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.
Fat tax proposed for poor. As usual, the advice comes replete with to-the-dollar “savings” and “lives saved”, as though these numbers aren’t just plucked from the proposer’s a$$. And since we know that the poorer you are the more a tax will impact you, guess who’ll end up modifying their behavior, if anyone does at all?
It annoys me that these laws are always proposed by liberals who, when they aren’t busy telling the rest of us how to live our lives, pretend to have sympathy for the disadvantaged.
I have been for the banning of trans fats in foods because it serves no purpose and is bad for the human body.
Just like they told us eggs, coffee, wine and beer were bad for us. If we banned everything the little control freak tyrants didn't like we'd be eating nothing but raw tofu and broccoli. Trans fats won't kill you, but riding in a plane, car, bus or train can. How about we are made informed of the choices available to us, and then let us decide how to make them?
Just like they told us eggs, coffee, wine and beer were bad for us. If we banned everything the little control freak tyrants didn't like we'd be eating nothing but raw tofu and broccoli. Trans fats won't kill you, but riding in a plane, car, bus or train can. How about we are made informed of the choices available to us, and then let us decide how to make them?
Yeah, I think I would rather listen to science. Funny how I don't eat trans fats, yet I am eating healthy food and not eating raw tofu and broccoli....though I do enjoy broccoli in my stir fry.
And I accept it, as the cost is still primarily born on the person doing the action. Its a small price for the ability to do what I want.
You keep repeating a lie. It does not require an intervention on the part of the government for you to have the ability to do what you want. The absence of government is what allows you "freedom" to do what you want.
You seem to be saying that. Not only are you paying for the costs of your own healthcare. But you are also paying for the costs of others. But in the absence of government intervention. You would be paying far less, because you would now only have to pay for yourself, and not anyone else. And you would lose absolutely no freedom "to do what you want".
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
But now that health care is freeeee, it should not not matter to you how badly your neighbor abuses their body, because their health care is freeee.
BTW, banning anything and everything, because you think it might lead to someone, somewhere needing medical care is ignorant. You may as well ban automobiles, homes with bathrooms, stairs, swimming pools, roller blades, skate boards, and ration food.
I agree, if you start down the road of banning anything that might create a social hazard. That there is a really really long list of things that should be on that list. But it is not illogical to take the position that if society is going to be on the hook for any cost of any choice that anyone makes. That society should have some ability to prevent people from doing at least specific things which would create the largest burden on society.
Look at it like this. Around 20% of the US population has a disability. Which means 80% of the population effectively is supporting the other 20%. Many of these people are elderly, or who have some condition that is no fault of their own. But many of these people are disabled because of accidents. And most accidents are preventable.
Take for instance some guy who was out mountain-climbing. Who falls and breaks his back, and has to eat through a straw and be taken care of by someone else for the rest of his life.
The question is, should mountain-climbing then be illegal? Well, I don't think anything should be illegal as long as the actions of that person don't do any harm to anyone else. The problem is that, if that guy breaks his back. Then the government forces me and the rest of society to pay to take care of him the rest of his life. Which means, his actions can negatively affect me. And it should not be legal for the actions of others to do harm to me. Thus one could argue that mountain-climbing should be illegal.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-09-2013 at 03:25 PM..
Guess the next question can be to wutitiz when you're 75-80 and need new knees from running too much (I'm not saying runners get this or not)...... your insurance won't cover all of the surgery and your tapped out, should we pick up the cost of you impacting your knees every day? I feel we've went from supporting those who have tried to have health insurance to telling people just sit and it will come to them via someone else. This plan can not work money has got to be going into the pot, oh I guess taxing the Americans is the answer..........this health care is nothing, but forced taxes and fines.
I do think at some point we all do damage to ourselves. What we need is reasonable insurance, which I'm not sure anyone knows how this works. Then stop people from using emergency rooms for common colds and such. Seems to me our country has hung a "free medical care" sign as long as your not American. People from all over are using our medical facility's and abusing the medical care system, by not paying their bills.
Then we have people like Dick Cheney who has the "Golden Medical Plan" not to mention all the botox Pelsoi and Kerry are receiving.
regardless, sucking smoke into your lungs on a regular basis is not going to end well. That's why the good lord (or Darwin, take your pick) gave you a cough reflex when encountering smoke.
It's not necessary to smoke pot to enjoy it. Vaporization & edibles work just fine. And just a point here... notice the word "could" in the title of the study you cite..... as in possible but not proven. Then notice the phrase "not associated with" in the NORML study, as in...... it's been proven.
Guess the next question can be to wutitiz when you're 75-80 and need new knees from running too much (I'm not saying runners get this or not)...... your insurance won't cover all of the surgery and your tapped out, should we pick up the cost of you impacting your knees every day? I feel we've went from supporting those who have tried to have health insurance to telling people just sit and it will come to them via someone else. This plan can not work money has got to be going into the pot, oh I guess taxing the Americans is the answer..........this health care is nothing, but forced taxes and fines.
I do think at some point we all do damage to ourselves. What we need is reasonable insurance, which I'm not sure anyone knows how this works. Then stop people from using emergency rooms for common colds and such. Seems to me our country has hung a "free medical care" sign as long as your not American. People from all over are using our medical facility's and abusing the medical care system, by not paying their bills.
Then we have people like Dick Cheney who has the "Golden Medical Plan" not to mention all the botox Pelsoi and Kerry are receiving.
3~Shepherds, my 50-plus year-old knees are as perfectly beautiful as you--no insurance needed in either case. Studies show that long distance running actually strengthens the joints and prevents injury.
James Fries, M.D., co-author of a 2008 study from Stanford that tracked 528 runners and 423 non-runners beginning in 1984, counts the ways: "Running improves your blood pressure. You're less likely to get blood clots and varicose veins. Bones become stronger and denser. It's a treatment for osteoporosis. It prevents fractures of the hips and spine. The ligaments get bigger and stronger–they protect the joints from wobbling, which is one thing that causes joints to wear out. Lungs get stronger. Our physical reserve is greater."
The Stanford study confirmed what lifelong runners have always suspected:
- Runners suffer fewer disabilities. Running delays age-related disabilities by almost two decades.
- Runners are seven times less likely to require knee replacement.
- Running doesn't lead to increased hip, back or knee problems.
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.
(I'm not saying runners get this or not)...... your insurance won't cover all of the surgery and your tapped out, should we pick up the cost of you impacting your knees every day? I feel we've went from supporting those who have tried to have health insurance to telling people just sit and it will come to them via someone else. This plan can not work money has got to be going into the pot, oh I guess taxing the Americans is the answer..........this health care is nothing, but forced taxes and fines.
What a mess and it does look like this was done on purpose.
