It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obamacare amounts to slavery...

page: 18
20
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Most "nationalized healthcare" countries are very close to, or are already bankrupt, and national healthcare is aprt of the reason why...


I dont think there is a correlation between healthcare socialization and government debt. And there is nothing to indicate national healthcare is the reason some countries are having fiscal problems lately, since there are far more countries that do not have problems and also have national healthcare. The problems can be traced back to recession, not national healthcare systems.




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

Like Kabfighter said in their post, the American people will pay either way. The gov't chips in to help pay for unpaid ER visits that therefore if you work and are paying taxes, you are paying them. Since those visits are more expensive than preventative care, it is in the best interest of taxpayers to have this system put in place.



Yeah, it is better to be a slave having the government FORCE you than to be a free person right?...

You can remain a slave if you want, I'll rather choose myself and be free...


Unless you suggest defunding ER care, I miss your point.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




No. It is a government service, not a right.


Government services are positive rights.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Silly little, scared Americans freaking out about concepts which work in other countries for decades already.
It's almost funny.

Tip: Come over here to Europe where we have quasi-free health care and ask ANY doctor, nurse etc. about how they feel that they are actually "slaves" "forced to provide a service" (according to your logic). Just don't be surprised you get looked on a little weird... because i dont think anyone with halfway sense would be able to follow your logic there.

Edit:

And your title "Obamacare amounts to slavery", i mean it says already everything i want to know about your mind-set and actual intent for this thread.

And..by the way...EVERYONE ... means also you. So, yes, you also "have a right" that ER services attend to you in case YOU have a traffic accident or a heart attack.

You are of course free to argue that you really do not like this "weird system"...but then you should (frankly) also expect that no one cares for you. If your house burns down, let it burn. If you found overturned in your car, just let it sit on the side and let you rot inside. (Because no one will help you, pull you out, rush you to the ER, or potentially later on bury you since you didn't survive due to lack of medical care...etc...)

Or...let me ask differently, do you, for some ODD reason think you do actually have this right..but "some" other people (for some reason) won't?




edit on 4-7-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


It is obvious that you are unable to logically back up any of your claims with verifiable facts so I will just be finished.
Yes you enjoy the PROTECTION of your society. You have electricity, plumbing, and food in quantities that far out strip your need. You can sleep at night without fear of someone kicking in your door and cutting your head off because of what you believe. You can travel freely to any corner of you nation. You are free to say what you like without fear of imprisonment or death. You are free to believe or disbelieve anything you like. You have all of these protections and freedoms yet you choose to moan and complain when you are asked to do your part in holding your society together. Strange.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

I'll play your silly "what if" game. tell me, how many times do you think I would have died by now? This should get interesting. I know the answer - but do you?


Oh, you know this? Awesome. I cannot wait for your response.

By now, how many times do you think you should have died from Rinderpest.
I cannot wait to read your response.
edit on 4-7-2012 by habitforming because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nenothtu
 




No. It is a government service, not a right.


Government services are positive rights.


How so? By what logic does one have a "right" to force another to provide anything for him?

This is a very important question - I need a new assault rifle, and want to know how to go about forcing my Second Amendment right, and coercing the government to just give me one.




edit on 2012/7/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Oh, you know this? Awesome. I cannot wait for your response.

By now, how many times do you think you should have died from Rinderpest.
I cannot wait to read your response.
edit on 4-7-2012 by habitforming because: (no reason given)


Statistically, zero times. I am not an even-toed ungulate.

Next weird and exotic disease, please.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Sir, your reply shows you are tripping and contradicting all over yourself. I am only writing this hoping you can change your mind, but mostly for ATS members.

You said you had been part of team America, now you refuse to be part of it, because you just don’t want to pay. Take a cue from your family? Fine, you had given strict instructions to your family not to help you in case of emergency. How about the rest of us over 300 millions Americans? Are you going to tattoo “DON’T HELP ME WHEN I’m SICK OR DYING” on your forehead to prevent some kind person from accidentally helping you? What are you going to do if someone accidentally help you? A Pastor? A kid? A veteran? A marine? Being naïve is one thing, being rude, naïve and stubborn is another.

Disagreeing with a law is fine, outright contempt of a law is despicable. Before you go off tangent and start arguing that Obamacare is unconstitutional, yes there were disagreements, a lot of it, we all know. But at the end of the day, Congress passed it, the President signed it and Supreme Court judges upheld it. Hack, Mitt (Mr Outsourcer, Mr Let Detroit Go Bankrupt, Mr I Save The Auto Industry, Mr Let Foreclosure Run It's Course And Hit The Bottom, Mr I will Repeal Obamacare) Romney sign for it as well (Please don't make me post Mitt's videos).

There are more important things than this healthcare insurance issue, like when are we getting our soldiers back? Once they are back, how are we going to lighten their loads in any little way we can? This law benefits us as well as our soldiers. Looking at your condescending replies to so many ATS members over not getting yourself medically covered, I would have guess you spend more money on internet bills. You rather pay your telco than support something meaningful for yourself, your family, your countrymen and your country. Perhaps it would be a good idea you terminate internet line and get insured. How about do it for your children. How about do it for our soldiers? Anybody reading this agree?

Do you know under Obamacare, your children under the age of 26 are covered under your policy? Do you know this law bans denial of coverage base on pre-existing conditions? The Law also compells private insurance to justify premium hike. The law also have built in Anti Discrimination clauses. There are too many benefits, read the law yourself if you dare, be brave, read it.

Sir, while I am angry at you, I am not going to resort to negative name calling. You are still an American. But I believe, those of us who don’t burden our fellow Americans, who get ourselves medically covered, being independant, take care of our children, gainfully employed, pay our taxes to support this great country, willing to help our fellow Americans if they are sick or dying, who make the simple decision to support this law, are a better bunch of Real Americans.

USA wants Real Americans to stay on. You asking me to leave USA is really silly. I can’t stay in those countries I mentioned because they really leave you alone if you are sick or dying on the street, which you is what you want. You insisted this time and again to everyone at ATS. Seriously, you will fail in you quest to outcast yourself from Real Americans, we will help you and end up paying for you. And those countries I suggested don’t have Obamacare, which is again what you wanted. If we take a poll, between you and me, I am sure I will be more suited to live in America.
edit on 4-7-2012 by Gigantopithecus because: correction of spellings and paragraphing



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigantopithecus

You said you had been part of team America, now you refuse to be part of it, because you just don’t want to pay.


Not because I "don't want to pay", rather because I reserve the right to decide for myself what I will pay for, and when.



Take a cue from your family? Fine, you had given strict instructions to your family not to help you in case of emergency. How about the rest of us over 300 millions Americans? Are you going to tattoo “DON’T HELP ME WHEN I’m SICK OR DYING” on your forehead to prevent some kind person from accidentally helping you?


If they could read a tattooed forehead, they can probably also read the "No Trespassing" signs.



What are you going to do if someone accidentally help you? A Pastor? A kid? A veteran? A marine? Being naïve is one thing, being rude, naïve and stubborn is another.


Have them arrested for trespassing.



Disagreeing with a law is fine, outright contempt of a law is despicable.


Ok, then. I'm despicable. I understand that I'm in good company. The people who threw the original Boston Tea Party seem to have harbored a fairly high degree of contempt for an unjust law, as well.



Before you go off tangent and start arguing that Obamacare is unconstitutional, yes there were disagreements, a lot of it, we all know. But at the end of the day, Congress passed it, the President signed it and Supreme Court judges upheld it.


Yes they did, didn't they? Now their problem is going to be enforcement. The Supreme Court upheld it as a "tax", but already I see the internet battalions trying to switch out the bait again, and are calling it a "penalty" again instead. They'd better read that decision again before they get too deeply into that particular switch of the bait.



Hack, Mitt (Mr Outsourcer, Mr Let Detroit Go Bankrupt, Mr I Save The Auto Industry, Mr Let Foreclosure Run It's Course And Hit The Bottom, Mr I will Repeal Obamacare) Romney sign for it as well (Please don't make me post Mitt's videos).


Mitt is an idiot. I can't imagine why anyone would vote for him, and expect him to do anything different than what he has always done, or what Obama has always done. There is a reason I refer to both him and his opponent as "Obamney". I can't see any difference other than the paint job.

The idea of letting Detroit go bankrupt is a good one - I've never heard him say that. I don't think that single ideas outweighs his multitudinous boneheaded actions, though.



There are more important things than this healthcare insurance issue, like when are we getting our soldiers back? Once they are back, how are we going to lighten their loads in any little way we can? This law benefits us as well as our soldiers.


Bully for you. I don't care what you do amongst yourselves. I'm not participating in it, so you should plan your financing accordingly.

I've not read of any beneficial effect on VA benefits. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how it benefits soldiers.



Looking at your condescending replies to so many ATS members over not getting yourself medically covered, I would have guess you spend more money on internet bills.


That's probably a fair assessment. ANY money paid on ANYTHING is more than what I've spent on insurance since I got out from under that ponzi scheme many, many years ago. I've also spent more on lolipops for my grand kids.



You rather pay your telco than support something meaningful for yourself, your family, your countrymen and your country.


Absolutley. The non sequitur there is the assumption that it IS good for myself, my family, my countrymen, and my country. I don't believe that to be true. For the life of me, I can't see how giving up the freedom those soldiers fought and died for is a benefit to them. I AND my family have done fine without it so far. There is no need for you to force things on me to fix what is not broken.



Perhaps it would be a good idea you terminate internet line and get insured. How about do it for your children. How about do it for our soldiers? Anybody reading this agree?


For my children, my grandchildren, and in memory of dead soldiers who fought to preserve liberty is precisely WHY I stand foursquare against it. They are why I will continue to stand against it.



Do you know under Obamacare, your children under the age of 26 are covered under your policy?


ROFLMFAO! they already are! They have the same "coverage" I do, under the same "policy". It doesn't involve any Insurance Corporation scams, though...



Do you know this law bans denial of coverage base on pre-existing conditions? The Law also compells private insurance to justify premium hike. The law also have built in Anti Discrimination clauses.


You seem not to quite be grasping how little I care what it does about insurance. Insurance is not "health care", it is a for profit business, and a ponzi scheme on top of that. You can do anything to those corporations you like, including burning their buildings down, for all I care. When you start subsidizing their theft by requiring ME to pay them tribute, we are going to have trouble, however.



There are too many benefits, read the law yourself if you dare, be brave, read it. Sir, while I am angry at you, I am not going to resort to negative name calling. You are still an American.


I did try to read it. Pretty boring fare. When I got to the forced participation provision, that was reading far enough. It only takes a single injustice to make an entire legislative effort unjust, if they are all bound together with no severability. Forcing a population into involutary servitude to the gods of Insurance is in no way balanced out by any "potential benefits" to others. That is no different than arguing in favor of the enslavement of blacks for the benefit of others. I don't support that, and I don't support this.

I'm sorry if you're angry with me. I'm not angry with you. I make allowances for people who have misguided but good intentions. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and a lot of people seem to want to see the US firmly upon that road. I am not one of them.



But I believe, those of us who don’t burden our fellow Americans, who get ourselves medically covered, being independant, take care of our children, gainfully employed, pay our taxes to support this great country, willing to help our fellow Americans if they are sick or dying, who mak the simple decision to support this law, are a better bunch of Real Americans.


My notion of "independence" does not involve burdening anyone else, nor does it involve my expectation that they burden themselves on my behalf. Perhaps you see "independence" differently, in a somewhat more dependent light. I don't know how many times I have to say that I take care of my own medical problems. if I don't do that in compliance with your dictates, that is your problem, not mine. You are welcome to use my methods if you choose, but you will in no way be forced to. That is YOUR choice, not mine. Likewise, I will not be forced into yours. That is MY choice.

Your superiority over me as a "better bunch of Americans" is duly noted, but not acknowledged. I acknowledge no superiors or inferiors.



USA wants Real Americans to stay on. You asking me to leave USA is really silly.


I did not ask you to leave the US - you asked ME to, and provided a list of potential destinations for me. I merely observed that they may be more to your liking, given the way they tyrannize and micromanage their populations, in accordance with your proclivities. Whether you go or not is your choice - it's not my place to invite you to leave.



Seriously, you will fail in you quest to outcast yourself from Real Americans, we will help you and end up paying for you.


That is an attempt to state a fact based solely on supposition. It has not happened yet, and I can foresee no circumstances where it ever would. Until such time as it does, you have no basis for such an assertion, and time is growing short for you to materialize it. I won't be here forever.



And those countries I suggested don’t have Obamacare, which is again what you wanted.


You misconstrue my wants. I want freedom. None of those countries have it. Obamacare is but another step in an inexorable plan to assure that America no longer has it, either. It is an overt step into fascism, no longer even going the covert route. The merger of government and business is pretty much the defining criteria for fascism, and the merger doesn't get much tighter than corporations writing legislation for a government to pass forcing the citizens to purchase non-products from said corporations.



If we take a poll, between you and me, I am sure I will be more suited to live in America.


Perhaps. How do you propose administering such a poll? Who is to define what is "a real American"?




edit on 2012/7/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Government services are positive rights.


Huh?

I don't think you actually know what is being debated in this post.

How about the DMV? That is a state government service. Is that a "right"?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





How so? By what logic does one have a "right" to force another to provide anything for him?


If the government says so. The government provides positive rights.



This is a very important question - I need a new assault rifle, and want to know how to go about forcing my Second Amendment right, and coercing the government to just give me one.


I dont think there is a law that says you have a right to receive one from the government.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


If the government says so. The government provides positive rights.



Perhaps it's because you are from another country, or hell, from the sounds of it, you could be from another planet.

What is clear is that you have zero understanding of the form of government we have in America, or more specifically, our Constitution.

Government does not provide "rights". Rights exist naturally, and the only thing government does is infringe upon them.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd

Originally posted by Maslo

Government services are positive rights.


Huh?

I don't think you actually know what is being debated in this post.

How about the DMV? That is a state government service. Is that a "right"?


Yes, its a positive right. Or are you saying the DMV can arbitrarily deny you its services if you fulfill the lawful conditions to receive them?

A right to have an attorney or legal representation is another example of a right to the service provided by others. Just because something is provided by others is no reason for it to not be a right.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 




Government does not provide "rights". Rights exist naturally, and the only thing government does is infringe upon them.


That is largely true for negative rights only (not for positive rights). And even that is not entirely correct - government police funded from taxes protects your negative rights, not only infringes upon them.

Why should government protecting your right to live by stopping criminals threatening it be OK, but government protecting your right to live by stopping diseases also threatening it is suddenly not OK? If its government's role to protect your right to live, then government provided healthcare is logical. And if its not the government's role to protect your right to live, then police should be disbanded, because it does exactly that.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 4/7/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 




Government does not provide "rights". Rights exist naturally, and the only thing government does is infringe upon them.


That is largely true for negative rights only (not for positive rights). And even that is not entirely correct - government police funded from taxes protects your negative rights, not only infringes upon them.

Why should government protecting your right to live by stopping criminals threatening it be OK, but government protecting your right to live by stopping diseases also threatening it is suddenly not OK? If its government's role to protect your right to live, then government provided healthcare is logical. And if its not the government's role to protect your right to live, then police should be disbanded, because it does exactly that.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 4/7/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 




Government does not provide "rights". Rights exist naturally, and the only thing government does is infringe upon them.


That is largely true for negative rights only (not for positive rights). And even that is not entirely correct - government police funded from taxes protects your negative rights, not only infringes upon them.

Why should government protecting your right to live by stopping criminals threatening it be OK, but government protecting your right to live by stopping diseases also threatening it is suddenly not OK? If its government's role to protect your right to live, then government provided healthcare is logical. And if its not the government's role to protect your right to live, then police should be disbanded, because it does exactly that.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 4/7/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


Government is not tasked with protecting my right to life but rather are tasked with not infringing on my right to life.

You obviously aren't well versed in how gobvt in s free society works.

Look at my thread on the authority of the authority for a crash course.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 




Government does not provide "rights". Rights exist naturally, and the only thing government does is infringe upon them.


That is largely true for negative rights only (not for positive rights). And even that is not entirely correct - government police funded from taxes protects your negative rights, not only infringes upon them.

Why should government protecting your right to live by stopping criminals threatening it be OK, but government protecting your right to live by stopping diseases also threatening it is suddenly not OK? If its government's role to protect your right to live, then government provided healthcare is logical. And if its not the government's role to protect your right to live, then police should be disbanded, because it does exactly that.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 4/7/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


they do NOT protect our negative rights. They are simply not given the authority to violate them. They have and continue to do so along with not protecting them but they are not tasked with protecting.our rights



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


Yes, its a positive right. Or are you saying the DMV can arbitrarily deny you its services if you fulfill the lawful conditions to receive them?

A right to have an attorney or legal representation is another example of a right to the service provided by others. Just because something is provided by others is no reason for it to not be a right.


I don't think you know the definition of the word "right" in this context.

The government FORCES people to go to the DMV if we simply want to exercise our natural right of free travel.

In regards to the scenario of an attorney being provided, it isn't always free, Hell a public defender still sends you a bill, albeit a reduced fee, but a bill nonetheless.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


Why should government protecting your right to live by stopping criminals threatening it be OK, but government protecting your right to live by stopping diseases also threatening it is suddenly not OK? If its government's role to protect your right to live, then government provided healthcare is logical. And if its not the government's role to protect your right to live, then police should be disbanded, because it does exactly that.



You clearly have no clue as to how the American system operates.

Government does not "protect your right to live", they simply cannot violate your right to live. The police have no obligation to protect anyone who is not in their custody. That is not merely opinion, but that is a fact determined by the Supreme Court.

Police do not protect anyones right to live, their main function is raising revenue for their jurisdiction.Sure they arrest people after a crime has been committed, but that is not done under the guise of protecting my right to live.




top topics



 
20
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join