Mass CRUSHES freedom
Now everyone knows that Massachusetts is a very liberal place. They keep electing Ted Kennedy, so that much should be obvious. In order to get elected, you HAVE to be a liberal -- it's just required, no matter if you put a "D" or an "R" after your name. Governor Mitt Romney proves that by agreeing to an incredibly anti-freedom bill.
The socialists in Massachusetts are really celebrating. They're also helping to ensure that I will never, ever, live or do business in that state (which is how states are supposed to work, by the way) -- but I also want to stop my money from flowing into the state via federal dollars. The bill REQUIRES all citizens of Massachusetts to have health insurance, even if you do not want it. That's completely wrong. And yes, it really does DEMAND that you get health insurance -- if you do not, you will actually be FINED by the state! Yes, the state of Massachusetts is going to FINE you if you do not spend your money the way they tell you to. State Senator Richard T. Moore, celebrating the state takeover of individuals, says, "I think every member of the Legislature will be able to be very proud of [the bill]." How utterly insane is that? In case you missed it:The State of Massachusetts is Determining how you spend your money. If you do not spend YOUR money the way they demand, YOU WILL BE FINED.
And yes, of course, if the state determines that you do not make "enough" money, they will be glad to force someone ELSE to pay for your involuntary health insurance. Article I of the Massachusetts Constitution says:
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.
That clearly doesn't apply here. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the ACLU to jump on in here to defend these people's rights -- but if the ACLU were actually interested in civil rights, this would be a perfect case. If people have the right to "acquire, possess, and protect property," then how does the state have the right to demand that property be spent in certain ways? But hey, if you're a lazy bum, feel free to head on over to Massachusetts -- you get all the free healthcare you want. And if you're a working person, you really should get the heck out while the state will still let you.
Comments
1
Mass. the next haven for illegal immigrants?
Posted by: oddybobo at April 04, 2006 04:34 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Could be, rabbit, could be...
Posted by: Ogre at April 04, 2006 04:42 PM (/k+l4)
3
LOL...and they will probably set up some sort of tax payer-funded way to pay your fine!
I hate MA.
I hate MA.
Posted by: Raven at April 04, 2006 08:19 PM (RGNwu)
4
This whole post is an ad-hominem fallacy first of all, you cant ignore an idea simply because of who said it. Second of all this bill is a landmark for americans who understand that everybody deserves healthcare regardless of your income bracket. I, the working man of Massachusetts, have no problem helping people who need it. Also, as an educated working man of Mass., I understand that this bill will provide economic benefit for everybody. It is a great compromise and I hope we can see something similar on a national scale. Finally, define freedom ogre. Fiscal freedom? Social freedom? Spiritual freedom? When you say something as general and ridiculous as Mass. hate freedom it just hurts your overall point. The Bay State, the birthplace of the revolution, a beacon of history, education, and healthcare.
Posted by: Brian at April 04, 2006 08:32 PM (dk5LX)
5
I wasn't complaining about it because of who "said" it, I was complaining about the anti-freedom law, no matter WHO said it.
Who are you to DEMAND that I "deserve" health care AND should be REQUIRED, upon penalty of jail, to purchase it?
If you want to help people, you certainly may. I have no problem with that. However, YOU are not helping people -- YOU are FORCING ME, using the power of government, to help others, no matter what *I* desire.
The "economic benefit?" Sorry, but no. The "benefit" will go to government because they will get more money and more control. People will not.
Freedom? Didn't you read the post? I would like the freedom to spend the money that *I* earn. If I lived in Massachusetts, I would not have that freedom. Massachusetts might have been about freedom once, but you have provided no argument that this bill does anything but destroy freedom and freedom of choice.
Who are you to DEMAND that I "deserve" health care AND should be REQUIRED, upon penalty of jail, to purchase it?
If you want to help people, you certainly may. I have no problem with that. However, YOU are not helping people -- YOU are FORCING ME, using the power of government, to help others, no matter what *I* desire.
The "economic benefit?" Sorry, but no. The "benefit" will go to government because they will get more money and more control. People will not.
Freedom? Didn't you read the post? I would like the freedom to spend the money that *I* earn. If I lived in Massachusetts, I would not have that freedom. Massachusetts might have been about freedom once, but you have provided no argument that this bill does anything but destroy freedom and freedom of choice.
Posted by: Ogre at April 04, 2006 09:07 PM (2eMZT)
6
Jeesh, Ogre, we're full up with lazy bums now - look at our All Dem, All the Time Congressional Delegation! BTW - we've had problems with Brazilian and Haitian illegals for years, so news there.
The rationale behind the plan - and I'm not wild about it - is that every other solution offered has involved a surcharge on empoyers, general tax, etc. And we DO pay now, through the Uncompensated Care Pool which funds hospital emergency rooms.
Instead of just whacking businesses again, for the first time, this places the responsibility on the INDIVIDUAL to provide for their own health insurance. When I was an agent (full disclosure) all the twenty-somethings who thought they were invincible refused the coverage - until they fell off a roof or something and wound up in...the Uncompensated Care Pool, wich was a taxpayer black hole.
I realize it violates libertarian principles to be forced to purchase coverage - but hospitals cannot turn you away and this is a damn sight better than the usual 'soak the business' solution.
The rationale behind the plan - and I'm not wild about it - is that every other solution offered has involved a surcharge on empoyers, general tax, etc. And we DO pay now, through the Uncompensated Care Pool which funds hospital emergency rooms.
Instead of just whacking businesses again, for the first time, this places the responsibility on the INDIVIDUAL to provide for their own health insurance. When I was an agent (full disclosure) all the twenty-somethings who thought they were invincible refused the coverage - until they fell off a roof or something and wound up in...the Uncompensated Care Pool, wich was a taxpayer black hole.
I realize it violates libertarian principles to be forced to purchase coverage - but hospitals cannot turn you away and this is a damn sight better than the usual 'soak the business' solution.
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at April 05, 2006 01:56 AM (QQoCe)
7
I'm not sure it's better than that solution, Peter, but it's most certainly WRONG. You've fallen into the liberal trap of accepting what government does as good and right when in reality government should STOP what it's doing that is wrong!
Thanks for more on the background!
Thanks for more on the background!
Posted by: Ogre at April 05, 2006 11:27 AM (/k+l4)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0099 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0078 seconds, 15 records returned.
Page size 9 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.