The Bain of Mitt Romney’s campaign

Tagged:  

A company that laid off hundreds of employees. A federal “bailout” to rescue a failing bank. Mitt Romney, at the center of it all.

The Bain of Mitt Romney’s campaign
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58952.html

Quote from video:
“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58952.html#ixzz1ibqLIKEs

No votes yet

All the candidates except Ron Paul are like this. They are either lawyers or accountants or collegiate politicians, and they make money through their lives by supporting our imperial system of rapacity. I could have done the same if I had wanted to, but alas, I have morals that forbid me to harm thousands-to-millions of people just for personal gains fueled by avarice.

Romney will take the Obama Example and expand that into an even higher level of screwing the common man, either through borrowing, and/or tax breaks and subsidies for the rich, and/or a tsunami or privatization that only benefits a hierarchy of Republican business buddies.

If you truly want a smaller, focused and just government, you should be voting for Ron Paul, not this RINO-mney guy. I mean, don't people even remember that he created "RomneyCare" for Massachusetts, that was just ObamaCare writ small for Massachusetts? How is Romney really any different (economically speaking) from Obama?

The 2012 Presidential election is shaping up to be the usual faux competition between two Wall Street anointed candidates and no real change whatsoever (except for the continuing change of depleting your middle class wealth and lifestyle).

Gz

Why can't people see the light of what you have posted? How many times do people have to get knocked upside the head before they wake up? The only question I have with Ron Paul is who will police the North Koreas and the Iran's if we withdrew are troops /bases considering an intell interception about a possible Killshot/EMP attack that we would be able to stop or diminish if we were in the area.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

But that's just it, DT. The summation of special interests including yours, is what keeps this imperial system growing like a cancer. What you want is an empire, like most other people want. But empires only grow more expensive with time until they destroy all inner classes, starting with the poor, then the middle class, then the remaining working class, until even the rich are imperiled by the systemic collapse that must logically follow.

If you want to see sensibility, start with yourself. Give up your insensible need to police the world. The phrase "don't tread on me", ironically, implies sovereignty. So obey that maxim.

When you look at the federal budget, BTW, you end up inescapably identifying the problem as the largest budget line items. The military is one. Medicare is another. A government that ran on Ron Paul's idea of adherence to strict Constitutional requirements, would be 1/12th as large, at best. But as an imperial system (i.e. not Constitutional), our federal government alone blows through nearly $3.5 trillion of our wealth each year now, just to keep the leftwing mollified (with entitlements, individual welfare and corporate welfare) and the rightwing mollified (with the same things aimed slightly differently). It's pure waste.

My interests don't start or stop upon growing an imperial system, and I sure don't want an empire. So far our imperialism stops at the so call building of nations we relinquished the others, not to say were not still working on it economically, besides empires fall sooner or later. It had just crossed my mind that we could better protect ourselves from those who threaten our sovereignty by being closer to them instead of waiting to stop the missiles at the front door. As for Ron Paul I like his principals and what he stands for, he is to right, right meaning adhering to the constitution and focusing on America. Do you really think they will let him be president now, no way, we would be better off building up the third party and if it’s not too late by 2016 we could have him or maybe Rand Paul. I don't see it though, the powers to be are on a predestined course we can't stop it, but we can continue to fight and stand on our principles.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

DT, neither NK nor Iran threaten our sovereignty. That's what's frustrating with dealing with people like yourself, no offense intended. We already have a huge military that's more than able to defend the nation (assuming there are no more "stand down" orders issued by Republicans to theater commanders as happened pre-911 to inhibit the scrambling of interceptors). I repeat: We can defend ourselves, even against missiles. Stomping over other nations is just an imperial pretext. Nothing else.

The old phrase "the sun never sets on the British Empire" has long now applied to ourselves, as the sun never sets on an American military base across the world. We're an empire, with all that that suggests. We keep lying to ourselves about being some sort of Democratic Republic. We haven't been a D.R. since before WWII. WWII imposed imperial government upon Americans; in effect, we became the same sort of Fascists in order to fight European Fascism. Then we never gave up that sort of structure, merging seamlessly into a new world order of Empire vs. Empire.

Ron Paul threatens to put a stop to that. The Soviet Union bankrupted itself by fighting the Cold War. We put ourselves into deep debt fighting it, then bankrupted ourselves in the generation after the Cold War ended (in 1989), since the imperial economic system runs on endless warfare. Since we have a massive base of industrialists and bankers and other such rich people who are wholly dependent on our imperial system, Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance. If he was actually elected, he'd either "change his mind", or he'd be assassinated, or the Congress would just over-rule all his vetoes. One way or another, the Imperium would march on, to its own destruction, since that's what must happen to an empire. All empires. They all run on murder and slavery, and they all collapse in violent dissolution.

I wish it would be otherwise, but my wishes have been used to wipe the asses of the imperial industrialists for my entire life. I was born in the 2nd generation after the imposition of imperial rule in the USA. Imperialism, absurd government growth, and destructive inflation are all I've known. And it's finally produced the largest Great Depression ever devised. (Make no mistake: It was devised. They planned this. Witness the bankers and industrialists running off with trillions in our money.)

Keep suggesting that my beliefs are based on a sovereignty defense question, their not it was a simplistic question, no more no less. How are radicals like Iran and North Korea no threat to us?. It's probably all BS to further the elites cause, ok I got that. Power and control, a one world government and currency, I know. Anyway I'am in the same realm, thanks as always for the knowledge, it is appreciated.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

"How are radicals like Iran and North Korea no threat to us?."

Because they are not attacking us. How difficult can this be to understand?

All 'hostile' verbiage in the world can't equate to a fired missile. And our military would pound the snot out of them if they tried that. And they know it.

Again, and not to belabor the point but to word it in another fashion, the only valid military action is a defensive one, and both NK and Iran have done nothing to warrant that. They have not attacked our native soil or facilities. Of course, we should not have worldwide facilities, since those are imperial ones, and in fact the world would be morally right to resist our incursions therein. Nationalists across the globe should be taking control of their own governments for the express purpose of closing American military facilities on their soil. You don't actually have sovereignty when you have a foreign and arguably imperial power holding command of a base on your own soil.

When you get down to it, the United States uses its military to attack the rest of the world. Just look at what we have. There's no sane use for an aircraft carrier except to carry the aircraft complement of an entire airfield overseas so it can attack another nation. It's a totally offensive weapon in total and all such carrier groups are (expensive) imperial totems. And let's not get into ICBMs or spy satellites. Those are pure tools of imperial aggression.

The United States needs to stop being an aggressor nation and start being a negotiating or participating nation. And when you get down to brass tacks, we can face Iran and NK over tables and carpet in the UN and let them blather all they like. As long as nobody fires a weapon from military forces under orders from above, everything will be fine. Americans need to start believing that national equality is fine. Given our advancing economic collapse, the longer it takes to achieve that, the more that Americans will suffer.

Saddam Hussein would have kept Iran in check. George Bush, the decider, forgot to think of this. What ever happened to his promise of Iraq oil paying for this war?

As for North Korea why not have South Korea pay for their own defense. Why should we shoulder this expense when THEY spend their money on their industrial base exporting artificially cheap cars to America.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

That's one main reason conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to deny him the nomination. Obama and the liberal news establishment (people like Scott Pelley and Bob Schieffer for starters) are absolutely SALIVATING at the prospect of Romney being the Repub candidate. Obama will WEAR HIM OUT about Romneycare. That's why the mainstream media is being so nicey nice to Romney - they want him nominated.

That should SCREAM out to conservative AND moderate Republicans that nominating yet again a liberal Repub (RINO for sure) is a guarantee that the Dems will prevail come November. But watch carefully how this is being manipulated. The first thing that is done behind teh scenes - and not mentioned on tv newscasts or in print -- is that the Iowa count was done in secret rather than publicly. That is SUCH a HUGE red flag! Then the media fails to mention that no delegates were awarded in Iowa - that it was a preference poll that is non-binding during later delegate selection.

Also the powers that be behind the scenes KNOW that evangelicals will stay home in droves in November if Romney is the nominee. He WILL NOT win against Obama. That's the part that I am astonished that people don't get.

An additional problem here is the fact that so many conservatives have been competing against one another for the Repub nomination. This, I'm sure, has both Romney and the Democrat party laughing up their sleeves. The conservative vote is actually prevailing, and will again after liberal New Hampshire - most Republicans want a conservative candidate. But the hefty conservative vote is being split among too many individuals. That's why Rick Perry and Huntsman should drop out now. It's both disgusting and infuriating to watch this unfold. I watched Pelley and Bob Schieffer prognosticating yesterday on tv, and dearly wished somebody could wipe those smug looks off both their faces. They are THRILLED and convinced that Romney's so-called "win" of (so the secret vote counters say) 8 extra votes means he will be the nominee. May God have mercy on us, and that not come to pass.

No, FG. Nobody on the right really remembers RomneyCare. They keep bleating about ObamaCare (with good reason) and then support Romney merely because he's a leading "Republican". It's classic doublethink and it's morally wrong.

Romney is a RINO and should have been shunned by real Republican elements. Too bad that real Republican elements are hard to find these days in the USA.

If no one on the right remembered RomneyCare, Mittens would be well above 25% in national polling. The man has been running for president since 2006 and still hasn't been able to resonate with more than 25% of GOP voters.

And yet he's going to get the nom. He won Iowa. Irony.

Oh well. Republicans can be sheep like the Obamabots, too.

For a guy who "doesn't resonate", the fix sure seems to be in for Romney:

Dual debates a chance to throw Romney off stride
http://www.mail.com/955792-dual-debates-chance-to-throw-romney-stride.ht...

Republicans should be honest with themselves and just admit that they are sheep. Wall Street obviously selected Romney; he is 'one of them'. So it's either going to be him or the other Wall Street employee (Obama) in the White House for 2013-2016.

That's what we're going to get: Another 4 years of bailouts and subsidies and falling employment and disappearing wages. The U.S. government will likely take over many millions of houses, condos and even apartments directly by 2016, in the continued attempt to keep home prices high enough for the bankers to profit from. This will make even more Americans throw up their hands and stop paying on their mortgages (and why not, since the deadbeats will get free houses), hence continue the process of housing deflation and stagnation.

(Good thing for me Chris is an honorable man, since making housing statements like this is what got me tossed off of ToledoTalk. LOL! But you can't stop the truth.)

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Romney super PAC outpaces Romney campaign in Iowa ad spending
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9926906-romney-super-pac...
"Final ad figures from Iowa show that a pro-Mitt Romney "super PAC" outspent Romney's own presidential campaign by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, with almost all the money dedicated to harsh attack ads against Newt Gingrich that succeeded in causing the former Speaker's poll numbers to drop precipitously."

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405157/january-04...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

When Romney wins the nomination---and nobody else really has a shot---all the Tea Party-types, evangelicals, and extreme right-wingers will hold their noses and vote for him in the general election. Mark it down.

Well you are correct but I'd say that of all the candidates. The same was true in '08 when die hard Clinton supporters made complaints about Obama.

Personally I still haven't changed my view, while Romney is the frontrunner I can still see many scenarios playing out. Had Perry dropped out this week and we could evaluate where his support was going we might have a better idea but there's still much that could happen.

MikeyA

is the only GOP candidate that is remotely electable in a general election.

Except for Paul, any of the current crop are electable in the general election. It's somewhat amusing that most of the people saying Romney is the only electable candidate, wouldn't even end up voting for him anyway.

You've got Gingrich, whose popularity peaked almost 20 years ago and needs retreads on his political tire.

You've got Santorium, who's certified Cuckoos Nest and in a general election gets the John Boy Walton vote and the backwoods cretin who sodomoized Ned Beatty in Deliverance and that's about it. Maybe the banjo-playin' kid, too.

You've got Perry who's finished but doesn't know it yet.

The black guy-womanizer and crazy-eyed witch from Minnesota have already cashed out.

There's still somebody named Hunter or Huntsman or whomever still out there still wasting his time and $$$.

And Paul.

Nope, you're stuck with the pretty-boy, blue-blooded, country-clubber RINO who started Obamacare in Massachusetts as your best shot. Hold your nose and check his name on the ballott box and good luck with all that.

BINGO STANDING OVATION on that discription. Where screwed either way from both ends..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Maybe?

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

it's gonna be Romney, after much blood-letting and a possible wild, wild west convention.

Nah

If Romney wins, he will go down to defeat, just like his embittered, vengeful supporter McCain. Both liberals. My elderly parents, who have NEVER (unlike me) sat out a national election have already said they refuse to vote for Romney, and therefore, if he gets the nomination, will stay home in November.

Who you are quoting is McCain's mother, who during the last election said exactly that - that Republicans would hold their noses and vote for her son. The problem being that enough conservatives have to hold their noses for the candidate to get elected Prez - and just as in 2008, that is not going to happen, should Romney prevail. I believe George Bush Jr. is the very last moderate Republican who will ever win the White House. I believe he squeaked through in 2000 because people believed (correctly) that he was staunchly pro life. Most conservatives do not believe that Romney is in reality pro life, and blame him for Romneycare.

We already have a liberal in the White House - conservatives won't see any point in just exchanging one liberal for another. And by the way, although Obama wouldn't directly bring up the Mormonism issue (a huge one for evangelicals) - if Romney gets the nomination, you will see BO going to church a lot more, with the cameras rolling.

If MR gets the nomination, due to too many conservative candidates polishing one another off - the election will be lost to the Dems - period.

"I believe George Bush Jr. is the very last moderate Republican who will ever win the White House. I believe he squeaked through in 2000 because people believed (correctly) that he was staunchly pro life."----

If you're talking the GOP nomination in 2000, maybe. If you're talking the general election win against Gore, no. There will never be a candidate from any party elected for the most part because of his/her position on abortion.

Monica Lewinsky crap doesn't happen with Clinton, Gore wins that election by a mile. Bush ran on a 'values' platform as related to trustworthiness in the White House, 'will never embarrass the country' type of thing, but not pro-life/abortion related.

If you remember Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Supreme court elected George Bush Jr. in 2000

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

As a Tea-Party type, I'm not going to vote for him, so this "all" you've claimed looks to be inaccurate.

because Democrats, liberals, etc. are always trying to define the GOP race through their own group-think glasses.

Obama-Romney presidential matchup in Nov., you're not voting then, correct?

I didn't realize that only two candidates can run in a Presidential election. I seem to recall more than that in each previous one. Is my memory faulty? {head scratch}

to be operating on the assumption Paul will eventually run independent. That assumption could leave you disappointed. In the real world as we know it, right now, there's going to be the sitting president vs. a Republican nominee. Anything else is conjecture and wishing upon a star.

You appear to be operating on the assumption that the Democrats and Republicans own my vote, and also that they are the only two candidates shown on any Presidential ballot. Again, correct my memory, please.

Harold Stassen, again? Gotcha.

Simply pointing out there is no independent candidate as we know it currently. That may or may not change. Believe Ron Paul's been elected to office 11 times as a Republican. So if and when he's on the ballot in general election as an Indy/Liberterian we'll just forget all that.

Since Stassen died in 2001, that's unlikely.

I must repeat that the two-party duopoly may command a lot of power, but they still don't own my vote. If you want your vote owned by them, that's your choice.

It's also the choice of the media, apparently:

http://www.libertypulse.com/article/cbs-excludes-ron-paul-from-new-hamsh...

They don't even care if they are blatant about it. We may as well just give up and have the bell-ringer for the NYSE flip a coin and declare the winner. Wall Street always wins the election anyway, since Americans believe essentially as you do.

so if you actually know what I 'believe' it's not reflected in your comments here. And then as in now with Paul, until he officially declared he was initiating a campaign as an independent, there were the just the candidates from the two main parties. So if Paul folds his cards, you can always write in his name, or Alfred E. Neumann's, or your aunt Clara's, and proudly pound your chest and proclaim on here you're not 'owned'...

GZ no extreme tea partier will even get close to the Whitehouse . Starting on January 20th the Occupy Wall Street movement will again get active and move the country back to a more moderate discussion about average Americans.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Just what the hell is wrong with socialized medical care?

I wish peace and prosperity for all.

we already have it - it's called Medicaid.

Nothing, except our entrenched medical elites can't remain mega-rich from it. We have socialized medicine in the USA, but it's the most dishonest and expensive form of it. It's called: "Get sick, wait until it either becomes better or becomes life threatening; in the latter case, go to the ER and dump the costs thereof on the taxpayer."

I have gov't healthcare.

So what's wrong with it. Not a thing except most Americans won't wait 6 months for a surgury that on a private plan they can get in one. They won't like having to stand in a line 20 deep just to be seen. Or being turned away from the emergency room with an earache and what you KNOW to be an ear infection and they give you motrin (actually happened to me).

So yeah it's good if your option is that or nothing.

I invite you to drive to Ann Arbor to the VA Hospital and just talk to some of the people there who NEED surgury but cannot get it until the new quarter begins and the funding drops. I don't think most Americans would put up with it when they actually see the reality.

MikeyA

Most Americans have no say in the matter, since they are welfare babies who don't pay their own care costs, and by that I mean that most Americans use employer-provided health insurance that is avg 80% paid for by said employer. This reality only exists today since the govt tax regime subsidizes it, hence greatly distorts it.

More and more Americans are getting dropped from these plans anyway, and must deal with the only other reality of American health care: It's too expensive. Like subsidies and credit do, insurance massively drove up prices. Coddled in their employer plans, most Americans didn't have to face that truth. We uninsured types have faced it for decades. The franchise of understanding is expanding.

And there's a rising trend that is significant already and will only get worse: Insurance fraud, from either bait-n-switch or billing fraud. Either you end up being lied to about which procedures are covered by your insurer, or you're just billed for it anyway. Remember in the deep dim past when you'd have your Blue Cross card and you'd go into the hospital and everything was covered? After all, that's what health insurance should do? Those days are long gone. Now you check with your insurer about some procedure, and the chances are good that you'd get the wrong answer, hence get stuck with having accepted a procedure that is uncovered. Now also you get strange bills showing up, which you'd swear were covered things but ended up being uncovered. Or they are covered, and the billing company still insists that you pay for it.

I've lost count of the number of people who've had to resort to using a lawyer to get their insurer to do what their policy said they'd do.

Why Americans put up with all of that, is the real question... not standing in line.

Guest Zero,
I think you were off base (no pun intended) in describing the U.S. as imperialistic. Neither before nor after WWII did we attempt to colonize a country. Our military might has been used to deter war, and for the most part it's been very effective. Think Taiwan.

I wish peace and prosperity for all.

Don, you need to update your understanding of history. Colonize? LOL! Empires don't do that anymore. Globalism is just outsourced colonialism. We can manage our empires economically... with energy, communications, computers and corporations (i.e. the new organs of the state), using the good ol' tool of a worldwide military force as backup (the 'starch in the sock', as it were).

Your ending comments are outlandishly ignorant. Our military might did nothing but make the 20th Century one of constant war. The entire century was really just one long Oil War.

It's depressing that Americans can know that the sun never sets on a U.S. military base, and still believe they don't live in an empire. Well, Obama finally signed a piece of "legislation" where any American can be held without trial indefinitely. Step by step, the murder that runs empires will come home, since step by step the concurrent domestic slavery of the populace makes the 'citizens' (in reality, imperial subjects) ever weaker and therefore juicy targets for the empire's legions.

By your definition, that makes everyone from Argentina to Tanzania empires as well since they trade internationally. I'm pretty sure they have computers and energy resources, too, making them more culpable. There is no denying that the U.S. military has been a force for good, whether in fighting wars, deterring conflict or responding to the needs of victims of natural disasters overseas.

"Step by step, the murder that runs empires will come home, since step by step the concurrent domestic slavery of the populace makes the 'citizens' (in reality, imperial subjects) ever weaker and therefore juicy targets for the empire's legions."

You used to be cogent but I'm afraid you're losing your grasp on reality.

I wish peace and prosperity for all.

Now you're being intentionally obtuse. Argentina, Tanzania and most other nations don't maintain a network of worldwide military bases, nor do they threaten to invade nations for their resources. That's what empires do, and that's what the USA does.

The U.S. military is not a force for good; it's a force for your imperial benefit (and decreasingly so, since the U.S. elite no longer need the domestic consumer class any longer). They form the world's largest terrorist organization, by definition. It is only under our national aegis that the world gives such an abomination a pass.

As for your latter comment, like I've said before, your ignorance is really extreme. Your own President authorized the ability to seize you and put you into custody without trial forever. That's the predation I spoke of. It's real and it's here.

It would benefit you to recognize that not everyone is ignorant of history and current events in detail.

"The U.S. military is not a force for good; it's a force for your imperial benefit (and decreasingly so, since the U.S. elite no longer need the domestic consumer class any longer). They form the world's largest terrorist organization."

Uh, oh, with those words I'm pretty sure Obama's buddies will be picking you up soon and detaining you indefinitely. Write a book in jail, if you nicely ask for pencil and paper.

I wish peace and prosperity for all.

Although you might wish it were not so, we still have freedom of speech in the nation to criticize the government.

Scratch a Liberal, find a Fascist lurking beneath.

The National Defense Authorization Act will not take affect till Obama leaves office.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Please show me how your statement is true? It has already gone into affect from what I'm seeing because it included a 1.5% pay raise for the military which I will see in my next paycheck. I've seen nothing that has shown that provisions within the bill won't go into affect immediately.

Secondly, it's telling that you don't believe the President will be reelected.

MikeyA

Oh, hey, Don, why is the U.S Coast Guard operating in Arab waters?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/13/exclusive-u-s-harassed-by-irani...

Answer: Because we're a goddamn EMPIRE, not a REPUBLIC. Our reign of Caesers had long ago begun. No wonder the world hates us. The Iranians call us the Great Satan and they're totally right about that.

We need to pull out those many thousands of U.S. imperial legions from all those dozens of nations where they are stationed, and sit their asses on our borders to put a stop to the ongoing tsunami of illegal immigrants.

The main reason I am so set against Obamacare is that it isn't much different than Hillarycare. Forced purchase with penalties attached (in the case of Hillarycare the penalties extended to criminalizing doctors, patients, or both, if you went "off the assigned reservation" to get care from a doctor of your choice).

During the Hillarycare mess, she was saying something like: We all have to pay our fair share. By my calculations back then, I would have had to pony up $1000 or more, PER YEAR, just for insurance. Then the puppet tmasters-that-be (my opinion) use Obama to re-do Hillarycare... only NOW poor, working class, and middle class workers will have to pony up $3,000-$4,000 or more PER YEAR... JUST FOR THE INSURANCE. Not for CARE of any kind - JUST FOR THE SO-CALLED INSURANCE. This is what you cannot pound into any Democrat hard head. That this is taking from the poor and working class and giving to the rich (insurance giants), with NO CARE INVOLVED.

Here is roughly what my health care cost me last year. $400 total in chiropractic costs, and whatever my vitamin & mineral supplements cost me. So a total of maybe $575, if that. I have gone to chiropractors since I was 19, and I do not drink or smoke. I take an interest in nutrition, and don't always "eat right", but generally do. And by the way, that $400 in total-year chiropractor costs included 3 treatments for a hip injury, along with half a bottle of horse chestnut capsules [something discovered via the internet] - and two tylenol capsules.. Imagine that, I didn't have to go to the ER or hospital for the injury, I kept my health with diet and supplements.

Now I understand there are serious and life-threatening accidents and illnesses that need dedicated and prolonged care. [I am excluding liver and heart replacements for life-long smokers and drinkers for whom I have exactly ZERO sympathy.] But we can take care of the seriously ill, children with genetic diseases, etc. with programs that are in place, without unconstitutionally forcing the poor, working class and middle class to buy a product they cannot afford.

And GZ - my favorite point you made - employer-provided "insurance" is indeed a form of welfare. And not even a very "fair" welfare, because a father or mother of a family, having this kind of insurance, will have anywhere from 2 to 8 (or more) people covered, although he/she is the only employee. The single employee sitting beside him or her has only themself covered. I mean, I ask you, who thought this system up? And it's falling of its own weight, as employers seek ways (like manufacturing overseas) to get out from under the obligation.

"I ask you, who thought this system up?"

Who? The employers and the government did, by working in tandem while under the new regime of corporate infiltration of government, after WWII. Soon enough they arrived at a very underhanded system of byzantine tax breaks that made such an otherwise economically absurd system an advantage for them.

During WWII, labor shortages (i.e. government interference through invocation of war) combined with wage controls (i.e. more govt interference) to produce the employer-side concepts of benefits packages to adjust renumeration. Alas, all this time, that renumeration was never taxed as such, which is part of the overall farce. The employee himself was thrown a bone (i.e. bribe) so that he wouldn't interrupt the formation of this system.

So this entire farce rolled along until as with all subsidies and insurance, the double whammy drove up costs obscenely, and started to drive the small businesses (whom all large businesses attack by using their govt control) down. More small businesses just started to drop their employee insurance plans.

Another trend was the insurance mandates that medical associations forced through each state legislature, so that insurance plans had to cover their little slice of the pie. After a few decades of that, insurers found themselves legally forced to cover every silly little procedure under the sun, and so they predictably raised rates. So more and more businesses started to self-insure, but self insurance has long been a game for the large companies. That also meant that insurers were competing with their customers as well, so they had to keep raising rates even higher. Once again, the pressure became enormous upon small businesses.

AND of course this all falls on the individuals like Mjölnir upon a Frost Giant's skull. Everyone knows now that it's economically impossible to seek a health-insurance policy as an individual. It may as well just be illegal, since you're priced out anyway. Insurers don't want to talk to you, since that's how decades of absurd, byzantine and illicit controls have transformed the market. Outside of corporations and wealthier small businesses, there really is no health-insurance market at all.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.