Socialist advocates murder of people who oppose barry’s “public option”

[Silver Bullet]

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/02/25/1949223/Independent-Programmers-No-Win-Scenario?art_pos=9

Public health care. I've had it for my whole life. I'm Canadian.
…
If you don't have your "public option" then you simply don't have health care. Otherwise, insurance will only be available for healthy young adults. If I understand your constitution correctly, assassination is acceptable for those who would threaten that option. It is, technically, self-defence.

I am SO glad I am not one of them.

Meanwhile, over at a site with more political insight:

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=416490&page=2

Post #35 makes this observation about government health care:

When the Government has complete control of your health care or health care insurance, they will be able to tax your vices and remove/ban your dangerous behaviors. Sky dive? There's a premium for that. Drag Racer? There's a Premium for that. Like McDonald's? There's a premium for that. Health Care, whether by design or coincidence, is the most effective means to control a population's behavior in intimate ways. Do you think a government that fears its people/minions/subjects will not know who owns firearms and needs to be feared/watched/harassed/taxed/fined/jailed at every opportunity?

Control of your health care is control of your life, believe it or not.

I see a lot of parallels here with other aspects of government control, specifically of my money I’ve been forced to contribute to social security (which the government has embezzled) and with taxes paid to the federal government earmarked for things like highway repair to the states, which the federal government in turn holds for ransom to extract various political concessions from the states.

[AZRedhawk44]

If I understand your constitution correctly, assassination is acceptable for those who would threaten that option. It is, technically, self-defence.

Just remember, buddy:  Our side has more guns.  And we know how to use 'em.  "Self defense," and all.

[Silver Bullet]

He's not going to do it personally, of course.  He'll get the government to do it for him, if possible.

Of course, to make that more possible it will be necessary to confiscate weapons ...

[AZRedhawk44]

I was at a range club meeting up in Payson last week.

A guy from Game and Fish was there, doing a presentation on the two dominant perspectives towards wildlife management.

#1 - Critters are here for us to derive responsible pleasure from them.
#2 - It is our duty to act as stewards of nature, coexisting in infinite bliss with it while doing no harm.

He made the point that as a government employee, it is his duty to fairly represent and act upon the wishes of the Sierra Club and other crackpots, since they are part of his constituency.  Just as shooters/hunters are part of his constituency.  Though, they are shrinking in ratio to the crackpots.

Kind of creeped me out and realize how dire the culture war really is.

He's not going to do it personally, of course.  He'll get the government to do it for him, if possible.

There's the culture war.  Right there.

[AJ Dual]

Probably threatening a thread move here, but I think I have the reason why Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Co. are willing to ram the S.S. Democratic Party onto the rocks by trying to force through the health-care bill, and take the huge short-term losses in 2010 and the 2012 elections. 

If it passes, and we get the "Camel's nose in the tent" on the single-payer option, eventually all private insurance will fall to the cheaper (not counting tax subsidy) public option, with the exception of a very few wealthy self-insurers.

When that happens everyone will be dependent on the government for their health-care. And then everyone will suddenly become a knee-jerk Democratic party constituent. If you look at the voting blocks which are predominantly Democratic now, they're all dependent on the party in some way, unions, the poor, the elderly.

And every year these demographics overwhelmingly pull the lever for the Democrat, having been institutionally frightened into believing that conservatives will take away what is rightfully "theirs". Even when the conservatives and moderates vote to increase spending on benefits, but at a lower percentage than the Democrats, it's now called a "cut".

IMO, the larger issue about health-care reform, aside from screwing up almost 20% of the American economy, is that it's really the Democratic party trying to set the stage for single-party rule in the United States.

[makattak]

Probably threatening a thread move here, but I think I have a reason why Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Co. are willing to ram the S.S. Democratic Party onto the rocks by trying to force through the health-care bill.

If it passes, and we get the "Camel's nose in the tent" on the single-payer option, eventually all private insurance will fall to the cheaper (not counting tax subsidy) public option, with the exception of a very few wealthy self-insurers.

When that happens everyone will be dependent on the government for their health-care. And then everyone will suddenly become a knee-jerk Democratic party constituent. If you look at the voting blocks which are predominantly Democratic now, they're all dependent on the party in some way, unions, the poor, the elderly.

And every year these demographics overwhelmingly pull the lever for the Democrat, having been institutionally frightened into believing that conservatives will take away what is rightfully "theirs".

IMO, the larger issue about health-care reform, aside from screwing up almost 20% of the American economy, is that it's really the Democratic party trying to set the stage for single-party rule in the United States.

They are angry we are not Europe yet.

In Europe, the "conservatives" argue they can run the socialized system better. They don't DARE state it should be dismantled.

That's where they want us to be. The fact that they still have to fight against people who say the government SHOULDN'T be doing all this crap really angers them.

[MicroBalrog]

Try it sometimes with a socialist from a country like Israel, makattak. :D

[AJ Dual]

Honestly, if we lose on this, and we can't head off the insanity, what I really think ought to be done about it... by APS TOS/COC whatever, I can't say it.

Ultimately I think the biggest problem is that we're in a degenerate stage of Capitalism, where the modern "robber-barons" have now figured out it's easier to support the .gov in anti-capitalist legislation as long as they're situated to profit.

Normally, before this, they'd have been on "our side". Under most of the plans, the large employers realize they can just dump their entire workforce onto the public option, otherwise you'd see all the corporate heavyweights pulling every string, calling in every favor, and making every threat they could to stop Obamacare.

And conversely, the leftists have figured this out too and use it to their advantage.

[Perd Hapley]

If I understand your constitution correctly, assassination is acceptable for those who would threaten that option. It is, technically, self-defence.

You don't.  Boy, oh boy, what must they be teaching them up yonder in Canuckistan?   

[Nitrogen]

People pay good money for private insurance in Canada, even though its more expensive than the "free" stuff they get from the govt.

I don't see why people would not do the same here.

Honestly, I'd prefer that we either went totally socialist (e.g. Canada or even England) instead of this halfway crud we're doing now.  Force private companies to accept anyone?  Deny them the right to set their own rates?  that's a recipe for disaster far worse than real socialist care would be, imho.

And honestly, i'm not that afraid of "socialized" care, as long as you're free to get better care privately, as you are in England and Canada both.

[AJ Dual]

People pay good money for private insurance in Canada, even though its more expensive than the "free" stuff they get from the govt.

I don't see why people would not do the same here.

Honestly, I'd prefer that we either went totally socialist (e.g. Canada or even England) instead of this halfway crud we're doing now.  Force private companies to accept anyone?  Deny them the right to set their own rates?  that's a recipe for disaster far worse than real socialist care would be, imho.

And honestly, i'm not that afraid of "socialized" care, as long as you're free to get better care privately, as you are in England and Canada both.

You are correct that the current mess is because of the quasi-socialist system we have now. Where users are one or two steps removed from cost and choice options. Fully capitalist healthcare would introduce fierce competition and would reduce costs and drive efficiency for ALL.

However, some of the versions of the healthcare bill have been truly frightening, some actually prohibiting paying for your own insurance, or any second-tier medical clinics, hospital, or doctors accepting such insurance either.

[The Lone Haranguer]

Almost every systematic slaughter of the 20th century has been carried out by socialists or communists (actually two flavors of the same crap sandwich).

[MicroBalrog]

Normally, before this, they'd have been on "our side".

What now?


Who do you think backed the Sherman Act?

[makattak]

What now?


Who do you think backed the Sherman Act?

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

Adam Smith didn't trust businessmen. People are the same today. This is why the government needs to be restrained: EVERYONE will try to use it for their own advantage once it starts picking winners and losers. It's a prisoner's dilemma: If you don't, your competition will.

[MicroBalrog]

Which is exactly my point.

[makattak]

Which is exactly my point.

I was just further emphasizing it 

[AJ Dual]

What now?


Who do you think backed the Sherman Act?

I was just speaking in general terms, business not liking expanded .gov and regulation. Corporate/government collaboration has been an eroding force for some time. However, as America has grown, it's ever bigger.

[Jamisjockey]

The sad thing about western socialism is that it is intellectually bankrupt.  Allowing an entitled eater class makes no sense. 
"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world; who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself." George Bernard Shaw

For the great socialist experiment to work*, people must produce something.  Maybe the eater class is just a mean to the end.  The only way for them to gain power is to create an entitled class that will always vote them in.   






*I certainly do not agree with socialisim in all its facets, nor do I wish for it to 'work'. 

[Monkeyleg]

The only way for them to gain power is to create an entitled class that will always vote them in.

It's also a way to become wealthy. The political class, for the most part, lives very well. They have perks and privileges the great unwashed do not, and are exempt from many of the laws and restrictions they shackle us with. They don't send their children to the public schools to which they condemn the rest of our society, and they wouldn't be subject to the same substandard health care they want to foist on us.

 

[Tallpine]

It's also a way to become wealthy. The political class, for the most part, lives very well. They have perks and privileges the great unwashed do not, and are exempt from many of the laws and restrictions they shackle us with. They don't send their children to the public schools to which they condemn the rest of our society, and they wouldn't be subject to the same substandard health care they want to foist on us.

 

We are basically headed back to the middle ages and feudalism, only with TV 

[Doggy Daddy]

If you don't have your "public option" then you simply don't have health care. Otherwise, insurance will only be available for healthy young adults. If I understand your constitution correctly, assassination is acceptable for those who would threaten that option. It is, technically, self-defence.

Follow this mind-set just a little further:  The right of one person to have access to another person's wealth would also make it an act of self-defense to assassinate anyone who locks their doors to keep out the thieves.  Can't lead a full life without access to my neighbors 42" flat screen, right?

DD

[makattak]

We are basically headed back to the middle ages and feudalism, only with TV 

The Road to Serfdom

[De Selby]

It's an interesting phenomenon, how people can be outraged that some members of the public might want to take public funds to pay for healthcare, but end up fairly complacent that large corporations took more than that amount and tried to pay out massive bonuses to their executives with the money.

If you want to dismantle the welfare state, you should start with the biggest welfare queens on the planet: large corporations and their executives.  Letting that kind of socialism go on and then turning red-faced over public healthcare is a good way to re-popularize socialism a la European welfare states.

[MicroBalrog]

but end up fairly complacent that large corporations took more than that amount and tried to pay out massive bonuses to their executives with the money.

1. Whom do you think the HC costs will go to if not Big Pharma and Big Insurance?

2. The bonuses were a tiny fraction of the TARP funds. Less than 1%.

3. Most people on this forum opposed both TARP and the HC reform bill. Your snark is invalid.

[taurusowner]

It's an interesting phenomenon, how people can be outraged that some members of the public might want to take public funds to pay for healthcare, but end up fairly complacent that large corporations took more than that amount and tried to pay out massive bonuses to their executives with the money.

If you want to dismantle the welfare state, you should start with the biggest welfare queens on the planet: large corporations and their executives.  Letting that kind of socialism go on and then turning red-faced over public healthcare is a good way to re-popularize socialism a la European welfare states.

I don't recall a single APS member who was in favor of the corporate bail outs.