Obamacare and Mark of Beast... wrong time to be a nurse?

Nurses Activism

Published

Hi, first I apologize if you're a non-Christian person, but since I am and this post is what concerns of, you're free to leave before you read, or discuss with me if you have feedback.

If you have been paying attention to newly passed Obamacare lately, you would notice there's a big fuss about the new care and its mandated requirement for all persons to receive a chip (I believe it was referred to as very chip, typeII, RFID) by 2013, which is the year I will graduate. Of course, I think that receiving the chip would be completely optional, considering that numbers of Christians in this country will certainly refute, but nevertheless, I believe that the countdown has begun for the mark 666. I don't really care too much about Obamacare itself, but the real problem to me is the chip part. Now it is pretty obvious that the hospitals will require nurses, along with physicians and others, to receive this chip in order to keep the job; I can just see that coming. But I don't believe in it, and I will not receive it; I probably leave to some other country.

I am actually pretty worried about this because studying to be a nurse is a back-breaking, lumbar-twisting process, and I hate to think that I have to flush all that effort down the toilet if that damn chip is required. Am I the only person worried about this? Anyways, this thread is not political; I like things both from GOP and Democratic party, but looks like I need to vote someone from GOP who will repeal or at least take out the chip part of the new law.

Why have I not seen this on Fox news yet? :jester:

To the OP, I hope you are learning from this as many of these wonderful AN posters have given real insight into how to research appropriately and use basic reading and comprehension skills.

ok i give you an assignment. since you believe that every formed opinion of an individual has to be backed up and supported by credible literature, i require you to never speak of anything unless they are proven 100% by literature and research. If you like apple over orange, and you intend to tell me so, you must not say so until you find an absolute resource that proves why apple is better than orange. If you own a political idea, I expect you to back every single thing up with extensive researches and essays from quote to quote, even if that means you will spend hours and hours of research, because, if you can't cite it, you can't have opinions right? Why don't you do this, since you probably have an opinion that breathing air is more beneficial to not breathing, please find me a credible book sources from reliable medical journal from at least 5 different references. I always thought that breathing was good because everyone said so, but now that I think about it, breathing could be bad because I can't back it up with literature, oh no! Please find me literature sources that back that up so I can't breath again without fear of being wrong.

Tarotale, to say that we are going to be required to have chips implanted in us is not an OPINION, that is a FACT. Facts should be verifiable by documentation or observation. Before getting up-in-arms about this supposed chip requirement, people wanted to know was it a REAL provision or something misunderstood/imagined.

You are welcome to your opinion that one day there will be a "mark of the beast". You are welcome to your opinion that one day there will be a rapture. You are welcome to your opinion that IF there was a chip requirement that it is creepy and Orwellian, just as others would be welcome to the opinion that such a chip would be a wonderful and incredibly convenient new technology. None of these personal opinions require documentation. (Though if you are trying to persuade people to agree with your opinion, you might want to offer real world examples/evidence that demonstrates other similar programs having negative/unintended consquences, as that type of evidence might be more persuasive to the portion of your audience that is science/data-driven when forming their opinions.)

The problem is that you stated rumors as fact. The way that you prove or disprove rumors/theories/hypotheses is with evidence. Yes, some people were sarcastic and borderline rude in the way that they asked for the evidence that we were going to be required to have tracking chips implanted in us, but the basic idea of asking for evidence to prove or disprove this rumor/theory was not at all unreasonable.

I understand where you are coming from but your basis is incorrect. If you were to give your opinion about a book before reading it, there is no basis for your opinion.

If you were to eat an apple and not an orange then say the apple was better than the orange, you have no basis because you have no idea what the orange tastes like.

If you were to give a political idea without knowing both of the sides or the exact place your idea came from, your idea has no foundation.

In order to have an intelligent discussion about politics already in place please know what it is your are talking about and be prepared to have to back up your points with solid evidence. Your opinion of this does NOT need to have solid evidence, just the actual bill/law/whatever you are giving this opinion about.

If you were just speculating what it would be like IF the government made a mandate about CHIPs being implanted into citizens then you could form an opinion about that speculation and how it may tie in with your religion with the only opposition being what others thought of the idea.

I hope this helps make a little sense of where many of these posters are coming from.

Specializes in critical care.

Love, no one is saying don't have an opinion. In absolutely ANY political discussion, YES, you SHOULD have reliable sources to back your opinion up. Why would you form an opinion without knowing the verifiable truth anyway?

I am pretty amazed at how the comments took complete different turn than I expected. I thank those who tried to advise me to learn how to cite, and I did learn that it is important to know before you talk; I especially thank those who gave sincere comments in order to teach me about my short comings instead of bashing like some intolerant people.

Putting pettiness aside, I think it was my fault for not researching before posting, so I do admit my short-comings. But you guys, please read my question BEFORE you post your comments. Let me reiterate the question and point again.

If you read my question from original post, I stated that this question is based on my Christian beliefs mainly, and I politely asked you to ignore it if you don't share the belief and don't want a part of it. Anyways, I do apologize for saying "Now it is pretty obvious that the hospitals will require nurses, along with physicians and others, to receive this chip" from my question; that should have not been made in a statement-like sentence but more like a question, which is what I intend to say. But later in the question, I specifically say "Am I the only person worried about this?" asking your opinion on this matter. On my second post of this thread, I have clearly stated that I did not read the original bill, and I am basically forming my opinion from googled web sources. I have never stated from anywhere that the chipping is absolute truth, and over and over again I asked your opinion, clearly stating that it is my OPINION for the government to enforce such action, admitting that such opinion came from maybe/maybe not reliable sources from the web and the book of Revelations. And I kept admitting that I am not clear about the government to do so; I said they were my opinions.

Now here is a brief dialogue summary:

A: Hi, I heard a new law is passed, and I read some articles from the web. My opinion is that the government will do this and this and such actions seem to be warned of in the Bible that I read. Of course, I know everyone has different religious views, so if you don't agree with me, you can ignore me. Anyways, what do you think? What are your opinions about this?

B: What? Where did you get that? You got to cite the source.

A: Well, I said they were from googled articles and Bible. I can't verify they are true because they are my opinions. I just wanted to know yours.

B: No, man, you got to cite the reliable source. Googled articles are not reliable sources. You got to cite your source man.

A: Ya, but I am not arguing by stating that this is a fact. It is my opinion and what I said I believed, but I didn't say they were absolute truth.

B: No no, you got to cite the reliable source if you want to have formed opinion. Where's the source?

A: Are you saying I can't even ask about people's opinions without a source? This is not an essay or literature. I am asking about opinions.

B: don't care you got to cite cite cite cite cite cite cite cite; oh by the way, I have opinions about everything too, and I talk about it all the time with my friends, but I don't cite my source why I like meat over fish when I talk to them about my lunch. Guess I have to go to library and do extensive research to form my opinion why meat is better than fish. Laters.

Please read the question and learn to distinguish between "A is B" and "hey guys, is A an A or B, or something else? What do you think?"

Love, no one is saying don't have an opinion. In absolutely ANY political discussion, YES, you SHOULD have reliable sources to back your opinion up. Why would you form an opinion without knowing the verifiable truth anyway?

You can even form opinions based on speculation! You have the right to think that Obamacare is going to be a wildly expensive, poorly managed disaster, but you must state that as an opinion, not fact. If you're so inclined you can even back up your opinion by giving examples of other government programs that you think demonstrate a history of poorly run programs or those that resulted in wasteful spending, then speculate about how Obamacare programs will be like these existing programs. However, this will still be just your opinion/speculations.

For things like requirements mandated in the legislation, those are facts that it would be helpful to verify before debating the pro's and con's of them, offering up opinions on them or before getting worried that one of them might be the sign of the end times. (If it's not actually a requirement and there will be no "chipping" of Americans, then there's not much point in discussing whether or not it might be a the "mark of the beast" or any other end-of-times sign because it's not actually happening!)

Specializes in Case mgmt., rehab, (CRRN), LTC & psych.

I get the sense that the OP wants this discussion to come to an end, as evidenced by his/her post below. Therefore, this thread is closed pending further review.

I am pretty amazed at how the comments took complete different turn than I expected. I thank those who tried to advise me to learn how to cite, and I did learn that it is important to know before you talk; I especially thank those who gave sincere comments in order to teach me about my short comings instead of bashing like some intolerant people.

Putting pettiness aside, I think it was my fault for not researching before posting, so I do admit my short-comings. But you guys, please read my question BEFORE you post your comments. Let me reiterate the question and point again.

If you read my question from original post, I stated that this question is based on my Christian beliefs mainly, and I politely asked you to ignore it if you don't share the belief and don't want a part of it. Anyways, I do apologize for saying "Now it is pretty obvious that the hospitals will require nurses, along with physicians and others, to receive this chip" from my question; that should have not been made in a statement-like sentence but more like a question, which is what I intend to say. But later in the question, I specifically say "Am I the only person worried about this?" asking your opinion on this matter. On my second post of this thread, I have clearly stated that I did not read the original bill, and I am basically forming my opinion from googled web sources. I have never stated from anywhere that the chipping is absolute truth, and over and over again I asked your opinion, clearly stating that it is my OPINION for the government to enforce such action, admitting that such opinion came from maybe/maybe not reliable sources from the web and the book of Revelations. And I kept admitting that I am not clear about the government to do so; I said they were my opinions.

Now here is a brief dialogue summary:

A: Hi, I heard a new law is passed, and I read some articles from the web. My opinion is that the government will do this and this and such actions seem to be warned of in the Bible that I read. Of course, I know everyone has different religious views, so if you don't agree with me, you can ignore me. Anyways, what do you think? What are your opinions about this?

B: What? Where did you get that? You got to cite the source.

A: Well, I said they were from googled articles and Bible. I can't verify they are true because they are my opinions. I just wanted to know yours.

B: No, man, you got to cite the reliable source. Googled articles are not reliable sources. You got to cite your source man.

A: Ya, but I am not arguing by stating that this is a fact. It is my opinion and what I said I believed, but I didn't say they were absolute truth.

B: No no, you got to cite the reliable source if you want to have formed opinion. Where's the source?

A: Are you saying I can't even ask about people's opinions without a source? This is not an essay or literature. I am asking about opinions.

B: don't care you got to cite cite cite cite cite cite cite cite; oh by the way, I have opinions about everything too, and I talk about it all the time with my friends, but I don't cite my source why I like meat over fish when I talk to them about my lunch. Guess I have to go to library and do extensive research to form my opinion why meat is better than fish. Laters.

Please read the question and learn to distinguish between "A is B" and "hey guys, is A an A or B, or something else? What do you think?"

+ Add a Comment