Thread: Where Do We Draw The Line?

I've been reading the thread on "Nanny State" and it got me thinking.

Other than what I think most of us would agree on, i.e. Stealing, killing and willfully doing something to hurt others, where do we draw the line on government mandates?

Should the government be allowed to dictate education? health care? wages? The list goes on and on. What do you think?

AS THE STARTER OF THIS THREAD I'M IMPOSING MY OWN THEOCRACY......CIVIL, POLITE AND RESPECTFUL COMMENTS ONLY PLEASE

If the Govt is paying subsidies to fund the above services,thay can make the rules.

As long as the US is a Republic and not a Democracy, it doesn't really matter what I think in regards to big government vs. small government. The people in office will continue to do what is in their best interest which is not always in the best interest of their constituants.

In your country you have elections to congress every two years, right? Here in Canada, we have a parliamentary system with no fixed election dates, but generally, terms run about 4 years.

Either way, whether its every two or every four years we have the option of kicking out the incumbent and making it clear to candidates that we will do the same to them if they don't do as we ask.

I think there are many cases where a government has backtracked on a decision due to public dissent.

You want a can of worms here?

it's easy to say the Govt should butt out of our lives until you wake up at 3AM with a crushing pain in your chest and you are rushed to the Hospital and you have no insurance. Should the hospital demand up front payment or say go out and die on the street? Why should the hospital be required by law to treat you if you can't pay ain't that Govt intrusion on free enterprise? I mean while you're laying outside the hospital your wife could go begging on the street.

What happens when the economy tanks and there is a run on the banks like in 1929 (no regulations then) and people are homeless and starving on the streets?

Or when the Tornado comes through your town and destroys everything and the folks are complaining cause the Govt doesn't act fast enough or not at all.

Or maybe when the sludge pond the coal company has been accumulating for 100 years breaks and sends a torrent of poisonous fluid down the valley killing hundreds and causing hundreds of millions in damage?

We could go on and on here.

Like all things in life - there is a balance.
For me the balance is on the side of as little government as possible - though, as pointed out above, some government is needed for some things.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

You want a can of worms here?

it's easy to say the Govt should butt out of our lives until you wake up at 3AM with a crushing pain in your chest and you are rushed to the Hospital and you have no insurance. Should the hospital demand up front payment or say go out and die on the street? Why should the hospital be required by law to treat you if you can't pay ain't that Govt intrusion on free enterprise? I mean while you're laying outside the hospital your wife could go begging on the street.

What happens when the economy tanks and there is a run on the banks like in 1929 (no regulations then) and people are homeless and starving on the streets?

Or when the Tornado comes through your town and destroys everything and the folks are complaining cause the Govt doesn't act fast enough or not at all.

Or maybe when the sludge pond the coal company has been accumulating for 100 years breaks and sends a torrent of poisonous fluid down the valley killing hundreds and causing hundreds of millions in damage?

We could go on and on here.

I think maybe you misunderstood me...

Here in Canada, we pay higher taxes, but we do have a health care system that I'm happy to pay for. I've been at that hospital entrance at 3 AM, been admitted, gone through 3 major surgeries and probably have logged a lot more hospital and intensive care days than most. If I had to pay for that out of pocket, I would be living in a cardboard box right now, if I would even be alive.

The point of my OP was to just have a discussion. Personally, I believe government should, nay, has an obligation to administer health care for its citizens. I know, there's room for abuse, but overall its better than the alternative.

The tornado issue is a bit different. yes, I would expect that in cases of emergency our government would help so that I don't have to sleep on the street through no fault of my own, but after that, its up to me to rebuild.

Ill put my 2 cents Joe,
As pixelfixed put it, if they are going to foot the cost, they can make the rules.

As an x-smoker I have a little sympathy for the shop owner, lets face it, most of us enjoy a smoke of some sort once in a while, however, smoking puts a massive strain on out health care system and IMO should be outlawed, its borderline suicide (IMO- touchy subject).
Again IMO the government is a running business and will take any necessary steps to protects its own interests (or ours ).
I have recently seen the light and realize now that if im not satisfied with the way my country is running, I should pick a country who does things better and migrate.

Just my two cents...

Originally Posted by epd

Ill put my 2 cents Joe,
As pixelfixed put it, if they are going to foot the cost, they can make the rules.

As an x-smoker I have a little sympathy for the shop owner, lets face it, most of us enjoy a smoke of some sort once in a while, however, smoking puts a massive strain on out health care system and IMO should be outlawed, its borderline suicide (IMO- touchy subject).
Again IMO the government is a running business and will take any necessary steps to protects its own interests (or ours ).
I have recently seen the light and realize now that if im not satisfied with the way my country is running, I should pick a country who does things better and migrate.

Just my two cents...

epd...I would have no problem whatsoever if our government outlawed tobacco products. I think it would be a good thing, but will probably never happen as its too big an industry.

Having said that, as long as a businessman is selling a legal product and the government is collecting taxes from him he deserves to be treated fairly.

As far as migrating because we don't like something...I'll give you my $0.02 worth. Its every bit as much my country as theirs. I'd rather stay and fight than let beurocratic bullies chase me away.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

What sense does it make to run the postal system at a loss? There are more postal employees now than they can use. Many are paid to sit in a room and not work because they are unionized and can't be fired. Making it public and adding competition would make the price and employee levels make sense.

Healthcare costs are rising faster right now because of Obamacare before it is even fully implemented. Mandates like kids until 26 years old and mandated freebies are already driving up costs.

We already have doctors refusing Blue Cross patients because Blue Cross doesn't pay. Obamacare is promising the same end. Doctors will be forced to treat more for less and many will just quit.

I just hope the Supreme Court sees that it is Unconstitutional and throws out the whole law.

The legislators need to READ the law before they vote on it. Pelosie's statement, "We need to pass this law so we can find out what's in it", AAARRRGGGHHHHH!!

I'm not trying to be rude, but this seems to be just following the party line...unions are bad, obamacare will ruin everything...

So we dump the post office since it runs at a loss and now we can only use ups or dhl?

How are lots of countries able to have fully functional government health care programs (which, arguably, take better care of their people than we do) and if we try to go that route, everything will come crumbling down? People making a profit off my well being scares me more than socialized medicine...