Fightingatheist, I'm so dissapointed in you...

[VectorM]

He's not the only one:
[yt]pkKPtUywY-8[/yt]

I'm very very very disappointed in ZOMGitsCriss for taking part in this.
Someone as smart as her should know better.
That goes for everyone one of the people in this video for that matter.

Dude, she is a fan of Immendham...

She really is smart, but c'mon, Immendham? Give me a brake. I have no idea how any sane person can enjoy that crap.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

My reply to that one...

"So let me get this straight...you don't subscribe to the idea of us needing an almighty god to run our lives but you do subscribe to the theory of an almighty authority to run healthcare and whatever else?

Ugh...an atheist in name alone methinks. "

That should get a reaction.  ^^

I need to come up with a term for these people.  The ones who jumped on the atheism train but still subscribe to statist dogma, implying they completely missed the point of what atheism is really all about.  Fashion atheists?

[LuminousMonkey]

It also makes the point that it's cruel you can't buy insurance after the fact.  Geez, do they think you could buy home insurance after your house burns down?

What I don't get though, is they always seem to be against people being able to opt-out.  I mean, sure, have the option, but why not let people who don't want it opt-out and not pay the tax associated with it then?

Or wouldn't that work anyway?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Because they know that would expose their little pet law for what it is: imposing their idea on others.

[valvatica]

I like that the video illustrates the idiocy in both lines of thinking: It shows how messed up believing in universal health care AND supporting the current corporatist system is. It's too much of a false dichotomy because if you say you're against universal health care people think it can only mean you're satisfied with the current system. There should be neither. There should be people coming together and raising money without any kind of middle men involved.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Well, none can say that I'm not sporting.  Since the statists hate economical arguments, I made a new lecture vid using only arguments of morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvEC71m7j4g

[yt]pvEC71m7j4g[/yt]

[valvatica]

Great video, but regarding doctors being forced to provide these services under UHC... would it apply to all doctors, period? I was always under the impression that only the doctors participating in it would have to to provide unconditional services, while doctors who remain private don't.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Private clinics get harrassed by our government constantly.  They set as many regulations as they can to keep those competitors down.

In many cases the clinics are technically illegal.  Yet they thrive anyway.  Yes that's right.  In Canada, some people break the law to get the care they need.  What a farce...

[Lord T Hawkeye]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/10/ten-wrong-reasons-to-oppose-health-reform/

Sigh...come on apologists, at least TRY to look honest.  -_-

[MrBogosity]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/10/ten-wrong-reasons-to-oppose-health-reform/

Sigh...come on apologists, at least TRY to look honest.  -_-

Hmph. She didn't even TRY to answer the question in #5. She gave other examples where government did something similar, but did NOTHING to show that it's constitutional.

Anyway, all she did was attack a bunch of strawmen. She didn't even cover our REAL concern, which is that it's more of the same corporatism that has made health care such an expensive mess today. Examples:

"Private insurance companies would not only survive under this bill, they would get millions of new customers. That doesn't sound like socialism."

No, it sounds like CORPORATISM. Which is a form of fascism.

"The bill is, in fact, designed to preserve employer-based health benefits and the private insurance industry."

Except that a) tying health insurance to employment is a big part of the problem, and b) it still forces us into the insurance industry instead of bringing back the other options that used to exist before government started meddling.

Also, #4 shows she just doesn't understand reconciliation. It's ONLY supposed to be for budget bills, and even then ONLY when the actual amounts budgeted are different. Neither of those restrictions apply.

If this is the best they can do to defend their hideous boondoggle, they've lost the argument. By far.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

If this is the best they can do to defend their hideous boondoggle, they've lost the argument. By far.

Sadly as we've all learned, when promoting flim flam, you can lose all the battles and still win the war.

[Gumba Masta]

Whoah, fascism, for reals?

[Travis Retriever]

I need to come up with a term for these people.  The ones who jumped on the atheism train but still subscribe to statist dogma, implying they completely missed the point of what atheism is really all about.  Fashion atheists?

InTheEndIWasRight calls them Statheists.