Senator Shaheen not liking public response

Translation: "We're here to answer questions about how to be obedient and follow the Obamacare diktats, not questions about whether it's a good idea, whether it will work or what we're going to do to you if you refuse to accept it."

Excellent work as always, Mr. Ridley.

First in Grafton and now in Keene.

I don't think Shaheen cares about the law.

( http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/VI/91-A/… ) Her Staffer violated their own government's laws. Everyone else is suppose to follow the government's laws but them, how typical for a government employee.

"Any person shall be permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders, cameras, and videotape equipment, at such meetings."

I'd like for Shaheen to issue a public apology for violating people's civil rights. I won't hold my breath though.

We need one of our OWN KIND in the white house!

What difference does it make whether you're ruled by an American-born Emperor rather than a foreign-born one? Either way, you're still a slave.

Jason-
"We need one of our OWN KIND in the white house!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't know of anyone that calls themselves Republican or Democrat or whatever that will do anything better in the White House.

Are you really so blinded by Red vs. Blue BS that you think socialism in America started with Obama?

The problem is government, period.

Hey Senator, Just because you don't like whats being said doesn't mean it's not coming from your constituents.. remember " constituents?" those are the people who voted for you, the same people who will be showing you the door!

outsider it's no bother! We don't mind telling the governments reps how we feel.

Dave,

The government solution for health insurance is violent. And because I don't want to support violence I cannot support the government's health insurance plans.

We could start by not using violence to give corporations the sole right to human genes and organic chemical compounds. That makes people that hold the patents on medications angry when they lose their violent monopoly. They paid politicians a lot of money so their thugs will prevent anyone else from trying to enter the marketplace.

We could also stop government thugs from going after people that purchase medications from Canada and Mexico.

The list goes on and on, but removing violence from the system will make health care affordable for everyone.

First, the NH Tea Party Coalition is organizing these and we have NEVER told people she would be there. In fact, our demand in being there is that Shaheen, Hodes and Porter hold REAL face to face town halls like every other state is.

Secondly, it was the Organizing for America goons who sent a missive, which we captured, that said she would be there.

The press release was totally wrong — we were not interested in any one else nor did we intimidate them. In Hampstead, there were few supporters… a few SEIU paid people from Mass, one an illegal not even from NH. If anyone's rights were trampled it was OURS because she will not meet with us. She called us protesters, said we intimidated NH constituents (not true) when WE were the real "constituents" from NH. We are not the ones who bus in the New Yorkers!

Pleasse join us. This is not about health care, it's about controlling your life.

Please read the truth about what happened at our website.

wow, that is a pretty cruel position to take. u have no interest in making sure everyone is covered because it aint your responsibility. The only thing that matters is that you don't pay. If people suffer, let them be damned–just dont tax me!

most everyone else in this world is a lot more compassionate and want to live in a society where everyone is actually provided for.

to address your points, 90 years ago there was no technology so providing medical care was cheap. today we have far more machinery and methods all of which have real expenses that did not exist 90 years ago. they didnt even have a simple x-ray machine 90 years ago!

it costs a fortune to develop a new medicine. when you include all the money invested in medicines that never make it to market because they dont work, the avg cost to create a new medicine is a billion dollars. without a patent, drug companies wouldn't be able to recoup their research and development, so they wouldnt do it and for profit drug company innovation would end.

medicine is expensive because it has REAL expenses like the most educated professionals and the most advanced machinery. the idea that a bypass surgery is $50k because of govt and not because it requires a team of the most skilled and educated people in society who use machinery that costs millions of dollars in a specialized facility that requires extraordinary prep, care and maintenance is a joke!

charity doesnt currently meet all the needs of the uninsured. so what makes u think it will when u end govt, and the number of people who need help skyrockets?

i also think we can do better than requiring the sick to have to also go thru the humiliation of asking for handouts.

it's bad enough someone has the misfortune of getting sick. now u wanna send them on a fundraising campaign?

so what is the plan if charity falls short?

it seems like paying a small % of ur income towards a system where everyone gets care would be a lot more effective than requiring sick people to ask for the benevolence of rich people.

wow, that is a pretty cruel position to take. u have no interest in making sure everyone is covered because it aint your responsibility.

Unless you can prove to me that I'm obligated to other people, I really can't take any of your conclusions here seriously. So let me make it clear– unless you can prove that I have some meta-ethical obligation to surrender my hard earned property so that others may benefit without actually earning it, I don't think you have any ground to be making such high-horse statements.

Moreover, I don't want to be a party to parasitism, whether it is parasitism by labor or parasitism by capitalists.

The only thing that matters is that you don’t pay. If people suffer, let them be damned–just dont tax me!

I never said this, so I suggest you stop putting words into my hands. What I said that how other people are covered isn't my responsibility; this says nothing of my disposition towards them not having said services.

most everyone else in this world is a lot more compassionate and want to live in a society where everyone is actually provided for.

It's difficult to find compassion in a system that wants to expropriate my labor for a scheme literally fucking entrenched with capitalists and all of the awful baggage they bring with them.

Considering that the nature of such a program would undoubtedly involve me surrendering my labor at gunpoint, the idea that compassion is somehow ingrained into the concept of national health coverage is a contradiction in and of itself.

to address your points, 90 years ago there was no technology so providing medical care was cheap.

Whoa, what the fuck are you talking about? First, technology decreases the expenses of production. A firm that invests in a technologically superior production method will invariably have expenses reduced due to streamlined manufacture. Second, technology was available 90 years ago– no it wasn't micro-technology, but it was still cutting edge for the time.

today we have far more machinery and methods all of which have real expenses that did not exist 90 years ago. they didnt even have a simple x-ray machine 90 years ago!

Are you seriously saying that the costs of maintaining machinery and technology didn't exist in the early 20th century? Are you fucking retarded?

Also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Ray#History

If you want me to take you seriously, try a little harder, mmkay?

it costs a fortune to develop a new medicine.

Why?

when you include all the money invested in medicines that never make it to market because they dont work, the avg cost to create a new medicine is a billion dollars.

Care to cite this, or did you just pull this number out of your ass?

without a patent, drug companies wouldn’t be able to recoup their research and development, so they wouldnt do it and for profit drug company innovation would end.

Typical IP defense– "without patents, innovation would halt". And yet, this doesn't seem to be true when we look at the broad spectrum of history that has gone without patents.

medicine is expensive because it has REAL expenses like the most educated professionals and the most advanced machinery. the idea that a bypass surgery is $50k because of govt and not because it requires a team of the most skilled and educated people in society who use machinery that costs millions of dollars in a specialized facility that requires extraordinary prep, care and maintenance is a joke!

Your adherence to this technocratic philosophy is the same exact malady that I'm looking to cure. It is only because of licensing restrictions and patents are such goods and services so expensive– it pushes out competitors who simply can't afford the overhead and capital costs associated with starting a business, thus having a cartelizing effect on the market which leads to such exorbitantly high prices.

Dave,

Why do you want to use violence to get health insurance?

Don't you think there is enough violence in the world already?

Dave,

If u wanna live in a modern society that has first class infrastructure, service and goods, you have to pay. there is no escaping cost.

Stop using violence as a foundation for your "modern" (barbaric) society. You know that anyone that does not pay taxes is kidnapped and caged, try to resist or escape the cage and you will be shot with a gun.

Stop turning your head the other way at the violence your society is creating. If you support taxes you support violence.

I don't want to live in a society that is based on violence. I don't want to pay for your violent tax collectors that provide no service to anyone. I don't want to pay for your military either. I don't want to pay for your prisons that keep peaceful non-violent people in a cage.

Like you said, if YOU want a first class infrastructure, service and goods, YOU have to pay.

But because YOU want those things it does not give YOU or YOUR government a right to point a gun at someone to force them to pay for the things that YOU want. It does not give you the right to threaten people with prison that don't want to pay for YOUR services and goods.

Please give peace a chance Dave. Please stop supporting violence.

Dave,

What happens to people that don't leave and choose not to pay taxes?

Are you saying that America is a "gated community?" and not the land of the free?

No one is forcing you to use violence on people that don't pay taxes accept your violent government. But that does not mean you have to support that violent government, even if they want your support.

Why do you want to force people around you to move away? Why do you want to use violence against them if they stay.

I did not move in to a gated community, I was born here, that does not mean your gated community owns me, I did not agree to be bound to it's rules.

I just want to live a non-violent life. Please have your government to stop forcing people to support it's violence.

Dave, you're bringing up arguments no one here is making and you completely ignored ThinkLiberty's stressing of YOU (capital letters) in his response.

If YOU want something then YOU (and only you) should have to pay for it, whether it's health care or these "goods and services" you claim government provides.

No one should be forced to pay for something they don't want but that's what happens with taxes. They're taken without your permission and you go to jail if you refuse to pay them.

It sounds like you're deliberately ignoring this argument and have chosen the nationalist position of "love it or leave it". If that's the case, there's no sense in continuing the discussion because you've already made up your mind that you prefer things the way they are.

life comes with costs. if u wanna live in the usa, u have to pay for those costs. i dont charge those fees and im not forcing anyone to pay for them.

but i dont agree with the premise that charging a fee to live here, based on ur ability to pay, is the same as a gangster violently stealing ur money.

if someone from mexico broke into ur house, kidnapped you, forced you to live in mexico, prevented you from leaving and took a % of ur money, then yes i would agree with ur premise.

but nobody is forcing u to live anywhere! u r voluntarily choosing to live here. if u dont like the fees being charged, you can shop around for a better deal. if u r against the concept of charging fees to live somewhere, there r other countries where u can have that.

u can even move to a country where u will have complete independence and no responsibility for anyone else. the usa is not one of those places. it is a society where members take measures to make sure everyone is provided for, where people do take responsibility for the welfare of others and where certain minimum standards are met.

im willing to pay the fee of a % of my income to pay for those efforts. but i also want to find alternative ways of doing it that will work. i dont think doing nothing, and hoping rich people will be charitable enough, will work.

and i wouldnt support a movement to change this country from a compassionate one to a country where nobody takes responsibility for others.

Dave,

Yes, by all means take note of the poorly-educated bleatings of "Thinkliberty" ("Thinkmindnumbingidioticcliches" would be more appropriate, but I suppose he's entitled to his delusions). And rest content with the notion that a person in the richest country in the world dying because he/she couldn't get access to basic health care was not a victim of what the geniuses here call violence. No, we can assume the poor person passed oh-so-gently and peacefully into that good night. See, you can advocate callous indifference to human suffering and at the same time claim that you are peace-loving and non-violent. When you're a FreeKeener, you really don't have to make any sense; just spout regurgitated talking points. It's all good..

Dave,

Do you beleive that the only way for people to get goods and services is through government violence?

Don't you know that people can offer goods and services to people that want them and those people that want the goods and services can pay for them?

You don't need to have the government collect money by pointing a gun at someone for the services and goods you want to purchase. You can just pay the person offering the goods and services directly. It's cheaper for everyone involved because there is no worthless violent middleman.

How can I be so "poorly educated" and understand this? It's a very simple concept: Don't support violence, don't be violent.

Ann,

I have never advocated "callous indifference to human suffering." I don't think violence is a good way to care for the poor or the sick. I don't think that violent means can be justified, no matter how noble the end is.

I think we should end the patent system, the AMA and the FDA's fascist grip on the healthcare industry.

Allow anyone to make generic versions of expensive life saving medication. (Currently your patent system, the FDA and federal marshals will use violence against anyone that tries to do this.)

Train volunteers on how to administer expensive chemotherapy treatments, it will reduce the cost for everyone one and be affordable. (Your AMA will use violence to stop anyone that tries this.)

More violence (via taxation) to force people to pay for a bad deal with drugmakers and health insurance companies is not an acceptable or sane solution.

If you use violence you are not "helping" anyone. So stop supporting it.

Please support peace and end the violence.

I am sorry you feel that Non-violence is an "idiotic cliche."

My "delusions" of peace are a lot better than your delusions of violence.

@THINKLIBERTY:

"I have never advocated “callous indifference to human suffering.” I don’t think violence is a good way to care for the poor or the sick. I don’t think that violent means can be justified, no matter how noble the end is."

You've been convinced by the sound of your own rhetoric; the notion that people in a democratic society making choices via their representative proxies regarding the provision of some sort of minimal social safety net is simply exaggerated nonsense. Unless you believe that it's a realistic possibility for a human being to always do exactly what he/she wants whenever he/she wants it in every circumstance.

"I think we should end the patent system, the AMA and the FDA’s fascist grip on the healthcare industry."

Ah, "fascist"; just the sort of peaceful rhetoric that tends to characterize the expressions of the intellectually enfeebled. And by all means, let's have laissez-faire capitalist dogma applied to the health care arena; it worked so beautifully in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and of course we know that when business-people are confronted with the choice between profit and human welfare, the profit motive is inevitably put aside.

"Allow anyone to make generic versions of expensive life saving medication. (Currently your patent system, the FDA and federal marshals will use violence against anyone that tries to do this.)"

Oh yes, that sort of approach has always worked so well in the past, like, say, in the meat-packing industry. That industry would never create circumstances such as this:

"…three hundred dollars is more than the year's income of many a person in this room. There are able-bodied men here who work from early morning until late at night, in ice-cold cellars with a quarter of an inch of water on the floor—men who for six or seven months in the year never see the sunlight from Sunday afternoon till the next Sunday morning—and who cannot earn three hundred dollars in a year. There are little children here, scarce in their teens, who can hardly see the top of the work benches — whose parents have lied to get them their places — and who do not make the half of three hundred dollars a year, and perhaps not even the third of it……(Upton Sinclair, "The Jungle")

Nope, they'd never engage in these sorts of inhumane practices because exposure would imperil their reputation and thus their bottom line. Right? And of course the people being exploited in this circumstance were living a much less dangerous professional existence (no assaults on basic human dignity happening in those factories, nosiree) than if inspectors required that the employers meet some basic employee safety standards. Phew, they really dodged a bullet, all because of the type of "non-violent" ideology with which you are so enamored.

"Train volunteers on how to administer expensive chemotherapy treatments, it will reduce the cost for everyone one and be affordable. (Your AMA will use violence to stop anyone that tries this.)"

Yes, I believe I've seen this one before; it was in the Three Stooges episode in which they were brain surgeons. Kidding aside, this is a great idea; you should run for office on it. After all, who needs to be treated for cancer by someone with expertise in cancer treatment? And most important, IT WOULD SAVE MONEY!!! You really ARE a peace-loving humanitarian (we'll just ignore the myriad fatal consequences of your poorly thought-out notions; after all, you wouldn't MEAN to hurt all those folks). Gandhi's got nothing on you.

I'll close now, content in the knowledge that your advocacy for the creation of circumstances by which people can be economically enslaved and have their humanity violated on a continual basis is the sentiment of a loser fringe.

@ZEUS:

"People show they care about something by putting their money where their mouths are. When was the last time you donated your own money to charity, Ann?……Did you need government goons to steal it from your paycheck, or did you do it of your own free will?"

I donate regularly to charity, and I also pay taxes; I pay these taxes for basic services that cannot be effectively provided by the private sector, These services include things like roads, police protection and at least a minimal social safety net.

"Do you really believe you’re the only one in this country who cares enough about the indigent and sick to donate of their own free will?…….I’ve got news for you, Ann, it ain’t true. Americans gave over $300 billion in 2007 to charity and no one put a gun to their heads to make them do it…..Maybe if they’d been able to keep all the money they earned with their blood, sweat and tears instead of having it stolen and wasted by bureaucrats, they would have donated twice as much?"

This is all question-begging. The question is: can the funds needed to ensure that the poor, sick and indigent can achieve at least a subsistence-level existence be provided solely through charity? History has taught us repeatedly that the answer to that question is no. The dollar number isn't the question; the question is whether that dollar amount is enough to meet the basic need,

From the year 1843:

“……it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“ARE THERE NO PRISONS?"

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman.

“AND THE UNION WORKHOUSES? ARE THEY STILL IN OPERATION?"”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not. A few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

"NOTHING"!

“You wish to be anonymous?”

“I WISH TO BE LEFT ALONE. I HELP SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENTS I HAVE MENTIONED – THEY COST ENOUGH, AND THOSE WHO ARE BADLY OFF MUST GO THERE"

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“IF THEY WOULD RATHER DIE, THEY HAD BETTER DO IT, AND DECREASE THE SURPLUS POPULATION. IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS. IT'S ENOUGH FOR A MAN TO UNDERSTAND HIS OWN BUSINESS, AND NOT TO INTERFERE IN OTHER PEOPLE'S. MINE OCCUPIES ME CONSTANTLY".

Nice peaceful ideology you folks promote here. Wouldn't hurt a fly……

I pay these taxes for basic services that cannot be effectively provided by the private sector.

While you may truly believe the private sector can't handle those things, it's irrelevant. Even if you knew in your heart of hearts that they could, you'd still pay those taxes for fear of being imprisoned. The way things work now, you have no say in the matter.

Time and again government has proven that any service or good it is allegedly responsible for providing turns out shoddy, expensive and inefficient, from education to the roads to health care.

You want to put health care into the hands of the same people behind delivering your mail and high school graduates who can barely read or spell (let alone have any skills that make them useful to employers). And instead of condemning them for the shitty results, you want them to steal MORE money because throwing money at problems always fixes them, right?

If roads, protection and whatever else are must-have goods and services, why is it you think you're the only one willing to support them? If they're that great, people will support them voluntarily. There should be no need for coercion and force and if there is, it's wrong.

But you know this, of course. The truth is, you simply don't believe *enough* people would support them for it to work so you want to empower a gang to force others to participate in your otherwise unworkable scheme.

"Oh, but it's for the greater good!", you say. "The needs of the few, outweigh the liberty of the many."

Despicable socialist claptrap.

"I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate." – Luke Skywalker

“Hatred is never ended by hatred but by love.” – Buddha

“Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.” – Buddha