Nanny State Strikes Again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

I don't generally discuss politics or religion, but thought I'd add this: I heard on the radio this morning that New York City is considering banning restaurants from serving any sugary drinks over 16 oz.Now That's going too far.

And back to the original topic, all blue laws ever accomplished here in SC was to make bootleggers rich!

---

Since Mayor Bloomberg has also outlawed consumption of salt, I doubt 16 ounce big gulps will be required! It won't be long until you can't buy red meat, anything fried or deserts containing sugar in NYC. Post-dinner smoke or cocktail? Totally out of the question. Some will agree, others will disagree but "the greater good" doesn't have a damn thing to do with laws like this, it's a control ploy nothing more, nothing less. I for one have a lot of heartburn with the government regulating things that should clearly be individual choice. What makes this law especially ridiculous is that I can't buy any drink over 16 ounces in size. If however I want to buy 5 refills of a 12 ounce coke then I'm in good shape, right?

I hope none of you guys seriously think I am for any form of dictatorship. In politics, you can parse a phrase like "greater good" just about any way you want; then it devolves into Orwellian semantics. But in actuality, a dictatorship only benefits the few politically-connected apparatchiks. Would you guys prefer that our government exist to benefit only an elite few? (I think you could make a very convincing argument that our own government does this, but that's another bottomless pit...).

What was it I said earlier about not discussing politics? I'm going to crawl back into my hole now, for the greater good.
:mace:

Maybe we should have a points system in this country where when it came to dealing with health problems someone told you well, you smoked and drank heavily and ate bad things and drank bad things so we're gonna jack up your healthcare costs and maybe...oh wait that's the exact system we have now when PRIVATE insurers deny coverage or charge more because of fabricated reasons they come up with. Or maybe they discover you lied about something on your application and just deny your treatment totally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Or maybe they discover you lied about something on your application and just deny your treatment totally.

---

Yeah, imagine that - someone denied service for lying and committing fraud. My goodness, what has this world come to?

I agree that if you have signed a contract and have been subsequently found to have breached that contract (like lying about a health-related issue to a health insurer) then of course the other party is well within their rights to terminate that contract. Assuming of course the contract itself is legal and not in breach of any relevant laws.

However, the issue for me is the system that creates a need for such contracts in the first place, and the power differential between the parties involved. It seems to me, coming from Australia which has arguably (and comparatively-speaking) a quite equitable health system run on the people's behalf by the Government, that a corporate approach to health care is a certain recipe for market failure in a human services sector like health, and more generally in public health.

Let's face it, health care is not a typical "market" in the economic sense, and if you think it is I pray to God (or whoever) on your behalf that you never get seriously ill. People may argue in fact that your health care treatment should follow an economic model, and that a cost-benefit approach should be taken, but be honest: when it is you or your nearest and dearest, economics holds little sway. The "market" fails in these circumstances (until legislation passes that allow health care companies to euthanise its "terminal and expensive" clients), and when markets fail it is common and accepted economic theory that Government steps in.

Further, the (growing number of) lower socio-economic classes can little afford health insurance costs, and they do in fact get sick on occasion. Again, in my eyes that is a market failure by simple definition. And again, in my opinion the Government needs to step in in those cases.

People may argue why should their taxes go toward the dole-bludging, chain smoking, crack-addicted members of the citizenry? I say because they are your fellow countrymen and women, and who else is going to watch out for them if not you? What sort of country allows its own citizens to just fall away because of a political and economic ideology? One that has forgotten its roots, I think.

James.

Sorry, I am NOT my brothers keeper and he is not mine.

To me, government intervention in my health care is plain and simple tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Yeah, imagine that - someone denied service for lying and committing fraud. My goodness, what has this world come to?

---

Nice try however it's not that someone failed to mention the previous heart attack but more in line with some obscure test you took 15 years ago that was negative but forgot to list it and they use that to deny coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Sorry, I am NOT my brothers keeper and he is not mine.

To me, government intervention in my health care is plain and simple tyranny.

---

How Christian of you....

I think there is something to be said for the idea: "The best way to help mankind is to make sure that mankind never needs to help you."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

How Christian of you....

---

Please explain to me what is Christian or even charitable about a citizen who pays the government racketeers enough protection money to stay out of prison? Seems to me, if folks want to demonstrate their true sense of charity (Christian or otherwise) they should do so of their own free will. Volunteer work, donations to churches or other charitable causes of your own choosing would be examples. But income taxes? Isn't that a lot like if you got robbed at gun point and then ran around patting yourself on the back because you just helped a poor unfortunate out? I say to Warren Buffett and the rest of these self-loathing jack wagons screaming that they don't pay enough taxes, there is certainly no law that says you can't cut them a check with a few extra zeroes at the end of the year, if that will make you feel better. In Buffett's case however, it appears he wasn't even paying them what he owed them let alone anything extra.