Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not sure if this thread is spam or real. Certainly it is the endless waste of bandwidth by spinning out nonsensicle meanderings about nothing. I haven't read all of the posts, but from what I have read the posters seem all to be missing the point: it is all about paying for patching up people who have suffered health problems from whatever excess they have indulged in. It is all about PUBLIC money.
The solution to all of this is as simple as the resolution of the issue about wearing helmets on motorcycles. I personally don't think there should be laws requiring people to wear helmets on motorcycles. As a former motorcyclist, I am offended that any legislator would take the time and effort to write legislation requiring motorcyclists to wear head gear.
Now, I well understand that falling off a motorcycle and landing on your head will inflict terrible head injuries that will often lead to permanent disability or even death. And I well understand that wearing a helmet will help to mitigate the extent of these injuries and will prevent some injuries entirely. But I do not believe that it should be a matter of public law that people should wear helmets on motorcycles.
I also believe that wearing a proper three point harness (seat belt) while riding in or driving a car will save countless injuries and even death in the event that that vehicle is involved in a crash. I believe that a six point safety harness is even better, and so also is a properly designed and installed roll cage: just ask any NASCAR driver about that. But I do not believe that it should be mandatory that everyone wear seat belts, and I also believe that the cost of designing and installing airbags that will pop out from every conceivable angle in an automobile is a waste of money that could be better spent on better braking systems and better body construction and better driver's education.
I think it should also not be public policy that EVERYONE is prevented from dying for as long as we have the mechanical means of preventing it.
So, if someone is chronically obese, or smokes toxic substances, or drinks poisonous liquids, or rides around on a motorcycle without safety equiipment, or refuses to use seatbelts, and then suffers catastrophic injuries or desease as a result of his own actions, then that person should be denied any form of medical care unless he or she can open up his own wallet, fork over the money needed to patch him/her up. If people refuse to take nominal care of themselves, then the rest of society should not be penalized and required to protect itself from them.
People get sick, suffer injury and fall on hard times for all sorts of reasons not related to eating, drinking, or exposing themselves to needless injury foolishly. Those people rightfully need and deserve the assistance of all of us. But those who abuse the rest of us, do not, wouldn't you say?
The United States Constitution guarantees our "inalienable right to life". Unless you are willing to repeal the Constitution, "nannyism" will grow more and more to be the law of the land, unless we can no longer afford it. If you wish to curb what has been called here, "nannyism", just cut off the funding for medical research, public contributions to hospitals and emergency services, and all forms of health and medical regulation.
The first to die will be little ill children and infants. Next to die will be the chronic drug abuser. After that will be those who have indulged in the self-abuse of excessive consumption followed closely on by those injured in accidents care for which they lacked the resources to pay.
The pile of corpses will be enormous, and while you gloat over the "death of nannyism" you will be gainfully employed digging graves. And what we call America will sink into the same cesspool of humanity that is most of the rest of the world.
Last edited by Acadianlion; 06-22-2009 at 04:32 AM..
My intention for this thread was not "spam." My intention for this thread was to see if others (besides my immediate circle of friends) feel the same way regarding personal responsibility and what appears to be legislating common sense. I do not wish to engage in "smoking wars" and tit for tat about how much unhelmeted motorcyclists cost the state, so I apologize if it appears that way.
I do not wish to engage in "smoking wars" and tit for tat about how much unhelmeted motorcyclists cost the state, .
Yet it goes precisely to the point. This is not a state issue but rather one that is being played out on the national stage. The cost of administrating our aging population is at core: where does the money come from? Yet no one in the elected population nor the electorate itself is advocating a restriction of the benefits that are supposed to be provided to everyone.
In the end, we, the people DEMAND that the state take more and more care of every ill that we have or might have. The State itself does nothing that the electorate (at least in this country) demand that it does.
So if we are indeed a "nanny state" (which in itself is a grossly imbecilic term), then that is because the majority of the electorate in this state have demanded it and those who are opposed either voiced no opinion in opposition, or have decided that taking advantage of all the good freebies at the expense of their own independence is worth the trade off.
Yet it goes precisely to the point. This is not a state issue but rather one that is being played out on the national stage. The cost of administrating our aging population is at core: where does the money come from? Yet no one in the elected population nor the electorate itself is advocating a restriction of the benefits that are supposed to be provided to everyone.
In the end, we, the people DEMAND that the state take more and more care of every ill that we have or might have. The State itself does nothing that the electorate (at least in this country) demand that it does.
So if we are indeed a "nanny state" (which in itself is a grossly imbecilic term), then that is because the majority of the electorate in this state have demanded it and those who are opposed either voiced no opinion in opposition, or have decided that taking advantage of all the good freebies at the expense of their own independence is worth the trade off.
I will indeed agree that the the demands of "we the people" take care of more of the state's ills, ergo, I find it highly hypocritical to complain when our taxes go up to pay for them; however, I think there is plenty of vocal "oppostion" to many laws (using the helmet law as an example). Now, that said, it seems to me that a core group of those who are "for" something, tend to keep bringing it back around until it's passed - regardless of how many people are opposed to them - referendums are rendered useless when bills are introduced and laws passed. I don't care what the laws state. There are other ways around them.
Yes, it does seem to be a national (human nature) issue, but Maine has gone from "bucking the trends" to "leading the nation" when it comes to so-called "Nanny Laws" whereas in the past, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation" meant more of a common sense view of things IMO.
I will indeed agree that the the demands of "we the people" take care of more of the state's ills, ergo, I find it highly hypocritical to complain when our taxes go up to pay for them; however, I think there is plenty of vocal "oppostion" to many laws (using the helmet law as an example). Now, that said, it seems to me that a core group of those who are "for" something, tend to keep bringing it back around until it's passed - regardless of how many people are opposed to them - referendums are rendered useless when bills are introduced and laws passed. I don't care what the laws state. There are other ways around them.
Yes, it does seem to be a national (human nature) issue, but Maine has gone from "bucking the trends" to "leading the nation" when it comes to so-called "Nanny Laws" whereas in the past, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation" meant more of a common sense view of things IMO.
If you noticed, the health plan proposal in Washington, sounds mysteriously like the Dirigo Manifesto!
but Maine has gone from "bucking the trends" to "leading the nation" when it comes to so-called "Nanny Laws" whereas in the past, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation" meant more of a common sense view of things IMO.
Maine hasn't "bucked any trends" in social legislation in the past fifty years. But neither has any other state. The majority of the US population is getting older and demanding more and more protections from everything. Why do you think we are quick to wage war and bluster at almost any one else in the world? We have become as a population so protective of all of our "benes" that we can think only of protecting them.
I think it would be nice if we could go back to the age when there was a certain requirement that people take better care of themselves because the alternative was dying. But in order to that, we will have to go back to a time when schools taught more than how to feel good, and had the diciplinary authority to get the educational message across.
It isn't going to happen in my time, and I fear that it won't happen at all.
Maine hasn't "bucked any trends" in social legislation in the past fifty years. But neither has any other state. The majority of the US population is getting older and demanding more and more protections from everything. Why do you think we are quick to wage war and bluster at almost any one else in the world? We have become as a population so protective of all of our "benes" that we can think only of protecting them.
I think it would be nice if we could go back to the age when there was a certain requirement that people take better care of themselves because the alternative was dying. But in order to that, we will have to go back to a time when schools taught more than how to feel good, and had the diciplinary authority to get the educational message across.
It isn't going to happen in my time, and I fear that it won't happen at all.
I understand your points (and I can agree with the protection of "benes"). I see it as a nice tie in to Nanny Laws. IMO, it's a rather surreptitious way to legislate common sense.
As far as schools go, I won't stray off-topic much except to say that there seems to be far, far, more teaching of "conflict resolution," fitness, how to stay away from drugs and other forms of nagging in general (sorry - had to say it) than there is critical thinking skills. I'm 7 years into this pedagogy now, and I've been watching it the whole time. What I find incredibly ironic is that (according to most Public Service Announcements now anyway) kids are getting fatter and there's an all time high in the rate of drug abuse and bullying.
Oh well, the world won't slow down anytime soon, so I'm afraid that you and I probably won't see a time where people go back to a time where taking care of oneself is a better alternative to death. Here's hoping anyway...
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll certainly have the support of Paul. Maine has a majority of its population getting some kind of state benefits. That will not change until the state goes broke. Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism works until the socialists run out of other people's money." That goes to the heart of the matter. Now I'll wait another 20 pages to comment on this thread.
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll certainly have the support of Paul. Maine has a majority of its population getting some kind of state benefits. That will not change until the state goes broke. Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism works until the socialists run out of other people's money." That goes to the heart of the matter. Now I'll wait another 20 pages to comment on this thread.
Yes, and when you look at the size of the deficits both at the state and national levels, it certainly does look like we have long since run out of money.
Now, the options aren't very attractive. If one believes that we need to maintain a standing military that costs more than most of the rest of the world's standing army's combined, then eventually the money tap will be dry for other programs that are directly related to the quality of life for most people.
NMLM, I know you are old enough to remember the old slogan, "guns or butter". I certainly am. I also believe that individuals need to bear most of the responsibility for their own lives and the role of the state should be to be involved only when circumstances have defeated the ability of that individual to achieve his desired living standard through his own effort. An example of this is state assistance to families and individuals who are injured as a result of some catastrophic occurrence, like a manufacturing plant burning down.
By the same token, I do NOT believe that the "nanny state" should automatically step in when that same nanny state has managed to make it impossible for that manufacturing plant to exist or (in the case of that fire), to rebuild.
Since our state and federal governments have refused to encourage industrial production and growth, and in fact have ENcouraged so much of our wealth making processes to go away, all that is left in many cases is some sort of "nannyism".
As I have said before "consumerism" as public policy does not create wealth, and in the absence of any wealth creation, the Nanny State MUST exist to protect and provide for the individual.
NMLM, I know you are old enough to remember the old slogan, "guns or butter". I certainly am. I also believe that individuals need to bear most of the responsibility for their own lives and the role of the state should be to be involved only when circumstances have defeated the ability of that individual to achieve his desired living standard through his own effort. An example of this is state assistance to families and individuals who are injured as a result of some catastrophic occurrence, like a manufacturing plant burning down.
I'm not QUITE that old, thought I know the slogan, I didn't live it.... but I must agree. This is one reason why, though I likely qualify for at least some sort of assistance (food stamps, medical help) I have not applied. I treat myself, use the medics as a "last resort" if needed, work my #### off and make do.
And am making do well enough to have property here in Maine and a garden that is getting worked totally by hand power and producing despite overwhelming odds, and weeds. One should do what what can with what they've got.. and if you bite off more than you can swallow...well chew faster!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
