"Freedom" thread or something

The problem is that the Ocare is going to be mandated.....so people who feel they cannot afford to pay those penalties become criminals?  What then, is the Govt going to seize their bank accounts to extract the smoking penalties from these people who need that money to live on?  Garnish their wages?

How progressive. 

Finnforest wrote: Doc.... More insanity.... http://rt.com/usa/news/oregon-law-state-nicotine-697/

Wait a minute, wait a minute.

So they make nicotine a Schedule III drug, and people will have to have a doctor's prescription to buy and smoke cigarettes, which means they will turn to their insurance companies, which they are forced to do business with...

Neelus wrote: Aren't illegal stuff tax free?  Smoking might become cheaper?

Doesn't quite work that way I'm afraid, because there is a cost to evading the law plus a risk premium, so things become more expensive. We can see this from illegal drug prices now.

The one thing I like is accepting people with pre-existing conditions. I say this for several cases very close to me. 

The T wrote: The one thing I like is accepting people with pre-existing conditions. I say this for several cases very close to me.

I understand why you feel that way, but it just doesn't make sense to me. You can't buy fire insurance when your house is already on fire. You can't buy car insurance when you've already destroyed your car in an accident.

JJLehto wrote: The Doctor wrote: Finnforest wrote: Doc.... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57565787/older-smokers-priced-out-of-obamacare/ More insanity.... http://rt.com/usa/news/oregon-law-state-nicotine-697/ Good god.    Ridiculous on so many levels.  and yet, this is what government gets you. Can't separate econ...if they take control of one area, they will take more of ALL. Human psychology and behavior simply. I am glad at least you're not delusional and see that Obama and Democrats are a joke to be called liberals. Now if only DT fan would realize...

You know, I see what you're getting at, but...I just can't seem to sympathize since I think smoking sucks.  I mean, nicotine is more addictive than many illegal substances, and cigarette companies have perfected the art of making them highly addictive and getting people to justify their need for them despite the many, well documented reasons that smoking destroys your body.  Not only that, but second hand smoke hurts people around smokers too.  So if it takes something like this to break that habit...I dunno...I'm having a hard time sympathizing...perhaps this will make more smokers across the nation finally think seriously about giving it up.  I mean, I sympathize with the plight of the smoker, and how hard it is to give it up.  Which is why I think maybe it would take something like this to force them to make these hard decisions.

Libertarians love to rail against the evils of government and trust in the free market for everything.  But what about areas where companies have all adopted practices that are questionable and thus no free man has the ability to choose unless they leave society completely and go back to building their house out of mud and planting their own crops?  My wife and I just watched a TED talk about how companies that make diet foods are actually making products that are worse for you because of their addictive nature.  At one point he talked about how milk has sugar in it, and demonstrated by pouring a wheel barrel full of sugar unto a tarp saying that this was just the amount of sugar you would consume from one glass of milk a day in a year.  How can one person stop that kind of bad practice?  I can see no other way to stop companies from doing this sort of thing when they all are doing it besides the government stepping in and putting regulations in place.


Edited by dtguitarfan - January 26 2013 at 13:40

Not quite my point there, which was that Doc wants to have government out of "life" but have say in econ, which isn't possible.

However, I will go with your point.
Yeah you're pretty much right, again its the need to "fix" our problems. I understand, really I do, who doesnt want people to do whats right for themselves? But really...there are lines. We are still all individuals, we make choices, we live them. Family and friends are there to help. We just can't fix all of societies issues, and right the mistakes people make.
We choose to smoke, to eat crap foods, etc and we can't all pay for the "mistake" of people harming themselves.

Like it's been said many times, who chooses? You are much nicer than a lot of anti smokers, but you did say it: you think smoking sucks. Basically you want your views/beliefs imposed. Now Doc who's a smoker is quite against all this. Thus back to the core issue: who decides what?
Now I can be OK with certain types of regulations, perhaps some limits on what companies do to our food is a good one.

Edit: Yes that would be the best way, when someone else foots a bill its easy for cost to spiral out of hand. Most things need to be paid for by us (with limits on competition removed to bring price down) but there is a strong rationale for "catastrophe"


Edited by JJLehto - January 26 2013 at 13:51

JJLehto wrote: Like it's been said many times, who chooses? You are much nicer than a lot of anti smokers, but you did say it: you think smoking sucks. Basically you want your views/beliefs imposed. Now Doc who's a smoker is quite against all this. Thus back to the core issue: who decides what?

I think it comes down to: does your choice only hurt you, or can it be proven that it hurts other people too?  In the case of smoking, it is provable that second hand smoke hurts too.  And it definitely adds to the cost of health care, so there's a practical aspect to the additional health care costs.

As to my argument about not being able to choose - it's like I said, when one company figures out that adding tons of sugar to things makes them more addictive, and then ALL companies start doing it...yeah, sure, you can buy your milk from farmers, and it's a lot more expensive.  I can't afford to live like that.  My grocery bills are high enough, and I'm paying for my college still, and a mortgage, and three kids, and.....

Believe me, I'd LOVE to be able to afford to buy all natural foods, but I can't.  I need the government's help in this area.  I need them to step in.

dtguitarfan wrote: yeah, sure, you can buy your milk from farmers, and it's a lot more expensive.  I can't afford to live like that.  My grocery bills are high enough, and I'm paying for my college still, and a mortgage, and three kids, and..... Believe me, I'd LOVE to be able to afford to buy all natural foods, but I can't.  I need the government's help in this area.  I need them to step in.

Why do you think raw milk is more expensive than supermarket milk? It is not more expensive to produce, so if there was a demand for it, why couldn't it be just as cheap and widespread as other kinds? Two reasons. One, the FDA imposes regulations about pasteurization and preservatives that prevent raw milk from being being distributed and sold nationally (yay big government!) and two, most people don't think it tastes as good. When you have preferences that are not in line with the majority, you are going to pay more. That's just how it works. Why should you be subsidized for having unusual tastes?

I expect that you'll respond that it's a health concern, that the milk you buy in stores is BAD for you, and so that makes it different. In that case, shouldn't the government give people subsidies to buy SUVs, since they are safer in a crash? A lot of people have to drive to work and can't afford nice cars with lots of safety features. Isn't it only fair that the government buy them better ones, since it's a health issue?

Epignosis wrote: Watched Atlas Shrugged last night. I thought they did a very good job with it (I can see why some criticize it as a wooden film, but it's based on a wooden novel, so).  The scenery around the railroads was amazing. But even though it's somewhat exaggerated, it does a fine job showing how big government is a tool used by big money.  Rich companies use the government to impose regulations that restrict competition.

The first one or the second one? I think I liked the first one better, although neither are examples of great cinema. Still, they did a good job getting the message across and I am glad that they are out there now.