Please Define & Discuss Nanny State~

[Sunshine]

I'd like to know your definition of Nanny State.

OK, I get the part about people having the right to do things that will mess up their bodies big time. BUT on the other end of the spectrum, who gets to pay for the mess they have made? If you say it is their doing, let them pay, are you prepared to have diabetics dying from their ruined kidneys right in your neighborhood, or to allow the smoker to die with no medical assistance because he smoked? What about people who never did anything unheathy and STILL got cancer or diabetes?

It would seem to me that if you are libertarian on the front end of life, that you must be on the back end as well. I said that to say this, over the years I have seen many patients who have ruined their heart and liver only to get a transplant on the dole. What is right or wrong with that picture? Maybe they paid in so much taxes buying those expensive cigarettes and beers that they deserve to be fixed. Who know? Who decides?

What if one of those people who deliberately ruined their own health is a close, close friend or relative of yours? How does that change the color of the picture?


Somebody go the distance with me here. Generally, when 'nanny state' gets thrown in, the topic shrinks down to yes I can, no you can't, yes I can, no you can't.

 

[Sunshine]

So, what about it?

 

[Brutus]

So, what about it?

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them [by providing them a Nanny state].- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Brutus]

?
Somebody go the distance with me here. Generally, when 'nanny state' gets thrown in, the topic shrinks down to yes I can, no you can't, yes I can, no you can't.

I'm sure people have to be held as responsible as possible for their own actions. In my state there is a special police force that comes to arrest you in the middle of the night if you get too far behind on your child support. THey doggedly take it out of your pay check too. So what is the issue?

 

[martybegan]

I'd like to know your definition of Nanny State.

OK, I get the part about people having the right to do things that will mess up their bodies big time. BUT on the other end of the spectrum, who gets to pay for the mess they have made? If you say it is their doing, let them pay, are you prepared to have diabetics dying from their ruined kidneys right in your neighborhood, or to allow the smoker to die with no medical assistance because he smoked? What about people who never did anything unheathy and STILL got cancer or diabetes?

It would seem to me that if you are libertarian on the front end of life, that you must be on the back end as well. I said that to say this, over the years I have seen many patients who have ruined their heart and liver only to get a transplant on the dole. What is right or wrong with that picture? Maybe they paid in so much taxes buying those expensive cigarettes and beers that they deserve to be fixed. Who know? Who decides?

What if one of those people who deliberately ruined their own health is a close, close friend or relative of yours? How does that change the color of the picture?


Somebody go the distance with me here. Generally, when 'nanny state' gets thrown in, the topic shrinks down to yes I can, no you can't, yes I can, no you can't.

The nanny state's prime problem is that it doesnt know how to stop. Every time it achives a victory, it has to keep going. The smoking ban is the prime example. First it was in airplanes, then subways/buses. Then offices. Then bars, then parks, next sidewalks, next in a car if you are with your kid.

While banning smoking in some places has its benefits, as does banning any activity that has some risk, the problem becomes where does it stop?

Just because the government thinks something I do is a bad idea, does there really need to be a law against it? Does the government really have to waste time trying to stop me from shooting fire works on the 4th of July? Does it need to make me wear a helmet on my bike? Do I have to see the calories of a Big Mac every time I order it?

Some people just don't want to be healthy. Why force them?

 

[Sunshine]

I'd like to know your definition of Nanny State.

OK, I get the part about people having the right to do things that will mess up their bodies big time. BUT on the other end of the spectrum, who gets to pay for the mess they have made? If you say it is their doing, let them pay, are you prepared to have diabetics dying from their ruined kidneys right in your neighborhood, or to allow the smoker to die with no medical assistance because he smoked? What about people who never did anything unheathy and STILL got cancer or diabetes?

It would seem to me that if you are libertarian on the front end of life, that you must be on the back end as well. I said that to say this, over the years I have seen many patients who have ruined their heart and liver only to get a transplant on the dole. What is right or wrong with that picture? Maybe they paid in so much taxes buying those expensive cigarettes and beers that they deserve to be fixed. Who know? Who decides?

What if one of those people who deliberately ruined their own health is a close, close friend or relative of yours? How does that change the color of the picture?


Somebody go the distance with me here. Generally, when 'nanny state' gets thrown in, the topic shrinks down to yes I can, no you can't, yes I can, no you can't.

The nanny state's prime problem is that it doesnt know how to stop. Every time it achives a victory, it has to keep going. The smoking ban is the prime example. First it was in airplanes, then subways/buses. Then offices. Then bars, then parks, next sidewalks, next in a car if you are with your kid.

While banning smoking in some places has its benefits, as does banning any activity that has some risk, the problem becomes where does it stop?

Just because the government thinks something I do is a bad idea, does there really need to be a law against it? Does the government really have to waste time trying to stop me from shooting fire works on the 4th of July? Does it need to make me wear a helmet on my bike? Do I have to see the calories of a Big Mac every time I order it?

Some people just don't want to be healthy. Why force them?

So who pays for their ill health, assumig they do not have the means to do so because they squanderedit all on their unhealthy vices? What if the person is the one you love most in life?

 

[martybegan]

I'd like to know your definition of Nanny State.

OK, I get the part about people having the right to do things that will mess up their bodies big time. BUT on the other end of the spectrum, who gets to pay for the mess they have made? If you say it is their doing, let them pay, are you prepared to have diabetics dying from their ruined kidneys right in your neighborhood, or to allow the smoker to die with no medical assistance because he smoked? What about people who never did anything unheathy and STILL got cancer or diabetes?

It would seem to me that if you are libertarian on the front end of life, that you must be on the back end as well. I said that to say this, over the years I have seen many patients who have ruined their heart and liver only to get a transplant on the dole. What is right or wrong with that picture? Maybe they paid in so much taxes buying those expensive cigarettes and beers that they deserve to be fixed. Who know? Who decides?

What if one of those people who deliberately ruined their own health is a close, close friend or relative of yours? How does that change the color of the picture?


Somebody go the distance with me here. Generally, when 'nanny state' gets thrown in, the topic shrinks down to yes I can, no you can't, yes I can, no you can't.

The nanny state's prime problem is that it doesnt know how to stop. Every time it achives a victory, it has to keep going. The smoking ban is the prime example. First it was in airplanes, then subways/buses. Then offices. Then bars, then parks, next sidewalks, next in a car if you are with your kid.

While banning smoking in some places has its benefits, as does banning any activity that has some risk, the problem becomes where does it stop?

Just because the government thinks something I do is a bad idea, does there really need to be a law against it? Does the government really have to waste time trying to stop me from shooting fire works on the 4th of July? Does it need to make me wear a helmet on my bike? Do I have to see the calories of a Big Mac every time I order it?

Some people just don't want to be healthy. Why force them?

So who pays for their ill health, assumig they do not have the means to do so because they squanderedit all on their unhealthy vices? What if the person is the one you love most in life?

if we boil it down to pure economics, then yes, we should minimze risks to reduce cost. however, to do that we basically have to turn people into machine cogs, telling them how to eat, how to sleep, how to shit, how to fuck (etc). I would rather pay taxes to cover the guy eating nothing but freetos then have to go by a regulation guide when I walk into the bathroom to take a dump.

There is also the case that we dont really pay for them, as they die rather quickly, thus saving us the old age costs. The genetic wonder that lives to 115 eating nothing but whisky and fatback on toast will cost us much more than some basement dweller that croaks at 35.

If its the person I love most in life? I talk to them, I try to convince them to change. I don't go running to my councilman to outlaw twinkies.

The risk of death from living increases to 100 as time goes on, and putting up the calorie count for a coffee coolata will not change that. The downsides of regulating peoples lives to death outweigh the benefits.

 

[Sunshine]

The nanny state's prime problem is that it doesnt know how to stop. Every time it achives a victory, it has to keep going. The smoking ban is the prime example. First it was in airplanes, then subways/buses. Then offices. Then bars, then parks, next sidewalks, next in a car if you are with your kid.

While banning smoking in some places has its benefits, as does banning any activity that has some risk, the problem becomes where does it stop?

Just because the government thinks something I do is a bad idea, does there really need to be a law against it? Does the government really have to waste time trying to stop me from shooting fire works on the 4th of July? Does it need to make me wear a helmet on my bike? Do I have to see the calories of a Big Mac every time I order it?

Some people just don't want to be healthy. Why force them?

So who pays for their ill health, assumig they do not have the means to do so because they squanderedit all on their unhealthy vices? What if the person is the one you love most in life?

if we boil it down to pure economics, then yes, we should minimze risks to reduce cost. however, to do that we basically have to turn people into machine cogs, telling them how to eat, how to sleep, how to shit, how to fuck (etc). I would rather pay taxes to cover the guy eating nothing but freetos then have to go by a regulation guide when I walk into the bathroom to take a dump.

There is also the case that we dont really pay for them, as they die rather quickly, thus saving us the old age costs. The genetic wonder that lives to 115 eating nothing but whisky and fatback on toast will cost us much more than some basement dweller that croaks at 35.

If its the person I love most in life? I talk to them, I try to convince them to change. I don't go running to my councilman to outlaw twinkies. The risk of death from living increases to 100 as time goes on, and putting up the calorie count for a coffee coolata will not change that. The downsides of regulating peoples lives to death outweigh the benefits.

But are you willing to pay for their care?

If people dropped over from diabetes, they would take it more seriously. However, diabetes fulminates very slowly and often involves a lot of expensive care to the kidneys, the eyes, and some of that can run into hundreds of thousands a year.

Are you aware how much of the country's GNP is health care? Now. Not under any future policy. Health care is an industry. It is a BIG industry. As many would believe, health care is NOT a charitable organization. It is a money making business, with some few exceptions.

Go to a local school when it is letting out. Just look at how many morbidly obese teens and children there are. They cannot by any stretch make a meaningful contribution to this country now, as children, beause they are too sick. Maybe they don't have symptoms yet, but they ARE too sick to help pay the bills they generate.

In some cases, obese children are being taken away from their mothers. 555-Pound Boy: Mother Of Obese Son Arrested For Criminal Neglect (VIDEO)

What do you think of that? Should the mother just be allowed to kill her child with food?

 

[martybegan]

So who pays for their ill health, assumig they do not have the means to do so because they squanderedit all on their unhealthy vices? What if the person is the one you love most in life?

if we boil it down to pure economics, then yes, we should minimze risks to reduce cost. however, to do that we basically have to turn people into machine cogs, telling them how to eat, how to sleep, how to shit, how to fuck (etc). I would rather pay taxes to cover the guy eating nothing but freetos then have to go by a regulation guide when I walk into the bathroom to take a dump.

There is also the case that we dont really pay for them, as they die rather quickly, thus saving us the old age costs. The genetic wonder that lives to 115 eating nothing but whisky and fatback on toast will cost us much more than some basement dweller that croaks at 35.

If its the person I love most in life? I talk to them, I try to convince them to change. I don't go running to my councilman to outlaw twinkies. The risk of death from living increases to 100 as time goes on, and putting up the calorie count for a coffee coolata will not change that. The downsides of regulating peoples lives to death outweigh the benefits.

But are you willing to pay for their care?

If people dropped over from diabetes, they would take it more seriously. However, diabetes fulminates very slowly and often involves a lot of expensive care to the kidneys, the eyes, and some of that can run into hundreds of thousands a year.

Are you aware how much of the country's GNP is health care? Now. Not under any future policy. Health care is an industry. It is a BIG industry. As many would believe, health care is NOT a charitable organization. It is a money making business, with some few exceptions.

Go to a local school when it is letting out. Just look at how many morbidly obese teens and children there are. They cannot by any stretch make a meaningful contribution to this country now, as children, beause they are too sick. Maybe they don't have symptoms yet, but they ARE too sick to help pay the bills they generate.

In some cases, obese children are being taken away from their mothers. 555-Pound Boy: Mother Of Obese Son Arrested For Criminal Neglect (VIDEO)

What do you think of that? Should the mother just be allowed to kill her child with food?

A government agency should need a damn good reason, plus a warrant or court order to take a kid away from a parent, for any reason. If so decided that overfeeding a kid becomes criminal negligence, in a court of law, then yes you can take the kid away.

How does this relate to me wanting to eat my damn cheetos in peace?