Posted on 10/31/2009 6:36:38 PM PDT by Biggirl
What could happen to us under Obamacare would make any fright movie look like light fare.
It did not take long in my review of the House version of Obamacare released on Thursday to get a picture of what our future health care will be like. The only real surprise is that the picture was revealed so early in the 1990 page proposed legislation.
At page 16, Section 101, the legislation would create a National High-Risk Pool Program beginning January 1, 2010. With certain exceptions, any resident (no mention of citizenship, just residency) of the 50 states and the District of Columbia (page 19) who has been denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition is eligible to apply. The program will last through 2012 (when the public option and the insurance exchanges are set to begin), and will be funded for this period by $5 billion.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...
Have your cancer spread if you have to wait one year under government insurance for that colonoscopy. Under the current private insurance you get an operating room in 1 week.
“Eligible to apply?” Is that like eligible to win if I send in a boxtop?
Election-shmecshion! Health care is NOT a right. Never has been. Period. The feds have NO AUTHORITY too do this!
All this “it’s a right” talk started when we began forcing hospitals to offer on-demand treatment people who who never had any intention to pay. That not only made people think they had a “right” to be treated, it also raised insurance rates for all the non-deadbeats who actually pay for what they get. That’s grotesque.
If SOME hospitals want to raise money to pay for care for the “poor,” then let them do that on their own. BUT DON’T MAKE ME PAY! Don’t force your idiotic altruism on me!
Congressman Anthony Weiner has said that health care is not a commodity. If it isn't a commodity then do doctors and nurses have rights? Assigning health care the status of a right makes health care workers slaves to that right who must serve it. On what ground could a health care worker refuse to provide their products and services since that would violate the patient's "basic human right to health care."
That is a direct loss of individual rights for health care providers. The collective right of the people to receive health care would supersede the provider's individual right to set fees and hours or to change their occupational status or even decide how to apply their skills and knowledge if taken to its logical extreme. A collective right, by practical definition, is a state right because it is a right that is created and given by the government to those it chooses to give it to. It is not a natural right possessed by each person protected by the Constitution from the government. It is also a collective/state right by virtue of the fact that it would supersede individual rights when the two come into conflict. How else would the government view a right that it created and administers vs. one it has no control over?
Of course it isn't stated in any bill that a patient's right to care supersedes a provider's right to set fees and hours etc, but it doesn't need to. Rights, as always, are adjudicated in the courts. The Health Care Reform bills simply establish the foundation for the courts to rule in favor of the collective right.
Weiner’s view is collectivist, fascist and totalitarian. Collectivist because it has to be described as being a right of the many instead of the one and superior due to that fact. Fascist because ultimately the sole authority for its creation and oversight is from one entity the Federal government. Totalitarian because the Federal government is the enforcer of this collective right as well. State and local jurisdictions will have little say about it.
Congressman Weiner's view is the underlying philosophy of all of the Health Care Reform legislation in the House and Senate. Consider this section in the Senate version of the bill; the setting up of community watch dogs that will monitor citizens for various health parameters. Read pages 382 - 393.
TITLE I—QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS pps 382 - 393
So, even citizens themselves will be subject to Federal regulations on their behavior in order to fulfill the "human right" of universal health care. It isn't the individual's liberty that is being protected by that it is the government's control over its own health care system that is being guarded. How much clearer can it be that these bills abrogate the concept of individual rights? Someone will be checking your lifestyle, according to gov regulations, to be certain you serve the best interests of the "basic human right to health care" ie. "the Public Option."
HCR is not just about rationing care and wealth redistribution. It's about the end of individual rights as the corrosive effects of the new collectivist "basic human right to health care" spreads throughout the legal and political systems like a virus.
I think that the main purpose of Health Care Reform (HCR) is as a direct assault on individual liberties.
Health Care is a Liberty Issue
Conservative Underground - 18 August 2009 - Tim Dunkin
Another Stupid Argument: Heath Care is a Right
Obama's Authoritarian, Unconstitutional Health Care Proposal
To Americans Who Believe Healthcare is a Right
OBAMA: HEALTH CARE DESTROYING FREE SPEECH
Mandated health insurance threatens freedom, privacy
Second Bill of Rights aka FDR's economic bill of rights
(An early attempt to embed collective rights into American politics and society.)
It's true!
.
I'm so (justifiably) afraid of collectivized medicine, that I finally got that c-scopy that I have been delaying for years.
Now, Obamacare is helping me save money.
Instead of buying things, I'm saving for that "medical vacation" in case I need an operation some day.
.
Fear
It's THE motivator under Socialism and Marxism, n'est ce pas?
.
Had the c-scopy. Got the procedure within 1 week of my call to the doctor. I was lucky. Only had a case of the George Bretts. Procedure cost 2600. Under the givernment plan it would cost at least double and would of waited a year.
That is, no Jew was to make a Jew into a slave.
Here we find Congressman Weiner, who claims to be Jewish, turning Jewish doctors and nurses into slaves.
Frankly, there's no way Weiner can be a Jew ~ and in the good old days other Jews would have stoned him to death.
Hey kids!
How about this. Civil Disobedience. Massive non-compliance.
Refuse to pay the tax, use the $ to pay your insurance premium (authorized on the state level) and DARE the feds to do something about it.
(If you’ve got a life threatening disease, what have you got to lose?)
He is no American either nor is anyone else who supports this crapola.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2316160/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2290175/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.