It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An American calling his Government out!

page: 14
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by Shades1035

Sicko was propaganda, not reality (though entertaining, loved the Cuba part- Lol)

Universal Health Care would be a great concept (I would probably support that) unfortunately that is not what this HCR is... there is no public option, in this bill.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:09 PM
Posted by Slayer

You raised our taxes. FINE we said.... You supported our domestic companies moving overseas in search of higher corporate profits. FINE we said.... You wanted wars for resources FINE we said.... You said there was a bogyman out there that we needed to blow the crap out of FINE we said.... There were companies that needed to be bailed out or it would ruin the US economy. FINE we said....

It's bad enough that we take heat and CRAP for supporting you. It's bad enough we take BS on a daily bases from everybody becuase of your actions. But we will be DAMNED if we are going to sit here and take it anymore.

You are going to force some sort of half-assed Health Care reform that we have to pay for whether we like it or not whether we are sick or in need or not. Whether we can afford it or not...

You were fine with everything but the health care reform? It's that mentality that let them to believe they could get away with this, which they did.

my 2 cents


posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:43 AM
"Combat Tested, Combat Proven"

"On Your Six".

Bro. Lay off the moto Juice. You sound like a super POG that probably never even traveled outside the wire and now you are acting like Mr. Online Rambo all of a sudden. Real combat Vets have a sense of humbleness and humility. They don't go waving their cock around online like you do.

You make the rest of the Corps look bad. And pipe down will you. You're post has a lot of bark, and no bite. Basically what this entire website has become.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Here's a related thread that discusses the factors involved in the dissatisfaction of men in general with the present government.

White Males Shun Democrats

The Obama led Democrats were quick to go the the aid of big industry, big banking and health care reform to aid the poor, but where were the serious job programs for the middle class males?
Obama's style liberalism is exactly the style that drives white males away: Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.

I see some similarities here with your OP, Slayer.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by VEGETA007
reply to post by SLAYER69

Let me get this straight. It is ok for BILLIONS of out tax dollars to go to WAR that has killed many American men and women on the basis that WMD's would be found which were not but it is not ok to spend out tax dollars on HEALTH CARE that will look out for millions of Americans that do not have it or can not afford it?

No, you do not have it straight.

I carried insurance in that great insurance ponzi scheme scam for years. Never could afford to use it, but I carried it all the same.

I opted out of that collective. I have no insurance now, nor do I want any. I'll be DAMNED if I'll allow the government to force me to buy ANY good or service, especially one that I don't want, don't need, and will never be able to afford to use. It's money to line insurance executives' pockets, pure and simple, and will help NO ONE with "health care". It was never about "health care", it was all about health INSURANCE, a very different thing.

I've always taken care of my own medical problems, and will continue to do so. Should the event ever arise that I CAN'T do so, I will die. Pure and simple. No one lives forever, not even me. Furthermore, my demise will solve the conflict between me and the governmental "enforcers" for the mafia-like insurance scam.

Until that time comes, I will NOT be buying into the government enforced Insurance Company scam. Neither will I pay any sort of penalty for the crime of merely drawing breath.

May God have mercy on ANY kevlar wearing, jack booted IRS thug that comes to enforce this travesty at my house, because I assure you I will NOT have any. Will I die? possibly, maybe even probably, but I'll not be going to Valhalla alone. You can take that to the bank.

The fact is, when a man is forced into a corner, when he has nothing left to lose, when he can be sure there will never be a fair trial, at that point an unfair gunfight becomes not just an option, but an inevitability.

It's best for all concerned if they just leave me the hell alone, and I'll leave THEM the hell alone. I've already opted out of the collective, and forcing me back into it is nothing short of slavery, which is alleged to have been covered by the 13th amendment.

I drew my line in the sand on this issue over a year ago right here at ATS, and I ain't budging.

Edit to add: for those insisting that this is no different than government-mandated CAR insurance, you couldn't be more wrong. With CAR insurance, I can elect not to own a car, and not worry about paying it. In fact, I have done this. In the matter of government mandated HEALTH insurance, my only option is to elect not to live. This, in effect, deprives me of the right to LIFE (as in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - where was it that I read those words again?), not just the PRIVELEDGE of driving.

NO difference? I'd call that a BIG damn difference!

[edit on 2010/3/29 by nenothtu]

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Genfinity

Does anyone recall The Stamp Act of 1775?

I do. It was 1765, not 1775, and it was passed on March 22nd, 1765, with an effective date of November 1, 1765.

Does the date of March 22nd ring any bells relative to this latest thuggery? The other one, march 22nd 1765, had far reaching consequences, too, now didn't it?

Anniversaries can be a bitch, can't they?

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:56 PM
Currently it is the health insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, physician’s offices, and other medical institutions that have collectively caused the rise of in the cost of medical bills. Where I understand that the equipment they use in hospitals is expensive, it is also true that most of the cost of these devices is easily paid from just a few patients being admitted and seen.

If you don’t believe me, if you have been to a hospital or have had a family or friend that has been to the hospital, look at the bills and fees that go to the insurance companies, much of which the insurance companies have no problem paying, this is just ridiculous.

I didn’t have health insurance coverage for a long time, not until I had a family, I didn’t believe it was right to push my own views upon them. I was always able to pay out of hand when I needed to go to the doctor, which was not often. If I wasn’t dieing I did not need to go, that was my take. I had a minimum wage job and had more money in my pocket than I did once I started paying for health insurance coverage with the higher paying job I had when I started my family, even when I had to pay out of pocket. Also doing this I knew how much the physicians were really getting. When I got insurance I noticed that the same physicians for the same treatments I paid out of pocket, were getting more from the insurance company then they were from me. My wife works for a hospital, and she confirmed my beliefs that physicians charge more when they know they will be hitting an insurance company than they do for average Joe Shmoe without insurance.

For the government to be pushing this on people is sick, if people don’t want to pay car insurance, they opt not to own a car, but if you don’t want to pay health insurance you can’t just not opt to live (suicide aside).

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by LadySkadi

If only, they did this in the interest of the people.

If only.

Its never in the interest of the people to have charity programs run at gun point. If all these people clamoring for universal health care spent even ten minutes a day working for it to be done on a voluntary basis, it would have happened a long time ago. What the left wants is for OTHER PEOPLE in political positons to force OTHER PEOPLE who aren't a part of their goals to be forced into a position of slavery and/or theft to support something they really can't (due to poverty) or don't want to support. I find the way people think its a right to enslave others into something they don't believe in using income taxes to be sickening.

Funny, that is exactly how health insurance started.

In 1929, the first modern group health insurance plan was formed. A group of teachers in Dallas, Texas, contracted with Baylor Hospital for room, board, and medical services in exchange for a monthly fee. Several large life insurance companies entered the health insurance field in the 1930’s and 1940’s as the popularity of health insurance increased. In 1932 nonprofit organizations called Blue Cross or Blue Shield first offered group health plans. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans were successful because they involved discounted contracts negotiated with doctors and hospitals. In return for promises of increased volume and prompt payment, providers gave discounts to the Blue Cross and Shield plans.


But in your world, it is perfectly ok for a profit corporation to decide someone's life, which is like holding them at gunpoint.

Thanks for pointing out an example of how non-government sources are the solutions to so many of our problems.

How is it okay in my world for a for-profit corporation to decide someone's life. Its not more okay for that than its okay for a for-power corporation like the United States Government to decide?

I think it should be up to the free will of individuals and voluntarily formed collectives of individuals. So if for example you wanted to spend ten minutes a day helping people who didn't have insurance you could do that... but then you couldn't join the police force and seize my personal possessions if I wasn't interested in joining your effort. I'm not at all seeing hypocrisy here.

<< 11  12  13   >>

log in