Kalifornistan Nazi

[Tech_Esq]

Lets be clear, I'm not defending anyone. Never did once, read my posts again. I'm criticizing the claim that this woman made that the healthcare bill is essentially slavery.

Her point: If, through action of the Federal Government, I can COMPEL you do render me a service, then how has the Federal Government not created a system of slavery?

The only escape appears to be that the potential slave my choose to leave their profession. We still don't know all of the ramifications and unintended consequences of the "health care" law. In Canada, they set up a similar system which ran the health insurance companies out of business within 5 years. They then made it unlawful to provide private health care. So all doctors had to work for the state. We'll see whether the slavery argument turns out to be far-fetched in the years to come. Right now, both of us are just guessing.

LOL, No one is being forced to be a doctor, or healthcare professional for free. You choose your profession AND get compensated for it. So cops are slaves? The Fire department are slaves? If your house catches fire, the fire department comes and puts it out. They don't sit there and decide whether or not they want to, but that doesn't make them slaves. Insane argument.

You can choose to avoid the point if you want, but that doesn't make it go away.

If, as in Canada, you practice medicine, you get paid what the government says you get paid for a service. If you don't like then you can choose not to practice medicine anymore. (at least so far. They may remove that choice as well). It's a slippery slope once you start going down this road.

You don't find it in the least radical to take an entire industry that has had the freedom of contract and lock it down? Really?

 

[hortysir]

And show me the part of the bill that even remotely makes the healthcare bill into slavery.

What do you do for a living? And what is the highest level of education you completed?

This congressman that you are so bravely defending apparently thinks there is a correlation, as well.
Noticed that he did not challenge any of her points.
He did not say, "Slavery has nothing to do with it because we're not forcing anyone to provide a service or anyone else to pay for said service".
The only point he made...the ONLY response he could muster was, "The federal government can do just about anything."
That doesn't worry you?
Do you want the Fed having more control of your day-2-day?

Lets be clear, I'm not defending anyone. Never did once, read my posts again. I'm criticizing the claim that this woman made that the healthcare bill is essentially slavery.

Okay, you're not defending the Congressman. You're ridiculing the question.
Got it.
Can you answer the last 2 questions in my previous post?

 

[daveman]

Your insurance company has that power over you right now.

And she can change insurance companies.

Harder to change governments, wouldn't you say?

 

[RDD_1210]

Her point: If, through action of the Federal Government, I can COMPEL you do render me a service, then how has the Federal Government not created a system of slavery?

The only escape appears to be that the potential slave my choose to leave their profession. We still don't know all of the ramifications and unintended consequences of the "health care" law. In Canada, they set up a similar system which ran the health insurance companies out of business within 5 years. They then made it unlawful to provide private health care. So all doctors had to work for the state. We'll see whether the slavery argument turns out to be far-fetched in the years to come. Right now, both of us are just guessing.

LOL, No one is being forced to be a doctor, or healthcare professional for free. You choose your profession AND get compensated for it. So cops are slaves? The Fire department are slaves? If your house catches fire, the fire department comes and puts it out. They don't sit there and decide whether or not they want to, but that doesn't make them slaves. Insane argument.

You can choose to avoid the point if you want, but that doesn't make it go away.

If, as in Canada, you practice medicine, you get paid what the government says you get paid for a service. If you don't like then you can choose not to practice medicine anymore. (at least so far. They may remove that choice as well). It's a slippery slope once you start going down this road.

You don't find it in the least radical to take an entire industry that has had the freedom of contract and lock it down? Really?

The Government isn't taking anything over! If they were, MAYBE you'd have a case. The insurance companies are still in full control. All the gov't said was that people have to pick insurance from one of those companies. If anyone is rationing care, it's insurance companies. Doctors aren't being *forced* to treat anyone without being compensated in return.

 

[RDD_1210]

Your insurance company has that power over you right now.

And she can change insurance companies.

Harder to change governments, wouldn't you say?

Then I guess it's good that the insurance companies are in full control

 

[RDD_1210]

This congressman that you are so bravely defending apparently thinks there is a correlation, as well.
Noticed that he did not challenge any of her points.
He did not say, "Slavery has nothing to do with it because we're not forcing anyone to provide a service or anyone else to pay for said service".
The only point he made...the ONLY response he could muster was, "The federal government can do just about anything."
That doesn't worry you?
Do you want the Fed having more control of your day-2-day?

Lets be clear, I'm not defending anyone. Never did once, read my posts again. I'm criticizing the claim that this woman made that the healthcare bill is essentially slavery.

Okay, you're not defending the Congressman. You're ridiculing the question.
Got it.
Can you answer the last 2 questions in my previous post?

Sure
That doesn't worry you?
Of course it does....if it was actually happening. I know many on the right will claim the sky is falling, but in reality Democrats dont hate America and don't want us dead so they can have more power and make us all communists.

Do you want the Fed having more control of your day-2-day?
Control? Absolutely not. But it's not all black and white, all or nothing. The government can serve a useful role. To say that role should be total control is ridiculous and I don't want anything like that, but to say they should be totally hands off is just as crazy and our society would crumble without some basic government. It's a matter of finding that middle ground that lets government operate efficiently and at a level thats best for society.

 

[Tech_Esq]

LOL, No one is being forced to be a doctor, or healthcare professional for free. You choose your profession AND get compensated for it. So cops are slaves? The Fire department are slaves? If your house catches fire, the fire department comes and puts it out. They don't sit there and decide whether or not they want to, but that doesn't make them slaves. Insane argument.

You can choose to avoid the point if you want, but that doesn't make it go away.

If, as in Canada, you practice medicine, you get paid what the government says you get paid for a service. If you don't like then you can choose not to practice medicine anymore. (at least so far. They may remove that choice as well). It's a slippery slope once you start going down this road.

You don't find it in the least radical to take an entire industry that has had the freedom of contract and lock it down? Really?

The Government isn't taking anything over! If they were, MAYBE you'd have a case. The insurance companies are still in full control. All the gov't said was that people have to pick insurance from one of those companies. If anyone is rationing care, it's insurance companies. Doctors aren't being *forced* to treat anyone without being compensated in return.

Either you think I'm stupid or you are uninformed (perhaps just buying the hype) about what's coming. If we are both unlucky we'll get to find out.

As I said, Canada used this same mechanism when they started their public health care system. They had insurance companies too. But, like this law has done, they set up a system where people get wrung out of the private system and put into the government system. They created disincentives employers to provide insurance and within roughly 5 years, there were no more private insurers.

Keep thinking things will stay the same. This is "change you can believe in" buddy.

 

[daveman]

Your insurance company has that power over you right now.

And she can change insurance companies.

Harder to change governments, wouldn't you say?

Then I guess it's good that the insurance companies are in full control

It's better than government involvement in something they have no Constitutional authorization to be involved in.

Remember: This is the same government that wants to regulate milk as a petroleum product.

 

[RDD_1210]

You can choose to avoid the point if you want, but that doesn't make it go away.

If, as in Canada, you practice medicine, you get paid what the government says you get paid for a service. If you don't like then you can choose not to practice medicine anymore. (at least so far. They may remove that choice as well). It's a slippery slope once you start going down this road.

You don't find it in the least radical to take an entire industry that has had the freedom of contract and lock it down? Really?

The Government isn't taking anything over! If they were, MAYBE you'd have a case. The insurance companies are still in full control. All the gov't said was that people have to pick insurance from one of those companies. If anyone is rationing care, it's insurance companies. Doctors aren't being *forced* to treat anyone without being compensated in return.

Either you think I'm stupid or you are uninformed (perhaps just buying the hype) about what's coming. If we are both unlucky we'll get to find out.

As I said, Canada used this same mechanism when they started their public health care system. They had insurance companies too. But, like this law has done, they set up a system where people get wrung out of the private system and put into the government system. They created disincentives employers to provide insurance and within roughly 5 years, there were no more private insurers.

Keep thinking things will stay the same. This is "change you can believe in" buddy.

Well the public option was killed, so for now that doomsday you are fearful of isn't on the horizon.

However, if the public option did come back in to play and this worst case scenario that you've detailed comes true. Then what does that say for the way private insurance was operating that the federal government was able to wipe it out? The same federal government that can't do anything right. Doesn't say much for private insurance, does it? I would love to see that day come. But again, that's not the way the current bill is structured, but we can continue to hope.

 

[RDD_1210]

And she can change insurance companies.

Harder to change governments, wouldn't you say?

Then I guess it's good that the insurance companies are in full control

It's better than government involvement in something they have no Constitutional authorization to be involved in.

Remember: This is the same government that wants to regulate milk as a petroleum product.

Then you should be happy with the current healthcare bill, because the government is no more in control today then before it was signed.

 

[hortysir]

Then I guess it's good that the insurance companies are in full control

It's better than government involvement in something they have no Constitutional authorization to be involved in.

Remember: This is the same government that wants to regulate milk as a petroleum product.

Then you should be happy with the current healthcare bill, because the government is no more in control today then before it was signed.

Except for mandating individual coverage or mandating companies to provide coverage for their employees or requiring insurance companies to cover high risk individuals.......

Since when does our Gubment have the power to require purchasing a product from a private entity?

 

[RDD_1210]

It's better than government involvement in something they have no Constitutional authorization to be involved in.

Remember: This is the same government that wants to regulate milk as a petroleum product.

Then you should be happy with the current healthcare bill, because the government is no more in control today then before it was signed.

Except for mandating individual coverage or mandating companies to provide coverage for their employees or requiring insurance companies to cover high risk individuals.......

Since when does our Gubment have the power to require purchasing a product from a private entity?

That's where the problem lies. The insurance companies lobbied HEAVY to have that mandate put in there. Their argument was that if they have to cover pre-existing conditions, they should be able to help offset some of the cost by having healthy people in the insurance pool who are less likely to make a claim.

It's not a perfect system, but it sure beats the way it works now where uninsured people can still get treatment at an ER and the rest of us who have insurance have to foot the bill through increased premiums and costs.

 

[bodecea]

If you people in this guy's district return this fool in November, we need to line the bunch of you up against a wall!

It is your duty to throw this power mad a-hole out of office!

That would be advocating shooting people because of who they voted for, wouldn't it?

Ever hear of hyperbole?

So...suggesting that people who vote a certain way be lined up against a wall is hyperbole now?

 

[Tech_Esq]

That would be advocating shooting people because of who they voted for, wouldn't it?

Ever hear of hyperbole?

So...suggesting that people who vote a certain way be lined up against a wall is hyperbole now?

Duh. How could it be anything else. Is there any history of such things happening in this country? No. Is there any likelihood at all that some guy in Virginia is going to drive to California and start rounding people up and shooting them? No.

Time to stop being a literalist nutter.

 

[hortysir]

Then you should be happy with the current healthcare bill, because the government is no more in control today then before it was signed.

Except for mandating individual coverage or mandating companies to provide coverage for their employees or requiring insurance companies to cover high risk individuals.......

Since when does our Gubment have the power to require purchasing a product from a private entity?

That's where the problem lies. The insurance companies lobbied HEAVY to have that mandate put in there. Their argument was that if they have to cover pre-existing conditions, they should be able to help offset some of the cost by having healthy people in the insurance pool who are less likely to make a claim.

It's not a perfect system, but it sure beats the way it works now where uninsured people can still get treatment at an ER and the rest of us who have insurance have to foot the bill through increased premiums and costs.

I must admit you reply a lot less sarcastically than I.

And I totally agree with your last paragraph!

I just dread what door we may have cracked open......

 

[Tech_Esq]

Back to the point of the thread before it gets hopelessly derailed:

Pete Stark must go:

During an interview in July 2009 with the Office of Congressional Ethics, which Stark appaerently videotaped, he was "extremely belligerent and frequently insulted the OCE staff members interviewing him," according to an OCE staffer.Sherman, Jake, Politico, "Pete Stark's Bizarre Ethics Interview," March 1, 2010
(4)Sherman, Jake, Politico, "Pete Stark's Bizarre Ethics Interview," March 1, 2010

The OCE, an independent body without any formal disciplinary power, was probing why Stark claimed a homestead tax exemption for his Maryland residence when he is formally a California resident.Sherman, Jake, Politico, "Pete Stark's Bizarre Ethics Interview," March 1, 2010(5)

More ethics violations for yet another Democrat.

Stark’s voting record is not just solidly, but aggressively liberal. His fiery invectives towards Republican colleagues are notorious.

Likes to work across the aisle, NOT!

Fortney Hillman (Pete) Stark, Jr. (D-Calif.) - WhoRunsGov.com/The Washington Post

 

[hortysir]

Duh.....
Apologies.
I just realized that was Stark in the video

If I'd noticed that sooner, I'd be less surprised

 

[Douger]

Wanna bet.

Nice M-60 I am thinking about getting one in the next year or so. but the ammo is very expensive.

It is well worth it.
I didn't buy it in th empire.

 

[Douger]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Douger]

Murkinz