Violence over the health care bill?

[KindOfAGeek]

I've seen in the news that Democrat lawmakers are now facing death threats and vandalism over their stance on the health care bill.

I was just wondering what people's opinions on this are, especially those of you who are very vocal about your disagreement with the bill.

Personally I think it is outrageous. These people should be putting their energies towards showing their disapproval through the system, and try and get the bill repealed. Anyone who resorts to violence for this sort of thing should be arrested and charged for it. Also won't it just increase sympathy for the Democrats who supported it, thereby increasing support for the bill?

[gotc147]

The system is broken, this is not the America that was created by the founing fathers back in the day, we've allowed a political machine to gain too much power and now, despite the fact that it is supposed to give us what we want, it gives us what it wants instead.

It doesn't matter if the blue senators think this is best for us, even if they are correct in their thoughts. We don't want it, and according to how things are supposed to work, if that is the case, we shouldn't get it.

You see the federal senators and the president are much like employees for the majority of the public, and the boss is supposed to get what he wants and if he doesn't the employee(s) who don't give him what he wants are usually fired.

I have no issues whatsoever with rocks being thrown through windshields or new pinstripes being put on senator's cars by keys, they deserve that, that's what they get for not listening to the people who gave them their power. Death threats in reality are just words, it is not time to act on such things but if the government keeps going in the direction it is I fear it is a big possibility that it will one day come to a second civil war.

You made a comment about using the political system to get the bill repealed, how can we do that? It takes years for such things to happen and all the democrats (and probably the courts) have been paid off to get this thing passed, 13 states have already filed lawsuits but do you think they're going to go anywhere? The only way this is going to get repealed the policial way is through an evil just as bad as what got it passed: Having the senate overrun by republicans and a republican president. Such a thing is just as much of a plauge on this country as having a democrat president with a senate overrun by democrats.

Remember November, and that goes for ALL federal senators because that November comes along every 4 years.

[DanielSan]

When you have a 2 party system it will always fail....every 4 years we endure 4 more years of biased politcs...MORE POWER TO THE STATES LESS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

[Professor_Zoom]

I really do find it kind of humorous. I bet all these brick throwers all say that Obama is a socialist and compare him to Hitler and the Nazis. I find it funny because if my knowledge of history serves me right, I believe that it was the Nazis and their supporters who were throwing bricks at Jewish establishment and making threats. Didn't they want their country back? Did that have anything to do with them being socialists or not? What is happening right now is not the way to get things done and it is borderline terrorism. Think with your heads for a minute. Look at what goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan before elections. The extremeist come out and start making threats. They say you better not vote or else this or that will happen. Doesn't what we've heard this week sound a lot like that? Don't think that just because we are in the United States that we are immune to what happens in other countries. Some people when they say revolution, yeah they mean a quiet revolution. You need to watch your words though because there are people who do take that sh*t seriously and do not want a quiet revolution. If you don't like the way things are going, then you get out there and vote. Hold the people in office accountable. You do not make threats or act out in violence. If we don't watch ourselves, we're going to eventually make everything about what Igor Panarin said about us last year true.

[DanielSan]

Yor a fag

[KindOfAGeek]

@ DanielSan You suck at commentary, try countering arguments instead of insulting.

[Delahatesyou]

Actually Stalin or Lenin would be more accurate.

[Professor_Zoom]

Whoa, tough talk DanielSan. Is that all you got little boy?

[DanielSan]

Well obviously mr. question asker your not really interested in what the majority of american people really think and you do not understand the implication of this bill and therefore have no clue why it might potentially lead to violence and proffesor zoom isn't interested in reality.

[KindOfAGeek]

I'm quite interested in what people think, why else do you think I asked the question? It was specifically to find out what people think about this. It seems that you are the one who is in fact having trouble accepting other peoples opinions, if you can't listen to one you don't like without insulting them. In fact, it makes you look rather petty and immature.

[Professor_Zoom]

See DanielSan, I knew you could give a better answer than "Yor a fag." Now, I understand the implication of this bill more than you want to realize. Believe me, I have a very firm grasp on reality and a bill like this is no reason to get violent. It just shows a utter lack of ignorance and fear. You say that I don't understand the implications of this bill, so tell me this, how many people do you know who take advantage of Social Security and Medicare benefits?

[DanielSan]

The american people resort to war and violence only in extreme cases and only when they feel their rights (which people fought and died for) are being violated.

It should become very apparent to the House and the Senate and The President that this bill is NOT something the people want. It should also become clear that we feel it is a great violation of our rights and also an encroachment into the freedoms of the american people.

Should we try an use a system that obviously does not care for our opinion? Well that is a choice all must make. The country of Britian once thought it could make any laws it like and not have to listen to what the Majority said...well they found out the hard way.

I love my country but somethings must be decided with blood. This health care bill reminds me of the line in star wars as the senate cheers the declaration of tyrany by Palpatine.

"So this is how liberty dies; With Thunderous applause."

As all the senators and representative congradulate themselves and pat themselves on the back...they forget the population that put them in power.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

[Camilus]

....or we can just have another "tea party" like they had last year. Nothing shows the government that we are p*ssed off and mean business by littering D.C. with perfectly good bags of tea.

[DanielSan]

Hahaha true...im talking revolution...(and it could be peaceful...just impeachment or something) only as a last resort. I think the tea partys and sueing and stuff is working ok atm...but the government needs to know were not their herd of sheep. We put them there and by our will they remain in power.

[Professor_Zoom]

"Somethings must be decided with blood" Do you really mean that?

[DanielSan]

No I was just bullsh*tting...of course I believe it. We didn't get independence through UN talks did we?

[Anonymous]

I don't believe personally that it's the bill its self that is causing this outrage. I think the outrage is coming from the way the entire thing has taken place. There's been such a divide over the health care bill; more against it that for that when they (gov't) pushed it forward without listening to the people it's cause a great deal of fear. For example if they can do this to health care against most wishes what's to stop them(gov't) from pushing anything else through that will limit your rights at all. I found it very interesting that Obama stated that he would wait 5 days after the bill passed before he signed it so that American people could review it. It passed Sunday night and he signed it Tuesday. It appears to me that government overall is not working for the people any more. It's become a great matter of power and money now. In the state of the way things are now why doesn't it make sense the violence would be a solution to the recent outcomes? People are loosing their homes, jobs, families, and the country is always at risk now the enconomy is major lacking and those individuals in government can't get anything done without agruements, bickering, lies, or divide. If history remembers me correctly that one of the reasons that the civil war began in earnest. Maybe it will take yet another home front war in a civil matter to take place before our government gets a wake up call. Their not taking responsibility for their actions and people are tired of it. Sometimes we make war for peace. War is full of violence, however a governemt that "rules" the people creates their own war. So in my opinion let happen whatever happens...they need to go one way or another.

[moaterboat]

I think that all Canadian commies should stick to their own business. The Health care bill is a clear violation of peoples rights, it is the unofficial policy of the United States that once a government begins to violate the rights of its citizens , the citizens have a right, in fact a responsibility, to take whatever actions are necessary to secure their freedoms. If that means a few bloated, corrupt, politicians have to die in the process, so be it, they should have known better than to try and take away an Americans freedom.

[KindOfAGeek]

Wow, I posted that six months ago, didn't expect to get any more responses, oh well.

First, I'd like you to point out to me exactly where it violates peoples rights to be guaranteed health care if they need it. I also don't see how this is taking away anyone's freedom, except the freedom to die or be deeply in debt because you can't afford medical procedures.

[KindOfAGeek]

Also, when it comes to governance, there is no such thing as an "unofficial policy". If it's meant to be law, it is written down. The citizens have a right to the freedoms given to you by law, and a responsibility to follow the limitations on those freedoms. What you are talking about is more like assassination and rebellion, which are no ones rights or responsibilities.

[moaterboat]

Yeah some issues stick in my craw for quite some time, anyway, the healthcare bill FORCES people to purchase a service they may not want. and there is no "right to be guaranteed health care"

Also, I guess you could call it an official policy as this is the exact sentiment laid out in the declaration of independence. Which states that rebellion IS a responsibility whenever governments overstep their bounds and make slaves of free men.

[KindOfAGeek]

Yes, it requires people to buy health coverage, but it also ensures that people who were previously unable to afford coverage will be able to. Also, it will do other things like stopping insurance companies from dropping coverage on people who become sick. something like 30 million people who weren't covered before will be given coverage by 2014.

[KindOfAGeek]

In a country where it's estimated that anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 people die each year because they don't have insurance, I'd say that's an improvement.

And also, the Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration of independence from Great Britain, not permission to overthrow the government if they start doing what you don't want them to. I would also call it quite a stretch to say that what either Obama or King George were doing was "making slaves of free men".

[moaterboat]

Regarding the deaths, so what? Even more people would be saved if we instituted a nation wide curfew, or completely banned alcohol. There is always a trade-off between safety and freedom, and the U.S. was founded on the belief that freedom is the more important of those two options.

If you don't understand what slavery means, I will not waste my time trying to explain it to you. You don't see the chains, but you wear them nonetheless.

[KindOfAGeek]

Every law is a trade-off between loss of freedoms and public safety. In this case, the amount of freedom lost is so little that it is definitely worth the saved lives.

Also, don't insult my intelligence, explain your position, don't tell me that I "don't understand" slavery. From where I'm standing it looks like you have NO idea what it means.

[moaterboat]

Oh boy, where to begin, okay first of all you say that the loss of freedom is worth it, I would love to know what gives you the authority over me to decide how much freedom I should give up to make my life more safe. How can you, or any other person, claim to have that power over me? The fact is Freedom is intangible, it can't be measured so there is no way for you, or anyone else to make a call regarding how much we can all give up.

[moaterboat]

I refused to go into detail regarding the slavery comment, not because I don't think you can understand simple concepts but because something like that doesn't lend itself well to a 500 character or less response. I still believe this but I will try with a very, very, abridged version in hopes of opening your eyes. Slavery means you don't live entirely for yourself, you are forced, through threat of violence, to submit time, and personal property to another for that persons benefit.

[KindOfAGeek]

Nothing gives me the freedom to decide that, to me it just seems to be common sense. however, the constitution of the United States gives your government the power to decide that. And you are right that it is difficult, if not impossible to "measure" freedom, yet there are definitely greater losses of freedom than others. I would say the loss of choosing to have health insurance or not is a fairly minor one, and even beneficial for more people.

[KindOfAGeek]

By your definition of slavery, any sort of government makes slaves of it's citizens. While the limitations imposed by government do take away some freedoms, they are by far preferable to life without any sort of governance at all. I guess by building on your definition I would say that slavery is when the government takes away freedom of choice only for it's own benefit, where good government takes away choice for the benefit of as many people as possible, which is what is happening here.

[moaterboat]

Now we are getting somewhere, First of all the constitution DOESN'T give the government the authority to take control of an entire industry and force every citizen to utilize said industry. Second, you say that loosing the choice in whether or note to buy health insurance is a minor one. (I completely disagree that's hundreds of dollars every year, not a small amount) but regardless YOUR measure of the importance of that freedom is inconsequential...

[moaterboat]

..because you can't decide how important that is for other people. You say that it benefits more people, who exactly does it benefit? The people who have and want health insurance aren't affected by that policy, the only people affected are the people who don't want it so it benefits no one. You said that by my definition "any sort of government makes slaves of its citizens" I would say that this is true for every government we currently have in place.

[moaterboat]

And that is really the main issue, we have yet to create a government that doesn't have the ability to enslave the populace it is meant to serve. The biggest problem with this is that so few people even realize that they are essentially slaves that are treated well. I would have to say that your definition is flawed based on one simple fact, you say that a good government takes away choice when it is for the benefit of as many people is possible.

[moaterboat]

Here's where that is wrong, government doesn't need to protect the majority, it is instituted to protect the MINORITY. If you want to protect the majority, you don't need government, all you need is mob rule and you get what the majority wants all the time, my country was created as a republic specifically to avoid this situation, and to protect the rights of all, but in particular to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. Recently however, with the advancement of...

[moaterboat]

Populist agendas, the gov't has become a massive tool used to bring the minority in line with the majority for the "greater good". The end result is that everyone ends up giving up some sort of freedom to make it easier for his neighbor, we become slaves of each other, spending our lives living for others and not for ourselves. THAT is the crux of the issue, that is why the health care bill is immoral, and THAT'S why I believe in freedom and ANY price.

May your chains rest lightly upon you.

[KindOfAGeek]

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Speaking as someone who lives in a country where everyone is forced to pay taxes to support socialized health care, I'm saying that it is more than worthwhile. It is also my view that governments are there to protect as many people as possible, that is pretty much the nature of democracy, which is in fact just glorified mob rule. As the saying goes "democracy is the worst type of governance, apart from all the other ones."

[KindOfAGeek]

Anyways, my point is pretty much that the only way to live without government imposition and "slavery" is to live without government at all. I believe that the cost of government is more than reasonable to prevent the chaos that would reign if it weren't there. There are even examples of this within the old American health care system, where insurance companies would abuse the system, something that is much harder to do with government control.

[moaterboat]

Yes democracy is mob rule, which is why the U.S. was made a republic. I disagree that it would be impossible to create a government that only protects freedoms without limiting them, but since it has never been done I don't have any proof. People think that government is the only thing standing between civilization and chaos, I disagree. people break laws whenever they can, laws don't govern peoples actions, their own moral code does that.

[moaterboat]

As for our old health care system, the biggest problem with that was the government regulation that was already in place. It is no surprise that one of the most regulated industries was also one of the most messed up. Common sense points to the regulation being the problem, but that is not how things go when the government's only goal is to increase its power and control over the citizens it is supposed to keep free. So we got even more regulation, which will lead to more problems.

[Delahatesyou]

Going through the system... you mean by voting, which they can't do for another 8 months. How about opinion polls which show a majority of Americans were opposed to it? How else do you expect people to act, they're going to get mad at this dem administration.

The news organizations are trying to make it sound like the entire movement is violent, which is BS. There are always a few nuts in the crowd, just like during corporation bailout/ bonuses. Btw don't even try to relate this to when you lefties were out of power and would go protest at funerals of soldiers or burn flags. Death threats were the least of the liberals protest techniques.

You can't get this type of reform appealed, you can only draw back certain parts of it, or without money.

I think this whole socialized healthcare is BS.

[DanielSan]

Hear hear

[martyfellow]

Repubs are scared of the precedent it sets, and scared that it may cost the money they want to waste on invading other countries, setting up warlords, and the costs of the drug problem these wars will craete.

[blah52]

The way it was passed proves the system doesn't work, so people feel the need to act outside the system.

[Blackkid]

I think it's a good thing. At least people are politically active, albeit they aren't exactly bright when it comes to methodology.

[Camilus]

Wake me up when the next civil war starts...

[Anonymous]

You need a plebiscite...