Do Seniors Need Burial Insurance? | Insurance Markets …
I have seen a lot of articles for seniors life insurance recently, and that insurance is usually marketed as a policy that will provide money for funeral expenses and other bills that come up at the end of the life. … Simplified issue policies cost less too, and they have been designed to accept most seniors who are reasonably healthy and active. So before you, or somebody you know, buys the first guaranteed issue policy that is advertised on TV, be sure and look into … read more…
Getting Life Insurance Policy For Someone Who Is Already Sick …
If that’s the case, then the ONLY policy you can buy, is a guaranteed issue policy. The maximum amount is $10000 (Globe Life or Mutual of Omaha) and you have to pay into it a minimum of two years before the death occurs, before it will … read more…
5 Regular Misconceptions Held at Assurance Agents : Life Insurance …
The yield sold online are basic crop such even as expression time assurance, auto insurance before extremely dear guaranteed issue years indemnity. They are not gifted that meet the intricate with scholarly needs of the customers. … read more…
From Google Blog Search
What is HIPAA?
The purpose of the HIPAA is to develop the efficiency and effectiveness of health care system, continuity and portability of health insurance coverage in any individual and group markets, and the capa… read more…
What is HIPAA?
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act was endorsed by the Congress of United States in 1996. This became effective on July 1,1997. The act is a collection of regulations, which work … read more…
All You Have To Go Through To Get Life Insurance
The only reason that anyone would willingly go through the life insurance process is because they feel that it is very important to have. It is an uncomfortable and even annoying process because of al… read more…
From GoArticles.com
Resolved Question: If Everyone is “entitled” to all these rights (i.e. health care). who is entitled to pay for them?
New or Enduring Foundation? – The Natural Choice is that of Natural Rights
By David J. Bobb
In speech after speech, and issue after issue, President Obama’s refrain has been that the nation needs a “new foundation.” Whether addressing health care in a recent radio address, the new unemployment figures, or what he sees as the nation’s collapsed international reputation, the president’s pledge is that he will erect “a new foundation.” Even the administration’s plan for reforming the financial regulatory system is subtitled, “A New Foundation.”
Mr. Obama’s advocacy for health care reform is typical of his “new foundation” talk: “We must lay a new foundation for future growth and prosperity, and a key pillar of a new foundation is health insurance reform.”
While at the same time, embracing the idea of a “new foundation,” the president also has positioned himself as an anti-ideological pragmatist who will build upon the handiwork of the American Founders.
Take, for example, Mr. Obama’s use of the Declaration of Independence in his first legislative signing ceremony. Enacting a new law on fair pay, he said, ensures that “we’ll do our part, as generations before us, to ensure those words put on paper some 200 years ago really mean something – to breathe new life into them with a more enlightened understanding that is appropriate for our time.”
What the president means by “a more enlightened understanding” has over the last six months become clearer: Whether you need a new job, a new car, a new mortgage, or perhaps an easier-to-read credit card statement, a tech-savvy doctor, or an energy-efficient light bulb, the “new foundation” is here to help shore up your life.
And not just to shore it up – to transform it and then, possibly, to perfect it! As the president promised in late October 2008, “[W]e are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Even more, as Mr. Obama proclaimed in his election victory speech, “Our Union can be perfected.” With political transformation, Mr. Obama says, comes the possibility of political perfection.
Of the political truths that make up our nation’s foundation, none was more solidly established by the founding generation than the folly of pursuing political perfection. As George Washington wrote, “We must take human nature as we find it. Perfection falls not to the share of mortals.”
To improve our country, we must build upon our foundation of natural rights, not seek another one. As Washington warned of any attack on the American foundation: “[W]hoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country.”
In his aspiration to transformation, then, Mr. Obama resembles not Washington and the Founders but his Democratic predecessor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
For Roosevelt, the old American foundation was insufficient. In his 1944 State of the Union speech, Mr. Roosevelt suggested that we must add “security” to our American foundation of the natural rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Security was to be found in eight new rights. All Americans, Roosevelt said, have the right to a job, and the “right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.” Farmers should be guaranteed prices that will ensure them “a decent living,” and all should enjoy free trade. Every family has the right to “a decent home,” to “adequate medical care,” and also to “a good education.” Finally, everyone has the right to be free from the fear of economic ruin.
A “Second Bill of Rights” was necessary, Roosevelt argued, because the original Bill of Rights was not sufficient. After listing the rights protected by the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, Roosevelt summed them up by saying, “They were our rights to life and liberty.” Were? Roosevelt’s curious verb tense shows the danger of introducing new rights that lack a solid foundation.
The problem with trying to make security a natural right is simple. If you have the right to health care, who has the duty to pay for it? If you have the right to cash for your clunker, who has the duty to pay for it? In inventing new rights for all Americans, the government makes a promise it cannot keep except by violating the natural rights of some Americans.
A natural rights foundation provides the most reliable support of limited government. When it comes to our natural rights, our president and all other policymakers must realize that our surest foundation is not new but enduring.
David J. Bobb is director of the Hillsdale College Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, in Washington.
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/18/new-or-enduring-foundation/
Coward jamesfentress44
Have you found someone that pays you to be stupid? Is it 0bama?
Resolved Question: Variable annuities guaranteeing a minimum of 6% per year.?
I hav heard of and read of Insurance companies issuing variable annuities that will guarantee a minimum of 6% return on your investment even if the markets take a nose dive as they did recently.
The two insurance companies and their plans are: ING Life Pay Plus
and JACKSON Freedom 6. Are these plans legitimate and, if so, how can they guarantee the minimum 6% in a declining market?
Resolved Question: Is Michael Moore a Moron or does that title belong to Roman Polanski?
Friday, October 2, 2009
MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’
Sonny Bunch
Michael Moore’s new film, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” chronicles the galling excesses of our modern economy in brutal detail, jumping from home foreclosures to businesses cashing in on life insurance policies they had taken out on their dead employees to bank bailouts to million-dollar-bonuses paid out to executives of failed banks. As he comes to a crashing, triumphant crescendo, the merry prankster of modern moviemaking says he wants to get rid of capitalism and replace it with a better, fairer, more just system — democracy!
Democracy?
It’s a head scratcher. One doesn’t replace an economic system with a political system. Saying you want to replace “capitalism” with “democracy” is like saying you want to replace “public transit” with “puppy dogs.” It’s not quite right.
It’s obvious why he chose such a malapropism: “Socialism” is what Mr. Moore is really after, but that’s a far more disturbing word to the average American. He wants to replace one sacred-yet-secular American word (capitalism) with another sacred-yet-secular American word (democracy), fully obscuring that neither word means anything close to its dictionary definition in Mr. Moore’s worldview.
To Mr. Moore, capitalism isn’t an economic system that has delivered billions around the globe from poverty and subsistence existences by virtue of the profit motive.
No, to him, capitalism is an exploitative sham, an economic system designed to deliver money from the poor into the hands of the wealthy. If he had stuck to the recent bailouts of the banking industry, he might have had a point. Unfortunately, he spends much of the movie flying far afield of that travesty.
And that’s the main problem with Mr. Moore’s movie: His focus is too diffuse, his aim too scattershot. It’s old hat for the director to argue only one side of the story, but this is the first time he has so blatantly failed to focus on the primary issue at hand, flailing, instead, at all the wrong targets.
Consider Mr. Moore’s take on the foreclosure crisis: He sympathetically portrays two families who have gone through foreclosed after failing to meet their repayment obligations. Foreclosure is a terrible thing, something no family should have to suffer — unless, of course, they fail to repay the money that has been lent to them.
Credit is a bedrock of capitalism, but credit comes with certain responsibilities. Banks are not charitable institutions, and there have to be consequences for failing to pay back the money they advance. The subprime loan crisis was caused only in part by banks lending money to unqualified borrowers: No less complicit were the irresponsible citizens who took out far more money than they could afford on terms they could not possibly understand.
In a way, Mr. Moore and his ilk are the ones ultimately responsible for this crisis. By turning homeownership into a basic societal entitlement — irrespective of credit-worthiness — they encouraged the poor to borrow recklessly and leaned on lenders to give money even more recklessly.
Mr. Moore’s suggested solutions to the crisis of capitalism are almost as absurd as his diagnoses. As the film draws to a close, he asks us to reconsider Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second bill of rights, and one of those rights in particular jumps out: the guarantee of a job with a “living wage.”
This has been a constant bugaboo of Mr. Moore’s. He thinks General Motors Corp. — faced with competition from cheaper, better, more fuel-efficient vehicles from Japan and elsewhere — has shot itself in the foot. Not because it refused to build better cars or agreed to a back-breaking deal with the labor unions that made the cars too expensive, mind you. No, Mr. Moore seems to think GM has come to ruin because it has laid off too many employees, leaving the once thriving cities of the Midwest, including his hometown, Flint, Mich., wastelands with no business prospects.
Let us think about this for a moment, shall we?
GM automobiles are too expensive and too fuel-inefficient. They carry massive legacy costs providing health care benefits and pensions to both current and past employees of now-defunct plants. Increased plant efficiency and decreased need for labor are trumped by union demands to preserve jobs, resulting in excess workers collecting most of their pay for what amounts to make-work.
Yet GM should guarantee these people’s jobs and gold-plated benefits? Or the government should step in and subsidize inefficient companies to pay now-redundant employees?
Mr. Moore has always been long on provocative questions and short on answers. “Capitalism” is no different: He suggests a bright and shiny future without adequately examining the likely consequences of such a future or offering much in the way of proposals for bringing it to life — other than sophomoric pranks like showing up at a bank headquarters to
Recently Being Discussed on FriendFeed
Incoming search terms for the article:
- Published News Upcoming News Submit a New Story Groups definition of human nature
- Published News Upcoming News Submit a New Story Groups globe life insurance
Leave a comment