tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3846843279305950773.post7549894514189101340..comments2011-10-01T15:04:26.325-05:00I am a Human on Planet Earthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12338123046050355110noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3846843279305950773.post-21106204106667036332009-08-10T15:13:43.312-05:002009-08-10T15:13:43.312-05:00Well, unfortunately, people still mired in statist mentality would probably dismiss your post above as a yet another radicalist ramble even though much of what you say is true. <br /><br />They aren&#39;t in the mentality that would allow them to see clearly what this force you are talking about actually is, especially given that this WhiteHouse blog post focuses exactly on the supposed ability to *choose* to stick with your current insurance.<br /><br />I&#39;m pointing this out because knowing it can help communicate what we have to say better, in a way that wont just brand us as worthy of dismissal.<br /><br />That said, the WhiteHouse blog post conveniently omits saying that even if people are able to stick with their current insurance they will be forced to pay, via taxes, for this extra insurance. You rightfully call that being forced to buy government healthcare. That point alone is enough to discredit government healthcare.<br /><br />Finally, while government is certainly in its continued growth inclined to spy and censor like a Big Brother, flagging certain content sources on a web site doesn&#39;t quite qualify since this is something everyone can do on their own blogs and sites. You can &quot;flag&quot; certain government content sources yourself as &quot;untrustworthy&quot; for instance. It&#39;s your right.<br /><br />The only exception to this would be if government people then went and actually tried to prevent dissenting opinion from being communicated. This is probably coming, but flagging by itself ain&#39;t it yet.<br /><br />CheersDaniel Memenodehttp://doubleplushuman.comnoreply@blogger.com