You think dealing with insurance companies is hard, at least you have choices, for now.
Once government takes over, you get what you get, just like at the airports now. And fighting with an insurance company may land you in court, but fighting with the government may land you in jail.
What possibly could go wrong?
http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf
http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I'd be in jail right now if I was anywhere near that. Shame on all the people that didn't defend that girl. No one should stand by and let something like that occur.
It seems you must flunk an IQ test to work for tsa.
There are three aspects to this problem. First, the government hires too many people that have neither common sense nor the ability to employ discretion. Second, they put such people in positions where both capabilities are sorely needed. Third, the government has little to no accountability when they do completely senseless things – and this lack of accountability fosters continuous practices of absurdity.
This incident, where a very young girl is being patted down to ascertain if she is concealing explosives, ranks right up there with the firefighters who recently watched an entire home, and all of its contents, burn to the ground over a matter of paying about $75 in taxes.
In both of these cases, the people the government was supposed to protect, ended up needlessly suffering at their very hands instead.
It is clear that the child had on a nearly skin tight shirt and slacks – so exactly where did they think such a suspicious person, with such questionable body language, might be concealing explosive material?
When they take over healthcare, we will see thousands of such practices of complete absurdity, only it won't be just our dignity that will be at stake. It will be our lives.
We can all agree that it's better to be proactive than reactive, right?
So, why wait until a thumb-sucking, barely toilet-trained, six-year-old jihadist maniac brings down a jumbo jet before taking simple precautionary actions that, carried out in any other setting, would hopefully land you in prison for life?
Sure, she looks kinda sweet … and it was unfortunate … but she showed all the warning signs: lack of facial hair, light complexion, female, under 10 years old, …
In all seriousness, I think our government is engaged in a brilliant campaign to make muslim terrorists think we've lost our minds so they'll become lazy and careless in their concealment of weapons. Better to have them think there's a much greater chance of being stopped with that bomb because it exceeds carry-on size limits than being picked purely at random for the pat down.
I think Michelle Obama should go on Sesame Street and have "Tickle YOU Elmo the TSA Agent" pat her down to ease kids' minds and put a fun spin on all this.
I watched this on the tele this morning, with my wife. Sad.
@JG I'm gonna have to disagree with you about the fireman situation (assuming it's the same case with which I am familiar). In that case, the fire dept from jurisdiction A offered to provide fire services to anyone in the adjacent unincorporated area B that wanted them, provided they pay a yearly fee. Idiot C, who lived in area B, decided against paying for fire protection, and when his house caught fire, the fire dept from A rightly let it burn down. Why shouldn't they? They weren't funded by idiot C's taxes, they weren't responsible for the jurisdiction idiot C lived in, idiot C had voluntarily decided NOT to pay for fire response services…what obligation do you think they had to idiot C?
Why is ABC acting like this is an isolated incident of Obama-mandated child molestation by government officials? There are literally hundreds of these incidents being reported, uploaded, and discussed. The police state that can touch your child's private parts can (and will) do anything.
And let's not forget that this is going to be rolled out to malls, public transportation, sporting and concert arenas. Everywhere. Not flying let's you avoid it . . . for now. But it's going to be in every gov't agency, too, including the Post Office and RMV. Think about it.
Dave, Dave, Dave….
The guy who elected not to pay the tax for fire protection was clearly short sighted. However, anyone with common sense and having the ability to employ discretion, would have said to themselves that there was no parity between a $75 tax bill and the tragedy the man suffered by losing his entire home and all his possessions.
The right thing would have been to put out the fire and then collect the taxes afterwards. I’m sure at that point the agency could have easily collected the entire tax amount plus a penalty that the man would have been very glad to pay. They could have even had a contract in hand that the man would have enthusiastically executed right on the spot.
In any circumstance where there are doubts about what is proper, people should always do what’s in the best interests of the most people and to do everything possible to minimize or eliminate suffering. Nearly every religion on the planet puts forth that people should act in the best interests of everyone and that people should develop an inner guidance system that keeps them on track irrespective of the negative influences (temptation) of others. In this case, good people with the ability to put out the fire, failed to act properly because they were negatively influenced by the petty and passive aggressive actions of other very short sighted people. Heck, even if the guy defaulted on the $75, I would have put out the fire and slept at night knowing I did the right thing. I don’t need to have $75 in my pocket before I can figure out that I need to put out a devastating fire that’s right in front of my face!
If people go through life either literally or figuratively standing by passively as other people suffer, or take part in acts that cause suffering, that is a failure of ethics and it has nothing to do with any type of remuneration. If people cause suffering, or rationalize suffering, or ignore it because their superiors say its ok, those people are merely empty vessels waiting for contents to be placed inside of them by others. This was the case in WWI when after the Holocaust we heard “The German Defense”, I vus chust following orders”. How soon we forget?
Who determines how you behave? Are you simply a vessel of input placed inside of you by other short sighted people, or do you have an inner compass that tells you what is best, irrespective of what others say or do? The TSA agent and her superiors were wrong because they needlessly causes suffering. The standing down fire department was wrong because they stood by and watched suffering that was not comparable to the cost the remediation that was at their hands.
@John. Bunk. Balderdash. Pure, unadulterated bovine excrement. You're using the same fuzzy "logic" that the left always uses when it wants to justify confiscating goods, money or services from individuals to give to those that haven't earned the good, service or money. The man didn't pay for a service. There is no reasonable expectation that he receive that service. He must live with the consequences of his decision. I'm sure he did "suffer". Too damn bad. If he didn't want to suffer, he should have paid for fire protection. Using your logic, it would make perfect sense for one to wreck one's car, and then and only then expect to buy insurance to repair or replace it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. What you and everyone else I've seen arguing that the man should be provided with services he refused to pay for are missing is how magnanimous the fire dept was being in the first place! They noticed that the adjacent area had no fire service, and, even though they were under no legal or ethical obligation to do so, offered to extend their protection to anyone in this are who wanted it. All they asked was that people who wanted that protection pay for it, just as the residents of their town were paying for it with their taxes. What you are advocating is pure theft. You're trying to obscure that and justify it at the same time by playing the world's smallest violin, but boil it down to it's essence, and that's what it is. You want idiot C to receive something he wasn't entitled to, and had expressly refused to pay for, and you expect the citizens of town A to foot the bill. Bollocks.
Hey, did ya'll see that ball game the other night!
How does one teach children about the sanctity of their bodies if not by respecting their modesty?
As parents, we respect and nurture a young child's dawning sense of self by showing that even their own parents are not going to touch or view their bodies except when essential out of love. It is not what we say that establishes trust – it is that they live with respect for their personal privacy.
Does anyone really think a child can go through a law enforcement criminal frisk by
strangers – once or regularly – without internalizing a sense of violation?
Does anyone really think a child can watch their parents treated like criminals and powerless without being robbed of their right to believe their parents can protect them from all scary things?
We are not criminals and our government has no right to treat us as such for any reason at any time.
If a child's parents say no, any civilized society will affirm THAT is the law.
No matter who it is or where or why: No means No.