Does freedom really matter ?

[apple0154]

My argument isn't about whether there is authority to do it, it is about whether we should exercise such authority in a free society. Your entire argument doesn't answer the central point.

Where is the victim?

The victim is society; every other citizen.

Why should we, as a free society, allow others to make these decisions for us?

If the government is going to ensure health care for everyone it has to promote a healthy lifestyle and discourage an unhealthy one. Smoking, for example. Do we take up a hospital bed to treat a person with emphysema or lung cancer due to smoking while claiming the government can not offer a bed to someone who has appendicitis?

How can we possibly continue to call ourselves a free society when we have given over even the minutest of choices over to government to make us "secure", to "save" people from themselves?

We have choices among the good things. As for unfettered freedom we saw the result of "private" SS plans in the past. People did not save. That's why the government had to step in and implement SS.

The strange thing is everything was "private" to start with and government plans only came into effect after "private" was shown to be a failure. People tend to express it as if it's always been the government. That's where the "old, tired, worn-out ideas" expression came from. Everything the government controls started out not being government controlled and failed miserably, be it ensuring safe food and water to retirement plans.

And lastly, how can you so hypocritically suggest that taking away such choices isn't equivalent to taking away other choices to "protect" people from "unnatural" acts? They are the same, both are an attempt to "save" you from yourself and in agreement with the "majority". The Federal government shouldn't mess in this, but if we are to remain free we should insist that our local government step out of our business as well.

The government should not restrict anything unless it can be proven to be harmful. Again, it's not just the individual involved. A person participating in an act that has been proven to result in illness/injury means another person stricken with an unprovoked illness/injury must pay a price such as no available hospital bed or doctor or costly medicine or having to contribute to the irresponsible person's financial welfare.

 

[Damocles]

The victim is society; every other citizen.

In short, there is no direct victim.

If the government is going to ensure health care for everyone it has to promote a healthy lifestyle and discourage an unhealthy one. Smoking, for example. Do we take up a hospital bed to treat a person with emphysema or lung cancer due to smoking while claiming the government can not offer a bed to someone who has appendicitis?

Hence my statement that we would have people telling us what to eat, when, how much we can eat, when we have to get shots, etc. if we have government controlling our health care was 100% correct. Thanks.

We have choices among the good things. As for unfettered freedom we saw the result of "private" SS plans in the past. People did not save. That's why the government had to step in and implement SS.

The strange thing is everything was "private" to start with and government plans only came into effect after "private" was shown to be a failure. People tend to express it as if it's always been the government. That's where the "old, tired, worn-out ideas" expression came from. Everything the government controls started out not being government controlled and failed miserably, be it ensuring safe food and water to retirement plans.

Again, how much freedom are we willing to pay for security? You clearly are willing to give every iota of freedom away from food choices to health care to implement the Apple plan of living. I find that repugnant.

The government should not restrict anything unless it can be proven to be harmful. Again, it's not just the individual involved. A person participating in an act that has been proven to result in illness/injury means another person stricken with an unprovoked illness/injury must pay a price such as no available hospital bed or doctor or costly medicine or having to contribute to the irresponsible person's financial welfare.

The government shouldn't restrict anything unless there is a direct victim. In this case there isn't one. There isn't even a guarantee that the food will ever be dangerous to the consumer. Only the consumers' own actions could make it so and even then they only have an "increased chance" of something bad happening.

 

[apple0154]

the framers would shoot you for even declaring that this clause could be used for any legislation whatsoever, if congress could just claim it's for the well being of society.

but then, you know that this interpretation is an abomination.

I wonder what the Framers would have thought if someone could have proven they had a pill that cost the equivalent of two hours general labor per month (minimum wage) and would treat an illness suffered by almost 1/3 of the population. Not only that but this little pill would increase some people's life span by 20 or more years and prevented severe disability in others.

Do you think the Framers would have ignored it? Ensured everyone had access to it?

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/news/1_56_hypertension_sufferers_worldwide_predicted_by_2025.htm (1 in 3 adults)

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I wonder what the Framers would have thought if someone could have proven they had a pill that cost the equivalent of two hours general labor per month (minimum wage) and would treat an illness suffered by almost 1/3 of the population. Not only that but this little pill would increase some people's life span by 20 or more years and prevented severe disability in others.

Do you think the Framers would have ignored it? Ensured everyone had access to it?

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/news/1_56_hypertension_sufferers_worldwide_predicted_by_2025.htm (1 in 3 adults)

they'd have said 'good luck in your coming wealth', but they would not have mandated it for everyone.

 

[apple0154]

In short, there is no direct victim.

Hence my statement that we would have people telling us what to eat, when, how much we can eat, when we have to get shots, etc. if we have government controlling our health care was 100% correct. Thanks.

Again, how much freedom are we willing to pay for security? You clearly are willing to give every iota of freedom away from food choices to health care to implement the Apple plan of living. I find that repugnant.

The government shouldn't restrict anything unless there is a direct victim. In this case there isn't one. There isn't even a guarantee that the food will ever be dangerous to the consumer. Only the consumers' own actions could make it so and even then they only have an "increased chance" of something bad happening.

Sure there is a direct victim. When the last hospital bed is filled by a person suffering from a smoke related disease the next person requiring a bed is transferred elsewhere which entails suffering. Just because we do not know the specific individual beforehand that is no different than not knowing the specific individual who will suffer when struck by a speeder or the specific individual who will contract cancer from our second hand smoke.

 

[apple0154]

they'd have said 'good luck in your coming wealth', but they would not have mandated it for everyone.

Not mandated it but made it available. If a percentage of the citizens were dying 20 years younger than citizens in other countries, dying or incapacitated in the prime of their life, it would be irresponsible of them not to address the brain drain as well as the financial and emotional cost to others.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not mandated it but made it available. If a percentage of the citizens were dying 20 years younger than citizens in other countries, dying or incapacitated in the prime of their life, it would be irresponsible of them not to address the brain drain as well as the financial and emotional cost to others.

so what does that have to do with the general welfare clause and the mandate of health insurance?

 

[Damocles]

Sure there is a direct victim. When the last hospital bed is filled by a person suffering from a smoke related disease the next person requiring a bed is transferred elsewhere which entails suffering. Just because we do not know the specific individual beforehand that is no different than not knowing the specific individual who will suffer when struck by a speeder or the specific individual who will contract cancer from our second hand smoke.

That isn't a direct victim, you seem to have a fundamental disconnect to what that means.

If every single person was in direct danger because of the food, and those who choose to eat at McD's died because of that direct action those would be direct victims. Saying, "some guy got moved from one hospital bed to another because of the indirect effect of overstuffing themselves with bad food that I can't prove was even McD's food" isn't.

Seriously, you really are willing to give up every freedom to have "perfect" security! It's like speaking to an alien who doesn't even use words to communicate. You are almost entirely Varelse to me.

It's a sad goal and one that makes living almost entirely worthless, IMO. I couldn't imagine a goal of taking away people's choices to force them to live how I think they should based on the sole criteria of "it's better for them"... It isn't a worthy goal, and it devalues freedom. I am jealous of my freedoms and dismiss those who think they can choose better for me and mine. Unfortunately in some places such people hold power and wield it in a way to limit others freedoms. I'll avoid those places both for living and for vacation, I'm afraid that I'll wind up in prison for doing something I do every day in a place of freedom...

 

[apple0154]

(Originally Posted by apple0154)
Not mandated it but made it available. If a percentage of the citizens were dying 20 years younger than citizens in other countries, dying or incapacitated in the prime of their life, it would be irresponsible of them not to address the brain drain as well as the financial and emotional cost to others.

so what does that have to do with the general welfare clause and the mandate of health insurance?

Everything. The general welfare of the country is the government's responsibility. The health of the citizens determines the general welfare of the country. If such wasn't the case biological warfare wouldn't be a problem.

As for mandating health insurance that was the option left open when the Repubs flatly refused universal care. The goal is to ensure everyone is insured and that's the convoluted route the Repubs pushed the government to take.

What's peculiar is some people talk about more discussions as if this is the first time health care has been brought up. As Obama said health care has been discussed for decades and nothing got started. The time was now.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Everything. The general welfare of the country is the government's responsibility. The health of the citizens determines the general welfare of the country. If such wasn't the case biological warfare wouldn't be a problem.

how does this get reconciled between a document that LIMITS the federal government and your interpretation of a clause that says that government can do what it feels is necessary for the general welfare?

answer is that it simply can't.

As for mandating health insurance that was the option left open when the Repubs flatly refused universal care. The goal is to ensure everyone is insured and that's the convoluted route the Repubs pushed the government to take.

why is it the governments responsibility to mandate I purchase health insurance? where do they receive this authority?

What's peculiar is some people talk about more discussions as if this is the first time health care has been brought up. As Obama said health care has been discussed for decades and nothing got started. The time was now.

back in the 30s, the federal government wanted to enact gun control laws, but knew they couldn't ban guns because of 2nd Amendment issues. That is until they conspired with the courts to utilize the commerce clause power. Now, because of that tortured and tattered interpretation, the federal government has the power to regulate whether you plant red roses or yellow roses in your front or side yard simply because 'it has traveled in or affected interstate and intrastate commerce'. You are doing nothing different. Will you be ready to accept the mandate that you buy guns or automobiles to affect interstate commerce? Because that is what you're opening the door to.

 

[NOVA]

The victim is society; every other citizen.

My smoking doesn't affect you in any way at all....
My eating hamburgers doesn't affect you at all....
wtf are you babbling about?

If the government is going to ensure health care for everyone it has to promote a healthy lifestyle and discourage an unhealthy one. Smoking, for example. Do we take up a hospital bed to treat a person with emphysema or lung cancer due to smoking while claiming the government can not offer a bed to someone who has appendicitis?

It is not the governments job to ensure health care for everyone nor is it their business to force anyone into a "healthy lifestyle".....certainly you queers would object to wearing a condon during anal intercourse if you didn't want to, right?

And really,,,,wear the hell do you live that your hospital could not offer a bed to an appendicitis patient?...I'll wager you have enough beds for illegal aliens

We have choices among the good things. As for unfettered freedom we saw the result of "private" SS plans in the past. People did not save. That's why the government had to step in and implement SS.

The strange thing is everything was "private" to start with and government plans only came into effect after "private" was shown to be a failure. People tend to express it as if it's always been the government. That's where the "old, tired, worn-out ideas" expression came from. Everything the government controls started out not being government controlled and failed miserably, be it ensuring safe food and water to retirement plans.

And SS does not infringe on your freedom....except in the sense of being taxed and their are a million reasons the socialists can come up with for being taxed....and even many legitimate reasons...

The government should not restrict anything unless it can be proven to be harmful. Again, it's not just the individual involved. A person participating in an act that has been proven to result in illness/injury means another person stricken with an unprovoked illness/injury must pay a price such as no available hospital bed or doctor or costly medicine or having to contribute to the irresponsible person's financial welfare.

Are the hamburgers you've eaten all summer causing you some dire pain? causing you to suffer some painful sickness?..

IN short, you're a pinhead that don't even know exactly that this thread is all about right?

 

[apple0154]

That isn't a direct victim, you seem to have a fundamental disconnect to what that means.

If every single person was in direct danger because of the food, and those who choose to eat at McD's died because of that direct action those would be direct victims. Saying, "some guy got moved from one hospital bed to another because of the indirect effect of overstuffing themselves with bad food that I can't prove was even McD's food" isn't.

Seriously, you really are willing to give up every freedom to have "perfect" security! It's like speaking to an alien who doesn't even use words to communicate. You are almost entirely Varelse to me.

It's a sad goal and one that makes living almost entirely worthless, IMO. I couldn't imagine a goal of taking away people's choices to force them to live how I think they should based on the sole criteria of "it's better for them"... It isn't a worthy goal, and it devalues freedom. I am jealous of my freedoms and dismiss those who think they can choose better for me and mine. Unfortunately in some places such people hold power and wield it in a way to limit others freedoms. I'll avoid those places both for living and for vacation, I'm afraid that I'll wind up in prison for doing something I do every day in a place of freedom...

Who are the direct victims of the gulf oil spill? The hotel with empty rooms? The fisherman? The guy who didn't sell any boats? Those proprietors weren't "direct" victims but they are victims.

As for victims when I see an old car stalled on the highway and the traffic backed up the government should demand to see service records and if the car had not been properly serviced the driver responsible should be fined a sizable amount to represent the "victims" who were late for work or sat in traffic burning gas. What do you think of that idea?

 

[NOVA]

Who are the direct victims of the gulf oil spill? The hotel with empty rooms? The fisherman? The guy who didn't sell any boats? Those proprietors weren't "direct" victims but they are victims.

As for victims when I see an old car stalled on the highway and the traffic backed up the government should demand to see service records and if the car had not been properly serviced the driver responsible should be fined a sizable amount to represent the "victims" who were late for work or sat in traffic burning gas. What do you think of that idea?

Well, that is direct proof you don't have a clue what this thread we about....

and I believe the idea of punishing the driver of the old car is something that you pinheads would find reasonable and just....exactly the pinhead mindset.

 

[apple0154]

how does this get reconciled between a document that LIMITS the federal government and your interpretation of a clause that says that government can do what it feels is necessary for the general welfare?

answer is that it simply can't.

The things the government was limited to do could only be things the Framers were aware of. What could or couldn't the government do regarding health care back in 1776?

why is it the governments responsibility to mandate I purchase health insurance? where do they receive this authority?

They receive that authority by virtue of being responsible for the general welfare of the country. Again, the goal is to implement a universal plan. It is a step in that direction.

The question to ask is, "Is a country with a healthy population better off than a country with an unhealthy population?" Is cutting the cost of medical care, which universal plans unarguably do, better or worse for a country?

back in the 30s, the federal government wanted to enact gun control laws, but knew they couldn't ban guns because of 2nd Amendment issues. That is until they conspired with the courts to utilize the commerce clause power. Now, because of that tortured and tattered interpretation, the federal government has the power to regulate whether you plant red roses or yellow roses in your front or side yard simply because 'it has traveled in or affected interstate and intrastate commerce'. You are doing nothing different. Will you be ready to accept the mandate that you buy guns or automobiles to affect interstate commerce? Because that is what you're opening the door to.

Dozens of countries have had universal health plans for generations. There have been no slippery slopes. Besides, the mandating of insurance is temporary as it won't be necessary with a universal plan.

We have to remember the government is doing what it has to do in order to effect the change. This wasn't a nefarious planned course of action.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The things the government was limited to do could only be things the Framers were aware of. What could or couldn't the government do regarding health care back in 1776?



They receive that authority by virtue of being responsible for the general welfare of the country. Again, the goal is to implement a universal plan. It is a step in that direction.

The question to ask is, "Is a country with a healthy population better off than a country with an unhealthy population?" Is cutting the cost of medical care, which universal plans unarguably do, better or worse for a country?

Dozens of countries have had universal health plans for generations. There have been no slippery slopes. Besides, the mandating of insurance is temporary as it won't be necessary with a universal plan.

We have to remember the government is doing what it has to do in order to effect the change. This wasn't a nefarious planned course of action.

including violating the constitution?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

the framers knew there would be things they couldn't foresee, but they specifically wrote in where the constitution could be amended to deal with that. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the feds any power over healthcare, nor the insurance industry, and it doesn't matter a bit that other countries do it.