There's way too many threads scattered all over this site [*] - this is for all of them. This is a pretty neat and universal retort to all of the lunatics that consider healthcare reform tantamount to a communist takeover. I've reproduced the whole thing instead of the usual minimal snippet, because it deserves it, and you can just copy and paste it for any cretins that choose to pollute your mailbox -

Freepers, Birthers, Morons of all stripe, You didn't get mad...

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well fuck that. That about right? You know it is.

You people have all lost your fucking minds. You are selfish, greedy, obnoxious, narcissistic, and frankly... stupid. Your pathetic little misspelled protest signs are embarrassing. Maybe you ought to find the smart person in your midst and let them make up all the signs, cause man, you look like a bunch of idiots. Also you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

[*] Really, what's so difficult in sacrificing 3 seconds of your life to see if what you're posting is in an existing thread (or 20) ? Oh, I see, you're opinion is more important than their's and needs a thread of it's own. That and its beneath you to check. OK. My apologies then.

Tags: brownshirts, communism, healthcare, hysteria, insanity, obama, rabies, reform, socialism, stupidity, More…uhc

Views: 42

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And something even simpler -

Well illustrated.
Fukin' A

That'll do Felch, That'll do
"Unfortunately, they're stranded in a reality and they're going to be angry until they're dead"
((( Hugs JSH )))

And that's the rub right there; the stereotype that if you're poor it must be because you're lazy, drunk, immoral, a bad worker, a bad person, and of course godless.

To be fair, some people are poor because of that. I have a family member or three I can point to even. But then there are those who simply were dealt a bad hand. Yours was poor dental care. Mine was Autism (i.e.; severe allergy to workplace politics). To this day much of my family thinks I'm poor due to money mismanagement. No matter how much I ask them, "How? How have I mismanaged? I've never had enough money to mismanage!"

I've lucked out though that I've always managed to find dental care, despite my own struggle with an inherited enamel disease. My current solution; I get all my dental work done in Mexico. Costs half as much without insurance as it does in the U.S. with insurance and I get better care. Even got some preventative tips for the first time ... and they're working! Next episode, I'll gush on and on about how much I love my Mexico MD.

Viva Mexico!
Come on Jac - tell us how you really feel!

Like I said, the truly sad thing is that my friend is in a very similar boat as you. Disabled/borderline disabled, IQ in the outer stratosphere but barely hirable for a number of social-class reasons that are no fault of her own. And yet she somehow has bought into the Lord of the Flies, Each-Man-Is-An-Island, Individualistic mentality. I'm used to seeing Christians shrug off their condition with, "Well, I guess this is just what God has planned for me..." but I have to say this is the first time I've seen such behavior in an Atheist. I wonder if she just got so cynical that it turned in on herself?

Anyway, she and I have about had to reach that point of agree-to-disagree on moral grounds. Morally, I think it is fair for a society to ask, and if need be force, an individual to give a small percentage of their take back to the community.** My friend thinks it is not; if the rich person chooses to give, they can, but we can not make them give.

Thing is, like you point out, that can only equate to one thing: The poor are less deserving of life than the rich. Few, my friend included, will ever say that out loud or so bluntly but it's the ugly truth. You see a child drowning in a lake and you have a lifering that will save her life. Do you throw it to the child regardless? Or do you first find out what the child or its parents will pay you for the lifering and base your decision on that?

No difference in my mind. If we are entitled to a taxpayer funded police department, fire department, school, then it only stands to reason we are entitled to basic health care.

**Adding a qualifier: I'm all for a healthy degree of capitalism. If you come up with the next Sham-Wow and make 10 million dollars, more power to you. But don't go bitching that you can't live in your 30% tax bracket.
I'm lucky that my rotten teeth are molars, but they are growing worse every month. I don't think I could stand it if they were in the front of my mouth.
"The ones bitching are largely white well-off males who aren't walking around with rotting/broken/missing teeth because they're lucky enough to be able to AFFORD health and dental care (did you notice that?)."

The really scary thing is the number of non white-well-off-males who are also being conned into protesting health reform. As we speak I've been in a heated Facebook debate with a friend over this. She is dirt poor and just this side of disabled ... and an atheist even ... and somehow still buys into the dogma that if you're poor that's not someone else's 'problem.'

Problem? No. But moral obligation to chip in a few pennies to help? I think so.

She's of the far-right belief in no taxes at all and all social services are evil commie plots. Of course, she engages in this online debate using the free Internet at the public library.

By your definition, I am probably one of the "haves". I work for a hi-tech firm that subsidizes my health care insurance. From my gross wages, I pay over $800 a month for medical (Blue Cross), dental and eye insurance for myself, wife and two kids. The company kicks in a further $400 per month. There are still co-pays for doctor visits and Rx's. It's far from free and a decent percentage of my income. (I realize not nearly as much as if I didn't have insurance and require medical attention.)

If the quality and level of care would not change, I would vote for that $1200 going into a government run plan to cover everyone. My wife is from Hull, England. I saw with my own eyes both her father and mother die without much effort from the National Health people to extend their lives. They were both in their early 60's. A couple years prior to his death, my father-in-law waited 10 months for a heart bypass operation. Her brother waited for 3 months to get an MRI on his knee and another 2 months to get operated on. If this is the quality of care a national plan gets you, I'll keep paying for my own plan.

When it comes to dental care, my 11 year old son will require braces in about a year or two. He's got my crooked teeth. My co-payment for it is estimated at $2600. As it stands, I can't afford this. Should I then be required to pay higher taxes so everyone can get their teeth straightened also? (Unless it's free for my kid too and I don't have to come up with $2600.)

I won't apologize for being a "have". I worked my ass off to pay for my B.S.M.E. degree and did get "lucky" when my first employer paid for the tuition and I earned a Masters in Management. I still work very hard to provide for my family and pay a decent amount in taxes. I believe in "promote the general welfare" in the Constitution and will be willing to pay something extra to help uninsured people (especially kids and unemployed). I'm all for controlling costs, regulating the insurance companies, reducing the lawsuits, and eliminating "pre-existing conditions".

I don't fault anyone for being in the situation they're in. However, I don't want to be faulted or penalized for the situation I worked hard to get to.

Please be gentle... I'm just trying to explain my viewpoint.
Hi Dave - not Jacqueline here. ;-)

Like I said, I for one begrudge no one their hard-earned dollars. My beef is with the stereotype that we can measure a person's morality, integrity, work ethic and value as a person strictly by how much money they have/earn. Some do indeed come by that money honestly and deservedly so. Some lie, flirt, cheat and steal their way into it. Some are poor because they really won't get off their lazy asses and get a job. Some who have fantastic skills and work ethic are poor through other circumstances beyond their control.

And back to health care, you are an example of another thing wrong with our system; what you are paying for health care is more than I even make. Over half the bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical costs and over half of those are insured.

The plan being proposed is not a kill-the-private-insurers/UK style NHS. We can't just snap our fingers and do that no matter how much we wanted to. What's being proposed is simply an affordable public insurance option to compete with the private ones. It's not even government-run hospitals and clinics like the VA, but more like Medicare. Same doctors as you, same hospitals as you, only the insurance company footing my bill is Government Inc instead of Kaiser. Since Government Inc is non-profit their overhead is a hell of a lot less than Kaiser's and thus they would be less expensive.

Less expensive option = competition = lots of insurance companies whining that their profits will go from insane to merely gargantuan because they'll have to lower your premium to something slightly less inhumane.

And this reform bill addresses some of the slimier practices. Ironic that the groups whipping up scare tactics like denying coverage to Palin's Down's Syndrome kid, money men deciding whether or not you can have that operation and pulling the plug on grandma ... actually do deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions like Down's Syndrome, actually do deem that expensive operation unnecessary and actually do seek to pull the plug on grandma.

At least on paper the bill is attempting to address these things. In practice, how often does a grand government plan go off without a hitch? Change is scary and this is big change we're talking about. If this gets passed it won't be without its fair share of growing pains. But I predict that 40 years from now, much the same way you and I see Medicare and Social Security, our grandkids won't be able to imagine a world without that public option and will wonder what all the Socialist-Commie-Boogyman-The-Sky-Is-Falling fuss was about.
According to Kaiser Permanente's web site, they are not-for-profit.

Other than that, I pretty much have to agree with Jacqueline's and Mary's points of view. Health care is so fundamental to a person's ability to participate in a modern society that it's simply immoral to blame somebody for not being able to afford it. And, of course, the more people in the risk pool (like, 100% of everybody), the lower the cost per person, even though overall expenses would be higher.

Universal health coverage really is a classic win-win in the same way that public education is: You yourself are better off if you help pay for an even playing field. It is in one's own best interest to see that one's neighbors are healthy and educated, since that is by far the most humane and cost-effective way to ensure their peaceful participation in society.

This could really hardly be more obvious, and yet fear, selfishness, and mistrust continually trump the greater good. So much so that people on the right just make shit up to scare themselves more. From weapons of mass destruction to death panels, fear continues to goad people into working against their own best interests.
Jason rightfully points out: "According to Kaiser Permanente's web site, they are not-for-profit."

You're right. In the heat of the moment and lateness of the evening I named the first insurance company that came to mind. There are indeed non-profits out there which, while still outrageously expensive, aren't nearly so as the for-profit.

On the rest of your post, my point exactly. It's so easy to say the health of the homeless drunk on the other side of town has no effect on me and isn't my problem. But it does. And it is. Perhaps to a very small degree or perhaps to a very large one.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



Latest Activity

Future replied to jay H's discussion What the freakin hell is wrong with this country???
1 hour ago
Loren Miller replied to jay H's discussion What the freakin hell is wrong with this country???
1 hour ago
Michael Penn commented on nikki summers's blog post atheist billboard
1 hour ago
Michael Penn replied to jay H's discussion What the freakin hell is wrong with this country???
1 hour ago
John Jubinsky posted photos
2 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's blog post Is god good?
2 hours ago
Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
5 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
6 hours ago
Grinning Cat replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
6 hours ago
Luara replied to Daniel W's discussion Are same sex marriages more stable than so-called traditional marriages? in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
6 hours ago
sk8eycat replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The Bible is not Great by Soren Sagan in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
7 hours ago
Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina on "Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
7 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service