James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council as well as a newer organization, Family Talk, has compared the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act, to Nazism.
This is nonsensical overheated rhetoric that trivializes the atrocities of Germany under Hitler and should be deeply offensive to anyone who knows the history of World War II.
It is a complete mischaracterization of the Affordable Care Act, which only requires that non-religious institutions and companies which offer prescription drug coverage to their employees include contraceptive drugs. Churches and religious institutions are exempt. What's more 28 states have identical or similar mandates. The one in California has been upheld in court, appealed and upheld on appeal by the California Supreme Court.
For some reason religious organizations believe they have a right to tell everyone what the law should be. It used to be that mainstream Protestants were not opposed to contraception at all. Now they want to control the lives of all of us.
This is not first time Dobson has used a comparison with Nazi Germany to make his point. He once made a comparison of stem cell research with Nazi medical experiments:
DOBSON: You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that's obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven't done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany. That's why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] and the others who are saying, "Look what may be accomplished." Yeah, but there's another issue, there's a higher order of ethics here.
But the Left IS socialist just as the NAZIs were socialist.
That is simply not the case. Nazism was a form of fascism. Despite its national socialist label, the Nazi Party in Germany opposed capitalism, socialism, and Marxism in favor of totalitarian government based on notions of racial superiority. It bears no resemblance to the government we have. Such comparisons are false history.
Every state requires drivers to have a license and liability insurance in case they cause an accident and lack the personal resources to cover costs.
Requiring people to have health insurance is similar since those without insurance and without resources to cover their health costs are a burden on the rest of us who pay for their care. Anyone can have an accident and anyone can get sick. It is not a question of self-discipline. No one with cancer can take care of themselves nor can they avoid the disease with healthy living. Among the young, accidents are the principal cause of death. Later on the cause shifts to cancer and then to heart disease.
Hospitals are required by law to care for uninsured patients until they are stabilized. The resulting financial burden has led many private hospitals to eliminate emergency rooms. Health care ought not to be a privilege of the rich.
Health savings accounts are simply another tax break for the rich. Most people these days are having trouble affording a house and saving for college and retirement even with two incomes. They do not have the funds to put into health savings accounts. Only those who are well off can do that.
But the Left IS socialist just as the NAZIs were socialist.
If in fact you consider this to be even close to a valid comparison, you need to read the history of the Third Reich.
There is absolutely nothing better to start with than William L. Shirer's The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich, originally published in 1960, only fifteen years after the war. Shirer was a correspondent in Germany during the rise of Hitler and interviewed him.
The collapse of Hitler's totalitarian regime was so rapid that extensive documentation in the form of original government records, private diaries, etc. could not be disposed of in time to avoid their capture by allied troops. Shirer had access to much of this voluminous material and based his account on it and on interviews with those who survived. It is an engrossing story and you will quickly see the vast differences between German fascism during Hitler's reign and American democracy now.
Our government is far from perfect as the recent disclosures about the NSA clearly show, but it is very, very far from being a totalitarian dictatorship. Any such comparisons are foolish indeed.
Tonya, despite your hours of watching Fox News and perusing Drudge, you are not an expert on healthcare or insurance companies. and while i am not either, both happen to be the area that i have worked in for the past 11 years. have you ever spoken to a medical provider about how O-care effects them? have you talked to thousands of people who are out of work and struggling to find healthcare during their hiatus?
for that matter, are you even aware that Obamacare isn't an actual insurance policy? when people sign up, they are buying insurance from for-profit private insurance companies. and the regulations that you call for make these policies offer real coverage. and guess what - the insurance companies love it. people are paying them the full cost of the policy even though the tax deductions make it substantially cheaper for the policy holder. better still, those subsidies are fully paid for instead of being deficit spending.
i doubt i'll change your mind, since you seem convinced that Godwin's Law is ok to violate when it comes to Obamacare. that just shows how badly you've been brainwashed. had we gone with a single payer or even a gov't option, i could see cries of socialism as being valid. but this is a free market idea to reform small parts of the healthcare system. me thinks you doth protest too much.
and it can happen quickly. i might have told you this before, but my mother voted for Obama in '08 when she didn't pay much attention to the news. once she met her Fox loving husband, with Fox on all day long, she hates him with the intensity of 1000 suns. she can't even stand to look at him. she hates the poor and has turned definitively racist. thanks Rupert, thanks a lot.
Ya know, I'd mention Godwin's Law ... but that dipshit Dobson probably never heard of it!
Initially, I thought it would be a good idea to bring it up. Maybe he would try to slur Godwin as a jew.
Actually, since you brought up Godwin, I decided to see who this fellow was. In looking him up, I discovered "Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum", which go back even further. Let's face it, this has been going on since WWII, if not further (although probably only in Poland, Austria and a few other countries).
Before anyone gets upset, let me make it crystal clear that I have no grudge against jews. I think making disparaging remarks against them is a sign of stupidity.
In my lifetime the issue of birth control has become a greater influence than it was when I was a younger man. Condoms used to be OK, but now a pill is not. As more and more women got on the birth control pill religionists spoke out. Today the "morning after pill" is the ultimate sin. Why is this? Mostly because having sex freely is becoming easier (without pregnancy fears) so the religious right wants to tell us all that it is immoral. How nice!
As for Obamacare (the ACA) I saw more on the news about it just this morning. They are talking about how a lot of people won't be able to get health care, and the cameras were showing a lot of old people with walkers stumbling around. I'm not supporting Obama care here, but this is just plain out wrong. It will never happen. Why? If you are 65 or over you have Medicare. Go to the webpage Medicare.gov and you will see that Medicare is exempt. The Medicare trust is solvent into 2027 with little change. Go to the Veterans Affairs page and you see also that the VA is exempt. Healthcare as usual will continue with these 2 organizations.
Nobody understands Obamacare fully because nobody has read the huge manuel. Not even the ones that helped pass the law. For reasons not made fully clear somebody is trying to scare the old people up. Obamacare will not affect you, granny, and you can still play bingo!
The Enlightenment was a revolution in epistemology. It was far more than a difference in what they believed, it was how they formed their understanding. From Bacon to Condorcet there was an over riding concern with epistemology. These philosophers were operating at a higher level of analysis. They looked for patterns in people's understanding and analyzed what people's beliefs were based on. For them, progress required a change in how people developed their understanding. They realized using idealism, and projecting onto the world how we imagined things should be was futile. We had to develop our empirical faculties and observe the world as it was. This was the form of understanding that allowed us to form true perceptions based on what actually existed.
Darwin was our most glowing example of someone who had an amazing ability to look about and perceive patterns. His amazing perceptions challenged our culture's most cherished ideals. His most important lesson was how we should employ empiricism.
This lesson seems to be largely beyond the majority of the populace. The great failure of the French and American revolutions was a failure to understand the need for epistemological progress. Rather than replace idealism with empiricism they replaced religious idealism with political idealism. Both left and right wing political ideologies are still ideologies. We are still largely divided into Jacobins and Brissotists. Till we achieve epistemological progress we will remain mired in an idealogical fog.