Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes

Why we cannot afford to sit out this fight

Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.

Last week the House of Representatives voted on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.

We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms.

Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare," he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.

America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be.

When Congress takes away our freedoms, they will be gone forever. What will you do to prevent this from happening?

We Can't Sit Back and Allow the Loss of Our Freedoms

We elect the government. It works for us. As we watch the Democrats' plans for health care take shape, we can only ask how did our government get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives?

On Saturday November 7, at 11 o’clock in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of every American at a cost of $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want, or may not need, or cannot afford. If you don’t purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don’t do so when they tell you to do it, and if you don’t buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications and medical decision making with your physician will be gone. More of your hard earned dollars will be at the disposal of federal bureaucrats.

It was not supposed to be this way. We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives? Evil rarely comes upon us all at once, and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually, over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave in there, powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses.

The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today. The government they gave us was strictly limited in its scope, guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on matters that pertain to our private behavior was supposed to leave us alone.

In the Constitution, the Founders built in checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states would restrain it. If the states stole liberty or property, the Congress would cure it. If the president tried to become a king, the courts would prevent it.

In the next few weeks, I will be giving a public class on Constitutional Law here on the Fox News Channel, on the Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com, and on Fox Nation. In anticipation of that, many of you have asked: What can we do now about the loss of freedom? For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care—where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures, and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.

One thing we can’t do is just sit back and take it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is Fox News' senior judicial analyst. This article originally appeared in two parts on FoxNews.com.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Listen! And understand! That government is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!

  • ||

    The government's probably high on pcp and didn't feel a thing. There was this guy once--you see this scar?

  • ||

    Wash day tomorrow! Nothing clean, right?

  • ||

    What's wrong with this picture?

  • ||

    I'm gonna make a belt out of you.

  • Episiarch||

    You're terminated, fucker.

  • Horde4Lyfe||

    Well said Sir. Good movie too.

  • Warty||

    The Judge is awesome.

  • shrike||

    Napolitano is a cretin.

    He doesn't believe in the Right to Privacy.

    I hate Authoritarians - my bias is known.

  • Warty||

    'k.

  • ||

    Where on earth did you get the idea that the judge is authoritarian??? The man is explicit on a daily basis on the importance of personal, individual liberty and one of a handful sounding the alarm at the way the government is intruding on our lives. The man talks regularly about the horrors of "The Patriot Act" and what a nightmare it is with respect to liberty and privacy.

  • ||

    Well I'm sure as soon as you show him where it says 'Privacy' in the constitution he will come right around.

  • Amendment X||

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  • That government||

    *** sniffs ***
    But I only want to help you!
    ** begins sobbing quietly ***

  • ||

    Hey buddy! You got a dead cat in there or what?

  • Episiarch||

    FUCK YOU ASSHOLE

  • oncogenesis||

    While I'm in violent agreement with every word of Nappy's screed, two words come to mind: bread and circuses.

  • ed||

    That's three words.

  • anarch ibn joez||

    That's Those are three words. :-)

  • Jonas||

    I think 'and' is a use and 'bread' and 'circuses' are citations. There's a difference you know.

  • oncogenesis||

    I went to a public school. :-(

  • Mad Max||

    'We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures, and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.'

    Trying to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments may be a good long-term project - getting the meme out there - but it shouldn't be mistaken for a short-term plan to fight this health-care bill.

    If only there were some issue which divides the bill's potential supporters among the Democrats and which (according to political analysts) can break apart the coalition behind the whole progressive vision of ‘health care reform’.

    I can’t think of any such issue, at least not an issue which is relevant to the thread and which I could introduce into the discussion without criticism.

    Oh, well.

  • ||

    Agreed, if only there was a way to graphically and emotionally illustrate the dangers of government putting its hands on our bodies.

  • Mad Max||

    Whatever do you mean?

    Are you trying to hijack this health-care discussion? Shame on you!

  • ||

    If anyone is hijacking stuff, it's Mad Max. Just like your namesake.

  • Mad Max||

    I suppose I'll have to use the sarcasm mark [؟] on *every* sarcastic remark, no matter how obvious.

  • Mad Max||

    ؟ Gosh, GC, you sure put me in*my* place. Snap! ؟

  • ||

    You need to give your bosses in the pointy hats a stern talking-to about their support for health care tyranny.

  • Mad Max||

    I'm not going into a lengthy discussion of ecclesiology, but the Bishops' Conference isn't my 'boss.'

    If the Pope endorses a decree of the Bishops' conference, I would probably be bound. But the Pope has conspicuously refrained from telling the faithful that they must obey all decrees of the Conference, and the Pope and the conference have in fact sometimes been at odds.

    I am not aware of my bishop telling the faithful to treat the Conference as a 'boss,' nor am I aware of such orders from the bishop's boss (under the Pope).

  • Mad Max||

    And did you miss my point that even the social-democratic Bishops Conference will *oppose* the bill if it provides federal funding for elective abortions?

    Couldn't you restrain your impulse to attack potential allies?

  • Mad Max||

    Your article refers to recent 'criticism' of the Bishops' Conference and its political involvement in the health-care debate. That criticism comes from the pro-aborts, including (as my linked article indicates) a Congresscritter or two who suggested the Church should lose its tax exemption because of its prolife lobbying.

    Incidentally, the issue in debate between the Conference and the pro-aborts is whether the federal government should fund elective abortions. The Conference says no, the pro-aborts say yes.

    Who is standing for freedom in this dispute? Who is being threatened with punitive taxation for daring to advocate against federal overreaching?

    Yeah, all supporters of progressive health-care reform are morally equivalent. There's nothing to choose between them. ؟

  • Mad Max||

  • ||

    The abortion topic is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to their claims that there is a moral imperative that I finance the health care of others. So high a moral imperative that the state is justified in coercively taking money from my pocket against my will.

    Tell me, do the bishops also opine that the moral imperative to protect unborns from abortion is so great that random people on the street should be coerced to join pro-life rallies and distribute literature at Planned Parenthood clinics? No. So it's pretty damned clear where their priorities lie.

    The Catholic Church's steadfast opposition to abortion, in the face of intense social, economic, and political pressure to switch sides that has tamed most mainline Christian churches, is one of the few things I respect about that organization. However, in practice, the hierarchy goes balls to the wall on issues like capital punishment, opposition to the Iraq war, and now universal health care -- issues they can commiserate with their more liberal fellow clergy at cocktail parties -- while paying lip service to abortion opposition.

    I don't have any argument with the little old lady praying the Rosary across the street from an abortion clinic surrounded by thugs with badges watching for the slightest threatening movement. My argument is with the dogs with ecclesiastical titles who throw their supposed beliefs about protecting what they ostensibly believe is innocent life under the bus at the first opportunity, so they can be applauded by their peers for opposing the putting to death of a child rapist, and not being backwards and ignorant like that little old lady.

  • Mad Max||

    Tulpa,

    As far as this bill is concerned, I don't think it's fair to say that the bishops are doggedly throwing innocent unborn life under the bus.

    The leaders of the Bishops' Conference have specifically said that they will oppose the bill if ‘acceptable language . . . cannot be found’ on specific issues of concern, specifically including abortion funding. They like the Stupak-Pitts language, but if it's removed from the bill, all bets are off.

    Many bishops may well have been too concerned about being part of the progressive coalition, but with this bill, once they realized they had to choose between staying with their progressive cocktail buddies and standing up for the principles of the Hyde Amendment, they chose the side of life.

    It is easy enough for conservative and libertarian prolifers to oppose the health-care bill - they are already opposed to federal takeover of healthcare, and the abortion subsidies simply take a bad bill and make it purely evil.

    But consider the progressive bishops who go in for an activist federal government want to see themselves as part of a grand coalition to further federalize health care. It pains them much more to say they will oppose the bill if it funds elective abortions, but that is precisely what they're saying now.

    And their former progressive allies are turning on the hate. Large numbers of progressive Democrats are forgetting all about the help the liberal bishops gave their health-care schemes, and they have reverted to straight Catholic-bashing, denouncing teh evil Papists and even demanding IRS audits.

    And bear in mind that, by opposing federal funding for elective abortions, the Bishops Conference is supporting libertarian doctrine. A Libertarian Party blog last year listed some items in Senator Biden’s ‘big spending and big government’ record. The very first item on this bullet-point list was: ‘Voted against an amendment that would prohibit the use taxpayer money for abortion.’ In other words, Biden voted for the pro-abort position, and against the Bishops’ Conference’s position, and this was a vote for big government and big spending.

    At least some libertarians agree that on this issue the Bishops Conference is, so to speak, on the side of the angels.

  • Mad Max||

    Absent acceptable abortion language, the Bishops' Conference leaders have promise not only to oppose the bill, but to do so 'vigorously.'

  • Mad Max||

    'so they can be applauded by their peers for opposing the putting to death of a child rapist'

    I won't give a commentary on whether the bishops are faithful to Catholic teaching on the death penalty, but I will provide a link to the encyclical Evangelium vitae (scroll down to para 56 on the death penalty), and let you judge for yourself if the bishops have been faithful to it or not.

  • Mad Max||

    Since (at least for the immediate future), I am not going to explain the Church's doctrine or morals, let me say that I'm not discussing what Evangelium Vitae taught or even whether it was right.

    I'm talking about a narrower issue - are the liberal bishops out of line and immorally selling out innocent human life by saying that certain offenders should get life in prison rather than be executed? I think that whether they're right or not, the liberal bishops aren't merely sucking up to liberal cocktail-party goers, or else why would they alienate these glitterati with such a public willingness to oppose The One's health care bill if needed?

  • Mad Max||

    The unfortunate fact is that the liberal bishops are not alone in supporting federal income redistribution.

    The reason their erstwhile cocktail buddies are hating on them and demanding IRS audits is not because of their general views on income redistribution, but because they support the Libertarian Party position of opposing federal funds for elective abortion.

  • Mad Max||

    'Tell me, do the bishops also opine that the moral imperative to protect unborns from abortion is so great that random people on the street should be coerced to join pro-life rallies and distribute literature at Planned Parenthood clinics?'

    No, they think that legal protection should be restored to the unborn, and that taxpayers should pay police to arrest, judges and jurors to convict, and jailers to incarcerate, the killers of the unborn. That seems coercive enough for me.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Incidentally, the issue in debate between the Conference and the pro-aborts is whether the federal government should fund elective abortions. The Conference says no, the pro-aborts say yes.


    I wonder if the progressives understand that the proposed health care bill empowers the government to intrude upon abortion.

  • ||

    Perhaps "in" our bodies would be a better phrase.

  • Jim Smith||

    First they came for the uninsured, but I did nothing because I had insurance.

  • ||

    Then they came for the Smurfs, and I helped them because I FUCKING HATE SMURFS!!!!!

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Good for you.

  • Chad||

    Yes, my FREEDOM to chose between two virtually identical and equally crappy plans from one insurer is clearly one worth sacrificing for...and I am lucky to have even that much "choice".

    This whole rant was nothing more than yet another libertarian spouting off over his absurdly childish and narrow definition of freedom - a definition where only "negative" freedoms matter and "positive" ones do not exist. This ridiculous concept leads libertarians to sacrifice huge positive freedoms for utterly trivial negative ones, as Napolitano is trying to do with health care.

  • ||

    If you call the further regulatory capture of 2 trillion dollars of GDP annually "trivial", I wonder what you would call "huge".

  • Tman||

    two virtually identical and equally crappy plans from one insurer is- STILL MY FUCKING CHOICE.

    You don't seem to understand that libertarians are very concerned with this whole "not having a choice, the government makes it for you" thing, do you?

  • Chad||

    One good choice is worth a thousand crappy, essentially identical ones. Does this confuse you?

  • ||

    Exactly what is the one good choice here?

    And what will mandating the insurance coverage do except make existing insurance options all the more crappy and all the more essentially identical?

  • Chad||

    The one third cheaper, just as good, 100% reliable choice that every other civilized nation on earth has made.

  • Brian Trust||

    You mean the government that couldn't get a fucking flu vaccine out as fast as it claimed it would?

  • ReAnimator||

    Cheaper in that everyone pays a little for less service? Just as good as in 6 hour wait times? 100% reliable as in you can rely on the government to fuck up anything they get their grubby little hands on? Yeah, I guess you're right.

  • Tman||

    A government mandated insurance plan IS NOT A FUCKING CHOICE YOU IDIOT!!!

    gah. Can someone tell me why I've just wasted this five minutes of my life?

  • ||

    Because this unthinking brute called Chad is the majority and he will stand and wave his arms as we are gunned down for not paying for his lifestyle.

  • ||

    Because ignoring Teh Trools is hard?

  • ||

    It is not "one good choice" if it obviates rationing and loss of choice; it is only "one choice".

    It is not "one good choice" if it requires women give up their bodies and their biological destinies to The State; it is only "one choice".

    Freedom obviates more than one choice.

  • MJ||

    Chad, you are stealing a base here when you suggest that the one option left would be "good". I don't believe it will be, there's plenty of prior evidence which indicates that government health insurance won't be good. Puuting everyone's eggs in one basket on the off chance government gets it right is questionable, just so you are spared having to choose like a responsible adult human being.

  • Chad||

    The proof is in the pudding. We pay more, suffer more risk, and get no more than citizens of other advanced nations. Their one choice is better than any that we have.

  • NeonCat||

    0
  • NeonCat||

    Dammit, it worked in preview.

    [citation needed]

  • ||

    This ridiculous concept leads libertarians to sacrifice huge positive freedoms for utterly trivial negative ones, as Napolitano is trying to do with health care.

    Can you be more specific?

    What are these positive freedoms we are giving up? It should not be hard to illustrate if they are indeed the "huge positive freedoms" you claim they are.

  • smartass sob||

    What are these positive freedoms we are giving up?

    He means the free goodies provided to some by removing the "negative" freedoms of others by force. In other words - legalized theft.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "two virtually identical and equally crappy plans from one insurer"

    Fuckwad mother fucker,your state already made that choice for you with insurance plan mandates. That is a government policy failure, not a market failure because the market was eliminated from the situation.

  • ||

    Yes, my FREEDOM to chose between two virtually identical and equally crappy plans from one insurer is clearly one worth sacrificing for...and I am lucky to have even that much "choice".

    Choad,

    The really sad thing about your righteous indignation over your lack of choice in insurance plans, is that you fail to realize that the insurance companies are operating in a regulatory environment that they bought and paid for.

    Now, how do you think they manage to limit your choices? Sorry to break it to you, but it's government that gives them the power to exclude competition.

    -jcr

  • Chad||

    It wouldn't matter if I could chose any plan in the country. They are all roughly equally shitty, for the same reasons. The market for them is absurdly broken at its very core. It has nothing to do with government.

  • ||

    You were completely correct until the last sentence. It has everything to do with government. Google for "insurance mandates", read, and learn.

    -jcr

  • Chad||

    The problem is a set of market failures (adverse selection due to various information asymmetries, agency issues, etc) that lie in the heart of the very idea of health insurance, regardless of who pays for it.

    A single payer system eliminates the adverse selection problem by insuring everyone all the time. They can also mitigates some of the agency issues if structured properly.

    Libertarians have no real answer to the adverse selection issue, and your only answer to the agency issues is to essentially keep reducing the insurance until there is nothing left.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Chad, you are possibly the most retarded person on the planet if you do not realize that the insurance market being virtually identical EVERYWHERE IS 100% ALWAYS AND ENTIRELY THE FUCKING RESULT OF GOVERNMENT MANDATES!

    Jesus H. Christ you are an idiot.

  • Chad||

    It wouldn't matter if I could chose any plan in the country. They are all roughly equally shitty, for the same reasons. The market for them is absurdly broken at its very core. It has nothing to do with government.

  • ||

    Chad's right. These horrible health plans require you to pay something to get healthcare. Healthcare should be GIVEN to everyone, just like wages are GIVEN due to the benevolence of society.

  • JB||

    I hope someone breaks in your house and gives you 'positive' freedom in every hole and creates a few new holes as well.

  • Nathan||

    Hear, hear.

    The discussion about about what government should be allowed to do / what services it should provide should ALWAYS focus on weighing the costs (broadly speaking) against the benefits.

    If you make the argument that you shouldn't have to pay for government run healthcare because you won't have a choice in the matter and therefore will be loosing "freedom," you might as well argue that you shouldn't have to do anything the government asks of you and then you just end up being an anarchist. Government is always about tradeoffs. Arguing against the government taking any sort of action purely on the basis that it costs you money, or limits your choices, is just stupid. If you're participating in a community, you play by community rules. If you don't like a proposed rule, you have to contest it on merit, not just the fact that you don't want to be told what to do.

    Prime example:
    Poor, uninsured people, unable to pay huge hospital bills which get passed along to taxpayers.

    Whether we change that situation or not, there are costs and benefits to both scenarios, but "freedom" in the strict sense of unhindered personal choice isn't a fucking trump card.

  • ||

    "poor uninsured"? where? ever heard of medicaid? how will expanding subsidised coverage reduce the burden on taxpayers?

  • Nathan||

    Mandating coverage would.

  • ||

    Oh sure. Artificially increasing demand is well known to drive down costs.

    The fact that just the opposite happens everywhere that's been tried should be ignored.

  • NeonCat||

    Democratic tyranny is still tyranny. I wish you and your damned community would leave me and my wallet the hell alone.

  • Nathan||

    You're right. I was wrong. Sorry to be a bother.

  • Tyler||

    This post makes me happier to be a voluntaryist. Have fun resorting to violence at will to solve all your problems.

    You're right, government is about tradoffs. But it's never worth it.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Trouble is dude, first off - the word "voluntaryist" sucks :P - secondly, you cannot avoid the violence no matter how much you'd like to pretend it won't affect you.

    I agree with every aspect of what you've said, except that you have to realize that the government is going to come gunning for you one of these days, regardless of whether or not you want to be left alone. The "solution" is going to be force vs. force with or without you, ultimately, I'm afraid.

  • ||

    a definition where only "negative" freedoms matter and "positive" ones do not exist.

    Hey Chad, how can you have a positive 'freedom' that doesn't imply 'freedom' to enslave and steal?

    In which case your positive 'freedom' just ate all freedoms. Because not only do you no longer have negative freedoms you don't have any positive 'freedom' because whatever your justification for theft or slavery, someone else will use it against you.

  • Tman||

    Just don't -whatever you do- call them "death panels". Just because the government wants to have a "Healthcare Commission" that will decide whether or not they think it's worth it for you to get a life saving treatment -much like the English "National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence" or Washington states "Health Technology Assessment"- DON'T CALL IT A DEATH PANEL.

    That would racist bible thumping tea-bagging histrionics and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    Just listen to our dear leader. Maybe his grandmother needed that hip replacement more than yours did, but honestly- isn't his grandmother more important than yours? Tell granny to take the pain meds instead. I mean she's 78 for chrissakes, does she really need to live ANOTHER ten years?

  • ||

    I work in hospital, and just minutes ago I was chatting with my friend who is in nursing school across town informed me that today they were instructing that rationing is inevitable and they discussed ways to deal with the inevitable frustration they will feel as nurses.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Drugs? Cyanide pills? I mean for the nurses, not the patients.

  • ||

    If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.

    What'll it be, Barack? Past or future? Tyranny or freedom? It's up to you.

  • ||

    Shit, when you put it that way, I get depressed as hell.

  • ||

    In every revolution, there's one man with a vision!

  • ||

    I just heard you say that in the movie announcer guy's voice. Here, try it yourself...

    In every revolution, there's one man with a vision!

    ...awesomejuice, huh?

  • ReAnimator||

    Think of it as "tyranny for the common good." Now it doesn't sound so bad, does it?

  • ||

    You make it sound like he heasn't made up his mind yet.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    a definition where only "negative" freedoms matter and "positive" ones do not exist

    Chad, all the things that you like to claim as "positive freedoms" translate to "I get to force people to give me things."

    There is no rational way to describe that as either "positive" or "freedom". Simply put: you are not entitled to force me to pay for your checkup, your lunch, or your apartment.

    Actual freedom is the right to say "No.", and I am saying it.

  • ||

    Actual freedom is the right to say "No.", and I am saying it.

    I tell people something very similar. I say, Freedom is the right to be wrong and not be killed or jailed for it.

    In this case, you and I have the right to say no to his coercion-via-Big-Brother and not be fined, jailed, or killed for it.

  • Chad||

    We aren't forcing you to give us things. We are forcing you to pay us back for all the capital we have invested in you and allowed you to leverage. Since the vast majority of what you think you have earned flows from those investments, there is no chance that we would ever take more than we have given....so quit whining.

    If you disagree, feel free to find your own little desert island and spend the rest of your short, brutal life grounging for grubs hiding under the muck you are forced to drink. When you then realize that 99% of what you "earn" comes from the system that we allow you to use, you will be thankful that we only charge you a third of that.

  • Tman||

    Who the fuck are "you" anyways?

  • Unmisinformed||

    What's this we shit, you got a mouse in your pocket?

  • ||

    If you disagree, feel free to find your own little desert island and spend the rest of your short, brutal life grounging for grubs hiding under the muck you are forced to drink.

    OOoohhh, I see, so it's "love it or leave it" from YOUR perspective. Well, sorry Chad but there's a pesky little fact that the way WE want to live was the prevalent one when the place was founded. In fact, it's preserved in Article 4 Section 4 of that document your supports in government took and oath to support and yet ignore daily. It's also in the sum total of any cursory reading of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

    You are making the argument, dear Chad, that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. That, you unthinking brute, is the favored logic of the imperialist and the terrorist alike.

    Congratulations, you are part of the problem.

  • Expat to be||

    The part I love most about his line of thinking there is that the rationale for his argument for most of this has been that he wants Americans to vote in a system

    "that every other civilized nation on earth has made".

    yet he wants those already here who don't want that system, who probably want to get government more out of it than it currently is, to leave.

  • lars||

    Actually, polling shows that a majority of people do want health care provided by the government. Perhaps we should get rid of our pesky congress and executive branch and put all of your ideas to a vote and then see who wins; would you like that? Then id' really by a government by the people, of the people and for the people.

  • ||

  • ||

    From the recent Gallup poll...

    More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.

    Interesting what a little exposure to an awful idea will do to people's opinions.

  • ReAnimator||

    Wouldn't it be easier for Chad and his friends to move to one of the many countries they admire so much who already have a single payer system in place rather than force it on us? Why not go to Canada, France, the UK, or Japan and take advantage of their amazing "free" health care? Then you can leave all of us cavemen who would rather pay the actual cost of something rather than steal from someone else to pay for it to die in the streets when the evil doctors and insurance companies conspire not to treat us. We'll all learn our lesson and enact tyrant-care so we can be like the rest of the civilized world. Then everyone will have a good laugh and Chad can say "I told ya so" and we'll all eat cake and party together.

  • MJ||

    What is this "capital" you say that this "we" invested in me and did I get any choice to refuse it? On what basis do I owe "we" a living?

  • ||

    We aren't forcing you to give us things. We are forcing you to pay us back for all the capital we have invested in you and allowed you to leverage.

    W. T. F. ?

    What capital have "you" invested in me, exactly, Chad? When did I take possession of said capital? Is everyone in America a net recipient and, if so, where did all that extra capital come from?

    Jesus, a fucking Mussolini wannabe.

  • Chad||

    Anything you have ever bought, anything you have ever learned...it all came from the economic and social systems we created for you. You started taking possession of various parts of it even inside the womb.

  • ||

    Everything you ever were or ever will be, belongs to "us". That means I own a piece of Chad's ass - deliver it up sweetie.

  • ||

    Fuck man, I half expect Chad to start defending the Berlin Wall next. After all, The GDR provided all it's citizens with the amazing "capital" provided by East Germany's education and social systems.

    You we're born in fucking Zimbabwe, and so you fucking owe Zimbabwe your life!!! How dare you seek a better life, you egotistical traitor!

  • WhyYou'reWrong||

    WE? You fucking arrogant worm. (Obama? is that you?)

    You and your frathouse buddies never created a goddamn thing, most especially not an economic and social "system" for the little people.

    You know where societies come from? Individuals. Individual people persuing their own ends. The sum total of individual actions form a society or economy. They aren't systems created by some outside god and you have fuckall to do with the process.

    Societies and economies evolve, you backward rube -- your creationist theory is laughable and just as ignorant as biological "creation science".

  • MJ||

    Good Lord man, your thinking is even more lame than I thought it would be. Sorry, I am already contributing to society by being a productive, responsible member of it. Whatever amorphus stuff you think we owe to "you" certainly does not qualify as a blank check to make people do wahtever you want.

    This is the sort of thing that makes me think "Chad" is not a real person, as I find it hard to believe that anyone would openly tout a philosophy that has such totalitarian implications.

  • ||

    it all came from the economic and social systems we created for you.

    No. All you ever took to fund your utopian fantasy was created by the prosperity we created for you.

    You're just too stupid to realize you've been carving off slices of the goose because the golden eggs weren't coming fast enough to feed your voracious appetite for theft.

    All that's left is a heart and some ovaries and you're trying to figure out which you can carve off next.

  • ||

    Chad is in the universe of Anthem, where everyone is "we". There are no individuals.

  • ||

    We are forcing you to pay us back for all the capital we have invested in you and allowed you to leverage

    What capital did you give me? Got a receipt?

    -jcr

  • Chad||

    Merely by writing this post, you are proving that you are using it in a dozen ways.

  • ||

    It should be simple for you to name one then.

  • IceTrey||

    Is this guy a V or something?

  • Zeb||

    What the fuck are you talking about Chad? "We" includes all of us.

  • ||

    You're a fucking idiot. Typical liberal, educated just enough to read and parrot a bunch of drivel but not educated enough to understand.

  • Abdul Alhazred||

    So the crux of your argument is that we all belong to the government, so stop getting out of line.

  • ||

    So Chad, tell us. Do we start forcing doctors to treat people at gun point? What if they don't want to work for the amount the government is willing to pay? Why do you only have the choice of one company to buy from? Could it be that government has made it unprofitable for other companies to get into the market? Ten years ago Kentucky reformed health care to make it fair. A year later only one insurance company was left in the state and prices had gone sky high. More people were without insurance after the reform than before. Positive rights are nothing more than one person wanting to steal from another.

  • Chad||

    Please, spare the idiotic rhetoric and hyperbole. Doctors are gunpoint? Please, show me where a single-payer system has led to that.

  • Unmisinformed||

    What do think the walls around East Berlin were for?

    They were there because building them was cheaper and easier than forcing people to work at gunpoint.

    All the bullshit you are spouting is cover for one simple fact:

    You support murder, imprisonment, and tyranny as long as you think those things will deliver the things you want.

  • ||

    Exactly the point.

    Chad, whether he admits it to the mirror or not, is all about Might-Makes-Right power over other people, but he uses the muscle of Big Brother to do his dirty work. This way, Chad doesn't have to personally break anyone's knees or see the children orphaned by parents who work three jobs to pay for his favored policies.

    Chad's thinking, when taken to its logical terminus, would see us shoved into the ovens if provided him a gain.

  • Unmisinformed||

    Right!

    This is one example I love to use with illiberals like Chad. He is too much of a coward to load up the ovens himself, but I guarantee you he'll be happy to sweep up or maybe lube the hinges on the oven doors.

    How about it Chad? Where do you fall here? What is the number for you? How many murders will you accept to achieve your utopia?

  • Chad||

    What the hell are you talking about? Our idiotic system costs enormous sums of money and yet provides lackluster care. People die because of both. That makes you the little Hitler, not me.

    How many people are you willing to sacrifice for your granite countertops?

  • Tman||

    Our idiotic system costs enormous sums of money and yet provides lackluster care.

    And nothing will fix this better than a government takeover!

    You are a horrible troll. Your points are WAYYYY to easily refutable, and your rhetoric is pointless and irrelevant.

    We are all dumber for having read it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

  • ||

    Forgive my tussling with the slow dog, sir, for you are undeniably correct.

  • Chad||

    The proof is out there: "government takeovers" equal lower cost. Get over it. Your religion has been proven null and void.

  • ReAnimator||

    Will you please provide one example of government takeovers lowering costs, you fucking troglodyte?

  • Unmisinformed||

    None, I don't have to sacrifice anybody because the free market provides granite countertops at a low price without resorting to murder.

    You are advocating murder. Either accept it, or change your argument.

  • ||

    Our idiotic system costs enormous sums of money and yet provides lackluster care.

    ..and that's with only about half of it under government control. So, why exactly do you want to increase the power of the bureaucrats to fuck it up?

    -jcr

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Our idiotic system costs enormous sums of money and yet provides lackluster care.


    So move to Massachussetts or Tennessee or Hawaii where they have the exact system that you want .

    What the fuck is stopping you?

  • Chad||

    No, they do not. I want a complete single payer plan at the federal level.

  • NeonCat||

    Please, then, hold your breath until it happens. Try stamping your foot, too.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    States are perfectly capable of enacting their own health care plans. Hell, Hawaii had universal child health care.

    Why not leave it to the states?

  • ||

    I spoke with a nurse from Canada two nights ago who left because they can't make any more worth living on there, and the endless frustration of watching care being rationed drives them batty.

    She told the story of her own brother who, after receiving the WRONG stent in his heart, made an appointment to address the pain he was feeling and was shocked to learn that HE WAS SCHEDULED A YEAR OUT. No amount of pleading or argument had any effect; the system was implacable. She advised him to walk in the emergency room and collapse on the floor. He called her up and said 'That worked great! They gave me instant care and replaced the stent with the right one.'

    Now I ask you, is walking in the emergency room door and collapsing to get your care substantively any different than it is for the great sea of people in the problem we are 'solving' with a single-payer system here in the US?

  • Chad||

    Are you saying she came here because we pay more? Thanks for beautifully illustrating one of the major reasons our costs are so much higher than everyone elses. Why we pay some 20 year old ditz with a 2-year degree from a community college as much as an BS engineer from a good school blows my mind sometimes.

  • ||

    uh, she's not some 20 year old ditz, she's a nurse practitioner--Master's degree--who specializes in individualized care for heart surgery patient therapy.
    She came here because Canada's system does not allow for reliably providing individualized care to anyone, let alone forming a lasting one-to-one relationship with patients and partnering with them to improve their chances of full recovery. Here in the evil USA, she has that chance, and helping people is what she does and what she wants to do.

    So, thanks for beautifully illustrating what a complete ass you are who makes uninformed snap judgments--incorrectly.

  • Chad||

    Nurse practioners make in the high eighties, have pretty good job security, and have excellent flexibility in where they can work.

    That's an awfully high salary for a master's degree. It beats out people with master's in the sciences by $10,000, for example, and these jobs tend to be less stable and more location specific. In other words, your average physicist is more likely to be laid off and more likely to have to move as a result than your average nurse.

  • Expat to be||

    When was the last time you needed to see a physicist to make sure you were healthy? Your argument about who makes more doesn't make as much sense. I'm willing to wager you picked a degree program that you thought would benefit you economically rather than one that doesn't, one that allows you to work at a job providing some service that people desire.

  • Chad||

    Without the scientists, your nurse would still be slapping leaches on you without washing her hands.

    It's odd that you are now arguing for vague concepts of "worthiness" rather than education required, hours worked, working conditions, etc.

  • Zeb||

    And scientists are not about to go away. If their job security is not so good, it is because there are too many scientists and too few nurses. You are really getting close to incoherent, Chad. Numbers of nurses versus physicists is not a zero sum game.

  • ||

    yeah, they make in the high $80s IN THE USA.

    Not in fucking Canada, you retard.

  • dave||

    So what you're saying is that people need healthcare everywhere, but physicists might have to move somewhere near the cyclotron?

    Who'd'a thunk it?

  • MJ||

    So you think you know what the relative costs of various professions ought to be rather than what reality determines they be? What imparted you with such wisdom, O arrogant one?

  • Chad||

    Do you honestly think that markets are determining health care salaries?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • oaktownadam||

    no, your cronies the collectivist thugs trade unionists have bought themselves a protection racket.

    Now the government is coming for them, and Chad won't say anything, because he wishes he made $80k/year.

  • Chad||

    I already do, but it required more education in my field than it would have in medicine.

  • ReAnimator||

    You are aware that in the United States, we have billionaires with no degree and people living in shacks with PHDs, right? Since when does an education guarantee you a living? Have you ever considered that people might consider medicine more important than whatever it is you do? This is getting pathetic.

  • MJ||

    That was...nonresponsive to the question I asked.

  • ||

    Also, kudos on completely ignoring the other content of my comment.

    You apparently are one of those special creatures who has a mental filter that only allows information out.

  • ||

    No, Chode isn't an elitist snob at all, frittering about the riff-raff.

    Best that they know their place and let their Masters do the hard work on their behalf.

  • ||

    Like deciding what compensation they should get and reminding them to be thankful that they are "given" any compensation at all.

    When Chad is appointed Federal Compensation Czar, there's going to be a run on .30-06 ammo.

  • skr||

    Ok that may be hyperbole, but only because most people cave when the fines and other sanctions hit. They don't have any interest in resisting the coercion all the way to the point where guns are being pointed at them. That however doesn't mean that that isn't the last step in the process.

  • ||

    HANGING CHAD...

    Chad @ 7:12PM

    "Please, spare the idiotic rhetoric and hyperbole."

    Chad @ 7:10 PM

    "If you disagree, feel free to find your own little desert island and spend the rest of your short, brutal life grounging for grubs hiding under the muck you are forced to drink. When you then realize that 99% of what you "earn" comes from the system that we allow you to use, you will be thankful that we only charge you a third of that."

    No sir, no hyperbolic rhetoric there.

  • Chad||

    It isn't hyperbole. It is precisely representative of what your life would be like without that which we have given you.

  • ||

    You are a mental train wreck.

  • ||

    Whachoo mean "we," paleface?

  • ||

    Part of me thinks that is just Chode being a fuckwit and troll, but another part of me thinks that it really believes this idea.

    First up against the wall, Chode, first up against the wall.

  • Chad||

    No, I honestly believe that you do not have the god-given right to keep everything you manage to get your grubby little hands on.

  • ||

    Cool chad, just give us your address and we'll all swing by and take our share of your goodies.

  • Chad||

    You have already taken it. I contribute well beyond what is normally asked, in several ways.

  • ||

    Sorry, it's not up to you. The majority has decided otherwise. Feel free to object during the next election. should you manage to survive that long.

  • ABunn||

    "JW|11.17.09 @ 7:46AM Sorry, it's not up to you. The majority has decided otherwise. Feel free to object during the next election... "

    I don't know how Chad can keep on embarrassing himself after this. Best summation of and rebuttal to the liberal viewpoint ever. Game over. Thank you JW.

  • ||

    Please, show me where a single-payer system has led to that.

    CCCP. Cuba. Who is interestingly farming their docs out to Venezuela. Who also has troubles with doctor flight.

  • Brian Lockwood||

    I didn't realize how much I missed Chad until I was reminded of the joy reading his inane comments brings me.

  • ||

    It is joyful in a "Haha! Wow look I just put my eye out with this fork!" kind of way.

  • ||

    You have no idea how much pleasure it give me to see Chad running around with a fork in his eye.

  • NeonCat||

    Oh, if only there were single payer insurance so someone, somewhere, would pull the fork from Chad's eye!

    Of course, if we were so horrible cursed as to have such a system, would he get to see a surgeon who might possibly repair his eye, or would the economical decision be to remove it and give him a glass one? Either way, he couldn't complain, it's the people's will.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Belgium started drafting doctors into the army to prevent them from leaving the country in the 1960's.

  • Warty||

    Those antisocial, unpatriotic monsters. They should have been flogged.

  • smartass sob||

    Hell, even the US used to draft doctors into the military back in the Viet Nam days and even during peacetime, if they couldn't get enough of them otherwise.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    It was not supposed to be this way. We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives?

    We sort of elected the government. By choosing amongst whatever options the R's and D's put before us. Because that's how it works here.

    But the government, like the R's and D's, does not work for us. Just like our modern day mega-corporations (which are increasingly, effectively, just extensions of Uncle Sam) are not really concerned about what their customers want.

    The question that government (and mega-corps) ask is not "what do people want"?, it is "what can we get away with right now?".

    Don't misunderstand my rant against the modern corporation (which Reason has so very often pooh-poohed away as if it were irrelevant). I'm a free marketer. My bitch is that modern corporations do not represent free market entities.

    But the problem is that we're facing here is the ultimate end that every democratic system must come to.

    There are always more poor people than rich people. If you offer the poor people "something for nothing" long enough, claiming you'll pay for it by taking from "the rich", then sooner or later "the poor" will vote for it. And when we vote, the final numbers are all that matters.

    Here you have the whole grand game plan that the Democratic Party has been running on for a very long time.

    The Republicans gave up having a game plan a long time ago.

  • Tony||

    The idea that the poor are the privileged and the rich are oppressed is an idea you have been fed--by the rich.

    Yes corporations can abuse people--what a trivial truth libertarians are often loath to admit--but because they are so in bed with government attests to their power, not government's. Government rightly ordered should do the will of the people. If it doesn't it has been taken over by some special interest(s). The remedy is not smaller government, because that would just be easier to take over. The solution is government that has teeth enough to protect the people from forces acting against their interest. This should include hurricanes, foreign invaders, and large commercial interests.

  • smartass sob||

    The solution is government that has teeth enough to protect the people from forces acting against their interest. This should include hurricanes, foreign invaders, and large commercial interests.

    Don't forget miserable little commies like yourself who would use government to do their stealing for them.

  • Tony||

    Pour moi? No, me, you, and everyone else whose named was affixed to the social contract upon birth, according to its terms (which have measures for opting out--beat that in a world whose history is mostly filled with governments of brute enslavement.)

    Taxes to pay for the protections outlined above? Stealing? Ah, just another anarchist. I admire you. Anarchists practice consistency! You do consistently believe that taxes are theft, do you not, and every service they pay for--roads, firefighters, armies--all the unholy product of theft, right?

  • Tony||

    And that your rugged, shorter-lived, less convenient life is the moral apex of living.

    Isn't this just different moral codes pissing on each other, after all? Mine uses the best government available to act according to the best evidence available in the interests of the most people possible. So piss on that, anarchist.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I hope someone gets to piss on your corpse one day. Well, maybe you wouldn't quite be a corpse.

  • smartass sob||

    Your moral code requires the blood of sacrificial victims - mine does not. Yours is the code of thieves and beggars - mine is the code of creators and producers, originators of the wealth that you thieves and beggars must have to live but are impotent to produce. You need us, but we do not need you anymore than we need cockroaches. So crawl back under your rock, you life-hating little marxist, before someone steps on you. BTW, I'm not an anarchist.

  • Tony||

    No you're obviously an Ayn Rand cultist who doesn't understand what he's talking about but likes the sound of what he's saying.

  • smartass sob||

    Nope, not a "cultist" of any kind, though I subscribe to most of the basic principles of Rand's philosophy; I don't completely agree with the way she sometimes applied them. I understand full well what I'm talking about, kid - I even understand what you are talking about. You are talking about how your "needs" (or wants) are somehow a claim on others simply by virtue of the fact that they might have a nickel more than you. Fuck off, loser - no one owes you anything.

  • smartass sob||

    You do consistently believe that taxes are theft, do you not

    That's right, dude - morally, taxes are a form of theft, but one does not have to be an anarchist to think so...or to be against taxes. A small, limited government could be financed without taxes and other compulsory fees.

  • Tony||

    So can a large government. So some theft is okay? Well, how much? And why?

  • smartass sob||

    WTF?! I didn't say some theft (taxes)is okay - I said some government is okay. Like I said, there are voluntary ways to finance limited government.

  • Tony||

    You want a government funded only by some people? Sounds like a recipe for a very selective government.

  • ||

    Could someone actually lay out the exact terms of the social contract that I was apparently born into?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Tony has been harping on the social contract bullshit for the better part of a year - and I've constantly pointed out that if I was born into any kind of social contract (which is no kind of contract at all), then that contract would be with me and the US Constitution. And considering that particular document has been rejected by our rulers decades ago, I don't think the government is holding up its end of the bargain and I am currently expecting to see some retribution and a fat severance package from the government's breach of contract.

  • ||

    yeah tony, that's why the ceo of GM made obama his bitch! because the government derives its power from evil corporations and not the other way around. fucktard.

  • NeonCat||

    No, the poor are not privileged, except that they can vote for politicians who make extravagant promises, promises which become law and are backed up by men with jails and guns, forcing the rest of us at gunpoint to do their bidding.

    What happens when government isn't in the people's best interest?

  • ||

    Government rightly ordered should do the will of the people.

    Oh yes. 51% shall have power to enslave the 49%.

    If it doesn't it has been taken over by some special interest(s)

    And it has been. So lets make the government bigger. That will help.

    The remedy is not smaller government, because that would just be easier to take over.

    Except that history shows the opposite in every case. The history of big government is the history of big business. The plutarchs hate to have to compete. Better to get regulations passed or monopolies enacted or cartels set up to crowd out the competition.

    The solution is government that has teeth enough to protect the people from forces acting against their interest.

    Yeah well when it ever works that way then come talk to us. Those teeth have been, are, and always will be used against the people.

    Not only that you collectivists know this perfectly well. Oh alas Mao! Oh alas Stalin! If only Trotsky!

    Except of course when the 'Trotsky' actually does win like in Cuba or North Korea, that's when the real fun begins.

    I refuse to be the guinea pig for your collectivist utopian wet dream fantasy. I've read all these books and they all end the same way.

  • ||

    """We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives?"""

    Because that IS what we want it to do, and yes, I'm using we in general, which excludes most of us on H&R. I think the people are getting the kind of government they deserve and want. The trend toward nannyism is an example of how much the country wants, or desires, greater government control of personal lives, by republican or democrat. It's been done by claiming fake rights, such as the right not to breath cigarette smoke. The I have a right to be free from you has been the road to hell so to speak. We, as a nation, have been more concerned about preventing people from doing things deemed bad by the state, than allowing the freedom of choice.

    Government, as the savior, isn't new we've long looked toward it in times of trouble. The politicians are good about framing issues as if we are always in a time of trouble, therefore creating the impression that people need the government for help, always. Even reformist promote the reason why you need them. They claim we need them to turn politics around. The dirty thing about politics is that it attempts to hook the citizenry on need, thus creating a vote for them.

    The citizen needs/politician provides nexus is deep and old.

  • ||

    Well the sad fact is, the SHeeple will NEVER see any benefit from such a bill. Just too much profit at stake in the private sector.

    Jessi
    www.online-privacy.at.tc

  • ||

    Well the sad fact is, the SHeeple will NEVER see any benefit from such a bill. Just too much profit at stake in the private sector.

    I see what you are getting at, but it's on the verge of being nonsensical: When the corporations have captive customers that a government FORCES to pay them, it can hardly be called 'the private sector' without a knowing wink and suppressing the laugh track.

  • ||

    spambots aren't known for their powers of ratiocination.

  • ||

    It's crazy today, isn't it. Between the pingbacks and Chad, there's just you and me here at the moment representing sapience.

  • Jordan||

    It is precisely representative of what your life would be like without that which we have given you.

    Then stop giving it. I'm perfectly happy to pay the cost of law enforcement, national defense, and fire departments. Everything else can be accomplished via voluntary cooperation. Now leave me the fuck alone.

  • ||

    I'm still not convinced about fire departments. I don't see why those couldn't be private firms.

  • ||

    You do know that was tried once. Didn't work out so well.

  • ||

    Yeah, yeah...I'm still not convinced.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Explain.

  • ||

    It's worked lots of places. Still does. You know before we had a nanny state fires still got put out.

  • Tony||

    Because what happens when your next-door neighbor can't afford to pay to have his house extinguished?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Hopefully I find out his house is on fire at least a bit before it spreads to mine. I let my private fire protection provider or home insurance provider know and they send personnel. They won't put out his fire (unless he shells out some dough on the spot), but they will be ready when it spreads to my property.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I forgot to mention, my neighbor should potentially be held liable if a fire originating on his property somehow ends up damaging my property, especially if he was negligent.

  • Tony||

    Less efficiency, more destruction and death... for freedom!

  • ||

    If you are not willing to pay for a service, why should you get the benefit from it?

  • Tony||

    Regardless of your ability to pay for whatever the magical market decides fire extinguishing services should cost, it's rarely an individual problem. Social problems are most efficiently dealt with--if they are dealt with at all--by social action.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Tony... Please, at some point learn about prices & marginal cost/utility before your next idiotic post.

    Your ignorance is ugly, floppy and gross, and it's on display far too often.

  • ||

    All of these -- police, fire, soldiers -- can be accomplished by voluntary cooperation.

  • ||

    Dude, you aren't suggesting a return to colonial militia are you?

  • ||

    Of course you would need people to volunteer the money to support them too.

    I see nothing wrong for the public paying for public services.

    """Dude, you aren't suggesting a return to colonial militia are you? ""

    Would that mean we need to turn back to France to fund that militia?

    One of the most intersting aspects of the American Revolution was milita pay. Washington had problems because militia men would abandon the fight due to not getting paid. Ben Franklin was getting France to fund our revolution as an effort to keep the fight going. France, lucky for us, wanted to see Britian lose the colony so they deeply invested. If not for France's money, we might still be a British Colony. Funding is important for a nation to do anything which is why Washington took taxes seriously. That was part of this thinking when he put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Taxes are necessary for any society. How much taxing is a different story, and I prefer the least.

    I am a believer that the greatness of a society is not how much government it has, but how little it needs.

  • ||

    I'd like to try the intermediate step of contracting these services out. The problems of inefficiency and corruption are not helped by having state monopolies on these enterprises. If they could lose their contract we'd have a lot less police brutality for example.

  • ||

    It'sz always amusing to watch people like Chode and Tony grapple with ideas that are so far outside their experience that it completely befuddles them. They're completely slammed.

    You would think they would try and learn, really learn, to better understand their opponents arguments and thinking so to better counter it, but no, all they can do is scream and fling poo and ignorant invectives, never bothering to try to understand what it is they're arguing about.

  • ||

    all they can do is scream and fling poo and ignorant invectives, never bothering to try to understand what it is they're arguing about.

    That is precisely because it is easier to be an unthinking statist brute than to rationally observe your environment and cogently plot your future.

    Their way is the way of the herd, and they are so used to being corralled and threatened it is the only way they can conceive of operating. Pathetic, really.

  • ||

    It's akin to if there are 6 steps needed to accomplish a project or understand a concept, they get as far as step 2, skip to the end and then rail and belittle others that completed steps 3, 4, 5 & 6.

    Which, of course, defines a partisan troll to a T. All that matters is that their team scores first and that the other team is punished and humiliated. Collateral damage to spectators is just part of the game.

    Tribalism is Rule #1. Rationality is a distant 7th place. True compassion and honesty, where they make the sacrifice and do the work because it matters to them, doesn't even start.

  • Chad||

    I think you give everything away by saying "rationally observe YOUR environment", which betrays your utter ignorance of how bad things happen to be in YOUR environment.

    Leave the US for once. It will open your eyes. A brief trip to Windsor or Tiajuana to get trashed does not count.

  • ||

    A brief trip to Windsor or Tiajuana to get trashed does not count.

    Joe'z law or RC'z law? Both?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    How about extended trips in 17 countries around the world, jackass?

  • Tony||

    As opposed to all the demurely polite libertarians here.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think there's a glitch in the matrix. There were a few redundant statements in the judge's piece.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "two virtually identical and equally crappy plans from one insurer"

    Chav, your state already made that choice for you with insurance plan mandates. That is a government policy failure, not a market failure because the market was eliminated from the situation.

  • ||

    Napolitano is spot-on, and he doesn't even address the meta-political effects of Stalinized health care, namely that this will forever shift the terms of the debate in a way that will turn today's Republicans into today's Democrats (just witness the R's breathless defense of Medicare in the current debate) and will allow the Democrats to move even further left.

    Once Obamacare proves to be ineffective in controlling costs and delivering services, as it inevitably will, the Left will demand we spread the decay of nationalization to health care's feeder industries. The Blob will spread, and our liberty will die a slow death.

  • ||

    "I can't understand what went wrong. We kept voting ourselves raises to pay for everything. The total collapse of society doesn't make any sense."

    And then at that point, the crowd usually demands that any outsiders or dissenters be burned as witches.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Slow? It won't be a slow death.

  • ||

    I really want the judge to run for president. I know the media would try like hell to limit his exposure in the debates, but he could absolutely shred those idiots like Romney and Huckabee, and that alone is worth the price of admission.

    -jcr

  • oaktownadam||

    I want the good judge appointed to the SCOTUS. Fat chance of it ever happening, but we all can dream.

  • ||

    OMG, people actually engaged Chad.

    One idea I have had is for certain states to just refuse to enforce or be a part of Obamacare. The feds could scream and stomp but short of federalizing the national guard there wouldn't be much they could do about it.

  • Hobo Chang Ba||

    They've been talking about an "opt out". However, this idea is incredibly stupid unless the Federal Government gives specific states tax discounts for not participating.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    I hear there's a 2010 ballot inititive in Arizona that would do exactly that. There are apparently other states considering similar measures.

  • ||

    Nice Medicaid grant you got there, Texas. Shame if something were to happen to it.

  • smartass sob||

    I was thinking the same thing; any state that tried to opt out would be certain to draw the ire of the federal government. There are all kinds of federal benefits that could be witheld in order to force acceptance.

  • ||

    You people really are a bunch of pot-smoking Republicans! Hey! I think Atlas Shrugged: The Movie is coming out soon.

  • Binky||

    We are forcing you to pay us back for all the capital we have invested in you and allowed you to leverage.

    Better ask nice, or a lotta guys might not let you have more capital to play with.

  • ||

    On a related note, The Freeman has a post today from James Payne about the "reform's" criminalization of Americans who don't participate. Good stuff.

    What's interesting about his perspective is that he's 70 years old and apparently came from a time when people saved money to take care of themselves. He has no patience for people who live beyond their means -- even if those means involve health. Chad won't like this very much.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    I've always bee for open,unrestricted,unmoderated,unedited commenting but it is TIME to ban this Pingback motherfucker.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    I've always bee for open,unrestricted,unmoderated,unedited commenting but it is TIME to ban this Pingback motherfucker.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    I've always bee for open,unrestricted,unmoderated,unedited commenting but it is TIME to ban this Pingback motherfucker.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    I've always bee for open,unrestricted,unmoderated,unedited commenting but it is TIME to ban this Pingback motherfucker.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    I've always bee for open,unrestricted,unmoderated,unedited commenting but it is TIME to ban this Pingback motherfucker.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    Lovely

    "been"

    Your comment does not appear to be written in an English script. Please comment in English.

  • ||

    I agree. We must demand Obama provide some evidence that he is legally President too. Why has he simply shown a real birth certificate? This should be the main point in 2010 because the dems have no answer to it. They've dug themselves so deep that when the truth is revealed the dems will be lucky to avoid treason convictions.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    What in the hell does this have to do with anything? Good god.

  • Pingback||

    Assmuncher Central - Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes - Reason Magazine links to this page. Here's an excerpt:

    using a coathanger and a mirror to do a colonoscopy on yourself. Be careful to use a fine-grain sandpaper on the condom, at least until you've done it a few times. Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes is something to keep an eye on since Obamacare may not cover self-colonoscopy


  • Agent Provacateur||

    Note how on the inferior new comments system you can't use html tags in the NAME field.Your un-italicized name ruins the fun.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "The market for them is absurdly broken at its very core. It has nothing to do with government."-Chav

    This is comedy. How does the fucking government have nothing to do with screwing up health insurance competition? It was fucking explained in the post you replied to.

  • Chad||

    The problem is that the competition is broken. The market is failed due to flaws in the concept of health insurance itself. I know that this strikes at the core of your faith, but you really need to try to understand how markets work, and what causes them to fail.

  • ||

    Health insurance is riddled with market difficulties. They aren't market failures until you can demonstrate that the efficiency of the outcome of the market is negative or that a market doesn't exist that would provide a positive efficiency outcome. I don't think you can.

    The difficulty of asymmetric information is mitigated quite well by pricing up preexisting conditions and by having waiting periods before new conditions are covered. The difficulty of moral hazard is mitigated quite well by adding deductibles.

    Insurance companies are not incompetent at what they do for a living. They know how to price risks. If you want, say, lower deductibles, you will pay a premium on the premium.

    There is no market failure.

  • ||

    I wouldn't call it market failure, but insurance has usurped market forces by allowing people to be charged a price higher than they can afford on their own, and distributing that cost among a group of people. If you want to see real market rate health care, end the insurance scheme.

  • ||

    Chode, you wouldn't recognise a market if it crawled up your urethra and layed eggs in your bladder.

    The only failure around here is you.

  • ||

    The market is failed due to flaws in the concept of health insurance itself.

    Oh really? Just like every other form of insurance that hasn't suffered the massive regulation, government enforced provider supply monopoly, government abetted tort predation, and government provided interstate cartels that health care markets have, and from massive government subsidies?

    Car insurance is ok. Homeowners is ok. Life insurance is ok.

    Your idea is bunk.

    but you really need to try to understand how markets work, and what causes them to fail

    Lol, that's rich from the person who says insurance is an innately unviable market.

    Just explain the process that could possibly cause cost inflation decoupling in a free market.

    If you can do that, call Krugman, he'd love to have a viable defense at this point.

  • ||

    Im shocked to find this article on Reason.com. Im also shocked how over the top the claims that America is doomed if people can get medical treatment priced reasonably. How did trying to ensure the masses have some way to get medical care, without going bankrupt become the precursor to armageddon?!
    Thats what the whole thing is about, giving people SOMETHING that don't or cant afford NOT to die, or suffer financial ruin! How many claims have we seen turned down, unfairly, and without recourse?

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Socialism doesn't work. But it's clear you haven't gotten that message yet.

    Come back after you've read some history. I suggest starting with a small slice, perhaps China from about 1949 to 1970.

  • ||

    Yea, China's econ. is in the crapper right now, totally...not.

    Police, fire dept, 911, medicare, these are all examples of socialism in america.

    Socialism is here. Its not pure evil. Everyone wants FREEDOM, but everyone also wants help if needed. Im happy to pay a tax to have cops or fire fighters, and yes, i'd pay a tax to get medical coverage. Obviously, in a perfect America we could pick and choose what taxes we pay and for what benefit.

  • Beezard||

    "Obviously, in a perfect America we could pick and choose what taxes we pay and for what benefit."

    But until then, let's just trust Congress who openly flaunts its unconstitutionality and inability to read/explain it's own legislation to do the right thing...

  • ||

    We even had someone ask about a birth certificate!! OMG. His mom was american, IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL IF HE WAS IN THE US OR NOT. McCain was born in panama (not the US!).

    Next the claims will be that Obama is really from outer space! Maybe he's a clone, or a sith lord!!
    Gimmie a break. This health care may or may not be perfect, but remember, public transporatition didn't kill the private car ownership, public health care won't kill private healthcare options either. It'll only make them cheaper. People need to quit listening to the crazies out there

  • IceTrey||

    "People need to quit listening to the crazies out there."

    I totally agree, but unfortunately this is an unmoderated forum so people like you can still post here.

  • Trig Palin||

    Next the claims will be that Obama is really from outer space! Maybe he's a clone, or a sith lord!!

    Actually Obama is a robot from the future.I sent him back through time for reasons that will remain unclear.

  • Domtar the Space Alien||

    Earthling, I assure you that Obama is entirely of your world.

  • ||

    This is REASON.COM, where is the reason? I only hear fear.

  • ||

    Only fools have no fear.

  • ||

    Thats true, but fools also have no reason.

    Its also foolish to lead with fear mongering..."the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!" America is DOOMED!!

    Thats what all this sounds like to me. Unbridled fear running amuck. Knee Jerk reactions to everything. I hear a LOT of cursing too. A lot of emotional backbiting and epithets. I mean, there are places for that sort of thing, but reason.com...? Really? I would think the emotional tenor would be tempered by logic.

    More than anything, im shocked and dismayed to find this message board in this state.

    /Me Goes back to watching Glenn Beck

  • Brian Trust||

    "Unbridled fear running amuck."

    So when the government attempts to move from the stance of levying a tax that they then use for various government expenses to dictating how you have to spend some of the money they don't take away from you in taxes, you look upon that precedent with absolutely no concerns at all? Nothing to fear there in that sort of behavior becoming legal?

  • hamilton||

    First thing in the morning and I have to drink? Christ.

  • ||

    more than once at that...

  • ||

    id have voted for obama were he a sith lord.

    do the statists care that medicare and medicaid have already driven up healthcare prices because private insurance gets to make up the difference (medicare and medicaid do not pay as much as they cost). what will happen when there is no more private insurance to make up the difference?

    do they really think private insurance wont be crowded out, when the public "option" can lose all the money it wants, but private insurance has to pay its own way?

    do the statists care that the obscene profit margins of health insurers are very mediocre by other industries standards (about 8-9%)?

  • Wayne||

    It's so refreshing to hear sane reasoning in such a messed up world! Way to go Judge!

  • ||

    "Whatever the government gives to you in excess of what you've given to the government, the government has taken from someone else."

  • ||

    So if Obamacare is so bad, does anyone here actually support the repub solution? If not, I take it, everyone supports the "do nothing" solution?

    The point is, I believe everyone wants the same solution, we just believe it will be achieved by different means. If we can argue the methods dispassionately and logically vs. devolving into name calling that alone would be progress.

    I do see the impasse we have in congress as very indicative of the impasses' we find here on this forum. Its easy to bitch that congress cannot create a good solution, that Gov. cannot do anything worthwhile or valuable, but are we doing any better here in this forum? Sounds like freedom to promote a plan of action should have consequences tied to it. There are none for the pres. or congress.

    For all the people ready to revolt against Obama's admin, well, many more people wished to do that under bush. Maybe one day we'll clean house, but I doubt it. We are all just pissing in the wind here, calling each other idiots while Rome burns. Its sad really. The only way to save America, imo, is to somehow directly tie public servants' actions in office to some accountability after they are out. Until that happens, elected officals have licence to do whatever THEY want, damn everyone else.

    In the meantime, lets just continue to fight each other...thats TRUELY an american tradition, and its gotten us where we are today.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Are you not even the slightest bit aware that dozens of alternatives have been offered by libertarians around the country?

  • ||

    In case you are actually interested, below are some first steps toward a free market solution in health care. The Republican proposals take baby steps on the first two to appear to be doing something. The Democratic proposals take every one of these areas for reform the exact wrong direction.

    1. Allow purchase of insurance across state -- and national, for that matter -- borders.

    2. Give all health expenditures the same tax treatment. If that equal treatment is pre-tax -- as employer-based insurance is today -- require employers to give health care benefits to employees as a voucher that the employees can take elsewhere with the balance going into an HSA.

    3. Phase out Medicare. Make the richest age cohort in the country buy their own damn health care. Give vouchers to those who can't afford it based on poverty or preexisting condition.

    4. Make medical licensing advisory only. Open the borders to immigrant doctors.

    5. Make FDA drug approval advisory only. Allow sales of all drugs over the counter except those with actual public health consequences, such as last-line antibiotics.

  • ||

    i like this except your exception to #5 and the requirement in #2.

    i'm probably just being picky though...

  • ||

    The exception to #5 is because I leave open the notion that government may actually have a place in public goods. I realize that a government limited solely to public goods issues would still likely be more harmful than beneficial. But when you've got a government that arrogates so many more powers that are actively harmful from the first conception -- i.e., a government -- drawing a line at public goods issues seems a fair trade.

    The requirement in #2 is a bit harder to justify. But if the tax break stands, its purpose is to subsidize the consumer of health care, not his employer. Thus if the employer is going to provide health care as a line item in the payroll, it doesn't get the subsidy unless it makes the employee the decision maker. Indeed, a self-insuring employer may be able to make a very good health insurance deal for its employee and thus get all those vouchers immediately returned. But the decision still needs to be in the actual beneficiary's hands.

  • ||

    If any idiot could buy the 'big gun' antibiotics like Vancomycin or Zosyn every time they had a cold, then they wouldn't be big gun antiobiotics nor would we have 'big gun' antiobiotics. There were be so many strains of bugs resistant to everything that the days of MRSA and VRE would be a wet dream.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Price controls could be a good idea as well.

    Remember that people will not get cancer more often just because chemotherapy is cheaper.

  • ||

    You're kidding right?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    *FACEPALM*

    Michael, let me remind you of something:

    1973 Oil Crisis

  • ||

    Basically my ideas, but also tort reform won't hurt.

    #3 is especially important.

    Also these vouchers have to be fully redeemable for cash if not used after a few years. Say 5.

    My tweak on that is roll all current federal public health services into a bundle, take the current funding and offer all eligible people (according to your newer poverty/pre-exist standard) the option of enrolling in the public system or taking their budget share as a voucher. Funding for the PHS and vouchers follows user choice.

    This way people on the public health teat don't get cut off cold turkey. But inevitable the share would decline. And since funding follows participation if they need more funding it also increases the incentive to get off the teat.

    In this way I think a 3 way equilibrium could be reached between public subsidies vs public health vs vouchers that would be the least distorting to the economy while still providing a 2 tier safety net.

  • ||

    MDII


    Obviously, in a perfect America we could pick and choose what taxes we pay and for what benefit.

    are you really so obtuse that you don't realize you are advocating a free market delivery of services? really? or are you some kind of "weak irony" troll?

  • Andrea||

    "We are forcing you to pay us back for all the capital we have invested in you and allowed you to leverage."

    ***************
    This is not the first time I've heard that those participating in a capitalist economy "owe" someone else for the benefits they have earned.

    On what basis is someone "owed" something?

    I can understand it somewhat in the context of bailouts. Wall Street offloaded its risk onto taxpayers, and just as it would expect to be rewarded handsomely for assuming this risk, it should pay taxpayers handsomely for assuming that risk.

    But why does one small business person, working 14 hour days to grow his business, owe someone other than the government, to which it must pay taxes? Are not taxes the payment for living in this country and participating in its economy?

  • ||

    He's conveniently neglecting where the 'capital' 'we' 'invested' came from.

    If I steal from you to give to Tony, Tony doesn't owe me anything. He owes you. Of course Tony would as lief the theft continues so he'll thank me.

  • ||

    What an idiotic essay. Of course there's no mention of health care in the Constitution. Believe it of not, the Founding Fathers didn't think of everything. But the spirit of the the Declaration of Independence says it all: The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can those who do not have access to medical care have any of those promises?

    A Harvard study shows that about 45,000 Americans die each year because of the lack of medical care that medical insurance affords. I wonder how many additional people suffer with illness or injury, but aren't included in those death statistics? But, I guess that's a small number to be sacrificed before the gods of the free market.

  • Andrea||

    I wonder how many immigrants are saved because they wound up here instead of in their relatively worse off health care systems?

    Capitalism, and the opportunity for wealth it creates, attracts an unending stream of people seeking to work for a better life. Many of them actually get it.

  • AWLinNC||

    You can be sure they don't include immigrants from most European nations, or Canada, Japan, Australia. Why not ask how many people from those nations lose their homes because they got sick? None. Medical expenses are one of the leading reasons why people file for bankruptcy in the U.S.

  • Andrea||

    You can be sure. I'm not.

  • ||

    They definitely lose their homes when they die on a waiting list for treatment.

  • smartass sob||

    But the spirit of the the Declaration of Independence says it all: The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can those who do not have access to medical care have any of those promises?

    It doesn't say the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others. Those without "access to medical care" can have the former the same way people have always been able to have them: they can provide them for themselves or do without.

  • Tony||

    So all taxes, which necessarily come at the expense of people, are morally abhorrent. Fine. So you're an anarchist. No taxes means no government at all. You can't be in favor of some taxes to support a limited government if you think taxation for this program is evil theft. You're arguing against the very concept of taxation with this "at the expense of others" bullshit.

  • ||

    No taxes means no government at all.

    Wow so there was no federal government before 1913 when the 16th Amendment was passed? Wow, I never knew!

  • Tony||

    I'm pretty sure government was established with the constitution, which contains the words "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes."

  • ||

    It also says "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

    This was to fund government. Not support 51% of the population at the expense of 49%.

  • ||

    "How can those who do not have access to medical care have any of those promises?"

    Let's see: we have generous individuals and organizations that pay for all or part of their treatment. We have charitable hospitals that provide their services for free (which there are a lot less of now thanks to Medicare and Medicaid). And we have doctors who working for those evil for-profit hospitals who offer some of their services for free. Yes, people without health insurance will just be thrown to the wolves! We must have more government now!!!!

  • Derek||

    As proposed, individual mandates to carry health insurance and other aspects of national health care reform are unconstitutional. Since Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to implement a health insurance mandate or universal health care plan; Congress should be talking about a constitutional amendment under Article V. To read more about the individual mandate, health insurance and their relationship to the United States Constitution, I have itemized and linked all recent articles on the subject at: http://healthcarereform.homestead.com.

  • Glenn Koons||

    The Judge makes Constitutional points which apparently the Left, the MSM, the socialist pacifists simply do not take into any consideration on any of Obama's domestic or now even his international agendas. The US Chamber today, put out a great summary of all the legal complaints and economic injustices of this Reid-Baucus-Waxman-Dodd-Obama 2000 page monstrosity. Instead of just emoting like some on the Left did in these comments by using insults, swearing, the Center-Right is actually giving the voters good info to combat the socialist pacifist drift in this nation.

  • CH||

    What does pacifism have to do with healthcare?

  • ||

    Socialists or any form of collectivism is completely inconsistent with pacifism. I think you're a bit confused.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Yes, but they REALLY, REALLY think it isn't, faithy! Don't you know? Socialism = Pacifism (in the sense that we don't actually want to see the violence taking place, and as we all know - if you don't see it, it doesn't exist.)

  • ||

    Neapolitano is really unhinged with this limp commentary. I suppose it's the whole "socialism" thing. Why is it he doesn't complain about our socialized police fire and EMS services? If his life were on the line, do you think he would live up to his principles and refuse to dial 911 to beg the horrible government to save his ass? Perhaps he will follow MLK's example and go to jail as a prisoner of conscience, so that he and his family don't have to have health insurance. Of course, first he'll have to give up his insurance to do it.

  • JeffW||

    If removing the possibility of a medical bankruptcy like all nations with a single payer government run healthcare plans have means that we lost our freedoms then you can take away my freedom any day of the week.
    For conservatives it appears that the greatest freedom is the freedom to have your assetts seized and be an indentured servant for life in paying off your medical bankruptcy. The fact that DEMs are trying to take away that freedom is truely a reason to revolt.

  • JeffW||

    If removing the possibility of a medical bankruptcy like all nations with a single payer government run healthcare plans have means that we lost our freedoms then you can take away my freedom any day of the week.
    For conservatives it appears that the greatest freedom is the freedom to have your assetts seized and be an indentured servant for life in paying off your medical bankruptcy. The fact that DEMs are trying to take away that freedom is truely a reason to revolt.

  • ||

    Most people are as dense as you and the reason they don't want government run health care is simply that they don't want to die waiting to be treated. It's a valid reason, but not the only one.

    The point is to increase the availability of health care. This bill will do the opposite as it expands all the factors that caused costs to go up in the first place.

  • DR.KATHY REILLY||

    UNIVERSAL GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE IS
    A BAD IDEA. This congress is leading us
    down a road towards SOCIALIZED HEALTH
    CARE. Mr Pistone is right on target.
    www.pistoneforcongress.org

  • ||

    The bill will raise your taxes! Steal your freedom! Invade your privacy! Rape your women! Good God, what a crock.

  • ||

    Truly, what an idiot. What a crude reduction of a critical national issue to some Foxville fantasy-land of what the Constitution does and doesn't purportedly allow.

    Did the Constitution state that Kennedy could start a space program? For that Roosevelt could create a national park system?

    How much do the fearmongering HMO fat cats pay you to pump out this tripe?

  • Andrea||

    You've got a pretty good "pump rate" yourself.

  • Boston T. Party||

    Rebellions are sort of like vomiting. The prospect is very unpleasant, but you feel much better afterwards. We've been so quesy with political poisoning (unconstitutional law, taking away our civil rights, elitists movements mandating further taxation, etc) for so long, but we haven't hugged the toilet and stuck our fingers down our national throats...we're so afraid of vomiting that we'd rather stay queasy.

    If we wait to vomit on the poison's timetable, we'll be too weak and ill to recover by then. We must heal ourselves while we are able, or expire.

    A pox on both their houses...

  • ||

    As a long time Consumer Advocate for Justice, I've written an upcoming book scheduled for Spring. After the health care bill was introduced, I wrote blogs on News Vine, Town Hall, and others warning people that the U.S. Congress was writing unconstitutional laws that usurped the U.S. Constitutional laws under the guise of new laws such as HC Bill 3200 and the Hate Crimes Bill. The majority of people didn't believe me when I informed them that the U.S. Congress was writing bills that would criminalize and punish them. Until 2009, its been illegal in America to force people to purchase U.S. Consumer products or U.S. Consumer services made in the U.S.A. After all, U.S. taxpayers may or may not want to purchase certain consumer items. Obamacare is using coercive means by putting fear in the minds of the American people under the threat of punishment which includes excessive fines, excessive taxes, and jail. America's elected representatives are writing laws that will criminalize and punish the American people. They are raising taxes and adding more burden to the American taxpayers at a time when unemployment is in double digits and most people can't afford to pay more taxes. Americans shouldn't be required to pay for everyone else's health care such as illegals and new foreigners who have contributed nothing to America. Many foreigners are coming to the U.S. and living off our tax dollars. In fact, some foreigners use our tax dollars to go through aviation school and medical school. U.S. taxpayers pay for their livelihood when they enter the U.S. military or are appointed to federal government jobs and some of them come to the U.S. to plot and kill Americans according to the news. But, according to recent news articles, the Obama administration provides U.S. attorneys at the expense of U.S. taxpayers for war criminals who were formerly tried by the military before 2009.

    The Health Care Bill 3200 allegedly appears to violate the laws of harassment, coercion and extortion as this bill introduces a mob type of mentality. Is it not harassment for the government to force citizens to buy U.S. Consumer products or U.S. Consumer services they don't want? Does the Health Care Bill trample on state laws regarding U.S. Consumer Products and U.S. Consumer Services and business laws? This law alleges that American taxpayers pay up-front or else they will be punished which should be illegal. The U.S. Congress is mandating that the American people purchase U.S. Consumer Products and U.S. Consumer Services without any constitutional authority or else be punished with excessive fines, excessive taxation and or jail. The U.S. Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to assert this bill. Our U.S. representeatives are proposing a law that will criminalize the American hard working U.S. natural born and legal citizens who voted them into office. This means that there will be more Americans jailed who end up with criminal records and possibly lose their jobs while the elected representatives exempt themselves from such a fate. The only winners are those invested in private prisons and those who are dependent upon job security within the system.

    This mob type mentality seems to have entered into the minds of many of those in elected office who support Cloture and voted yes on Health Care Bill 3200 which is Hillarycare morphed into Obamacare.

    In my opinion, the American people will have an imaginary gun to every natural born and legal U.S. citizen's head. Pelosi and the elected reps are mandating every U.S. taxpayer buy health care insurance or else be punished or criminalized. It's like having the police at your doorstep saying, Pay up, or else we'll excessively fine you, tax you, and maybe, we'll throw you in jail. After that, you'll lose your business and we'll confiscate your property.
    So, how will taxpayers pay their regular tax bills under threat of punishment by the IRS as well as the additional health care payments, excessive taxes and fines? The U.S. constitution states that excessive taxation and fines are illegal, but obviously, the U.S. Congress can care less about that, either. In other words, your homes, property, and businesses could become the property of the federal or state governments and they have the power to auction it off for the amount owed to the government for past due health care bills. They can probably access your checkings accounts and all your money as well or has anyone bothered to ask?

    This Health Care Bill in my opinion is dangerous because it takes over the health care industry and the health care insurance industry, and if you cancel or get canceled from your private health care then you are required to buy government health care whether or not you can afford it under the threat of criminalization and punishment. The elected representatives who are voting to criminalize and punish the American taxpayers are destroying America, destroying our freedom, destroying our right to choose, not only for today's loyal and patriotic Americans, but they're destroying the future of their kids and grandkids as well as ours.

    And, if you owe past due health care payments, excessive fines, and excessive taxes, and end up in jail, there's a possibility you could end up losing your homes, businesses, property, and possibly your children. You could lose your parental rights, as well, because once you have no money, no job, a criminal record, and no home, then social services could show up and remove your children from your custody and you could lose your children forever.

    And, if you think that this is not possible, then you haven't been through some of the more unjust or corrupt U.S. courts where innocent parties are intimidated, harassed, belittled, threatened, and their property wrongfully taken from them and their children wrongfully removed from their custody forever.

    If your elected representative swore to uphold the constitution with his or her lips, but lied to their constitutents for any reason then they must be removed from office. Ask yourself this question: Is the Health Care Bill a recipe to imprison more Americans and a reinstatement of debtor's prison?

    Lastly, were the Presidential Directives signed by President Bush expanding the power of the federal government to a super power that exceeds the U.S. President and U.S. Congress actually legal and voted upon by Congress or approved by a 2/3 vote by the U.S. Congress? If not, then those President Directives or Executive Orders should be rendered null and void as this would make the Health Care Bill even more illegal and unconstitutional.

    Every U.S. elected representative from the President on down including the Czars should have to disclose if they own stocks in health care companies; HMO's, pharmaceutical companies, and or insurance companies and private prisons as more U.S. citizens will be jailed through the Health Care Reform Bill and the Hate Crimes Bill. Is that why they exempted themselves, as well? Michelle Obama said this was the first time in her life that she's been proud of America. I want to say that as a second generational natural born U.S. citizen, this is the first time in my life that I fear for my country's freedoms.

  • ||

    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

  • thebronze||

    To Arms!

  • mike||

    state's rights have been trampled on for years. every state should assert its rights as a separate part of the whole, not a smaller part of the federal government. when the federal government is allowed to force states to change their laws through funding, instead of constitutional law by amending the constitution, we are lost. this is the time, and the place in history where we should stand up for our rights as our founding fathers set them down.

  • ||

    It's called "the greater good." it is how our government protects us all against destitute indigents with H1N1 and no means to get treatment. I guess we should leave it up to corporations to look out for our wellbeing instead of the government we elect to do that. Call Oliver Stone with your paranoid fascist delusions or do something constructive like get involved. This is just complaining and mincing terms to concoct a sensational viewpoint that is neither valid nor supported by fact.

  • ||

    I don't know what planet you come from, but on my planet the county public health department runs free H1N1 vaccination clinics.

    And get this... No federal health care reform legislation was required!

    Actual honest-to-goodness public health is 19th-century technology with a few vaccinations thrown in. It is neither hard nor is it expensive. It is certainly not a justification for nationalizing health insurance or imposing health insurance mandates.

  • Shandra||

    Freedom does not mean unlimited freedom. True freedom is free of charge. Freedom is not harmful to others, because others also have the same freedom. Thus, there is still a restriction in freedom. I support this bill, because it provides maximum protection to anyone to get the best health care. Do not just look at the negative side only. See also from the other side. This bill could save more budget, and frankly, among all countries in the world, only the U.S. is weak in the public health care system. - bankruptcy discharge

  • Ratko||

    Well stated, your Honor, thank you so much.

    Everyone is so busy squabbling over the cost it's impossible to get anyone to consider the reality of the bill. This thing passes and as I've said over and over we are nothing more than property of the government. People better wake up and do it now. We are a breath away from becoming the equivalent of a slave with no say or control over even your own body.

    Wake up!

    Your Honor, you have deeply impressed me. After looking everywhere, even across the oceans, this is what I've been searching for, a Thomas Paine.

    This gives me hope.

  • Ratko||

    Well stated, your Honor, thank you so much.

    Everyone is so busy squabbling over the cost it's impossible to get anyone to consider the reality of the bill. This thing passes and as I've said over and over we are nothing more than property of the government. People better wake up and do it now. We are a breath away from becoming the equivalent of a slave with no say or control over even your own body.

    Wake up!

    Your Honor, you have deeply impressed me. After looking everywhere, even across the oceans, this is what I've been searching for, a Thomas Paine.

    This gives me hope.

  • Michael P. Shipley||

    Check out my new video:

    Defend Freedom - Featuring Judge Andrew Napolitano

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xNaN3pz-ag

  • ||

    I tried to post this to Facebook, but it does not allow you to? Obamacontrol?

  • UBot Reviewed||

    Some real crazy ass arguments in this thread guys!

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane.

  • Vreme||

    Well these day you can't even tell anymore who is controling who :(

  • somethingiknow||

    Excellent information here cause in my language, there are not much good source like this. This interesting post made me smile. Maybe if you throw in a couple of pictures it will make the whole thing more interesting.
    chup hinh

  • Portable Laptop Printer||

    I much like it! Amazing article. I need you up-to-date your weblog much more often, I just cannot appear to be to own adequate of one's blog. I saved your weblog in my bookmarks. Would it be feasible to do a guest article sometime?

  • Justin||

    All form of government is the same because people are the same wherever you go. Man wants to be in power so that he will be in control of people, economy, politics, and everything in his path. More than that people of the same minds create a system where there shared power remains in control even in decades or centuries. It's an irony that many who deserves to be leaders are not very much interested in political power, only those that are interested in political power joins politics for whatever purpose it may serve him best. The point is government is taking control over people, in the guise of public welfare.Individual freedom is only as good as it is not against the laws of the state.

  • teach yourself french||

    Every single state should assert its rights as a separate part of the whole, not a smaller part of the federal government. when the federal government is allowed to force states to change their laws through funding, instead of constitutional law by amending the constitution, we are then lost.

  • Santa Monica Chiropractor||

    I for one don't want to see it pass. I don't want to work for free.

  • Car Wreck Attorneys||

    I think it's ridiculous that someone would force you to participate in a plan that you don't want to participate in.

    It's unheard of. And the cost will be huge.

    Car Wreck Attorneys

  • repair denture||

    I love my new repair dentures, I can finally eat in confidence and it has completely changed my life.

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement