Posted on 01/22/2010 9:40:39 PM PST by philman_36
Many is the time that I've facetiously referred to my fellow Americans as cattle, sheeple or lemmings because of their lack of concern about the direction this nation is heading and I'm coming to regret such actions on my part. I regret this because, even though I might be stretching the realm of plausibility in my thinking, I believe that some people in our government might very well have come to the belief that we actually are government property. I have to give such an implausible thought some consideration given some of the things said in the last few months.
I, and numerous others in the media and elsewhere, have been bothered for some time as to why there were so many pundits making the comparison between auto insurance and the stipulation in the proposed health care bill that would require every American to buy health insurance. After thinking about it for a while I believe I've come to an answer, though I could be wrong and I'll willingly admit that it's pretty far fetched. Yet with this administration and the advancement of progressiveism you never know.
A couple of things need to be considered. First, we are required to get auto insurance to compensate someone else if we're involved in an auto accident for the loss, or damage, to their property. Second, as any person who has served in the military knows, you can be brought up on charges if you get a severe sunburn and can't perform your job. Now, that might seem extreme, but it's mostly given as a lesson on how you're always supposed to be ready, and able, to perform your job. If you're suffering from a bad enough sunburn you can barely move, making you unfit for duty. Basically, you're the "property" of whichever branch of the military to which you belong and you better not damage their property or you'll pay for it through fines, extra duty and/or restriction. (45/45, 1/2 months pay for two)
So after thinking about it, and with the consideration of the mind set of progressives, I have to conclude that if we are considered government property we would be required to carry insurance to compensate the government, the owner of said property, in advance in case we damage their property. Property typically brings in revenue and we have to be ready, and able, to go to work so we can pay our taxes...government revenue. We must be ready, and able, to protect the government from any financial loss if we become sick or injured and are unable to perform our duty (gaining revenue) and we must pay up front the cost that might incur to make us better and to help defer the loss of revenue. And when we're too old we won't be sent out to pasture, we'll get sent to the glue factory 'cause we'll be a drain on the farm.
Now, you can call me "a nut job", say that I'm whacked out and need a rubber room, that I'm "out in left field" or even wonder if I've got stock in Reynold's Aluminum. I'm not too worried about any of that. I'm just trying to give any reader of this another way of looking at things. If you get upset at what I've written then perhaps you need to consider why such an absurd thing would cause you to get angry.
So in the end, whatever you think, don't ever consider me to be government property.
I would venture to agree to the extent that, under a true privatized medical system patients would be regarded as customers whereas, under a government-run system, patients are regarded as fiscal drains, and the sicker you are, the more incentive the system has to write you off.
The elderly, the chronically ill and the profoundly disabled will eventually be told the only treatment they qualify for is a nice, lethal injection.
Very Good analogy, that is socialism. I never thought about it in those terms. I know I used the socialism is slavery analogy before.
Makes perfect sense to me.
For a long time I have felt like we’re government slaves.
Over on the tinfoil site, they discuss how your birth certificate is a promissory note or proof that you’re a government slave or some such thing.
I believe there is some merit to your insight.
Only when seen thought this lens does the idea that WE should carry insurance, to protect their tax base, does it make sense. In fact, this would also apply to the death panels. I see them as, when you no longer provide the money and taxes that the state requires, you are no longer going to be allowed to live. That fits right in with this same analogy.
It is well written and thought out.
You’ve also no doubt heard the libertarian argument that the same goes for our property taxes, i.e., if you don’t pay them the state takes your property, so ipso facto, the state owns your house and car, you’re just paying for the privilege of buying, maintaining and using them.
You shouldn’t poke sticks at ogres ‘cause ogres bite back.
Whose right is health care? Do you think it's yours?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 DunkinAnother 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.)
Why do you think that is a nutty thought?
Just trying not to upset the apple cart too much. (I did get a couple of nibbles)
That is the Marxist mindset from the jump. Do you have some doubt that Progressives are anything other than Marxists?
Not in the least.
All I can say in my defense is that it's been a while since I've seriously put finger to keyboard and a scalded toe beats a scalded leg.
I'm also trying not to use a hammer as much as I'm wont. I'm still working on that though. Perhaps that's just a lesson in futility for me.
You neatly slice while I tend to crudely bash. I guess it's just my nature.
The mandate says that all our income is really theirs, they only graciously allow us to retain a portion for our use, and they have a perfect right to FORCE us to spend this remnant however THEY choose. Whether you call it slavery or serfdom, the mandate is PURE EVIL.
Historians argue whether the serfs of the dark ages and the medieval era are or are not slaves. Obviously serfdom varied widely in its onerousness, both from country to country and within a country depending on the personality of the local lord. But some historians flatly state that the serfs should be considered slaves, because most had to turn over 1/3 of all they earned (whether in coin or in kind-crops , livestock) to their overlords. One third of your income lost makes you a slave, per these historians.
How many Americans lose *only* 1/3 of what they earn to taxes-all taxes, local, state, and federal?
What does that make us?
LOL I think you diced and sliced very nicely here. I just wasn’t sure why you included a caveat. It’s clear to me now. ;-)
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.