On 27 Mar 2010
in
Arch-Conservative view of Healthcare...,
atritium said:
Here's a link to audio of Democrat Dingell admitting the ultimate goal of the bill is to "control the people":
http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people
Controls will have to be implemented to regulate population behaviors as costs escalate. Only certain behaviors will be controlled; Big Macs may get scarce, but be sure that every effort will be made to keep gay bath-houses open as billions pour into the urgent AIDS issue. There will be the favored and the unfavored. Your medical treatment will be determined by politics.
Cost control via behavior regulation will always be only partly successful, so at the same time rationing will become part of daily life, with committees from the 150 agencies constantly tweaking rules about who does and doesn’t not get health care and when. Decisions formerly made by millions of people in consultation with their doctors will now be made by committees.
This is what happens in every country with mandatory government healthcare, and part of what is bankrupting the world right now. Everyone's hands are in everyone else's pockets, no one realizes the sheer magnitude of what has been spent and promised to be spent. Because it comes from someone else's pocket.
The 1800s saw the abolition of slavery of the culturally weak. Immediately the masters cast around for new slaves to live off of, instead enslaving free men as communism and socialism rose from the rubble of slavery abolition. The trick was getting free men to enslave themselves …
On 27 Mar 2010
in
Arch-Conservative view of Healthcare...,
atritium said:
elliemae says
Tenouncetrout says
Libs how does it feel to be on the wrong side of History?
This Bill is one Republican administration away, from being nullified and undone.
Your unbridled joy at other people’s pain & suffering is duly noted.
Elliemae, it may be time for honest disclosure on your part ... what is it you think you will get from government healthcare and why is it worth other people losing their jobs and opportunities so as to support you?
Explain the morality of forcibly taking money and resources from people who've earned it so as to give to other people who didn't, so they don't have to face the consequences of their behavior.
I'm starting to imagine a room with cigarette and Haggen-Dazs cartons, fear of the future, and thoughts of how nice it would be if you didn't have to change and other people could be forced to pay your expenses when there is a problem ...
On 27 Mar 2010
in
Arch-Conservative view of Healthcare...,
atritium said:
When you have mandatory health insurance, this is what happens:
Healthy people pay in. The healthier they are, the less they get back.
Sick people pay in. The sicker they are, the more they get back
That is, mandatory health insurance amounts to forcing healthy people to pay for sick people. By definition.
This is WHY advocates always want to make health insurance mandatory. They need healthy people for the scheme work. They need slaves who are compelled to pay but not get a return.
Why are people sick? The AMA says 80% of health costs are due to behavioral choices people make: obesity, smoking, drugs, alcohol.
So mandatory health care amounts to using the power of the state to force people who make good decisions to pay for those who make bad decisions, so as to attempt to shield them from the consequences of their bad decisions. How can any society survive that? History shows they don't.
The fall of the Soviet Union ... taxation rates approaching 60% in socialist Europe.
Government healthcare reflects the desire of the child to be taken care of, to make the government into a surrogate parent.
Adults recognize life involves risks; there are no guarantees; and that is GOOD. Freedom ends when people are forced to support the needs of others, because the needs of others are unlimited.
The state cannot act as a surrogate parent, because the state by definition is a “psychopath” — it acts without regard to the individual (something parents do), but instead according to policies specifically designed to disregard the individual in favor of an assumed “average”.
It is IMMORAL to demand money (i.e., time and effort) from some people so as to support other people. You are free to do so voluntarily. If you want to mail a check to someone to help with their medical costs, is any conservative trying to stop you? Why do you want to make it mandatory that some people be forced to work support other people?
Do you yearn for the security of childhood, a Mommy and Daddy who will always be there to make the boo-boo better? Healthy adults do not.
