or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 50

post #1961 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Under what circumstances is the use of violent force against peaceful people good and legitimate?

Your question is fallacious. People who break the law are not peaceful.
post #1962 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, I admit that is what you THINK is your trump card

So you're saying that the state does not use the threat of violence to enforce its edicts?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1963 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Your question is fallacious. People who break the law are not peaceful.

Rosa Parks broke the law. Are you saying she was not a peaceful person?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1964 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Your question is fallacious. People who break the law are not peaceful.

You have a very strange definition of "not peaceful." Perhaps you should consult a dictionary. How is someone continuing to perform their profession "not peaceful."

Apparently in the leftist worldview:

- Practicing an activity (say being lawyer) if done without a state permission slip is "not peaceful"
- The threat of taking away someone's profession, possible imprisonment and even death if resisting imprisonment is not coercive or violent.

Should we take this as a hint that you must twist and redefine words to mean different things in order to justify your worldview?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1965 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Rosa Parks broke the law. Are you saying she was not a peaceful person?

http://digital.wustl.edu/e/eop/index.html

Quote:
"When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up, and I said, 'No, I'm not.' And he said, 'Well, if you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested.' I said, 'You may do that.'"

What happened to Rosa Parks?

If there are physicians who think that having a moral responsibility to treat the poor is equivalent to segregation and discrimination, then they are welcome to do the same. Let's see how the public, enjoying universal health care because of all the other physicians with higher morals, would respond to that.
post #1966 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You have a very strange definition of "not peaceful." Perhaps you should consult a dictionary. How is someone continuing to perform their profession "not peaceful."

Apparently in the leftist worldview:

- Practicing an activity (say being lawyer) if done without a state permission slip is "not peaceful"
- The threat of taking away someone's profession, possible imprisonment and even death if resisting imprisonment is not coercive or violent.

Should we take this as a hint that you must twist and redefine words to mean different things in order to justify your worldview?

Breaking the law is not peaceful. Yes, Rosa Parks broke the law and her act was not a peaceful one. But in her case, it highlighted the moral outrage of that law. If you think a law requiring physicians to perform public duty is morally outrageous, then a non-peaceful act may be the way to go. Unfortunately, I don't think the general public would agree with the physician making such a stand, on moral grounds. Regardless, you can't call the physician who breaks the law peaceful.
post #1967 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Breaking the law is not peaceful. Yes, Rosa Parks broke the law and her act was not a peaceful one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Regardless, you can't call the physician who breaks the law peaceful.



Again, the dictionary is your friend. Words have meanings. You don't get to just make up new ones in order to suit your argument.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1968 of 2360
Sure he does. If you limit him to the dictionary, you're being AUTHORITARIAN!

Of course, he's not doing that. But he should have the option to. How dare you limit him to reality?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1969 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post



Again, the dictionary is your friend. Words have meanings. You don't get to just make up new ones in order to suit your argument.

I don't get what you mean. Peaceful is defined as not causing or being in conflict. Breaking the law is conflict. Therefore not peaceful.

Oh, you mean the definition of "peaceful" based on conjecture and ignorance? That definition? Not the one in the dictionary that supports my position? Oh.
post #1970 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

http://digital.wustl.edu/e/eop/index.html



What happened to Rosa Parks?

If there are physicians who think that having a moral responsibility to treat the poor is equivalent to segregation and discrimination, then they are welcome to do the same. Let's see how the public, enjoying universal health care because of all the other physicians with higher morals, would respond to that.

Are you saying that her act of resistance to and noncompliance with a bad law was not a peaceful act because it led to her arrest by an agent of the State?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1971 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Are you saying that her act of resistance to and noncompliance with a bad law was not a peaceful act because it led to her arrest by an agent of the State?

It was not a peaceful act because it was clearly against the law. I'm not saying it wasn't a moral act or a righteous act, just not a peaceful one.
post #1972 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It was not a peaceful act because it was clearly against the law. I'm not saying it wasn't a moral act or a righteous act, just not a peaceful one.

So Rosa Parks' sitting in a seat wrongly prohibited to her by a bad law is what caused the conflict? What about the agent of the State who enforced this bad law? What about the State that passed the bad law in the first place?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1973 of 2360
Deeper and deeper we go into the original false equivalence between Rosa Parks and MJ's unreasonable doctor. This tactic is quite familiar. I remember reading about how many Ron Paul supporters just stay at the caucus forever until everyone else goes home. I don't blame the other Republicans for wanting to leave after listening to the Paulies all day long.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1974 of 2360
BTW...I'm curious.

If doctors are reasonable and would do the kind of pro bono work you suggest or would just accept poor patients or Obamacare patients without any fuss...Why the need to have in place the threat of things like warnings, censure and loss of license to practice (or worse)?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1975 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So Rosa Parks' sitting in a seat wrongly prohibited to her by a bad law is what caused the conflict?

It's not what caused the conflict. It did cause conflict.
Quote:
What about the agent of the State who enforced this bad law? What about the State that passed the bad law in the first place?

All these acts caused conflict. But only one was against the law, at least until Brown v. Board. Damn those Supreme Court justices legislating by the courts!!!!

So the bad law was not peaceful. Enforcement of the bad law was not peaceful. Protesting the bad law was not peaceful.

But you can't say by arresting Rosa Parks, the authorities were using force against a peaceful protester. To say so shows a complete misunderstanding of law.
post #1976 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

BTW...I'm curious.

If doctors are reasonable and would do the kind of pro bono work you suggest or would just accept poor patients or Obamacare patients without any fuss...Why the need to have in place the threat of things like warnings, censure and loss of license to practice (or worse)?

1. Doctors are all generous with their time and will do public work voluntarily.
2. Doctors are all selfish and refuse to treat public cases, even with legal pressure to do so.
3. Somewhere in between.

Which do you think is most likely?
post #1977 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

1. Doctors are all generous with their time and will do public work voluntarily.
2. Doctors are all selfish and refuse to treat public cases, even with legal pressure to do so.
3. Somewhere in between.

Which do you think is most likely?

Number 3.

Which do you think is most likely?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1978 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's not what caused the conflict. It did cause conflict.
All these acts caused conflict. But only one was against the law, at least until Brown v. Board. Damn those Supreme Court justices legislating by the courts!!!!

So the bad law was not peaceful. Enforcement of the bad law was not peaceful. Protesting the bad law was not peaceful.

But you can't say by arresting Rosa Parks, the authorities were using force against a peaceful protester. To say so shows a complete misunderstanding of law.

So to avoid conflict you would have people obey bad laws instead of standing up to the State that passed and enforced the bad laws?

I seriously doubt the civil rights movement would have succeeded without civil disobedience to bad laws.

That is my point in mentioning Rosa Parks. She and others like her had the courage to stand up (or sit down) and say "this law is wrong, it infringes upon my inalienable human rights, and I will not comply".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1979 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Number 3.

Which do you think is most likely?

Number three.
post #1980 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So to avoid conflict you would have people obey bad laws instead of standing up to the State that passed and enforced the bad laws?

I seriously doubt the civil rights movement would have succeeded without civil disobedience to bad laws.

That is my point in mentioning Rosa Parks. She and others like her had the courage to stand up (or sit down) and say "this law is wrong, it infringes upon my inalienable human rights, and I will not comply".

I'm not saying we should avoid conflict in such a case. Where did you get that?
post #1981 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Number three.

So it's basically about forcing the people who aren't doing what you think they should do to do what you think they should do?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1982 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm not saying we should avoid conflict in such a case. Where did you get that?

In which cases is it okay to stand up to State aggression?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1983 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

In which cases is it okay to stand up to State aggression?

Of course. Rosa Parks absolutely did the right thing.
post #1984 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course. Rosa Parks absolutely did the right thing.

Why was it right?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1985 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why was it right?

Because it was a bad, discriminatory law. The timing was right that the public was ready to accept on moral grounds that it was a bad law. The courts had progressed enough that they would support changes to the law based on legal grounds, but backed by moral grounds.

If there were a hypothetical law that required doctors to put in paid public service hours in order for the country to have universal health care, and if a doctor refused as an act of civil disobedience, do you think the timing is right for the public and the courts to support their objection based on moral and legal grounds? If so, then civil disobedience is the way to go. If the timing is not right, then the doctor involved may lose their job temporarily or forever. Pretty big risk.

Unfortunately for that doctor, I think the majority of the public would see the doctor as a selfish piece of shit and they would continue to enjoy their health care under the care of other doctors.

Rosa Parks didn't do what she did out of selfishness or some Randian utopian ideal of freedom to do whatever the fuck you want even if it means being a selfish piece of shit.
post #1986 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If there were a hypothetical law that required doctors to put in paid public service hours in order for the country to have universal health care, and if a doctor refused as an act of civil disobedience, do you think the timing is right for the public and the courts to support their objection based on moral and legal grounds? If so, then civil disobedience is the way to go. If the timing is not right, then the doctor involved may lose their job temporarily or forever. Pretty big risk.

You seem to be continually trying to end run around the point. I wonder why this is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Unfortunately for that doctor, I think the majority of the public would see the doctor as a selfish piece of shit and they would continue to enjoy their health care under the care of other doctors.

So then the doctor doesn't want to see the patient, and the patient doesn't want to see the doctor because the doctor doesn't want to see them? So?


But back to the question you overlooked:

So it's basically about forcing the people who aren't doing what you think they should do to do what you think they should do?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1987 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So it's basically about forcing the people who aren't doing what you think they should do to do what you think they should do?

If you simplify it to the point of retardation. It's more complex than that.

I could say your position is that it's okay to let certain people die on the street because other people should never ever be required to do something they don't want to do.
post #1988 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If you simplify it to the point of retardation. It's more complex than that.

Just be a man and admit it. It's about forcing people to do what you think they should do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I could say your position is that it's okay to let certain people die on the street because other people should never ever be required to do something they don't want to do.

You could...but that wouldn't be true nor even a logical conclusion from my position.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1989 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So it's basically about forcing the people who aren't doing what you think they should do to do what you think they should do?

That's what law is. The only way to avoid what you're describing is complete anarchy.
post #1990 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's what law is. The only way to avoid what you're describing is complete anarchy.



You advocate forcing people to do what you think they should do.

Just admit it.

Why is that so hard? Are you afraid of being so transparent and honest? Are you afraid of what it says about you to have it laid so bare?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1991 of 2360
CBO doubles estimate of Obamacare's cost. The Unaffordable Care Act will now cost 1.76 TRILLION over 10 years.

Please, someone tell me how we're just dealing with George Bush's mess and credit card bill.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1992 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

CBO doubles estimate of Obamacare's cost. The Unaffordable Care Act will now cost 1.76 TRILLION over 10 years.

Please, someone tell me how we're just dealing with George Bush's mess and credit card bill.

Yes, Obamacare is idiotic. The per capita spending in countries that have NON MEANS TESTED FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is less. But the only way the Republicans will agree to any health care plan is if we somehow guarantee an INCREASE in profit for the insurance companies, the pharma companies, the HMOs, doctors... ad nauseum.

Just give us a single payer public option, and we'll spend less and the people will be way better off.

But the pro-business fucks just won't have any of that. So we're stuck with Obamacare, which is slightly better for most people than nothing at all.
post #1993 of 2360
Single-payer healthcare is just wonderful as long as you are relatively healthy.

Those with serious health issues face rationed care. That means long wait times and yes, even denial of care.

Here is one such case. And there are many more.

Thankfully this poor woman had the means to get the care she needed in the States.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1994 of 2360
Tonton, single payer health care allows for more security against catastrophic medical bills, but there are also significant problems.

For the latest, google "Canada + Drug + Shortage" and see if you can figure out what's happening there and why.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1995 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Tonton, single payer health care allows for more security against catastrophic medical bills, but there are also significant problems.

For the latest, google "Canada + Drug + Shortage" and see if you can figure out what's happening there and why.

Canada does not have a private option.
post #1996 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Single-payer healthcare is just wonderful as long as you are relatively healthy.

Those with serious health issues face rationed care. That means long wait times and yes, even denial of care.

Here is one such case. And there are many more.

Thankfully this poor woman had the means to get the care she needed in the States.

For every one case of someone who was hindered by a government health care system, there are a hundred cases of people who were helped by it.
post #1997 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Canada does not have a private option.

Yes, because whenever conservatives propose one, we are accused by the left of being heartless, greedy corporate profiteers eager to put families through US-style bankruptcy just for medical care.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1998 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Yes, because whenever conservatives propose one, we are accused by the left of being heartless, greedy corporate profiteers eager to put families through US-style bankruptcy just for medical care.

And the left in the US aren't accused of equally irrational platitudes when a public option is discussed?

It's clear we need a balanced system for best results. Not one way or another, but both.

It's just like socialism vs. capitalism. We need both. Supply-side vs. demand side. We need both.

Let's stop being so polarized and find the balance.
post #1999 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's clear we need a balanced system for best results. Not one way or another, but both.

That isn't clear at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's just like socialism vs. capitalism. We need both.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2000 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Are you incapable of understanding how this works? Try Europe. There are billionaires who own yachts and there is universal health care and free university education. Who'da thunk it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality