Will the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment Sink Obamacare?

[Horus8305]

If this goes to the SC, and they rule in favor - striking down compulsory participation - what does this do for the Social Security System, which feigns voluntary participation?

[bschinzel]

This guy is obviously from the first wave of the tea party and not some left over brain dead republi-beck tard

[mcoop221]

STOP asking if the TP can learn anything from OWS and START asking if OWS can learn anything from the TP.

OWS claims to have a ton of Libertarians in their ranks. I disagree. If if is true, the party is in real trouble.

If they had any brains, they would pack up, go home and reorganize into (a) TP type organization(s) and effect change that way.

The TP is working behind he scenes right now while we watch this carnage in the streets.

[GOPsithlord]

As an Ohio resident living abroad right now, I am feeling REALLY guilty not having gotten my abscentee ballot this year. Sorry Chris, hope you can forgive me.

[audioblogs12]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...

Could the amendment be considered Ex Post Facto? Would it make the healthcare bill illegal after the crime was already committed, or would it declare that it was always and would always be a crime for the feds to mandate individual health care?

bonus question: Can you name the movie that this dialogue (which is the best that I could remember it) comes from:

"We licence people to drive"

"Yes, but not to live."

[Timasion]

@audioblogs12 Ex post facto laws typically apply to criminal offenses. This isn't criminal offense.

X-Men.

[joey3469]

I don't understand how any sane person could be against tax funded universal healthcare? My only possible explanation could be the rugged individualism in the American national psyche.

[crazypants88]

@joey3469 I'm against it and I'm not from the USA.

[bluefootedpig]

@joey3469 when you eat at an all you can eat buffet, do you ever over eat? if you understand why most people over eat at the all you can eat buffet, you will understand why universal healthcare is not a wise idea.

[032125]

@joey3469 If it seems that a view is insane it's because you're looking at conclusions rather than premises. There are economic and philosophical principles that undergird the opposition to universal healthcare that you are either unaware of, or do not understand or agree with. The conclusion extrapolated form our data set is that universal healthcare will not be universal, healthy, or caring. There are no angels that will descend to administer universal healthcare; only an army of bureaucrats.

[joey3469]

@032125

Presumably you mean the NAP and Mises' economics. I would never agree with a system that let's people die to make way for consumer choice/individual responsibility. How can someones perception of liberty (no public option) be more important than whether someone actually is allowed to live due to how much money they have, what about their freedom?

That was exactly the same retarded argument the Tories used against Nye Bevan in the 40s. They were wrong as now they dare not touch the NHS.

[032125]

@joey3469 Presumably you see the strange dualism of appealing to our sense of charity to convince us to institute a system of coerced charity, while positing the notion that without a gun to our heads we'd never be charitable. The great statist non sequitur is the belief that because we need society, we need coercion.

Humans are natively social, naturally charitable animals. The greatest explosion of charity in human history came in the US in the 1800s, when people were free, not forced to give

[joey3469]

@032125

Are you nuts? In the 1800s and before the safety net of the modern welfare state, people used to die in the streets. It's all nice to say we'll rely on voluntary cooperation but without the legislation there is no way to guarantee everyone's wellbeing.

Oh no I have to have to give some of my money to someone else, how coercive and oppressive! Pathetic. I don't even buy the whole gun to your head shite either because I'm against the death penalty and police brutality.

[032125]

@joey3469 Your ad hominem attacks indicate you are too emotional about this to see reason, but I will make one last attempt. In the 1800s in the US, when there was no coercive wealth redistribution, private charity exploded along with the standard of living. This is a fact.

If you truly are morally opposed to the initiation of force, you would oppose coercive wealth redistribution. It is false charity to rob a man and hand his wallet to another. It is violence, no matter how you justify it.

[032125]

@joey3469 Charity without coercion: 1833 St. Vincent de Paul Society 1835 Boston Society for the Prevention of Pauperism 1843 New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor 1844 The Young Men’s Christian Association 1853 Children’s Aid Society 1861 Freedmen’s Aid Societies 1846 The American Missionary Association 1863 The Red Cross movement 1866 Young Women’s Christian Association 1869 Charity Organization Society 1874 National Conference on Social Welfare 1878 Salvation Army

[032125]

Yet more voluntary charity from the era when "people used to die in the streets"

1884 Toynbee Hall

1886 Neighborhood Guild, NY

1889 Hull House

1890 The Consumer’s League

1898 The New York School of Philanthropy

1899 The Institute for Social Welfare Training

[joey3469]

@032125

I didn't deny they existed, I just questioned their effectiveness.

[032125]

@joey3469 That's a valid question, and it's worth looking into. My emphasis when looking at the era is on the destructive results of the Corn Laws and other government/mercantilist policies that caused much of the famines and strife that you referred to. Many of these voluntary social organizations sprang up in response to poverty, war, and social chaos that were the result of statism.

The state creates problems, then prescribes itself as the cure.

[rlj5242]

@joey3469 1. The federal government can spend money on 18 things and healthcare is not one of them. Also, why does your existence put me in debt to you to cover your health insurance?

[BigTex1454]

good interview

[samkurz]

You give a SHIT what the tea party thinks. 

[ProgressiveTeen]

where the heck are your awesome sideburns dude?!

[UtherPendragan]

Of course the system is broken. A bunch of commie hippies are camping out around the country demanding free stuff from the rest of us. Meanwhile the media is making them out to be heros with a noble cause. The tea party was attacked as hafeful racists for no reason at all. These people are openly making racists statements against jews and nobody seems to care.

[DackIsBack]

Go Ohio!! Good luck with the Amendment!

[BDBK666]

3:18 Someone call the cops! Those people look dangerous!!

[ForTehNguyen]

nullification

[Shonenut213]

Bullshit! OWS is NOT anti-bailouts! OWS is just against bailout for banks and corporations. They want to be bailed out themselves for their own mistakes just as much as the corporations they hate.

[JMG9519]

I'm from Ohio, and I want to meet this man.

[desirefirst]

the Supreme Court has way too much power in this country; if it's strictly constitutional then the constitution has a major flaw in it, regardless of whether they agree with me

[JMG9519]

@desirefirst The Supreme Court itself is just a stupid idea. Your guess is as good as mine about how we should interpret The Constitution. Leaving it to a bunch of old guys hand picked by the president can lead to terrible abuses in power.

Like rounding up a bunch of Japanese-American citizens into internment camps. Or saying states can't ban slavery.

[SeppLainer]

REPEAL FASCISM!

[BeantownJim]

End big govt' As for Tea Party?There are no leaders!

[SeppLainer]

@BeantownJim

Ron Paul

[elricmlbone]

OWS is winding down, the MSM's ultra short attention span will move on. The Tea Party needs to get active again and capture the limelight and push their agenda they are too quiet and the sheeple are forgetting about them, Time for Ron Paul and his grassroots to start throwing tea into the water again. They need to shrug off their neo-con co-option, too.

[Thewizzardof9]

It is not health care reform, it is health insurance reform. if you really believed in capitalism you would want free markets in health care and make insurance a thing of the past.

[666sigma]

The system is broken. The difference between the Tea Party and OWS is that the Tea Party wants NO bail outs. They want the free market to rule and gamblers like the Wall Street bankers should live and die by the sword.

Most on OWS want to be bailed out, too. They want to get in on Wall Street's action, but they seem to be too stupid to realize this. They want the government to bail them out instead of Wall Street. It is really that simple.

[ing0lfr]

Smart, down to earth guy.

[chronDiggity]

This guy is great.  Wish more tea partiers emulated him.

[666sigma]

@chronDiggity

He does represent the majority of the Tea Party members. You are listening to the Intolerant Left media. It is really sad that the people have fallen for this bullshit.

No one gives a flying fuck about Obama's skin color. The Tea Party started as rebellion against the GOP and the Neocons that looked, smelled, acted and spent like Democrats. The Tea Party hates Bush. DUH!!!!

[yakyakyak69]

@666sigma The Tea Party Patriots are Libertarians and the original group started by Ron Paul followers.

The Tea Party Express are establishment NeoCon RINOs trying to usurp the Tea Party name and movement much the way that establishment Democrats are trying to take over the Occupy movement.

BOTH the NeoCons & Democrats are part of the "Progressive" movement that is favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.

Progressivism aka Statism IS the fundamental problem!

[666sigma]

@yakyakyak69

I agree with your comments. I have said the same thing about Neocons and Democrats, many, many, times.

But this guy said nothing that would lead me to believe that he is Neocon. It is obvious that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional.

[Mr40acresandamule]

You must a white or non-black person who does not get it. I am not bashing you, because it is not your fault because you can't understand or comprehend why people suggest racial bias. The Tea Party didn't get upset at Bush's policies. Obama is held to a different standard in regards to his white predecessors plain and simple. I am saying the same thing about the situation involving Herman Cain. 

[666sigma]

@Mr40acresandamule

You are flat out wrong. The Tea Party started because they felt betrayed by Bush and the origins of the Tea Party have their roots with Ron Paul. I admit that the Tea Party has been co-opted by other Republicans. But all Tea Party members hate the establishment Republicans or have you not noticed? Do you see the Tea Party supporting Mitt Romney? Did they support McCain?

It is a gross lie and a distortion. But Obama is worse than Bush. He is Bush times three.

[Mr40acresandamule]

I am going have to respectfully disagree with ya. The Tea Party was a vehicle for the Republican far-right wing agenda. The Tea Party should have embraced minorities and fought against the income disparity in this country caused by both parties. I'm not saying Obama is a saint in spending. He had to spend money to pay for the bills left behind and that what a majority of Americans are too clueless to see because we lack civic understanding. Obama has governed like a moderate Republican.

[666sigma]

@Mr40acresandamule

And I am going to respectfully disagree with you. The Tea Party should not embrace minorities, but the vast majority are also not racists. The Tea Party does stand against the income inequality because they want to take the power away from government that allows this to happen. They opposed the bailouts, too.

Obama decided to waste $800 billion on bogus stimulus to shower his friends with money. The truth is that it is $500 billion per year. He is Bush times three.

[666sigma]

@Mr40acresandamule

Anyone that thinks that the Tea Party supported George W. Bush is watching or listening too much MSNBC, CNN, PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC and/or NPR. Show me one Tea Party faithful that openly supported Dubya! Do they support "Mister 25% of the GOP" Romney? No, they are lining up against Mitt Romney. Bush, McCain and Romney are not different than Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Although, I will admit that Obama is the worst of the whole rotten bunch.

[aseredy]

@chronDiggity Most that I've met do. Media feed on conflict. Tea Partiers are maliciously portrayed as ignorant racists the same way the OWSers are portrayed as lazy Commies. Neither view is accurate or genuine, but it gets an emotional reaction from people, that generates revenue.

[Panpiper]

@aseredy Are you sure they aren't commies? I've spent time on their web site, read through lots of their posts, listened to many lengthy, unedited interviews, and free market purist voices seem to be virtually non-existent. Virtually all of them are calling for more government involvement in the market, higher taxes, greater government benefits for their 'class', etc.. They place the blame for the current situation 100% on the 'greed' of the rich and demand that the rich be reined in.

[aseredy]

@Panpiper Not entierly sure, no. I treat everyone on an individual basis. Since the OWS is an imaginary entity, much like the state, I cant cast a subjective value judgment on a group of people based on a few individuals opinions. I see cuts in almost all the OWS video, so I must error on the side of caution and say that it was edited with bias. The people I have met from both the Tea Party and the OWS are good people (I spend part of the year just outside NYC and the rest in South Florida)

[Panpiper]

@aseredy Actually you've caught me thinking of them in terms of a group rather than as individuals, so I thank you for the reminder. ;-) There are occasionally voices among them that seem less socialistic.

[aseredy]

@Panpiper Agreed! You have also just proved to me that there still are rational people still out on the internet. Thanks for that !

[chronDiggity]

@yakyakyak69

hey why'd you remove the comment? It was great. 

[yakyakyak69]

@chronDiggity (copy & paste):

Progressivism (anti-liberty "liberalism") advocates change or reform via GOV'T action.

Give any POLITICIAN the money & power to "redistribute & regulate" & they will ALWAYS benefit THEIR “special interest” campaign backers; Banks, Wall Street, Military-Industrial Complex, Marxist Unions, "Green" Corps, Big Oil etc.

Progressivism CREATES Political Cronyism.

FIAT (counterfeit) debt-currency from the Fed just FUELS THE FIRE!

Want Liberty?

END THE FED!

[rockinandout]

@chronDiggity i think they do, the media just focuses on on the loonies