Obamacare amounts to slavery...

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by TheJaberwocky

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Anonymous404

 

ObamaCare is transformation of America.

ObamaCare grows the size of government.

---------
We need to reduce the size of government.

How exactly does obamacare make the gov bigger, and not the healthcare industry? Your gut instinct does not count as evidence.

But see you've asked an intelligent question. NO FAIR!!

Just for starters, 16,500 new IRS agents.... That is just for starters.

Originally posted by TheJaberwock
reply to post by Sparky63

 

So your Health care went up when obamacare was put into place? Wierd, seeing as the Supreme Court just upheld its constitutionality a week ago. Did your insurance go up last week?

Obamacare was passed and the implementation began in 2010. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the costs of healthcare immediately rose after Obamacare was passed in 2010. It is not fully in place until 2014, but it is already being gradually implemented.

Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.
Read more at www.brainyquote.com...
JFK was the only one that ran this country with good old Mob values, he wanted americans to work hard and keep his money in america,,,,, our puppets we have working for us now couldnt change thangs if they wanted to ,they wouldnt want to endup worm food.....

Originally posted by Masterjaden
I came upon an interesting thought while discussing Obamacare in another forum I frequent where people were trying to claim that healthcare is a right...

I don't understand how ANYONE can claim that a service provided by another is a right... That would infer that you have the right to force someone to work for you. That is THE definition of slavery.

Anyone who advocates that healthcare is a right, advocates for slavery.

The hypocratic oath does not infer forced servitude. It is a man's personal honor to keep their word. The Doctor still must have the choice whether to do so or not. Non action on the part of the doctor does NOT amount to murder.
Jaden

edit on 1-7-2012 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

a doctor or healthcare clinic or hospital are not forced to work for you, they can change professions, change businesses or simply quit. therefore your premise is flawed.
a slave cannot quit, or leave...big difference

Originally posted by nenothtu

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

Next weird and exotic disease, please.

Right, because maintaining a healthy food supply has not helped you out at all.
Now you are kind of going to have to prove to me how you came up with your "stats" because I am pretty sure you pulled that out of your ass. You were going to say none no matter what I put up and I am betting there is nothing you can ever do to prove it.

You are trying to tell me that if everyone else in the US had TB, you would be OK. You can take care of you. You are wrong.

Originally posted by nenothtu

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)

When I turn 65, I want to stop working but still get paid.
If only there were some way that the government could just go and take money from other people and give it to me just because I want it.
Can you think of anything like that?

Originally posted by Maslo
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.

Ah. That clarifies things. You believe your rights are government-issued. I do not, because what the government gives, the government can also take away, making laws something other than rights

I was intrigued by the notion of a "positive right", having never heard such a thing before, so I looked it up. It seems there is a good reason I've never heard of such a concept. As near as I can tell, it was formulated in 1979 by a Czech in order to justify enslaving others so as to require them to provide something, which would be an inherent violation of their negative right to do nothing.

If you are content to allow others to issue rights to you, I'm OK with your decision. It's something YOU are comfortable with, and I don't have to be. I have no government-issued rights, nor do I want any. Don't expect me to comply with your insistence on my own servitude, however. I give what I give voluntarily, and will not give as a matter of principle if someone thinks I somehow owe them something I never volunteered to give.

In other words, government-issued rights are not rights at all, neither positive, negative, or neutral.

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

You seem to be confusing legislation with rights, probably as a result of your belief that rights are government issued and dependent upon the government's good pleasure. However, in the final analysis I agree that the government is not obligated to arm me, albeit for different reasons than you suggest.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu

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

Next weird and exotic disease, please.

Right, because maintaining a healthy food supply has not helped you out at all.

You're trying to change horses in midstream now. Your initial point was that "I" would have died due to these exotic diseases more than once. Now you are attempting to change it to availability of the food market. Going for yet another bait-and-switch, are we?

Now you are kind of going to have to prove to me how you came up with your "stats" because I am pretty sure you pulled that out of your ass. You were going to say none no matter what I put up and I am betting there is nothing you can ever do to prove it.

First, precisely which "stats" have I posted that you require verification of? if I have posted ANY stats, that is at least one more than you have posted, and I will be happy to verify them for you as soon as I know which "stats" you are speaking of.

No, the answer is not always "none". Hit me with another of your exotic diseases, and we'll see how my stats compare against yours.

If you can provide any, that is.

You are trying to tell me that if everyone else in the US had TB, you would be OK. You can take care of you. You are wrong.

No, I am telling you that the notion of everyone in the US having TB is a logical fallacy, unsupportable by any statistics you will ever find. It is, in fact, an attempt to construct a "straw man" argument, because you cannot show anywhere or any time that 100 percent of a significant population has been infected by TB.

The only logical conclusion is that "if everyone in the US had TB", and I was in the US, then I would of necessity have TB. it is, however, based upon an invalid premise - that everyone in the US (or anywhere else, for that matter, outside potentially a turn of the century sanitarium) has ever had TB. that is where your straw man lies. I just burned it for you.

Originally posted by habitforming

When I turn 65, I want to stop working but still get paid.
If only there were some way that the government could just go and take money from other people and give it to me just because I want it.
Can you think of anything like that?

Nothing that I will benefit from - how about you? I just don't know of any programs like that. I can name one that I paid into, with the promise of reimbursement after retirement, but that seems to have fallen through. I won't be seeing any of that reimbursement.

Oddly enough, no one forced me to pay into that program - I did so voluntarily for a number of years. No one said "pay or die", as they are now attempting to do.

Originally posted by nenothtu
You're trying to change horses in midstream now. Your initial point was that "I" would have died due to these exotic diseases more than once. Now you are attempting to change it to availability of the food market. Going for yet another bait-and-switch, are we?

No, my point is that you are alive and well thanks to medical care. We can go eradicated disease by disease if you like or you can do as you said and prove to me how you know you would never have succumbed to these things that medicine has taken care of for you.

I am still waiting for you to do that.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Nothing that I will benefit from - how about you? I just don't know of any programs like that. I can name one that I paid into, with the promise of reimbursement after retirement, but that seems to have fallen through. I won't be seeing any of that reimbursement.

Oddly enough, no one forced me to pay into that program - I did so voluntarily for a number of years. No one said "pay or die", as they are now attempting to do.

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

Cool, your response is asinine.
I was not speaking to you and apparently that is key to your actually understanding what my point was.
If you care enough to go back and put it all back in context and see if you can understand it and then respond that might be cool.
I do not care if you think you will get SS or not. That has nothing to do with what I was responding to.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Ah. That clarifies things. You believe your rights are government-issued. I do not, because what the government gives, the government can also take away, making laws something other than rights

Who gives you your rights and what are those rights?
Serious question.

The biggest problem with ObamaCare is it gives the State the power to decide who gets to live and who must die. If you have stage 4 cancer and it costs $1 million dollars to keep you alive for one more year, the State must act in the benefit of the collective whole, which means cut costs. In such instances, ObamaCare is set up (already, if you read it) for "officials" to determine that you're not worth $1 million dollars. They simply pull the plug on your health and you die. It is for the collective good.

According to the Constitution of the United States of America, the federal level should never ever have that level of power or control. It brings us right back to the tyranny Great Britain put the colonies under.

But the U.S. Constitution also makes every single state a sovereign state that's able to stand up to the federal government, by design. It's called the 10th Amendment. If the people of one state chose to 1) legalize alcohol (as has happened in the past), 2) legalize pot (as has happened but federal won't recognize it), or 3) reject ObamaCare, this state-level check and balance is designed to protect the populace from excessive laws and federal level tyranny.

If the people in the state like Massachusetts chose to have a state-wide healthcare plan, that IS the level where that is appropriate - in terms of the Constitution.

If a people of the state of California chose to legalize medical marijuana, then they Constitutionally have the right to tell the federal level to eff off and let them be. The legalized marijuana issue is at the foremost point of constitutional rights. The more the federal level attacks that, the more everyone sees that we are under a State of tyranny. This over-control is expressly unconstitutional, but it takes brave men and women, along with their representatives and supreme courts, to bravely fight for freedom or else it is lost.

We can easily all turn a blind eye towards the marijuana issue because not everyone uses it. But it is a freedom that is allotted to individuals in certain states that have medical problems. (Because marijuana has proven medical uses and it is grown in God's nature... not in a biochemical lab at $5 per pill.) If one fights for liberty, one must also fight for states' rights such as these.

At some point, some politician or politically placed judge must step up to the plate and protect Constitutional rights. It isn't inherently given because politicians are playing the "I pat your back, you pat my back" game. But freedom is completely gone if not a single one steps up to the plate.

Say what you will about Sheriff Joe, but he knows there's vertical checks and balances in our Constitution and he is the only person with a giant set of balls who has stepped up to the plate and is batting the best he can - against major forces. He is a HERO.

If we don't bother to stand up to federal laws that breach state sovereignty, we might as well just throw our hands in the air and agree to be pathetic slaves for the rest of our lives, our children's lives, and on and on. Because absolute power, no matter how you cut it, corrupts.

ObamaCare is a system of absolute corruption. If you think $1,000 hammers and $5,000 toilet seats are excessive expenses, you haven't seen anything yet. One thing you can count on the federal government doing is being completely inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful. Yet, so many Americans are ever so willing to give the choice of life and death to these very same bureaucrats.

The stupidity of most people is just baffling. G** D**** sheeple slaves.

Learn more about 10th Amendment Here: tenthamendmentcenter.com...

Originally posted by habitforming

No, my point is that you are alive and well thanks to medical care.

And you can verify that.... how? Are you trying to say that no one lived before insurance and doctors were invented?

We can go eradicated disease by disease if you like or you can do as you said and prove to me how you know you would never have succumbed to these things that medicine has taken care of for you.

I am still waiting for you to do that.

Right after you show where I said I would NEVER succumb...

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu

Nothing that I will benefit from - how about you? I just don't know of any programs like that. I can name one that I paid into, with the promise of reimbursement after retirement, but that seems to have fallen through. I won't be seeing any of that reimbursement.

Oddly enough, no one forced me to pay into that program - I did so voluntarily for a number of years. No one said "pay or die", as they are now attempting to do.

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

Cool, your response is asinine.
I was not speaking to you and apparently that is key to your actually understanding what my point was.

You might have tried quoting the post you were actually responding to, then, instead of MY post...

If you care enough to go back and put it all back in context and see if you can understand it and then respond that might be cool.

My response stands as it is.

I do not care if you think you will get SS or not. That has nothing to do with what I was responding to.

It's not a matter of what I think it's a matter of what the government TOLD me. Which program, then, were you referring to where you get a government check after retirement at age 65? Maybe there's another I should concentrate on...

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu

Ah. That clarifies things. You believe your rights are government-issued. I do not, because what the government gives, the government can also take away, making laws something other than rights

Who gives you your rights and what are those rights?
Serious question.

We are born with them. No one "gives" them to us. They encompass pretty much anything that doesn't involve abrogating the rights of another. Such things as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, those mundane sorts of things. The ability to defend yourself, the ability to make your own choices and decisions, etc.

As an example, no one has the right to abrogate the right of life of another, unless it's required for defense. If it's required for defense, then there must be an attack to defend from. By making the attack, the other has waived his own right to life, by wrongfully seeking to abrogate yours.

Rights are not dependent on governmental pleasure, because A) they existed before governments did, and predate government, and B) Anything a government gives, a government can also take away, so governmental "gifts" cannot be considered rights, as they are at the whim of a government to be operable.

What a joke of a thread.

I fully intended to come into this thread and show how silly the OPs premise is...but after reading the first few pages...it is clear that has already been accomplished.

It's funny watching the illogical people things are coming up with in an attempt to criticize the ACA...it used to be easy...just call it Unconstitutional...the SCOTUS has firmly taken that argument away...so now it is a free-for-all of illogical ridiculous arguments to see what will stick.

Keep em coming...it's fun to watch.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

It's funny watching the illogical people things are coming up with in an attempt to criticize the ACA...it used to be easy...just call it Unconstitutional...the SCOTUS has firmly taken that argument away...

So you admit that the individual mandate is in reality nothing more than a tax, correct?

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu

Ah. That clarifies things. You believe your rights are government-issued. I do not, because what the government gives, the government can also take away, making laws something other than rights

Who gives you your rights and what are those rights?
Serious question.

Serious Answer....Read THIS thread....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jaden

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
What a joke of a thread.

I fully intended to come into this thread and show how silly the OPs premise is...but after reading the first few pages...it is clear that has already been accomplished.

It's funny watching the illogical people things are coming up with in an attempt to criticize the ACA...it used to be easy...just call it Unconstitutional...the SCOTUS has firmly taken that argument away...so now it is a free-for-all of illogical ridiculous arguments to see what will stick.

Keep em coming...it's fun to watch.

Please just name the logical fallacy....

Oh you can't????

Oh you can't show how any of the premises are untrue either????

Oh ok... Why don't you just go back to your shill obama lovin' thread creating and leave the logic to those who are capable of it....

Jaden