Which Freedoms Lost?

[Coloradomtnman]

I've heard much about Obama's Administration and our current Democrat-run Congress taking away our freedoms from the Tea Party and GOP candidates attempting to rally the TP as their base. I honestly don't know what freedoms we've lost, other than the freedom to pay women less for the same work, the freedom for health insurance companies to victimize their clients (and citizens will have to have health insurance which I think of as losing a freedom to be irresponsible toward your fellow human beings), and the freedom for credit card companies to bamboozle their card holders. I remember when the Patriot Act passed and some of our freedoms actually were lost.

I would like to ask those who believe we've lost freedoms to explain which freedoms we've lost since the end of the last administration - in other words, what freedoms have we lost since the Obama administration took over. This isn't a challenge, I honestly want to understand the ever-growing point of view on this subject.

And, please, let's keep it civil.

 

[Paulie]

It's not just about personal liberties, it's about freedom from stifling regulations in business as well.

Liberals only see regulation as beneficial. Somehow it MUST be good for the people if we're holding business back.

I hope someday that liberals can realize the negatives involved in much of today's regulation. How lobbyists typically WRITE those regulations so that competition can be stifled in the marketplace and the biggest companies can thrive.

 

[VaYank5150]

And?

 

[Bern80]

The freedom to not give my money to a health insurance company if I don't want to.

 

[uscitizen]

How many more business "freedoms" thru regulation have we lost since Obama became president?

 

[VaYank5150]

The freedom to not give my money to a health insurance company if I don't want to.

And to counter this, I have gained the freedom to not fund your hospital bill when you can't pay.

 

[Bern80]

The freedom to not give my money to a health insurance company if I don't want to.

And to counter this, I have gained the freedom to not fund your hospital bill when you can't pay.

Who says you would have to? Maybe I want to pay for it out of pocket. Or I work out a payment plan with the hospital. What would happen if you didn't have car insurance and you needed repairs? You think the tax payers would pick that up? Of course not. Why should health care service be any different?

Regadless the point is made. I have lost the freedom to choose due directly to an Obama piece of legislation.

 

[VaYank5150]

The freedom to not give my money to a health insurance company if I don't want to.

And to counter this, I have gained the freedom to not fund your hospital bill when you can't pay.

Who says you would have to? Maybe I want to pay for it out of pocket. Or I work out a payment plan with the hospital. What would happen if you didn't have car insurance and you needed repairs? You think the tax payers would pick that up? Of course not. Why should health care service be any different?

Regadless the point is made. I have lost the freedom to choose due directly to an Obama piece of legislation.

REALLY? You don't understand how our system works and yet you want to openly debate it? In America, hospital emergency rooms CANNOT deny you care by law. That is why it is different from car insurance.

 

[Bern80]

And to counter this, I have gained the freedom to not fund your hospital bill when you can't pay.

Who says you would have to? Maybe I want to pay for it out of pocket. Or I work out a payment plan with the hospital. What would happen if you didn't have car insurance and you needed repairs? You think the tax payers would pick that up? Of course not. Why should health care service be any different?

Regadless the point is made. I have lost the freedom to choose due directly to an Obama piece of legislation.

REALLY? You don't understand how our system works and yet you want to openly debate it? In America, hospital emergency rooms CANNOT deny you care by law. That is why it is different from car insurance.

Can not deny you is different than can not charge you.

 

[Coyote]

It's not just about personal liberties, it's about freedom from stifling regulations in business as well.

Liberals only see regulation as beneficial. Somehow it MUST be good for the people if we're holding business back.

I hope someday that liberals can realize the negatives involved in much of today's regulation. How lobbyists typically WRITE those regulations so that competition can be stifled in the marketplace and the biggest companies can thrive.

I think business' should have the same "freedoms" we consumers have - including the "freedom" to pay the consequences of bad decisions.

 

[VaYank5150]

Who says you would have to? Maybe I want to pay for it out of pocket. Or I work out a payment plan with the hospital. What would happen if you didn't have car insurance and you needed repairs? You think the tax payers would pick that up? Of course not. Why should health care service be any different?

Regadless the point is made. I have lost the freedom to choose due directly to an Obama piece of legislation.

REALLY? You don't understand how our system works and yet you want to openly debate it? In America, hospital emergency rooms CANNOT deny you care by law. That is why it is different from car insurance.

Can not deny you is different than can not charge you.

So.....are you saying you know of an emergency room that provides FREE services? If so, please let all of us know.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many more business "freedoms" thru regulation have we lost since Obama became president?

Well let's wait and see what the brandy new Consumer finance Protection Bureau will do for business.

Talk about sidestepping the laws on this one. Obama appoints Warren without senate confirmation by calling her an assistant to Gutless Geithner and since the money for this new bureau comes from the federal reserve, our elected representatives cannot even vote on whether to fund it.

You want to talk loss of freedoms, just wait to see what an unelected heavily funded, untouchable government shill like Warren can do.

 

[VaYank5150]

How many more business "freedoms" thru regulation have we lost since Obama became president?

Well let's wait and see what the brandy new Consumer finance Protection Bureau will do for business.

Talk about sidestepping the laws on this one. Obama appoints Warren without senate confirmation by calling her an assistant to Gutless Geithner and since the money for this new bureau comes from the federal reserve, our elected representatives cannot even vote on whether to fund it.

You want to talk loss of freedoms, just wait to see what an unelected heavily funded, untouchable government shill like Warren can do.

In other words, there have been no losses. Thanks.

 

[xotoxi]

And to counter this, I have gained the freedom to not fund your hospital bill when you can't pay.

Who says you would have to? Maybe I want to pay for it out of pocket. Or I work out a payment plan with the hospital. What would happen if you didn't have car insurance and you needed repairs? You think the tax payers would pick that up? Of course not. Why should health care service be any different?

Regadless the point is made. I have lost the freedom to choose due directly to an Obama piece of legislation.

REALLY? You don't understand how our system works and yet you want to openly debate it? In America, hospital emergency rooms CANNOT deny you care by law. That is why it is different from car insurance.

I'd like to see hospitals be able to demand guarantee of payment upfront.

If you come in with crushing chest pain and a wheelbarrow full of cash, then you will be seen.

If you come in with crushing chest pain and an insurance card, you will be seen.

If you come in with crushing chest pain and no payment, you will die.

It's called capitalism.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many more business "freedoms" thru regulation have we lost since Obama became president?

Well let's wait and see what the brandy new Consumer finance Protection Bureau will do for business.

Talk about sidestepping the laws on this one. Obama appoints Warren without senate confirmation by calling her an assistant to Gutless Geithner and since the money for this new bureau comes from the federal reserve, our elected representatives cannot even vote on whether to fund it.

You want to talk loss of freedoms, just wait to see what an unelected heavily funded, untouchable government shill like Warren can do.

In other words, there have been no losses. Thanks.

Says you.

Run a business and then tell me that the fucking government doesn't rape you. And Obama pulling shit like he did with Warren ain't going to make life any easier for businesses.

 

[Oddball]

I've heard much about Obama's Administration and our current Democrat-run Congress taking away our freedoms from the Tea Party and GOP candidates attempting to rally the TP as their base. I honestly don't know what freedoms we've lost, other than the freedom to pay women less for the same work, the freedom for health insurance companies to victimize their clients (and citizens will have to have health insurance which I think of as losing a freedom to be irresponsible toward your fellow human beings), and the freedom for credit card companies to bamboozle their card holders. I remember when the Patriot Act passed and some of our freedoms actually were lost.

I would like to ask those who believe we've lost freedoms to explain which freedoms we've lost since the end of the last administration - in other words, what freedoms have we lost since the Obama administration took over. This isn't a challenge, I honestly want to understand the ever-growing point of view on this subject.

And, please, let's keep it civil.

The same presumption of innocence and rights to privacy lost under the Bush regime's USAPATRIOT act, which the current empire had no problem keeping in place so they could be the snoops in chief.

The freedom to choose whether I'll carry medical insurance or not.

The freedom from acting as a bookkeeper for and tax snitch upon my vendors.

Those are just off the top of my head.

 

[Bern80]

REALLY? You don't understand how our system works and yet you want to openly debate it? In America, hospital emergency rooms CANNOT deny you care by law. That is why it is different from car insurance.

Can not deny you is different than can not charge you.

So.....are you saying you know of an emergency room that provides FREE services? If so, please let all of us know.

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've heard much about Obama's Administration and our current Democrat-run Congress taking away our freedoms from the Tea Party and GOP candidates attempting to rally the TP as their base. I honestly don't know what freedoms we've lost, other than the freedom to pay women less for the same work, the freedom for health insurance companies to victimize their clients (and citizens will have to have health insurance which I think of as losing a freedom to be irresponsible toward your fellow human beings), and the freedom for credit card companies to bamboozle their card holders. I remember when the Patriot Act passed and some of our freedoms actually were lost.

I would like to ask those who believe we've lost freedoms to explain which freedoms we've lost since the end of the last administration - in other words, what freedoms have we lost since the Obama administration took over. This isn't a challenge, I honestly want to understand the ever-growing point of view on this subject.

And, please, let's keep it civil.

1. "Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.
I first learned from my friend Andy McCarthy's blog post on National Review Online that Attorney General Eric Holder had rejected the legal opinion of his own Justice Department lawyers that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional.
Why would Holder reject the legal opinion of his own deputies? Dumb question. Because he doesn't like the answer and neither does his boss, President Obama. They both strongly support passage of the bill and do not believe a little trifle, such as an express constitutional provision forbidding it, should be permitted to get in their way. How many times do leftists have to demonstrate that they are an ends-justify-the-means bunch before it sinks in?
The Washington Post confirms that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "an elite unit that gives legal and constitutional advice to the executive branch," did issue an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the voting rights bill is unconstitutional. "
Townhall - Holder's Injustice


2. Interview on WJR radio, Detroit of Bankruptcy Lawyer Tom Lauria by Beckman, re: the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy.
a. These “1st Lien Lenders” took a chance on Chrysler, accepting a low rate of return in exchange for high security.
b. Clients include pensioners, teacher’s unions, etc. in Pirello-Weinberg, Oppenheimer Funds, Stairway Capital.
c. The White House is demanding concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
d. The Lenders have offered to accept 50%, and the White House is demanding that they accept 29%
e. This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch


3. There appears to be a side to the Chrysler bankruptcy that has the look of an ugly partisanship not seen in this town since Tricky Dick Nixon was in the White House composing his enemies list and checking it twice every night while watching the evening TV newscast.

Bloggers on the Right side of the Blogosphere are up in arms over data suggesting that President Obama’s White House auto industry potentates are targeting for closure Chrysler dealers with records of contributing either to Republicans like John McCain or to other Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

Posts at RedState, Reliapundit, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Joey Smith and Doug Ross pointed intitially at the remarkable number of closed Chrysler dealerships whose owners happen to have been contributors to Obama opponents, mainly Republicans.
Is Obama closing GOP-leaning car dealers? | Washington Examiner

4. With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
HolyCoast.com: Obama Might Have to "Temporarily Bypass the Senate" on Treaty Ratification

5. The biggest threat of all to the Big Apple’s financial supremacy, however, comes from Washington. The Founding Fathers wisely decided that the nation’s political capital should be separate from its financial capital (in both senses of the word). Now this splendid segregation has ended. If the outcome of the Chrysler bankruptcy is any indication, Washington is willing to flex its muscle in financial decisions, altering the substance of contracts freely agreed to by private parties. In so doing, the national government has undermined the certainty of the rule of law, which was the American capital market’s strongest asset.
Wall Street 2015 by Luigi Zingales, City Journal 14 July 2009


Any of these work for you?

 

[VaYank5150]

Can not deny you is different than can not charge you.

So.....are you saying you know of an emergency room that provides FREE services? If so, please let all of us know.

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

Huh? Are you suggesting that these for-profit hospitals simply keep your expenses on their books indefinitely, or until such a time that you feel you can pay them for said services?

 

[Oddball]

Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.

No lie.

If anyone needed any proof positive that there's no difference in substance between the remocrats and depublicans need look no further than the exchange of this inane "what freedoms have you lost" yammering point, coinciding with the change of which party is driving the central authoritarian agenda.