Tuesday, September 27, 2011

American Rights? (by anon)

“Rights.” It appears to me that this word instills are great sense of “defense.” It’s my right! You’re violating my right to free speech! ect. So what happens when this word is used when on the “offense?” I’m speaking more or less but not limited to Obamacare.

Heath care is a service rendered. When did the government get the power to force me to buy something, such as government health insurance? Collective rights, one might say. The collective want government enforced health care so the United States gets government enforced health care. That in and of itself doesn’t make sense. How can it be my right to violate your “rights,” then neither of us has any “real rights.”

All you humanitarians settle down, the answer to your question before you scream it is NO. I would not let a man die simply because he didn’t have health insurance. I do not think any doctor would deny a dying man treatment. But, I do think that that person should pay for that service himself. If someone consciously doesn’t where a seat belt crashes, and is put in a comma. The doctors, I’m sure would save his life. But, as for the bill is concerned that is his responsibility, not mine. He rolled the dice and lost, he will be paying off a debt for a long time. Such is the nasty way of freedom of choice.

I do however see no problem in giving this service or right to children. Children are omitted from the argument simply because they are children. Do you not pay for education once you’re an adult? Why, yes you do. If Obamacare was rendered to only children I would have absolutely no argument against it.

I understand that when the status quo is being changed, rights are sometimes broken or changed. It was once man’s right to own another man. Although, I don’t think you truly can relate slavery to government enforced health care. Regardless of whether the change is better or worse there still is a change. Rights are, well, rights are they not. So the real question is how long before the next right is broken or altered? The answer I think is that none of us really have any rights. Since rights are not this sacred undeniable defense/right, but something to be vexed and twisted to whatever the collective wants.

1) Rights protect citizens and should not be taken away by ANYONE.

2) If rights are violated and the law/people find out then the violator is punished according to the law.

3) If the law makers violate a citizens right and the law/people know it, and the law makers go unpunished then the right was not a real right. Because Point 1 and 2.

If individualists unite to fight collectivism, doesn’t that make them a collectivist…


  1. The bill everyone knows as Obamacare is officially called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Senate passed it on December 24, 2009, the House passed it on March 21, 2010, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010. You like others have a problem with the requirement that everyone has to have health insurance but you have not read the actual law. I recommend that you read it, as it covers a lot of things, not just the part you and other conservatives do not like. Its not a big deal and it is not rocket science. You are required to have health insurance but you are not going to be shot if you do not have it, just a penalty will be assessed at income tax time. I do not have any idea what this penalty will be but I assume that it is not going to be significant. There are other features of this bill that are excellent. I particular like the part where you cannot be denied health insurance based on pre-existing conditions. So read the bill. It is very complex and covers a lot of things. It is not the best plan but it is much better than what we have - which is NOTHING.

  2. Alright, I spoke quicky and pourly and picked the first controversial idea I could think of at the time. Wrong. Secondly I didn't really read your post just skimmed it. So I arugued something you already stated the lack of choice. And in doing so pulled the topic away from the original point the "change of rights" as well as displaying myself as an idiot. I really have no argument against you because what you stated was accurate.

  3. What the hell are you really arguing? You say Obamacare is violating rights, then it's ok for Obamacare to apply to children, but there aren't really any rights, then something about individualists are really collectivists. I mean what am I supposed to take away from this?

    Personally, I think people bring up rights talk whenever they don't agree with something. "I like guns....you want to take them away from me?....no you can't!....it's my right!!!" Sometimes, talking about rights is a cop-out for a real argument. Sometimes talking about rights is vital for equality. To say that Obamacare is violating someone's rights because it makes them pay for healthcare is a boneheaded thing to say. Are you going to say that paying car insurance is a violation of your rights? Are you going to say getting a ticket for not wearing your seat belt is a violation of your rights? Mandating healthcare is the right thing to do because we are all in this together. Individualism died a century ago. Time to wake up and the community-enterprise you've been a part of since you were born.

  4. I wrote a stupid argument that didn't get posted. Im arguing Rights are not what people think they are. Driving a car is a privilege not a right so the same rules do not apply.

  5. What argument didn't get posted? Please resend to criticallypissed@gmail.com.

  6. No it was really bad and I recant all of it.

  7. In a nut shell I'm saying no one has rights because they are subject to whatever change the collective wants. It is flaw of democracy but compared to all other forms of government democracy is by far the best form of government. As for the individualist remark that means no one can be a true individualist. As well as all individuals are a the mercy of the collective. I'm not saying which is better or who's right.

  8. Come on. In this society one basically has to learn how to drive. It is not a stretch to say that mandating someone buying car insurance is the same thing as mandating someone to buy health insurance. Besides, if one really doesn't want to buy car insurance, they can stay home and never drive. if one really doesn't want to buy health insruance, they can move to another country.

  9. Im very sure someone from new york or any major city could go their whole life without getting a drivers license. The point it is rights are not to be taken away but they are. So thus they are not rights. It is a problem, progress demands change but the system says no change. This contradiction shows it's ugly head everytime rights are brought up. And is more or less the heart of most major problems. Rep vs dem. Pro life vs pro choice. Legalize weed vs legal weed. Obamacare vs no health care. Old vs new.

  10. Lol 9:20 - I like the "legalize weed vs legal weed" part. Both options sound good to me ;)

  11. Woke up early and can't go back to sleep so I guess I'll rant a little more. With old vs new. New isn't always the better choice. Karl Marx idea of communism was very progressive and new for his time, that doesn't make it better.
    I'll switch from Obamacare to the patriot act. Now I'm speaking of the original, but some of it is still in effect. And to understand this act you need to understand it catalyst. The war on terror which makes no sense at all. A war on an idea/method of fighting/anyone who radically opposes the government/scary people whoa whoa wee whoa government casting the net a little wide ya think. Anyway this brought the patriot act into effect shitting all over 4th 5th 6th and 7th amendment rights. But, it was accepted to protect everyone, for the greater good. (side note I hate it when the greater good is brought up cause it means they want to take something from me)
    Why bring this up because it shows how easily rights are cast aside. I like the idea of rights and I am against all breaches of them. Even if the breach is for the greater good.

  12. It's a pretty Utilitarian way of looking at things, huh?
    I mean.. maybe we set up 'rights' for ourselves in the first place, and they are not given by nature, but by society in order to keep as many people as possible as protected as possible. If this means stripping away some of the previously created rights in order to maintain better, more important rights that will ultimately help the majority... then it should be done I guess.

    HOWEVER, in some cases, the TRUE context within which certain rights are taken away so others can be 'better protected' is important to note so everyone can decide whether or not the sacrifice of old rights was really called for, and if it really was in the majority's best interest.

    For instance, with the Patriot Act... supposedly it was in our best interest, but was it truly necessary for our well-being, or was there an ulterior motive, or underlying agenda which we weren't told about? I don't know. The government keeps things from us a lot, and likes to act as God (telling us what rights we have and don't have, which ones are at stake, which ones we should sacrifice, etc) and is supposedly what we ought to trust for the sake of our own well-being. I don't necessarily buy that, so I don't necessarily buy the justification for the Patriot Act.

    With Obamacare... I happen to think we have a fucked up society of people who don't take care of themselves when they probably could by making a few changes in lifestyle (unless they've already dug their own grave), which could result in them needing less medical attention overall, so in a way, I don't think Obamacare, or any kind of socialized healthcare, would actually be in the majority's best interest in practice, given the current state of our society (although it would in principle). Maybe it could be effectively carried out in another land where broccoli actually was more affordable than McDonald's food, and where prescription drugs weren't sold to us like candy is to kids (not to mention by corporations who are regulated no better than the back alley drug dealers), then yeah, socialized healthcare would be good.

    But now, we're too fucked up to have it work for our benefit. I think at this point, socialized healthcare (esp in which everyone would qualify, no matter their previously developed health conditions) would only supplement the existing poor eating/exercising habits that people, from what I see, either
    a) have lost the will to change due to their already existing struggle overall
    b) have the will to change but are too bewildered by the cluster-fuck of misinformation presented to them by either profit-driven bullshitters trying to sell certain food, pills, and weight-loss/exercise plans, or by misquoted and/or poorly educated 'doctors' and 'specialists' they read about on the internet, the largest source of stellar persuasion and made-up 'facts', or
    c) do not actually have the means to change, thanks to our fucked up government supporting the carrying out of an equally fucked up capitalistic agenda by condoning the crooked practices of selfish, money-hungry hedonists.

    But... I digress. What was the issue now?