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.
stillkit - One alternative is UHC where we all take care of providing health care for everyone. I think the football players would appreciate that. So would our injured soldiers and their families. Unfortunately I do see we are actually headed for a everyone for themselves HC system where the even the cost of insurance becomes prohibitive for median income or below families. I think the HC industry will soon lobby for UHC as they would like to get paid for providing services mandated by the society.
I think Health Care is a “Natural Monopoly” that should be owned, if not paid for, by the entire society through their government. I think it is, as we have seen, too likely to be abused by the private sector in their pursuit of maximum profit by denying services.
Remember when the fine upstanding conservative religious types managed to make drinking alcohol illegal?
No I don't remember. Prohibition was overwhelmingly a product of the progressive movement of the early 20th century. They were religious liberals, not conservatives. Just as with today's liberals, they believed that the great unwashed masses could be sorted, cleaned up, and generally improved via top-down directives from the elites of academia and politics.
This is not a left/right issue no matter how many times somebody tries to frame it that way. The impulse to direct other people's lives extends across the aisle.
au contraire, it is a left/right issue no matter how much uneasy libs DON'T want to frame it that way. Specifically it is an issue of collectiveism vs. individualism. Note that not all conservatives are individualist (see Rick Santorum for example). But most are. The nanny state initiatives(perhaps the war on drugs excepted) have been overwhelmingly a product of the left, with support from the Santorums. The war on guns, war on tobacco, now the war on food all came out of the left. There's also an effort to have a revitalized war on prostitution, also from the left.
Conservatives tend to want these decisions left in the hands of the individual, along with the responsibility for consequences. Liberals want the decisions and responsibility at the collective level. There may be some who want the decision (e.g whether to smoke) left at the individual and the responsibility (e.g. the lung cancer treatement) at the collective level, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
I'm glad that "libs" did what they did with tobacco. I don't want to work or eat around smoking.
In any event, Big Tobacco companies or farmers don't seem to be hurting one it.
A major difference is that secondhand smoke is dangerous to everyone. I don't see a problem with secondhand football. If you don't want to play football, don't play.
From what I've been reading recently, second-hand smoke is no more detrimental than getting high from second-hand weed. Sit in a room with others smoking pot for an hour and you have no problem passing a drug test. Seems that second-hand smoke is being given far more credit than it is due. The biggest offense seems to be the odor.
In my lifetime there has been a pretty dramatic transformation when it comes to tobacco. As a kid I had a job as a janitor at a big insurance co. one summer, and I still recall that many of the desks had ashtrays that I would have to dump out. I also remember a few kids starting to smoke around 6th grade or so. They could walk into any store and buy a pack of smokes.
We've all been hearing the numbers about how health-threatening football is. One study found that the average lifespan of an NFL player with 4 years or more was only 55 years. I remember reading an interview with an ex-player who enjoyed jogging, and one of his goals had been to retire before he was unable to run. Many players are no longer able to run after they retire. In other words, this is a sport that regularly cripples people.
It's not just the NFL either--over the years I've run into a ton of guys who had various physical issues due to injuries suffered in school football. According to the CDC the injury rate in HS football is almost double that of other sports. I find it crazy that our gov't-run, tax-funded public schools sponsor an activity so hazardous to health. Imagine a high school 'smoking team' where everybody cheers the kids who can smoke the most cigarettes.
The restrictions that have been placed on tobacco would have been unimaginable 35 years ago. Do you think we could ever go down a similar road regarding football?
This post raises a most interesting question, despite the inflammatory headline tying "liberals" to it.
I am one of those carrying a physical reminder of high school football, I am horrified by the mortality stats on NFL players, and I am positive the game will change a lot in the years ahead.
It is totally irrational, but I am a huge fan. Football reaches deep inside, perhaps tapping into tribal instincts. It is fundamental. I hate the human carnage, I love the game.
Recent rules changes to promote player safety are routinely derided by certain moron TV commentators, who think it is great when the brains get knocked out of an unprotected receiver. There will be more rules with heavier penalties in the future.
I am philosophically about as conservative as you get, but I am in favor of the evolution of the game toward less human damage.
Most football injuries can be reduced with proper equipment and proper training. High School Football injuries are at a higher rate then NFL or College level due to the number of incompetent coaches at that level who don't know how to teach their athletes how to reduce those injuries.
I doubt the mainstream left will ever push for a ban on football but the FAR left loonies and extreme feminists probably would seeing as they hate competition of any kind and anything considered masculine. To them, every football player is a rapist pig mongoloid. Health risks wouldn't have anything to do with their position as they probably like seeing football players suffer injury and death but they might use the concussion issue to their benefit.
This post raises a most interesting question, despite the inflammatory headline tying "liberals" to it.
I am one of those carrying a physical reminder of high school football, I am horrified by the mortality stats on NFL players, and I am positive the game will change a lot in the years ahead.
It is totally irrational, but I am a huge fan. Football reaches deep inside, perhaps tapping into tribal instincts. It is fundamental. I hate the human carnage, I love the game.
Recent rules changes to promote player safety are routinely derided by certain moron TV commentators, who think it is great when the brains get knocked out of an unprotected receiver. There will be more rules with heavier penalties in the future.
I am philosophically about as conservative as you get, but I am in favor of the evolution of the game toward less human damage.
My question is this... even with the advent of better equipment and awareness regarding head injuries we seem to be seeing more concussions and spinal injuries than ever before. Is that because it is just being reported now or is it an actual increase?
Part of me wonders if these injuries are unavoidable because of how fast and strong the average player is nowadays. I'm in my thirties and played football in HS. The sheer difference in size between the "big" guys in my day to now is incredible. If you want to play on the offensive line for a good program you need to be 270 + lbs. Even the skill guys are much larger. Our leading reciever was 150 lbs soaking wet and was 1st team all county. Now he'd probably be too small. Plus, besides being bigger, these guys are faster and stronger so you have bigger bodies hitting each other at much higher speeds. Do the math....
From what I've been reading recently, second-hand smoke is no more detrimental than getting high from second-hand weed. Sit in a room with others smoking pot for an hour and you have no problem passing a drug test. Seems that second-hand smoke is being given far more credit than it is due. The biggest offense seems to be the odor.
I don't want anything to do with weed either. Legalize or decriminalize it, but don't allow it to be out in the open so others have to smell it.
au contraire, it is a left/right issue no matter how much uneasy libs DON'T want to frame it that way. Specifically it is an issue of collectiveism vs. individualism. Note that not all conservatives are individualist (see Rick Santorum for example). But most are. The nanny state initiatives(perhaps the war on drugs excepted) have been overwhelmingly a product of the left, with support from the Santorums. The war on guns, war on tobacco, now the war on food all came out of the left.
Tell me more about this "war on guns." It's easy to buy guns. And ammo, too.
Quote:
There's also an effort to have a revitalized war on prostitution, also from the left.
Sounds a lot more like something from the "religious right."
Quote:
Conservatives tend to want these decisions left in the hands of the individual, along with the responsibility for consequences.
Mayn conservatives want to evade responsibility for the consequences. By simply burying their heads in the sand and denying the reality that tobacco damages others through second hand smoke. That burning prodigious quantities of fossil fuels damages health and the environment.
Quote:
Liberals want the decisions and responsibility at the collective level.
The reality is that we all live together and are interdependent on one another. Contemporary society is built on cooperation, a collective endeavor.
Quote:
There may be some who want the decision (e.g whether to smoke) left at the individual and the responsibility (e.g. the lung cancer treatement) at the collective level, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Like smokers who bristle at higher insurance rates?
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.
