Imposition of a health dictatorship - don't comply, lose assets

Allow me to address you at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity.

Nice, they are going to tackle the child rape thing they are so fond of hiding!

a reply to: Zrtst

I think you bring up a very good point in positive versus negative rights, and it's an important distinction that most people do not even recognize, much less acknowledge.

For myself, in terms of negative rights, I default to Natural Law in the tradition of Locke. I think that's as close as we can get to a shared philosophy among our Founding Fathers -- and it works. So if we can do it for ourselves and by ourselves -- hence, self-evident -- it is our natural absolute inalienable right to do so.

Positive rights are not so simple. Generally speaking, though, whereas negative rights are about what government cannot do because it is our right to do for ourselves, positive rights are all about what government can and should do for us. I would say that all positive rights must benefit all equally (healthcare would apply, since we all need healthcare), it must empower us equally to the greatest extent possible (such as basic information and education, as well as targeted clinical medical studies, etc.), and it should not preclude a private option (much like public and private schools, police and private security, and so on). Nor should it in any way hinder or prevent doing for ourselves.

a reply to: ketsuko

Why do you keep defaulting to "forcing" others to provide healthcare? There's no reason for going there. Plenty of providers are already happy to work for a government wage.

Our right to free speech often includes a venue... no one is forced to provide that venue. Our right to worship freely often includes a pastor... no one is forced to be a pastor. Our right to bear arms often includes purchasing that firearm... no one is forced to build that firearm. Shall I go on?

Our government -- and therefore the taxpayers -- spend billions on healthcare in one way or another. No one is forced to do anything. Society as a whole has already determined that government needs to be involved in healthcare. We are now just arguing the how and what. But I am NOT arguing that anyone should be forced to do anything. Exactly the opposite.

I want the people educated, enabled and empowered to the greatest extent possible to nurture and nurse their own bodies. And the freedom of association to get aide and assistance from other consenting adults when desired/necessary.

a reply to: BlissSeeker

The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.

What happens if we just say "no"? What happens if for the first time in the last 50 years we say, just plain "no"?

If we the people control the government, and the government is supposed to protect the rule of the people, if we don't want it, say "no" and refuse to allow it.

If us little ants ever woke up to the power we can wield together, all of this would be a slam dunk. They have been way too sucessful in conforming us to fight and kill each other, while our real enemy sips champagne and laughs at our stupid asses.


People are already hyped for a civil war, now would be the perfect time to wake up to the real enemy and to use that bitterness and vitriol to make a real difference.

I know I am just wasting my time and providing fuel for my slaughter.

a reply to: Thoughtful1

Zackly !

The Technocrats have usurped 'science', and are using the peoples absolute devotion and belief in 'science', to carry forward their agendas.

Very rare indeed, are ATS'ers whom are willing to challenge the pedestal and throne, of Big-Science™ !!

Have received plenty of flack here, for saying that am not a believer in 'science'.
Really.

And that's the scary part : it is a blind belief, and folks will trust anything that is labeled 'scientific'.

So : Just like the major schools of religion used faith and belief, to get folks to do what they want : so now are the Technocrats using 'science', to lead the sheep to the new bio-security paradigm.

Whatever sways influence over the flock : will be bought, and used to control them.



(PS : please : don't anyone lay the lame old trope on me, about a person using technology, while not believing in science. )

You may not like the guy who wrote the letter- and I'm not into religion -at all- but he's not wrong. Do more than watch the television and you might find out what's going on around the world. Why don't you read a little about what Klaus Schwab is whispering into our ever beneficent leaders ears.

a reply to: Boadicea

And let's look at what happens when the government manages state workers - we get bankrupt states because the states promise more than they can pay.

Look at the budgets of Illinois, California, New York - state employees benefits and wages are what happen to be dragging those states under. Unfunded liabilities. You simply cannot tax the private sector enough to provide the types of wages and benefits that have kept those employees happy, especially as you are working your way up the bureaucratic ladder.

The NHS in the UK has more employees than all but 4 other employers in the world: the US military (counting civilian workers), the Chinese military, Walmart (counting international chain holdings), and McDonald's although most of McD's employees work for franchises and so are not direct employees.

Imagine the size of a similar bureaucracy in the US given the size of our population and the vast amounts of money required to feed those bureaucrats.

We don't have enough wealth to tax.

a reply to: BlissSeeker

Bookmarking for later

a reply to: ketsuko

Look at the budgets of Illinois, California, New York - state employees benefits and wages are what happen to be dragging those states under. Unfunded liabilities.

Those three states also happen to be poster children for the most corrupt and mis-governed states in the nation!

Which further makes my point: We do NOT want government critters dictating our healthcare!!!

Educate, enable and empower the people. Don't tie our hands. Don't force our dependence on those who have only their own best interests at heart. Don't waste our resources on professional help when people can do it for themselves. When people are self-sufficient and resourceful, they neither need nor want government intervention.

What sucks most is I will most likely never get a chance to travel the world properly because I wont be taking any Covid vaccines... he may be paranoid but much of what he says has a high chance of becoming reality unfortunately.

I haven't been able to sleep and I'm grumpy so I'll keep it short and just throw some thoughts out there.

First, because this thread is about healthcare and rights to choose it is a very muddy subject. Allow me to illustrate just how fast this subject can get tangled up...

Take, for example, the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors. Does this oath imply a "right" to others? Some would say it most definitely does. But many in the healthcare profession aren't doctors, and don't take the Hippocratic Oath, right? However, by virtue of their profession they are almost automatically bound by the doctors at the top of the professional food chain. We haven't even gotten to the subject of nationalized healthcare yet and we're already knee deep in mud.

People say healthcare is expensive hence the need for some kind of a nationalized solution which offers healthcare at little to no cost. Some might even suggest this too is a right. But is healthcare really that expensive? Well, let's look more closely. Healthcare would cost a lot less if insurance companies weren't involved in the mix, but doctors would stop practicing medicine if insurance companies weren't part of the equation. Why? Because just like patients, they too have to have insurance...which drives up the costs of the services they provide. Without that insurance they would be bankrupt overnight from all the litigation and outrageous damage awards for things like malpractice. But, but...people say they're entitled to that stuff, entitled to those outrageous damage awards, right?

So first it was the providers who were too expensive, then it was the insurance companies, and then it was the ambulance chasing pro-bono litigators, but ultimately it comes full circle, right back to the very people themselves, the same ones talking about their rights.

It doesn't matter what segment of the healthcare industry you look at, the tune is the same...providers, insurers, attorneys and the people. People say pharmaceuticals are too expensive. Well, guess what? See above, same vicious circle. Every segment of the industry is this way. And people want to fix the problem from the top down, because that's the only thing they know, the only thing which touches them directly. But that's not how the problem gets fixed; it has to be fixed from the bottom up. You don't fix a chair by starting with chopping one of the legs out from underneath it. Healthcare costs are no different; you have to start from the bottom up.

People approach the healthcare issue like it's a simple yes or no answer, but unfortunately it's not this simple. Even on this thread a number of posters have taken this simplistic approach, and frankly it solves nothing. Square peg vs. round hole. And whatever comes out the other side of the hole will be lesser because of it, not greater, than what started in, and something will break in the process.

Before we can discuss what things are "rights" and then it will magically become so, we have to discuss the parts in the middle which are the real heart of the issue. People who think otherwise are sorely misinformed. There is no magic wand, and there is no single bad guy, no single 'throat to choke', unless of course people are willing to admit that they themselves are the cause of the problem they seek to fix, not someone else.

I'm afraid there is no black and white answer to the healthcare problem. It won't be that easy, and likely the final answer will be some kind of a shade of grey in between.

Sorry, but that's how I see it, because that's the reality of the situation.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hecate666

But if they are beholden to give you what you want, then they are also entitled to sell those services on their terms, not yours. If you can dictate the terms of the exchange exclusively because their services are your right, then they no longer have agency in their own lives as far as the disposition of their services are concerned.

We say that people have the right to refuse service to someone. If someone comes into your shop and they are unkempt and abusive and demand services in ways that are frightening your other clientele, you can absolutely ask them to leave, but make health care a right ... and the doctor no longer has the ability to ask a similar patron to go, no matter what the circumstances may be. The doctor is always on call, no matter what his own life may be at that point in time.

Well, that's part of the job description. To be on call, to be stressed, to be overworked, to help. Actually being a healthworker should be a calling and not a highly paid ob at all. Once you committed to that that's what is going to await you. There is no such thing as a doctor if you sit at home refusing help.

It's like asking to become a soldier but refusing to go to war. Its useless. And they know it and you know it.
Before I got my BSc [hons], I used to be a hairdresser. I could not refuse customers for no proper reason, as I was employed. We were allowed to refuse when we felt in danger [which happend sometimes/too often].
Nobody has to put up with sexual harassment or threats of violence. That's why they have signs on the walls everywhere in surgeries and hospitals, that there is zero tolerance for violence or harassment. Any other reason cannot be accepted in healthcare as the consequences could very well mean death. That is also why they have to swear the hippocratic oath. They have to help, even if the person is a stinky murderer. Doctors and nurses are no judges, nor are they hairdressers.
They have to heal, it's their raison d'etre for their profession. If they just want the money and chose who to help and who not to help...they are not in the right profession.

I don't think we need science in the healthcare industry in the future. trump is showing us the proper stance by showing us how wrong the medical establishment is.... MaGa!!

a reply to: Boadicea

Health care should be a right,
If you break your arm do you think, I might treat myself to a trip to the hospital, It will cost a fortune
or say "# I broke my arm, I need medical help"