Baby steps

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once upon a time, Thomas Edison invented an incandescent light bulb. Tomorrow (2014) will see the government ban on incandescent light bulbs become almost complete.

The rightist obsession of this is bizarre, I understand the dogma of it, but it’s bizarre nonetheless.

Since the First Quarter of the 19th Century the Court has ruled that Congress has the implied, un-enumerated authority to regulate commerce and enact legislation deemed ‘necessary and proper’ to realize desired goals in a civilized society.

Acts of Congress reflect the will of the people – including seatbelts, light bulbs, and health insurance. Acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional; any citizen who believes otherwise may file suit in Federal court.

The idea that the measures noted in the OP will somehow result in the loss of civil liberties or the establishment of a totalitarian state is naïve and hyperbolic.

The true threat to our civil liberties is the likes of the Patriot Act, or other efforts to undermine our 4th Amendment right to privacy, to be secure in our ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects.’ Or efforts to abridge our 5th and 6th Amendment right to due process in an effort to ‘fight crime’ or conduct a ‘war on terror.’ Or the effort to abrogate our 14th Amendment right to equal access to the laws.

If the people determine through their elected officials in Congress to ban a light bulb considered inefficient or otherwise harmful, they may do so. They may not, however, determine the rights a given American may or may not have.

I would recommend the right get its priorities straight in this regard.

 

[alan1]

Pattern my ass! Pretty much every state in the union has a Patient Self Determination Act....which means no one has to have a medical procedure they don't want.

Patient Self-Determination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Next you will be on some 'death panel' kick! You cannot see how completely ludicrous you are being.

Yes, I can see how ludicrous I am being.
Just like the people that said smoking sections on airplanes wouldn't lead to entire cities that banned smoking.
Just like the people that didn't see optional seat-belts becoming a fine for not wearing one.
Just like the Edison invented light bulbs were never imagined to be banned by federal government.

SO, when someone smokes to the point of having lung cancer and can no longer work, you are pleased to provide them with health care via Medicaid/SS disability/Medicare. Or government subsidies to the care facilities as e have now. Groovy.

Just like the people that didn't see optional seat-belts becoming a fine for not wearing one.

So when someone requires 40 years of nursing home care secondary to an MVA in which they were not wearing a belt you are pleased to provide them with 40 years of long term health care via Medicaid/SS disability/Medicare. Or government subsidies to the care facilities as we have now. Groovy.

Just like the Edison invented light bulbs were never imagined to be banned by federal government

WTF does THAT have to do with health care? Clue: NOTHING!

The point of the OP was about government encroachment.
All my examples showed that.
Your refusal to acknowledge that which has happened does not mean my prediction is false, only that it hasn't happened yet.
I have history on my side of the argument, you don't.

 

[Si modo]

Once upon a time, Thomas Edison invented an incandescent light bulb. Tomorrow (2014) will see the government ban on incandescent light bulbs become almost complete.

The rightist obsession of this is bizarre, I understand the dogma of it, but it’s bizarre nonetheless.

Since the First Quarter of the 19th Century the Court has ruled that Congress has the implied, un-enumerated authority to regulate commerce and enact legislation deemed ‘necessary and proper’ to realize desired goals in a civilized society.

Acts of Congress reflect the will of the people – including seatbelts, light bulbs, and health insurance. Acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional; any citizen who believes otherwise may file suit in Federal court.

The idea that the measures noted in the OP will somehow result in the loss of civil liberties or the establishment of a totalitarian state is naïve and hyperbolic.

The true threat to our civil liberties is the likes of the Patriot Act, or other efforts to undermine our 4th Amendment right to privacy, to be secure in our ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects.’ Or efforts to abridge our 5th and 6th Amendment right to due process in an effort to ‘fight crime’ or conduct a ‘war on terror.’ Or the effort to abrogate our 14th Amendment right to equal access to the laws.

If the people determine through their elected officials in Congress to ban a light bulb considered inefficient or otherwise harmful, they may do so. They may not, however, determine the rights a given American may or may not have.

I would recommend the right get its priorities straight in this regard.

So 'company stores' are acceptable as long as they are run by the government.

 

[Sunshine]

Once upon a time, Thomas Edison invented an incandescent light bulb. Tomorrow (2014) will see the government ban on incandescent light bulbs become almost complete.

The rightist obsession of this is bizarre, I understand the dogma of it, but it’s bizarre nonetheless.

Since the First Quarter of the 19th Century the Court has ruled that Congress has the implied, un-enumerated authority to regulate commerce and enact legislation deemed ‘necessary and proper’ to realize desired goals in a civilized society.

Acts of Congress reflect the will of the people – including seatbelts, light bulbs, and health insurance. Acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional; any citizen who believes otherwise may file suit in Federal court.

The idea that the measures noted in the OP will somehow result in the loss of civil liberties or the establishment of a totalitarian state is naïve and hyperbolic.

The true threat to our civil liberties is the likes of the Patriot Act, or other efforts to undermine our 4th Amendment right to privacy, to be secure in our ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects.’ Or efforts to abridge our 5th and 6th Amendment right to due process in an effort to ‘fight crime’ or conduct a ‘war on terror.’ Or the effort to abrogate our 14th Amendment right to equal access to the laws.

If the people determine through their elected officials in Congress to ban a light bulb considered inefficient or otherwise harmful, they may do so. They may not, however, determine the rights a given American may or may not have.

I would recommend the right get its priorities straight in this regard.

Actually, requiring individuals to carry their own health insurance is the most fiscally conservative thing the government could do. But then I work in health care and I know that the vast majority of people who have no insurance and get care already do so at the expense of the rest of the American people.

 

[alan1]

Once upon a time, Thomas Edison invented an incandescent light bulb. Tomorrow (2014) will see the government ban on incandescent light bulbs become almost complete.

The rightist obsession of this is bizarre, I understand the dogma of it, but it’s bizarre nonetheless.

Since the First Quarter of the 19th Century the Court has ruled that Congress has the implied, un-enumerated authority to regulate commerce and enact legislation deemed ‘necessary and proper’ to realize desired goals in a civilized society.

Acts of Congress reflect the will of the people – including seatbelts, light bulbs, and health insurance. Acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional; any citizen who believes otherwise may file suit in Federal court.

The idea that the measures noted in the OP will somehow result in the loss of civil liberties or the establishment of a totalitarian state is naïve and hyperbolic.

The true threat to our civil liberties is the likes of the Patriot Act, or other efforts to undermine our 4th Amendment right to privacy, to be secure in our ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects.’ Or efforts to abridge our 5th and 6th Amendment right to due process in an effort to ‘fight crime’ or conduct a ‘war on terror.’ Or the effort to abrogate our 14th Amendment right to equal access to the laws.

If the people determine through their elected officials in Congress to ban a light bulb considered inefficient or otherwise harmful, they may do so. They may not, however, determine the rights a given American may or may not have.

I would recommend the right get its priorities straight in this regard.

You picked one sentence out of my OP whilst ignoring the entire premise behind it.
It wasn't a post about one thing, it was a post about how the government behaves in a consistent manner. Said manner being to encroach upon your rights and mine. Little by little.
You and Sunshine can try and make it all about light bulbs if you want to, but light bulbs are not the point, just a symptom that both of you seem to be failing to understand.

 

[Sunshine]

Once upon a time, Thomas Edison invented an incandescent light bulb. Tomorrow (2014) will see the government ban on incandescent light bulbs become almost complete.

The rightist obsession of this is bizarre, I understand the dogma of it, but it’s bizarre nonetheless.

Since the First Quarter of the 19th Century the Court has ruled that Congress has the implied, un-enumerated authority to regulate commerce and enact legislation deemed ‘necessary and proper’ to realize desired goals in a civilized society.

Acts of Congress reflect the will of the people – including seatbelts, light bulbs, and health insurance. Acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional; any citizen who believes otherwise may file suit in Federal court.

The idea that the measures noted in the OP will somehow result in the loss of civil liberties or the establishment of a totalitarian state is naïve and hyperbolic.

The true threat to our civil liberties is the likes of the Patriot Act, or other efforts to undermine our 4th Amendment right to privacy, to be secure in our ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects.’ Or efforts to abridge our 5th and 6th Amendment right to due process in an effort to ‘fight crime’ or conduct a ‘war on terror.’ Or the effort to abrogate our 14th Amendment right to equal access to the laws.

If the people determine through their elected officials in Congress to ban a light bulb considered inefficient or otherwise harmful, they may do so. They may not, however, determine the rights a given American may or may not have.

I would recommend the right get its priorities straight in this regard.

You picked one sentence out of my OP whilst ignoring the entire premise behind it.
It wasn't a post about one thing, it was a post about how the government behaves in a consistent manner. Said manner being to encroach upon your rights and mine. Little by little.
You and Sunshine can try and make it all about light bulbs if you want to, but light bulbs are not the point, just a symptom that both of you seem to be failing to understand.

Wasn't it Freud who said, 'Sometimes a light bulb is just a light bulb'? ........wait.......no, it was a cigar. Yes........that's it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! LOL. I guess they will ban cigars next!

MM take off your tinfoil hat and let the sun shine in! You are NO conservative if you want the government to continue to foot health care in the manner it currently is.

 

[alan1]

Actually, requiring individuals to carry their own health insurance is the most fiscally conservative thing the government could do. But then I work in health care and I know that the vast majority of people who have no insurance and get care already do so at the expense of the rest of the American people.

Actually, requiring individuals to buy a computer is the most fiscally conservative thing the government could do. But then I work in Information Technology and I know that the vast majority of people who have no computer do so at the expense of the rest of the American people.

Oddly enough, both those paragraphs are wrong.

 

[Sunshine]

Actually, requiring individuals to carry their own health insurance is the most fiscally conservative thing the government could do. But then I work in health care and I know that the vast majority of people who have no insurance and get care already do so at the expense of the rest of the American people.

Actually, requiring individuals to buy a computer is the most fiscally conservative thing the government could do. But then I work in Information Technology and I know that the vast majority of people who have no computer do so at the expense of the rest of the American people.

Oddly enough, both those paragraphs are wrong.

So the government pays for their computer maintenance, even though they have no computer? Wow. Who woulda thought?

 

[alan1]

The rightist obsession of this is bizarre, I understand the dogma of it, but it’s bizarre nonetheless.

Since the First Quarter of the 19th Century the Court has ruled that Congress has the implied, un-enumerated authority to regulate commerce and enact legislation deemed ‘necessary and proper’ to realize desired goals in a civilized society.

Acts of Congress reflect the will of the people – including seatbelts, light bulbs, and health insurance. Acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional; any citizen who believes otherwise may file suit in Federal court.

The idea that the measures noted in the OP will somehow result in the loss of civil liberties or the establishment of a totalitarian state is naïve and hyperbolic.

The true threat to our civil liberties is the likes of the Patriot Act, or other efforts to undermine our 4th Amendment right to privacy, to be secure in our ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects.’ Or efforts to abridge our 5th and 6th Amendment right to due process in an effort to ‘fight crime’ or conduct a ‘war on terror.’ Or the effort to abrogate our 14th Amendment right to equal access to the laws.

If the people determine through their elected officials in Congress to ban a light bulb considered inefficient or otherwise harmful, they may do so. They may not, however, determine the rights a given American may or may not have.

I would recommend the right get its priorities straight in this regard.

You picked one sentence out of my OP whilst ignoring the entire premise behind it.
It wasn't a post about one thing, it was a post about how the government behaves in a consistent manner. Said manner being to encroach upon your rights and mine. Little by little.
You and Sunshine can try and make it all about light bulbs if you want to, but light bulbs are not the point, just a symptom that both of you seem to be failing to understand.

Wasn't it Freud who said, 'Sometimes a light bulb is just a light bulb'? ........wait.......no, it was a cigar. Yes........that's it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! LOL. I guess they will ban cigars next!

MM take off your tinfoil hat and let the sun shine in! You are NO conservative if you want the government to continue to foot health care in the manner it currently is.

False premise (accusation) darling. I don't want the government to foot health care at all.

 

[Sunshine]

You picked one sentence out of my OP whilst ignoring the entire premise behind it.
It wasn't a post about one thing, it was a post about how the government behaves in a consistent manner. Said manner being to encroach upon your rights and mine. Little by little.
You and Sunshine can try and make it all about light bulbs if you want to, but light bulbs are not the point, just a symptom that both of you seem to be failing to understand.

Wasn't it Freud who said, 'Sometimes a light bulb is just a light bulb'? ........wait.......no, it was a cigar. Yes........that's it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! LOL. I guess they will ban cigars next!

MM take off your tinfoil hat and let the sun shine in! You are NO conservative if you want the government to continue to foot health care in the manner it currently is.

False premise (accusation) darling. I don't want the government to foot health care at all.

You're a little late on that one. However, the government would be footing a lot LESS of it if everyone had their own health insurance.

 

[alan1]

Actually, requiring individuals to carry their own health insurance is the most fiscally conservative thing the government could do. But then I work in health care and I know that the vast majority of people who have no insurance and get care already do so at the expense of the rest of the American people.

Actually, requiring individuals to buy a computer is the most fiscally conservative thing the government could do. But then I work in Information Technology and I know that the vast majority of people who have no computer do so at the expense of the rest of the American people.

Oddly enough, both those paragraphs are wrong.

So the government pays for their computer maintenance, even though they have no computer? Wow. Who woulda thought?

I'm still not sure why you think the government should be involved.

 

[Dragon]

When your activities harm Americans they are allowed to make laws to protect themselves

Me choosing to not have a medical procedure harms no one else.

Here are two counterexamples:

1) You have a bacterial infection that is contagious. You choose not to treat the disease with antibiotics. You infect others.

2) You are diagnosed with a form of cancer that is easily operable. You choose not to have the operation. Your cancer metastasizes and becomes inoperable. Your employer loses an employee, and your family loses a loved one.

As has been pointed out already, the states currently have the authority to require medical treatment. The federal government does not, and it remains uncertain whether it has the authority to require you to buy health insurance, but state governments are not governments of enumerated powers; states can do anything not explicitly forbidden by either the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution.

You listed a number of areas where restrictions on personal behavior have become more stringent, but did not mention other areas where they have become less so, for example the striking down of sodomy laws, the legalization of abortion, the end of Jim Crow, and relaxation of laws against indecent exposure. What we have is a shift in consensus moral values followed by a shift in where the law focuses. It is not an overall tightening of public controls.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government is moving ever more rapidly toward making every choice for us all. From lighbulbs to health insurance. When the government makes its decision, there will be one kind of bread on the shelves. Moreover, you will be mandated to buy it, even if you don't like bread. Failure to make that purchase has an impact on interstate commerce.

We will be worse than any dictatorship previously imagined by the most evil mind hell can fashion. All for our own good of course.

 

[Sunshine]

When your activities harm Americans they are allowed to make laws to protect themselves

Me choosing to not have a medical procedure harms no one else.

Here are two counterexamples:

1) You have a bacterial infection that is contagious. You choose not to treat the disease with antibiotics. You infect others.

2) You are diagnosed with a form of cancer that is easily operable. You choose not to have the operation. Your cancer metastasizes and becomes inoperable. Your employer loses an employee, and your family loses a loved one.
As has been pointed out already, the states currently have the authority to require medical treatment. The federal government does not, and it remains uncertain whether it has the authority to require you to buy health insurance, but state governments are not governments of enumerated powers; states can do anything not explicitly forbidden by either the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution.

You listed a number of areas where restrictions on personal behavior have become more stringent, but did not mention other areas where they have become less so, for example the striking down of sodomy laws, the legalization of abortion, the end of Jim Crow, and relaxation of laws against indecent exposure. What we have is a shift in consensus moral values followed by a shift in where the law focuses. It is not an overall tightening of public controls.

AHHHHHHH, but your widow and children get to collect Social Security!

 

[Sunshine]

Actually, requiring individuals to buy a computer is the most fiscally conservative thing the government could do. But then I work in Information Technology and I know that the vast majority of people who have no computer do so at the expense of the rest of the American people.

Oddly enough, both those paragraphs are wrong.

So the government pays for their computer maintenance, even though they have no computer? Wow. Who woulda thought?

I'm still not sure why you think the government should be involved.

Jesus H Christ! Do you have a head injury which renders it impossible for you to think or learn? THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY INVOLVED!~

 

[mudwhistle]

Your rights end at the tip of my nose.

You faile to realise its NOT just about YOUR rights

Why do you always say such retarded things????

 

[Sunshine]

Your rights end at the tip of my nose.

You faile to realise its NOT just about YOUR rights

Why do you always say such retarded things????

Because she is full of more shit than a honey well.

 

[mudwhistle]

Wasn't it Freud who said, 'Sometimes a light bulb is just a light bulb'? ........wait.......no, it was a cigar. Yes........that's it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! LOL. I guess they will ban cigars next!

MM take off your tinfoil hat and let the sun shine in! You are NO conservative if you want the government to continue to foot health care in the manner it currently is.

False premise (accusation) darling. I don't want the government to foot health care at all.

You're a little late on that one. However, the government would be footing a lot LESS of it if everyone had their own health insurance.

Leave it up to the left and everyone will have health insurance at taxpayer expense. Course if you make more then a set amount, say $30k a year, then you'll have to contribute to a fund which of course some of which will go to your shitty health care. The rest will go to whatever Congress wants to spend it on, like buying elections.

This is the goal of single-payer. No competition. Companies will drop their employee health coverage. We'll all be stuck with the same crap health plan.......everyone except Congress of course.

 

[mudwhistle]

Your rights end at the tip of my nose.

You faile to realise its NOT just about YOUR rights

Why do you always say such retarded things????

Because she is full of more shit than a .

Doesn't Honeywell make a pretty good thermostat?

 

[Sunshine]

False premise (accusation) darling. I don't want the government to foot health care at all.

You're a little late on that one. However, the government would be footing a lot LESS of it if everyone had their own health insurance.

Leave it up to the left and everyone will have health insurance at taxpayer expense. Course if you make more then a set amount, say $30k a year, then you'll have to contribute to a fund which of course some of which will go to your shitty health care. The rest will go to whatever Congress wants to spend it on, like buying elections.

This is the goal of single-payer. No competition. Companies will drop their employee health coverage. We'll all be stuck with the same crap health plan.......everyone except Congress of course.

As things sit now, companies are free to drop their health coverage at any time. Most are already reducing their coverage as it is. When my daughter got a job after two years of being unemployed I advised her to take her company coverage because her husband's coverage has dropped to almost nothing. At least, if they have the two they will have a primary and secondary which will be about as good as one policy used to be.

Of course if there is some vast plot in this area as you suggest, then it is more to the benefit of companies than it is to individual Americans. Which is a right wing agenda, and not a left wing agenda. There seem to be some very confused people on this issue.