Demcrats Create New Slavery

Slavery: (Webster)
Function: noun
Date: 1551


1 : drudgery, toil
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding


Slavery: Wikipedia
Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages. In some societies it was legal for an owner to kill a slave; in others it was a crime.[1]


The organization Anti-Slavery International defines slavery as "forced labor." By this definition there are approximately 27 million slaves in the world today, more than at any point in history and more than twice as many as all African slaves brought to the Americas combined.


The International labor Organization, however, does not equate forced labor with slavery. According to ILO, there are estimated 12 million people around the world still working under coercion in forced labor, slavery and slavery-like practices.[5]


Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, some for generations.[6] Human trafficking is mostly for prostituting women and children into the sex trade.[7] It is described as "the largest slave trade in history" and is the fastest growing criminal industry, set to outgrow drug trafficking.




Serfdom: (Wikipedia)


Specifics of serfdom varied greatly through time and region. In some places, serfdom was merged with or exchanged for various forms of taxation.


The amount of labor required varied. In Poland, for example, it was a few days per year per household in the 13th century; one day per week per household in the 14th century; four days per week per household in the 17th century and six days per week per household in the 18th century. Early serfdom in Poland was mostly limited on the royal territories (królewszczyzny).


"Per household" means that every farm had to give a worker for the required number of days.[13] For example, in the 18th century, six people: a peasant, his wife, three children and a hired worker would be required to work for their lord one day a week, which would be counted as six days.


Sometimes, serfs served as soldiers in the event of conflict and could earn freedom or even ennoblement for valor in combat. In other cases, serfs could purchase their freedom, be manumitted by their enlightened or generous owners, or flee to towns or newly-settled land where few questions were asked. Laws varied from country to country: in England a serf who made his way to a chartered town and evaded recapture for a year and a day obtained his freedom.


Slavery, Serfdom.. Another way I have heard them defined as "The confiscation by force of the fruits of one's labor". Therefore the confiscatee is a slave or serf of the confiscator.

Monday, with the signing of the "Health Care Reform Bill", the United States of America has created two new categories of slaves or serfs.

The first are Doctors. Doctors? Yes, if you look at the Wiki definition of Slavery , the phrase "deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages". These will now pertain to any and all Medical Doctors. The Government will be able to restrict where they may live and practice medicine based on a geographic area's need for Doctors. Further, as is the current practice in Medicare and Medicaid, the Government will decide what is a fair reimbursement for services. Medicare and Medicaid DO NOT reimburse at cost let alone allow the Doctor to make any Profit (aka a living, salary etc). The ugly truth is that this is the real reason for the sky rocketing cost of health care, not gouging greedy Doctors and Hospitals. These individuals and institutions force the rest of us make up for the shortfall of the Government programs. Therefore we are taxed twice for Medicare, once by the Federal Government, and once by Health care providers. Doctors who don't initially submit..er a "sign up" for the program will be barred from ever participating. Further if they choose to leave the "program" they will be barred from ever rejoining (why would they go back? I don't know). At this time it is unclear if they will lose the right to practice medicine if they do not participate, but that would not surprise me. Hidden in the "Health Care Reform Bill" is also regulations to control whom may become Doctors. That is done to a degree currently by the AMA by restricting the number of medical students accepted each year. For the most part, those students that are accepted are the "best and brightest" or  at least those that are the most hard working. That will all change. With the new rules, "Under represented" minorities will be given preference. What does that mean? Well currently Whites are still considered the Majority (approximately 51% of population), with Hispanics, Blacks, Asians and Jews making up the rest in roughly that order. Looking at this list you would think that all things being equal (stupid phrase, because they never are) that the percentages of Doctors would resemble this make up. No.. It doesn't. But the current group of Marxists in control see this disparity as prima fascia evidence of discrimination. I do not know the exact breakdown of Doctors by race, I attempted to find it, for I am sure someone has done the study. My guesstimate would be in order of percentage; White, Jewish, Asian (to include Indians), Hispanic, and Black. In this scenario the "Under represented" minorities are Hispanics and Blacks. Therefore, they would get preferential treatment and most of the seats in Medical school. If you do an Internet search on "Doctors Racial Makeup" you will find multiple articles from the left stating that minorities, especially Blacks, do not get proper or sufficient medical care because there aren't enough Black doctors... Isn't that Racist on it's face? Two problems with this. 1. That the reason Doctors do not practice in the inner cities is because they hate black people. 2. If there were more Black Doctors they would practice in the inner cities.. Would they? Would they live or build their practices in crime and drug ridden neighborhoods? Would they not, if given a choice, live and practice where they could live safely and make a living? A simpler way to look at it, would they prefer inner city Detroit, or the Suburbs?
If I had a choice, I would like to have a Doctor that was considered the best and brightest doing my Heart Surgery rather than a Doctor that was selected because he had the proper amount of Melanin...   


 The second group of the new Slaves/Serfs are the Successful, the Achievers, the Earners. This Bill is the third great entitlement created by our Government. The first two, Social Security, and Medicare were intended for the lower middle class and the poor, but the cost was shared by all (if you worked) because technically, everyone qualified for benefits. This new Health Care entitlement is different, benefits are technically for everyone, but only the "Rich" will pay for it. "Oh Boy!!" you say, "Get the Bastards!!", "Yeah Buddy!!". Hold on there.. Just what is the definition of "Rich". How much money do you have to earn to be "Rich". According to this Bill, a Family of 4 whose income is $88,000.00 per year and above are "Rich". If you have a family of 4 and make less than that, you aren't. Depending on where you live and what your frame of reference is, you may believe that that definition of the "Rich" is valid.. Well I challenge you to live in Boston, New York City, Washington DC, Chicago or any other major metropolitan area and support a family of 4 on that salary. "Whoa, hold on there BigMan.. You are a Libertarian, they choose to live there." Yes, you are correct, and you may have chosen to live in Pickles Gap Arkansas and work at the Toad Suck Inn (these are real places, been there), why should someone that lives in a big Metropolitan Area, but doesn't live comparably better than you do, pay for your Health Care? Redistribution of Wealth, is Slavery. Plain and simple. Confiscating by force (But we have the largest voluntary tax system in the world!! yeah.. right, volunteer not to pay for a couple of years and see what happens) the fruit of an individual or group's labor for the benefit of another individual or group, is Slavery.

 "But Health Care is a RIGHT!!"
 Really?
 As a Libertarian, I believe in a broad spectrum of individual rights. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I also believe that these rights are not "Given", "Bequeathed", or "Bestowed". These rights are part of your basic humanity and can't be taken away without your permission. The founders believed that these rights were "Given", they believed that they were given by God and therefore could not be taken away by Man or Govt. except by your permission. Both of these ideas are known as "Natural Rights". Therefore rights that do not already exist or that aren't Natural Rights can't be created.

  This is how I see your and my rights as a Libertarian; You have the right to do ANYTHING you want with your body or possessions up to the point wherein your actions affect my or someone else's rights. Therefore if you want to drink until you are falling down drunk, that is your business. When you get in a car, your actions may have an effect on the safety of others. You do not have a right to drive on the roads drunk. Although if your driving was restricted to your property were the only chance of damage or injury was to yourself or your property. Be my guest, knock yourself out..
 
  So why isn't Health Care a right? Were you born with it? No. Does it exist in Nature? No. How do you get it? It can only exist if someone produces it. In other words, there can be no Health Care if there are no Doctors, Nurses, or Medicine. A Doctor or Nurse's skill and time belong to them. They invested time and money to obtain that skill. You do not have a right to their time or skill. They may give it to you, or you may purchase it. Obtaining it any other way is theft, the forced acquisition of their skills or time is slavery.  As for medicine, a Pharmaceutical company creates it by doing research and then producing it through paying for the labor and material. You do not have a right to their production without payment.  "Well, what about their obscene profits?" What is an obscene profit? Is it a percentage or an amount over and above the cost of doing business? If they make no profit, why would investors invest in those companies? Where would they get their research money? If research stops, where will new drugs come from? The American Pharmaceutical industry is the last medical research industry extant. With no profits they will disappear. Why would they stay in business, because they are nice? What will we do then? What will we do for Doctors when they aren't paid fairly for their services? In Great Britain and Canada, they rely mostly on Doctors trained in and from the Third World. That is our future.
 
  If there are no Doctors, no Nurses, no medicine, how can you have the right to something that does not exist?
 
   "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."-- John Galt, 'Atlas Shrugged'