« A Quick Note About Robert Sarvis | Main | Quick Thoughts: It Could Have Been Worse »

November 02, 2013



Then pass a law requiring all politicians to take enemas daily to eliminate some of the shit they have for brains. This is the guy the voters in Virgina wanted ? They are brain dead


This is pure Socialized medicine, with no jobs. More people are getting thrown off their insurance policies everyday, teachers are included and McAuliffe can't do anything about it.

viola wilson

No! Do not force Doctor's to accept this. Repeal this illegal tax! No one in this country should accept this! It is one more piece of legislation to force Socialism down our throats! These are corrupt men trying to undermine Constitution and make criminals of innocent men. Shades of KGB! No wonder, the Imperialists were given our gold, The White House taking tips from the Kremlin, and Middle East getting ammo to blow us down. This is Treason and those that are for this should be impeached!

John JonesSr

The real tragedy here lies both in the sentiment and the false notions spewed-out in reference to freedom; the same folks, to a political and religious certainty, persist in the practice of sharing such care to those in far-away places --areas where natural disasters have occurred, Africa, South America, India, and elsewhere, even to former combatants-- yet at home, well, that's another failed story of woe. I read somewhere, "Charity begins at home then spreads itself abroad."


And how do the propose enforcing such a law? Revoking their license to practice medicine or putting them behind bars won't treat any patients. Fines will only cause MORE doctors to exit the field. In short, it is literally a PHYSICAL impossibility to force doctors to accept patients.

James Anthony

A few years ago some men said something about "...our fortunes, our lives, our sacred honor."

John Smith

Despite all the historical and current evidence that statism leads to misery and death, why does statism increase? To quote Craig Biddle:

To say to a religious [or secular altruist] person, “You can be for liberty and still embrace your religion so long as you respect people’s rights” is to say, “You can be for liberty and still embrace your religion so long as you ignore or deny the central tenets of your religion.” Who is going to do that in any consistent or sustained way? And if a religious person were consistently to ignore the central tenets of his religion, how would he feel about himself? And what might he expect “God” to do about such disobedience?

If people accept fundamental moral or philosophic ideas that are in conflict with rights, then even if they say they are “for liberty,” they will not be able to support liberty in a consistent or lasting way. When it comes time to vote for a politician, or write to a representative, or advocate the abolition of Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security or food stamp programs or government-run schools, people’s fundamental philosophic convictions will substantially, if not entirely, trump their conflicting political claims.


The comments to this entry are closed.