In my culture we have this saying to describe a one sided, good for you and lousy for me situation.
When talking about entering into a legal contract one would expect that both sides are not just in agreement but that the contract is equitable, fair and not favor one over the other. In America, a nation of laws therein exist a lot of inequities built in to benefit the rich and the corporations.
A case in point is that of banks and mortgage companies. Not only is the law terribly tilted in their favor but a buyer of a property has no options other than to accept a rather one sided agreement and sign it if he/she wants to eventually own that property. This concept totally escapes me. Granted, we live in a free market society where it is in the best interests of the country to protect financial institutions from dead beats, cheaters and fraudulence; but in this case I think that we have gone far and beyond the expectations of what constitutes a fair and equitable contract.
We have seen repeatedly how banks and other financial institutions are on a rampage to foreclose on properties even when they don’t even own it nor have the proper documentation. We have even seen people thrown out of their homes when they had been making mortgage payments all along. It is a more than familiar and disturbing occurrence.
But not only are laws needed to protect consumers in this area but also we have to change the mentality of our country to reflect a more just and equitable situation when it comes to contracts. For example: Why is it that when one enters into a mortgage for the first segment of that contractual obligation the moneys paid only go to pay off the interest and not the principal? If you ask me, it should be fifty-fifty…you begin to pay off the interest as you pay off your principal. They could pro-rated if they so desire to calculate the total of the proceeds from the interests to be derived and added on to the total of the mortgage to be paid in equal amounts over a period of 25-30 years for example. But no, that is too much to ask and our financial institutions would scream bloody murder if such a thing was even suggested…greed is more pressing, the law of the funnel is what matters here.
What about the laws that are stacked in favor of health insurance companies? This is one of the most egregious examples of the funnel law. Insurance companies will only insure you if you are healthy, if you don’t make any claims when you get sick and they consistently will drop you if you do. Terms and conditions are often altered without notification. Claim denials are such a commonplace occurrence that it has become a joke. Sadly, the insurance business should be in this to offer some security and you pay a premium for that…usually a very high one; and in turn, the insurance company takes that risk…that is what the insurance business should be all about. However, the reality is that insurance companies exist only for the purpose of making a profit and have neglected to observe the reason or their existence. Let’s face it; as it stands, these companies don’t manufacture anything or provide a useful service; they are there as the middle man to skim the profits and not give anything in return. They are for all practical purposes parasites of society.
It is surprising however that a President who has been accused of being a SOCIALIST would even want to include these insurance companies in the mix in order to fix the terrible state of medical care in our country. If Obama had really been a socialist he would have fought for UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE much like what they have in other industrialized nations.