OBAMA CARE...So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is a statement of our most basic individual rights. Over the centuries our human rights have been abused and eroded but always one could still say (...most of the time, in this country...) one could mind their own business and be left totally alone to live their life with no interference from anyone. But with this new health care bill, soon everyone will have to pay a fee to the government, or insurance company, for being alive.

...our last tiny bit of absolute liberty will be erased.

Views: 572

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I just love the notion that a president elected by a majority vote, who spent the first year of his term doing exactly what he promised he would do when he ran for office, could possibly be considered a tyrant.
Me too. How dare he keep his promise!
The sign in the middle is pointing to you...

Heh. He's the happiest person there.
Makes me want to protest too.
Not everyone is applauding. I suspect that at some point in the future, those who currently support the "obama care" version of health care reform will stop applauding as well... especially when the quality of health care declines, and government bureaucrats begin deciding what procedures can or can't be performed.

It may do good. Pride hath no other glass
To show itself but pride; for supple knees
Feed arrogance and are the proud man's fees.
Uh, Menuk, you mean unlike the benevolent health insurance statisticians who currently make judgments about what procedures can or can't be performed? You think government officials who don't benefit from the anonymity of corporate bureaucracy will be worse for us than that? Worse than the guys who make those decisions based on whether the exec they work for will get his fat, juicy bonus this quarter? Sorry, but it really can't be any worse than what we have now.
Demonizing "Corporate America" doesn't solve a thing. Perhaps if the various health insurance companies could conduct business without all of the red tape and government imposed regulations, competition could help to improve the overall system (make it more affordable). Our health care system is one of the best in the world. Are there problems? You bet. But expanding government is not the answer here.
But demonizing government is OK? The "red tape" is there to keep companies from screwing people for money. Or perhaps you were unaware that for-profit insurance companies are in the habit of denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and dropping people when they get sick (read: expensive). I'm sorry, Menuk, but government is the only thing keeping the jackals at bay. I don't subscribe to your religious view of the free market as ultimate savior of mankind.

Nice dodge, by the way. Apparently, you are, in fact, OK with the corporate death panels that actually exist, but you don't approve of the imaginary death panels that the right says were in this bill. Nice.
"Religious view of the free market"? (give me a break) It always amazes me that those who profess to be "critical thinkers" can't get their minds wrapped around the concept of "limited resources". Apparently, you believe that government can ensure that everyone will get whatever they need whenever they need it, and that all of the injustices in the health care system will magically be eliminated if only we can eliminate all of the evil insurance companies. It seems to me that such a belief is more "religious" in nature than my belief that captialistic based economies are superior than socialistic based ones.

"Nice dodge..."? Ah right... I'm not a socialist so I must be evil too. again... give me a break.

Am I against health care reform in general? NO. Am I against a socialized (i.e., government run) health care system? YES. Are there some "jackals" in the current health care industry? YES. Are there "jackals" in government? YES (Both Republicans and Democrats). Are all atheist socialist? NO (at least I hope not). LOL!
Apparently, you believe that government can ensure that everyone will get whatever they need whenever they need it,
Can't speak for Jason, but I certainly don't believe this (doubt Jason does either). Show me the person who does, probably you can't - typical of the way folks like you argue - set up the "strawman" and then knock him down.
Am I against a socialized (i.e., government run) health care system? YES.
Okay, fine, so you probably would not want to live in Sweden, U.K., Canada, I get that. But what we have in the new health reform bill does not even remotely come close to socialized health care. But I would be willing to consider the evidence you have to support your belief that we are moving to a socialized health care system.
It seems to me that such a belief is more "religious" in nature than my belief that captialistic based economies are superior than socialistic based ones.
I am just finishing a book by Dr. Albert Ellis (one of the founders of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and Cognitive Behavior Therapy) entitled "Are Capitalism, Objectivism, & Libertarianism Religions? Yes!" In the book Ellis shows that "true believers" in capitalism, objectivism and libertarianism are just as absolutist, irrational and brainwashed in their thinking as any "true believer" in Christianity or Islam. The book focuses mostly on de-bunking the holy scriptures of Ayn Rand and does a very good job of it. (Caveat: it is a bit of a frustrating read because it could have used some heavy editing but that is a minor quibble.) Unfortunately, just as with any "true believer" (whether it be in the resurrection of Jesus or the sacred power of the free market) I doubt that the points he makes could penetrate the brainwashing.
Cecilia, for not speaking for me, you did a pretty good job of speaking for me. I'll have to read Ellis's book. Sounds good.

Yes, libertarianism is a religion. It is exactly the same kind of wishful thinking. "Gee, if everybody just took care of themselves, that would lead to the best possible world!" Nonsense on a stick. Nobody is an island. Resources are, of course, limited. But myopic selfishness isn't the best way to manage them by a long shot. That just leads to hoarding, income and wealth disparity, the elimination of the middle class, plutocracy, autocracy, and inevitably, theocracy. Liberterian atheist is an oxymoron. When you cede government power over the commons, somebody will take it over, and that somebody will probably be organized. If you don't like the government, then you better like the mafia or the church, because those are the thugs who will end up running the show. There has never been a libertarian society worth living in, because they always end up looking like Somalia or evolving back into civilization. What amazes me is that the plutocrats have convinced so many of the serfs to support them. Only religion can make people work so hard against their own best interests.

And Menuk, you did dodge the death panel argument. We currently have actual death panels at insurance companies, who are completely unaccountable to the patients for their actions (unless the patients happen to be major shareholders). As opposed to the imaginary government death panels that the teabaggers said were going to be required by the health insurance reform bill. So let's see, fear of imaginary death panels or actual corporate death panels. Which one to choose? Such a dilemma.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service