganda, Uncategorized 1099, congress, Constitution, democrats, economy, government corruption, health care, IRS, Obama, Obama Care, republicans, senate, taxes 2 Comments
Constitution of the United States of America
Declaration of Independence
As a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece reads today:
You might not have seen it reported, but the Senate will vote this morning on whether to repeal part of ObamaCare that it passed only months ago. The White House is opposed, but this fight is likely to be the first of many as Americans discover—as Nancy Pelosi once famously predicted—what’s in the bill….
and later: More
March 22, 2010
Constitution, corruption, Government, HEALTH, nullification/federal mandates, Self sufficiency, Taxes, Uncategorized coins, democracy, Democrat, dimes, Government, health care, healthcare reform, Stupak, Treason 1 Comment
by: Lynn Swearingen (c)copyright 2010
If one is upset over the Recent Vote on Health Care, Kevin “Coach” Collins has a pretty good idea today on the Collins Report.
In the dust and fury of the past few days the brazenly cynical Mr. Stupak showed his middle finger to you. On Friday afternoon when it was sure to be lost in the noise, Stupak announced his price and it was a rather cheap one befitting the character of the man himself. His envelop held just $726,409 for improving three airports in his district. So there you have it, you were suckered.
Giving Judas what he deserves
Now it’s our turn to “slip a little something” to this sticky fingered Judas.
Since he’ll now be in a tough re-election fight he’ll need donations. I will be sending him my contribution of thirty dimes which will serve as the 30 pieces of silver his model settled for…”
Mr. Collins application is for a different reason than my own – I truly believe that the entire Health Care Bill is a massive spending bill disguised to destroy the very fabric of our Social and Economic Structure, however one can find much more eloquent dissertations elsewhere. I tend to be more straight forward and the concept of expressing my displeasure leans to the literal.
I will be sending my 30 dimes to my state Legislator who sold out at the last moment. Who knows why he chose to. As far as I know there is no big massive monetary reward waiting in the wings here.
I haven’t decided what message to include to ensure he understands. Perhaps
“It may be my obligation to forgive you for your treasonous actions, however you can ensure I will never forget. Spend this well Sir. Your opponent will be receiving 100 fold for his/her campaign.”
If one does choose to do express their displeasure, please do not forget to send dimes that were minted after 1965. Ones minted pre ’65 actually were made of silver and are worth more than a dime. Save your coins for trade if need be when the Dollar becomes useful for visits to the Lavatory versus the local big box store.
December 12, 2009
by Rob Natelson
There have been some on-line discussions recently of whether a federal mandate that individuals obtain health insurance would violate the U.S. Constitution. This issue is distinct from the issue of whether other sorts of government health programs – such as single-payer – would be constitutional.
It is also distinct from whether states can impose insurance mandates. They can: States have general governmental powers. But the federal government has only the powers enumerated (listed) by the Constitution.
Let us be clear at the outset that federal involvement in health care (except in a few isolated instances, such as federal employee benefits) certainly violates the Constitution as that document was originally understood.
I have now spent nearly twenty-years of my life researching and publishing scholarly studies on the Founding-Era record, and I have found no significant evidence that those who wrote and ratified the Constitution thought federal power would extend to health care. Quite the contrary: When the Constitution was being promoted to the public, one of the big selling points was that regulation of all such matters would remain exclusively with the states. Continue Reading
November 18, 2009
Abortion, for any reason, decreed an uninsurable, non-medical procedure.
Has the XIXth Amendment been repealed and they failed to notify us?
That one grants both/all of the sexes the right to vote. These two recent events seem to deny the fact that women still have the franchise.
I know, I know, the science flies in the face of anecdotal evidence that many women owe their survival of breast cancer to early detection by way of mammogram. But, is a low number of true positive results a good reason to abandon ten years of early detection?
Let me put it another way. The cost of a state of the art four quad grade crossing protection system, which would be installed at a four lane highway with full pre-emption, constant warning and trapped vehicle protection will be at least $750,000 and could run up to $1,000,000 in some circumstances.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) estimated that it costs about $112,000 to prevent a railroad crossing accident and about $542,000 to prevent a fatal accident under the program (Rail-Highway Crossing Program). With wrongful death awards running from $720,000 to the tens of millions of dollars, how many prevented fatalities does it take to pay off the average cost of erecting some barriers to stupidity at railroad crossings?
And, how many mammograms could be paid for at the cost of treating one late-detected breast cancer?
And who decided the women are not going to vote any more?
November 2, 2009
Posted on 01 November 2009
by Paul Ballonoff
Posted on 01 November 2009
The interest of the current administration in creating a federal national health care program, has provoked discussion of whether the federal government has sufficient power to do so. Often, the discussion is phrased as whether “the government” has sufficient power. Others have asked if the federal government has the power to compel individuals to purchase health insurance.
My article (“Limits to Regulation due to the Interaction of the Patent and Commerce Clause”, in CATO Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, Winter 2001, pages 401 – 423), gives an insight into both questions, by answering this one: why does the so-called “patent clause” of the federal constitution, not use the word “patent”?
If the word “patent” meant what we currently mean by that term, then the clause could have simply stated the relevant power by saying the federal government can issue patents. Instead, the “patent clause” carefully states that the Congress has the power to issue exclusive rights for a limited time to authors or inventors. It does not use the word “patent” at all. More
August 15, 2009
Join Dave Hodges and me this Sunday, August 16, at 9:00 pm Central time, on the Common Sense Show at Republic Broadcasting Network. We will be discussing depopulation, GMOs, CODEX, health care, forced vaccinations, and what we can do to protect ourselves.
Here is the URL for the live broadcast: