*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

Re-titled HELPING HEALTH CARE GET WELL.

Posted Saturday, July 1, 2017, at 12:39 PM
Comments
View 38 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • And the leader says repeal ACA now and deal with healthcare later,in other words leave people without insurance for now.With the highest paid staff in history money should not be a problem.

    Trump wants everyones personal voter registration information from 2016 to sort through because he can not accept that he did not get the popuar vote.He believes in states rights,let them hande this,in which they already have and found only 30 questionable concerns out of 25 million votes,Even his vice president of the committee who is Secretary of State in his home state is not sending in theirs.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sat, Jul 1, 2017, at 2:07 PM
  • Come on lbur, we are trying to have an adult conversation here. If you repeal ACA and do nothing else, what happens? ACA is repealed. Who does that deny insurance to? Exactly no one. Some people may choose to not get insurance, but nary a soul would be denied it. Personal choice! How horrible!!!! And money never is a problem, as long as it is someone else's.

    I kinda have to agree with you lbur about all this voter fraud crap. Why waste the time and effort? Not like anyone really wanted burney anyway, is it?

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Jul 1, 2017, at 4:18 PM
  • The debate over healthcare is not a debate over healthcare at all. It is a debate over insurance!!

    Healthcare costs need to brought down, no doubt. INSURANCE does not bring down HEALTHCARE cost, it increases it.

    A recent article in the TG mentioned a monthly salary for one Doctor at $84,000+ with another

    $1.1 Million in loans to be forgiven after 36 months of service. This for just one doctor not counting nurses, technicians, medicines, equipment or facilities.

    But, to be fair to doctors, the issue goes far deeper than that.

    EDUCATION! It is fairly common for doctors to leave college with high six figure debt. This kind of educational cost is prohibitive for many suitable candidates to seek a career as a physician. More doctors= more supply= less cost.

    Then there are the lawsuits, both valid and frivolous, that drive the costs up again through litigation. Insurance companies once again being in the center of the driving factors for cost.

    We will never have affordable HEALTHCARE as long as the debate is about INSURANCE. Just because someone else is stuck with the bill for our care through an insurance policy, does not make the costs less. Quite to the contrary, it drives the cost up! The increase in demand for (FREE) service drives up cost.

    When, and if, a politician starts talking about reigning in the plundering being committed by the educational systems, pharmaceutical companies, legal firms, and insurance companies,. Then, I will begin to believe there is a valid discussion that can be effective for making things affordable.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Jul 3, 2017, at 2:51 PM
  • EXCELLENT POINTS Liveforlight. This really needs to be the first post of a blog on the subject. Do you mind if I copy it and start another one? I don't want it to be lost here.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Jul 3, 2017, at 8:29 PM
  • Live for Light gets it. Fare gets it. I get it. I think virtually every person in America gets it. There is no solution to the high cost of medical care that runs through the insurance companies. You simply cannot pay an entity which provides absolutely no medical care as much as you pay the actual provider, and have medical care that costs anything other than twice as much. I would bet that even our elected officials realize that. But insurance companies can afford to purchase a lot of congressmen. And so we have this silly charade, where they try to come up with some combination or formula, where math does not apply.

    The funny thing is, insurance companies occupy a unique slot in the medical system. They, alone, do not make their money by providing medical care. They make their money by withholding it. So we all understand that insurance companies are half the problem. I think the real question, is how do we provide the pool coverage necessary to pay for expensive medical treatment without them.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 5:08 AM
  • Steve, I don't mind at all if you copy my post. Maybe, if we can get enough people thinking about the real issue. We can begin to make some progress.

    The real issue is plundering. Basically, the educational and healthcare "industries" (for lack of a better word) have a monopoly, leaving the people with no choice but to pay their ridiculous prices. The government does nothing but help them secure the monopoly through legislation and subsidies.

    Cutting the subsidies at this point will, just make the squealing of those already dependent on the plundering reach a deafening level.

    First, the supply of "healthcare" needs to be increased. This means more people being able to obtain the education needed., and the risk of ridiculously high court settlements to be reduced. This will also reduce the COST healthcare providers must pass on to the consumer.

    These two areas IMO is where the initial work needs to be done. The solutions applied here MUST NOT be subsidies which DEMS such as Bernie Sanders suggest. That will only pass the costs on to the taxpayer. This further entrenches the plundering, secures the monopolies and burdens already struggling people.

    I think Lazarus is right and that our political leaders are aware of, and profiting from, the real issues which makes the likelihood that anything will be done to stop the plundering far less.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 8:39 AM
  • I would pretty much have to agree with the above. Increasing the use of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants could help increase the supply. We also need to work on the demand side. That would require a paradigm shift to highlight the importance of personal responsibility. I can already hear some people wailing! Now, obviously, some people need a whole lot more help than they can provide on their own. And, just as obviously, not everyone in that predicament is responsible for their situation. BUT, just as obviously, some are responsible. (A lot more than many people are willing to admit.) And until they either become responsible for their care or deal with the consequences, our healthcare system will be at least partly socialism and therefore inclined to decline.

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 10:09 AM
  • If I had to choose just one aspect, Health care litigation would be my first choice.

    Lawyers just begging to start lawsuits for people, instigating, encouraging people to file is just WRONG. If lawmakers want to legislate something THAT would be the area.

    But many of them ARE LAWYERS, so maybe we should go a little further and say LAWYERS cannot hold office.

    They should stay out of prescribing which is in essence what they are doing by passing laws about what doctors can prescribe. If there is a dishonest doctor, go get'em but don't make it tougher on legitimate doctors which then gets passed on to US!

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 11:14 AM
  • LiveforLight, I just decided to re-label this post.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 11:48 AM
  • Tort reform would be a huge step to reduce costs. Implementing a loser pays system would drastically reduce frivolous lawsuits.

    Getting government and insurance out of healthcare would be another huge step.

    Look at elective procedures not usually covered by medicare or insurance. The quality of care is improving while the prices go down.

    No reason individual pools shouldn't be a reality for surgeries, cancer, or other high bill items. Even hospitals could offer their own plans which would provide a steady income to the hospital and provide insurance for emergencies.

    Some hospitals are already listing prices for procedures on their websites. Bringing back competition always helps consumers.

    There can never, and has never been, a monopoly in any area without implicit government support.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 8:30 PM
  • It seems we have a consensus as to what the problem(s) is. So, just exactly what can WE do about it?

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jul 5, 2017, at 4:56 PM
  • Well, I would say we need t seek out like minded and see if there is a movement of some sort to get the national news to pick up the idea.

    If we cannot get that type of support, maybe we could develop a short description of what we believe to be the solution and try to develop a Facebook campaign?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Jul 5, 2017, at 9:01 PM
  • The problem doesn't really get solved until Congress solves it. So the only thing we can really do to help is ensure (pun intended) a wholesale change in the membership of Congress.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 5:47 AM
  • They are the ones I hoped to "influence" through a grass roots campaign. If they have considered that angle, maybe they would share what they propose.

    Or, are they protecting their own?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 6:14 AM
  • I know it needs work, just throwing it out for comment. More explanation of how doing these things will help might be beneficial as well, to sell the idea.

    Sample statement for a Facebook or other social media campaign:

    ""A growing number of Americans are convinced that curing the ills of our Healthcare system lies not with the insurance industry, as much as what makes the insurance industry so important and healthcare so expensive.

    We see the solution as a three prong effort.

    1. Reduce, if not eliminate the frivolous litigation that encourages pariahs to feed off the medical industry. That is not to devalue the serious offense of neglect or repeated incompetence. That still needs to be prosecuted to weed-out the bad that can exist in anything involving humans.

    2. Put an emphasis on helping those who want to pursue a medical career get one, without selling their souls or having to put the heavy burden on their patients.

    3. Get politicians OUT of the decisions involving medicine and patient care. They do not need to decide how much or what type of medicine or procedures we need. That is for the doctors, medical review boards and the patients to decide.

    If you agree with us, we need to build a grassroots campaign to convince politicians it is in their best interest (if they want to stay in office) to work toward these goals. Please "like" this post, and share it with as many of your "friends" and networks as possible. ""

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 11:01 AM
  • Sounds good Steve. Might want to add something about patient responsibility, but that wording will be tricky. Those with the tendency towards responsibility are likely already acting responsibly. And those with the tendency towards irresponsibility are likely already acting irresponsibly. And the latter group will probably need some nudging from the legislature to change.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 11:40 AM
  • Responsibility like shopping providers, asking questions about tests, questioning high bills, or something else?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 7:01 PM
  • Steve, I am not sure a Facebook page would have much effect. But, any effort beats none I suppose.

    I would think that a Facebook page statement should be very broad but specific at the same time. A type of mission statement, if you will.

    Such as:

    "We the American people, intend to affect meaningful fiscal change to the Healthcare systems of our nation."

    Additionally, some type of list of grievances should be included. Such as;

    "We have come to realize that our government representatives have subverted the cause of affordable HEALTHCARE through repeated counterproductive legislative attempts. These attempts have become grievous to the people. They have increased the costs of healthcare instead of reduced them. They have inserted insurance and corporations between healthcare service providers and the people who use the services. They have been the mechanism through which violations of conscience, religion, and morality have been instigated. They have been the subject of numerous lawsuits. They have been the cause of division among the people by class, race, religion, age, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation...etc.. etc.

    Then, maybe a list of demands to alleviate the grievances.

    There needs to be an open quorum to begin to compile all the grievances and demands.

    In short, I think there will have to be a leader(s) willing to devote the time and energy needed to affect real change. However, a Facebook page could go viral and accomplish at least something.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 8:34 PM
  • What other medium do you think would start a grassroots movement?

    With a little national exposure, someone is bound to step up and develop into a spokesperson or leader.

    I am not a big tweeter (not at all actually but do have an account)

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 9:12 PM
  • Steve, asking questions and shopping providers would qualify as responsibility. But what I had in mind was more along the lines of people being responsible for their own health. A few things that are at the top of the list: smoking, drinking, eating too much. I don't really care if people want to live a healthy lifestyle or an unhealthy lifestyle. Your right to choose. But your choice shouldn't force me to pay for the consequences of your bad decisions. I think that people who don't follow their doctor's advice should have the right to seek medical care to treat their self-induced complications but should have to pay out of pocket for that care. And if they choose not to pay, the person potentially providing that service should be able to refuse. Try getting a big mac and fries without paying for it. The "system" (taxpayer and those that actually pay insurance premiums) could save literally tons of money with the above suggestions. Another area of responsibility is appropriate seeking of care. A primary care provider, such as Nurse Practitioner, Physician Assistant, or Family Doctor, is a much cheaper and more appropriate way to get care for a whole lot of things that end up in the emergency room. It doesn't take much common sense to know that a runny nose or a 2 week old rash aren't really emergencies. But if you don't have to pay a penny and nothing good on TV, why not? Another boatload of money that could be saved. Of course, it would take a good amount of re-education (maybe in some sort of camp? haha) because this behavior has been generationally ingrained into many people. Everyone seems to be all for rights, rights, and more rights. Far fewer seem to understand the responsibilities associated with those rights.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Jul 7, 2017, at 12:03 AM
  • I don't know that we are going to start a grass-roots movement from here. For that matter, I would not want to be the person who threatened a business with over a trillion dollars a year in revenue! However, you can be sure that what we are thinking is echoed by what people are thinking all over the country. What is interesting is these initial speculations about ways to improve the existing system of care. Many of ya'lls ideas would actually constitute socialized medicine. (smiley face)

    Just from a math perspective, I can tell you some ideas that are not going to have a significant impact. The ever-popular whipping boy of lawsuits. The unfortunate truth is, as personally distressing as frivolous lawsuits might be, in terms of actual dollars they are not making much of an impact. And you have to consider the other side of the coin. Medical mistakes cost us a lot more than frivolous lawsuits, although the actual figures are harder to pin down. And, to be fair, beyond the financial cost in terms of the additional medical care the mistakes can lead to; what about the personal cost?

    "Tort Reform" is a one sided solution. I would be as glad as anyone to see scam artists deprived of their ill-gotten gains. To do so at the expense of seeing true victims cut adrift is unreasonable. My thinking is that this might not be an issue for the courts. By and large medical errors are just that; errors. And, as much as I support our system of justice, a panel of 12 people who could not get out of jury duty is unlikely to have the expertise to even understand most of these cases, much less determine an appropriate remedy.

    I think we have reached a point where it would make more sense to remove, with the exception of true criminal cases, medical "malpractice" from the courts. Maybe a sort of board of arbitration, consisting of experts, could be set up to determine the appropriate remedies for medical mishaps. The cases would be determined by the testimony of experts, not by the adversarial ability of lawyers. Suitable compensation and appropriate remedial measures could be taken, and the "lawyers" would be cut out.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Jul 7, 2017, at 9:17 AM
  • That is a very reasonable solution to the tort reform problem, Laz. And I'll bet it would have a much bigger positive impact than you think. It would bring down the cost of malpractice insurance drastically while ensuring the people that are truly harmed are well taken care of. But the real cost savings would come in eliminating (well, at least markedly reducing) the practice of defensive medicine. And that would be a yuuuge savings.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Jul 7, 2017, at 2:41 PM
  • I am highly skeptical of statistics, because they can be easily skewed to support or defeat most any point of view.

    The true cost of malpractice would be one such case in which it is easy to slant the statistics based on a particular point of view. Malpractice and insurance, have tentacles that reach deep into a multitude of scenarios that lead to increased costs.

    Insurance is a fear based industry. People who realize there are risks for any given situation buy insurance out of fear that the worst case scenario may be realized. Additionally, due diligence dictates that a responsible person be prepared to meet their obligations should a loss be suffered.

    Now, entering into the scene, is the actuary. He carefully calculates the probabilities of the worst happening, the cost of that worst case, and how much to charge the fearful customer so that a nice profit can be made which then makes its' way to his balance sheet.

    Knowing that insurance is a fear based industry, the high cost of healthcare/insurance becomes a self perpetuating cycle of increased fear of financial ruin through healthcare costs, and an increase in premiums to cover said costs. Of course, if you have insurance, you can see on your EOB the discounted rate which was actually paid to the provider which looks very good on the actuaries balance sheet.

    There are many tentacles to the healthcare/insurance hydra. Many of which run through congress and into our pockets in various ways.

    Even if the cost reduction through Tort reform is small, it is one less tentacle sucking the life from us. This, in turn, can free up resources to attack another strangling intruder.

    Here are a couple of interesting article on the subject.

    https://getreferralmd.com/2015/03/the-shocking-truth-about-medical-malpractice/

    https://www.forbes.com/2008/05/05/physicians-training-prospects-lead-careers-cx_...

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Fri, Jul 7, 2017, at 7:13 PM
  • Agreed, that fear extends to the doctors and health providers as well. While I would prefer to be without insurance, I would be bankrupt several times over if I had not had it.

    Eight heart attacks (one was never treated) cancer, nexk injuries and a brain tumor in our immediate family would have financially crushed us.

    It took its toll anyway but without insurance.....

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Jul 7, 2017, at 9:17 PM
  • Steve's recounting of his insurance history (I assume they have not made a dime off of you) reminds me that our usual attitudes about goods and services do not serve us well when it comes to medicine. We pay dearly for insurance, but life is better if we never use it. We complain about having to wait for medical treatment, but I have been that guy who gets rushed ahead of everyone else..... trust me, waiting is better.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Jul 7, 2017, at 9:32 PM
  • Thank goodness for insurance when you need it. But definitely better if you don't need to use it, or need to cut to the front of the line! Healthy wishes for both of you.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Jul 8, 2017, at 9:34 AM
  • There is a definite market niche for insurance. Especially when outrageous costs stack the deck against us virtually guaranteeing that any major medical issue will result in financial ruin. Insurance companies and their employees become very wealthy by peddling fear at a profit. The more fearful the circumstance the more potential for profit.

    Additionally, insurance people and lawyers make up a significant percentage of our legislative bodies. All of which that I know enjoy very high incomes/benefits. Whether they are corrupted or just sympathetic towards regulations that help their particular profession(s)is beside the point.

    In regards to health insurance, I am more in favor of programs such as Medi-Share which can greatly reduce the costs for coverage. Also, seldom mentioned programs such as a HSA can help to provide the needed funds to meet the deductibles and copays. These can provide some immediate relief.

    All of that being said, we are still discussing INSURANCE costs and not HEALTHCARE costs.

    Imagine a world where healthcare is as affordable as furniture., or at worst, an expensive automobile. Unrealistic? Maybe, but an obviously worthy goal!

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Jul 8, 2017, at 12:58 PM
  • Actually, Fare, mine and Steve's colorful medical histories are examples of one of the fallacies in how people perceive medical costs. I can't swear about Steve, but he has always seemed pretty healthy living to me. And I am definitely a healthy lifestyle person. The people who live unhealthy lifestyles are the least expensive over a lifetime. The alcoholics, the obese, the smokers, and the sedentary; those are the people who cost the least. They die young, and they die fast. The first major problem they face usually gets them. We think of a healthy lifestyle as protecting us from illness. The truth is though, with few exceptions everyone (no matter how carefully they live) will eventually grow old, fall into ill health and die. And those of us who have taken care of ourselves withstand illness after illness and keep on ticking. Thanks to the baby boom generation, we are swinging over to a much older population. And a lot of them are entering that phase of life with a strong constitution. If we only wanted to cut medical costs, we would encourage the unhealthy lifestyles. Then most of the population would die soon after (if not before) retirement.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jul 9, 2017, at 1:19 AM
  • Colorful? Like in the red for us and in the black for healthcare? LOL

    Interesting thought about those of us who try to live healthy using the healthcare system more. I would be interested if anyone ever studied that?

    Without insurance I will pull my plug on the way into the long-term faciclity, if I can. My biggest concern about dying is NOT the dying, it is how I am leaving my loved ones.

    When it is my time, I don't want whatever value left in my estate to be spent trying to give me a few more months. Enough time to say goodbye would be nice but otherwise......

    I'm a firm believer in a consciousness after death, so that part of the equation is a new adventure. (Without healthcare, and bills I hope. ;-)

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Jul 9, 2017, at 5:34 AM
  • They have done the math, Steve.It surprised me at first, because it is sort of counterintuitive. But when you think about it, it is clear. The biggest favor we could do the healthcare system is to keel over in our 50's. Most of my relatives have burned through their lifetime savings down the stretch, and we have been wondering what will happen when the money runs out. I am not talking about people who were lazy and did not work, or people who were irresponsible and did not set money aside. We are talking about people who simply lived a long time after their health began to fail, surviving one costly medical crisis after another. Now my generation is facing that phase of life, with healthcare costs still soaring, and a lot fewer younger relatives to provide a safety net. We may soon be faced with making a national decision how to handle the issue.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jul 9, 2017, at 6:58 AM
  • Lazarus and Steve, I certainly didn't mean to imply either of you brought on or were responsible for your medical problems due to lifestyle choices. Sorry. Obviously everyone is going to get sick at some point. Despite all the advancements in healthcare, we still have a 100% mortality rate. And certainly while in decades past those with unhealthy lifestyles tended to die earlier and therefore weren't as much of a burden to society, they now tend to live longer lives. Between advancements in healthcare and Darwin weeding out the weaker ones, the poor lifestyle choice people nowadays tend to live a lot longer, sucking up resources along the way. Regardless of the way people choose to live, the last few months of life tend to be the most expensive. And a good part of that is because the patient and/or family don't want to let go despite overwhelming odds. No matter how we look at it and what we do to reduce costs, someone has to pay for it. And regardless of who that is ("government", insurance company, individual patient) there will be some form of rationing as long as people want to live forever.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Jul 9, 2017, at 7:40 AM
  • If I am understanding Lazarus correctly then he is suggesting that dying young is the best way to cut healthcare costs. While the healthcare cost for the one who is dead may be cut, I don't think that is a viable solution.

    The elderly do need more healthcare than the young. But, in my experience, the type of care they need does not need to be overly expensive. Having taken care of elderly parents, and watching my parents take care of theirs, I can tell you that the best way to cut those costs is for family members to administer the care they need.

    My father who lived into his 90s was able to stay home his entire life, up until a few days before he died. We, his family, took care of him.

    However, we now have a society that wants to send Grandpa to the nursing home and pay 6-$7000.00/month to take care of them. Indeed many families now have to work 2 jobs to keep the bills and taxes paid, which leaves no time for properly caring for their elderly family members making a nursing home or hospice the only alternative.

    Elderly folks typically have an estate and savings which is an easy target for the plunderers. Elderly people become scared, confused, and easily swayed into making decisions that lead to all their lifelong earnings being devoured by others.

    My father was one such person. But, he knew by his close relationship with his parents, and others that surgeries and treatments on the elderly rarely extended their lives for more than a few years. Those few years in turn were a miserable existence. Therefore, he made his wishes known, prior to any crisis, that he wanted no such surgeries and to never be put on life support. As a result, he maintained his health and wealth relatively well into his 90s. This, in spite of repeated recommendations for healthcare professionals to have this or that done. Could he have lived longer if he followed their advice?? Maybe, but not likely, at least with any quality of life, and certainly without being able to be at home through most of it.

    Cutting healthcare cost boils down to a fundamental principle which I have repeated on these blog numerous times.

    That principle is:

    The only justifiable reason for LAW is to cause JUSTICE to reign. JUSTICE reigns when no one is plundered of their life, liberty, or possessions.

    The most effect way to cut healthcare costs is to seek out, identify, and prosecute areas where plunder is occurring. This is what our government should be doing.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sun, Jul 9, 2017, at 10:45 AM
  • Fair Share, I for one felt no implications about my health. No worries what so ever.

    LiveforLight, that is why I said I would "pull the plug" before I checked in to any long-term healthcare facility. Both my parents passed at home, mainly because of a saintly brother.

    My mother in-law has lived with us for years and we had some nights that we were sure we're her last, but she is still with us and doing relatively well. We promised her no hospital, so she will embark on her new journey from home.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Jul 9, 2017, at 11:16 AM
  • I applaud your commitment Steve. That speaks well of you and your wife. Taking care of an elderly ,especially if they become invalid, takes a level of love and compassion that seems very rare in todays society.

    Anyway, healthcare can be helped. But it will be difficult to get enough people to agree on a direction. It seems people aren't very responsive until there is a crisis.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Jul 10, 2017, at 9:01 PM
  • There are a couple of good articles in the TG about healthcare. I am particularly interested in the Free Clinic. I will mention them to our Church and suggest we donate to them.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jul 12, 2017, at 8:22 PM
  • Thanks for reminding us Liveforlight. I saw them but had not gone back to read yet.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Jul 13, 2017, at 9:21 AM
  • Healthcare is great but Obamacare is illegal. It is Fraudulent so it is null and void. It doesn't exist legally! It is NOT the "law of the land". The law of the land is our Constitution and the laws of the United States that are made in Harmony with the U.S. Constitution, so to say Obamecare is the "law of the land is just another fraudulent Lie to deceive the people into parting with something of value, like a right or your money.

    Everything that was ever stated about Obamacare was a lie making Obamacare Fraudulent. Anything that is Fraudulent is Null and Void.

    Therefore all the congressmen/women including Trump and his admin are wasting their time arguing about repealing and replacing something that does Not exist in our country legally! How do you repeal something that is Fraudulent and doesn't exist?

    All you people have been told to buy Obamacare or be fined by the IRS. That is deceitful making Obamacare Fraudulent and a violation of your Sovereign Rights and your Civil Rights if you are a government employee or a 14th amendment citizen. If you signed up for Obamacare, you were tricked into waiving your rights by their Fraudulent Contract, BECAUSE they did not explain to you that you did not have to sign up nor Buy their Fraudulent Obmamacare insurance.

    Isis would tell the people in the towns they took over that the people had o change their beliefs over to Islam or get out of the town. They would offer to let the people stay and live in their homes if they paid a protection insurance which most people couldn't afford and wound up leaving their homes.

    Then another Muslim came along with Obamacare and told the people they had to buy Obamacare or be fined. When they signed up for Obamacare they found out they were paying more than if they had to buy pre-existing condition insurance. The cost of the deductable is so high they can never use the insurance. The only thing is, Obamacare is Fraudulent and NON-ESISTING! You are paying for something that doesn't have to pay off any claims if they don't want to.

    Now President Trump and our Congress is making complete fools out of themselves because of something illegally Obama pulled off under their nose.

    It is the job of Congress to pass laws and write them down so they are legal and apply to the persons that they apply to. Congress doesn't understand this nor any of the laws that have already been passed by earlier congresses.

    We can only sit back now and watch our Country go to hell before our eyes, because the Brain Dead democrats are preventing our President from moving forward to more important items that will help Americans with all the lies and accusations.

    Ya'll have a great day now, Ya Hear!

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Aug 25, 2017, at 11:33 PM
  • Has everyone been watching the protests and protests to the protests? What you are really watching is the beginning of a NEW CIVIL WAR.

    I am sure you have noticed that the law enforcement agencies are standing down and letting the riots and fighting go on. This is going to escalate into a Civil War between the right against the left or the blacks against the whites.

    -- Posted by sui on Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 10:35 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: