Totalitarian government happens

[dblack]

So, we have another one of those delightful "Drug test welfare recipients" threads. I think the issue actually raises an interesting dynamic that I'd hope we could talk about outside the usual welfare state vitriol. Rather than spoil the flame-fest over there, I'll indulge the conceit of simply quoting myself here ...

If I have to take a drug test to get a job programming computers, then I fail to see the reason welfare recipients can't be asked to take a drug test.

I didn't say they can't be. I was pushing back against the notion that this is some nefarious plot to control the population when it's obviously just a thinly-veiled attempt to cull the rolls, PRWORA-style.

It's not a nefarious plot. It's just the way it works out. Democrats push for the caretaker state, Republicans push for the police state. And once the dependency is in place, the dictating behavior part becomes compelling argument. Why should they be able to get high on taxpayer money?

We're going to start seeing the same dynamic once health care is socialized. The one thing Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on is that there's really no limit to what the government can force you to do, and once the public is picking up the tab for your health care, pretty much all your personal habits become fair game. Smoking? Poor diet? Couch potato? Look out, we're coming for you!

I think this is a genuine trend, and I see very little opposing it (outside limited numbers of libertarian rabble-rousers). Am I paranoid? Should this go in the "Conspiracy Theory" section? To reiterate, I'm not claiming it as a conspiracy, per se. No one hatched this as a deliberate policy; it's just an unfortunate side effect of our political divide.

 

[kyzr]

How about a simple case of we are controlling our insurance costs as demanded by the insurers? Your complaint, if there actually is one, is with the actuaries that compute the insurance policy rates.

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KUEQ4nWv7Y&feature=fvst]Paranoimia (feat. Max Headroom) - Art Of Noise - YouTube[/ame]
Paranoimia (feat. Max Headroom) - Art Of Noise

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That's a pretty good assessment of the parties, dblack. Also, I'd be surprised as hell if the Rs do anything to stop O care if they're elected in a few months. Same for dems. They did nothing but expand DHS after they took over.

 

[dblack]

How about a simple case of we are controlling our insurance costs as demanded by the insurers? Your complaint, if there actually is one, is with the actuaries that compute the insurance policy rates.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

 

[Greenbeard]

I think this is a genuine trend, and I see very little opposing it (outside limited numbers of libertarian rabble-rousers). Am I paranoid?

Depends. What are the other instances of this trend?

 

[Paulie]

That's a pretty good assessment of the parties, dblack. Also, I'd be surprised as hell if the Rs do anything to stop O care if they're elected in a few months. Same for dems. They did nothing but expand DHS after they took over.

I'm probably not going to finally recognize that I'm being taken for a ride by both of the parties until our president is officially referred to as dictator and the constitution is nullified once and for all.

 

[GuyPinestra]

So, we have another one of those delightful "Drug test welfare recipients" threads. I think the issue actually raises an interesting dynamic that I'd hope we could talk about outside the usual welfare state vitriol. Rather than spoil the flame-fest over there, I'll indulge the conceit of simply quoting myself here ...

I didn't say they can't be. I was pushing back against the notion that this is some nefarious plot to control the population when it's obviously just a thinly-veiled attempt to cull the rolls, PRWORA-style.

It's not a nefarious plot. It's just the way it works out. Democrats push for the caretaker state, Republicans push for the police state. And once the dependency is in place, the dictating behavior part becomes compelling argument. Why should they be able to get high on taxpayer money?

We're going to start seeing the same dynamic once health care is socialized. The one thing Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on is that there's really no limit to what the government can force you to do, and once the public is picking up the tab for your health care, pretty much all your personal habits become fair game. Smoking? Poor diet? Couch potato? Look out, we're coming for you!

I think this is a genuine trend, and I see very little opposing it (outside limited numbers of libertarian rabble-rousers). Am I paranoid? Should this go in the "Conspiracy Theory" section? To reiterate, I'm not claiming it as a conspiracy, per se. No one hatched this as a deliberate policy; it's just an unfortunate side effect of our political divide.

No one hatched this as a deliberate policy? Really? How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go? You can bet your bottom dollar that this is all intentional, and being nurtured along by those who plan on running this monstrosity out in the open in the next few years. David Rockefeller was quite plain spoken about the whole thing, and very grateful to the 'media' who've kept it out of the public conscience for the last 50 years.

Prepare to meet your masters, folks. George Orwell was a latter day prophet.

 

[kyzr]

How about a simple case of we are controlling our insurance costs as demanded by the insurers? Your complaint, if there actually is one, is with the actuaries that compute the insurance policy rates.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Looking at drug testing as two separate policies:
1. Companies do drug testing because its required by their insurers

2. States make welfare folks take drug tests since its not fair to workers to have low-lifes get taxpayer dollars while using drugs.

 

[Intense]

Tyranny is Always the trend. That is why there was so much concern from conception. Every step Government takes is a step closer to it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That's a pretty good assessment of the parties, dblack. Also, I'd be surprised as hell if the Rs do anything to stop O care if they're elected in a few months. Same for dems. They did nothing but expand DHS after they took over.

I'm probably not going to finally recognize that I'm being taken for a ride by both of the parties until our president is officially referred to as dictator and the constitution is nullified once and for all.

Same here but I don't think there's any doubt that both parties are caught up in the sweet intoxication of power with dreams of total power. Its up to us to stop the usurpations.

 

[dblack]

How about a simple case of we are controlling our insurance costs as demanded by the insurers? Your complaint, if there actually is one, is with the actuaries that compute the insurance policy rates.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Looking at drug testing as two separate policies:
1. Companies do drug testing because its required by their insurers

2. States make welfare folks take drug tests since its not fair to workers to have low-lifes get taxpayer dollars while using drugs.

Insurance and employment are voluntary arrangements (for now at least). Government is not. It's easy to support this kind of control over "low-life's", but the same arguments will apply when the dependency becomes much broader - as it's about to do with health care.

Out of curiosity, if health care is nationalized, will you be in favor of laws "discouraging" bad health habits?

 

[Dragon]

This is a good argument for stopping at a single-payer system and not going all the way to British-style socialized medicine. We have many examples from modern societies to show that going that far isn't necessary in order to provide universal coverage and control health-care costs. Going that far has other associated problems, too, not just a risk of government overreach. Since we don't have to, we shouldn't.

 

[Intense]

That's a pretty good assessment of the parties, dblack. Also, I'd be surprised as hell if the Rs do anything to stop O care if they're elected in a few months. Same for dems. They did nothing but expand DHS after they took over.

I'm probably not going to finally recognize that I'm being taken for a ride by both of the parties until our president is officially referred to as dictator and the constitution is nullified once and for all.

Same here but I don't think there's any doubt that both parties are caught up in the sweet intoxication of power with dreams of total power. Its up to us to stop the usurpations.

Hint, that path should not include granting Government more control over our lives and more Bureaucracy, but less.

 

[Paulie]

That's a pretty good assessment of the parties, dblack. Also, I'd be surprised as hell if the Rs do anything to stop O care if they're elected in a few months. Same for dems. They did nothing but expand DHS after they took over.

I'm probably not going to finally recognize that I'm being taken for a ride by both of the parties until our president is officially referred to as dictator and the constitution is nullified once and for all.

Same here but I don't think there's any doubt that both parties are caught up in the sweet intoxication of power with dreams of total power. Its up to us to stop the usurpations.

It's right there in front of our faces. We get screwed in plain sight by almost every single member of federal government, and yet somehow we're still blind to it as a society. Maybe not even blind necessarily, but indifferent...which if you ask me is even worse.

 

[Intense]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Looking at drug testing as two separate policies:
1. Companies do drug testing because its required by their insurers

2. States make welfare folks take drug tests since its not fair to workers to have low-lifes get taxpayer dollars while using drugs.

Insurance and employment are voluntary arrangements (for now at least). Government is not. It's easy to support this kind of control over "low-life's", but the same arguments will apply when the dependency becomes much broader - as it's about to do with health care.

Out of curiosity, if health care is nationalized, will you be in favor of laws "discouraging" bad health habits?

Don't leave out denial of care, it's already here.

 

[kyzr]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Looking at drug testing as two separate policies:
1. Companies do drug testing because its required by their insurers

2. States make welfare folks take drug tests since its not fair to workers to have low-lifes get taxpayer dollars while using drugs.

Insurance and employment are voluntary arrangements (for now at least). Government is not. It's easy to support this kind of control over "low-life's", but the same arguments will apply when the dependency becomes much broader - as it's about to do with health care.

Out of curiosity, if health care is nationalized, will you be in favor of laws "discouraging" bad health habits?

You have two choices, at least before the dems got into power, either take the cheap government option, or pay for your own on the open marketplace. I have no problem clamping down on drug users. Its a requirement at most places of employment. If you don't like it, start your own company and pay your own way.

 

[dblack]

Looking at drug testing as two separate policies:
1. Companies do drug testing because its required by their insurers

2. States make welfare folks take drug tests since its not fair to workers to have low-lifes get taxpayer dollars while using drugs.

Insurance and employment are voluntary arrangements (for now at least). Government is not. It's easy to support this kind of control over "low-life's", but the same arguments will apply when the dependency becomes much broader - as it's about to do with health care.

Out of curiosity, if health care is nationalized, will you be in favor of laws "discouraging" bad health habits?

You have two choices, at least before the dems got into power, either take the cheap government option, or pay for your own on the open marketplace. I have no problem clamping down on drug users. Its a requirement at most places of employment. If you don't like it, start your own company and pay your own way.

Sorry, once again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you understand the general point I was trying to make?

 

[kyzr]

Insurance and employment are voluntary arrangements (for now at least). Government is not. It's easy to support this kind of control over "low-life's", but the same arguments will apply when the dependency becomes much broader - as it's about to do with health care.

Out of curiosity, if health care is nationalized, will you be in favor of laws "discouraging" bad health habits?

You have two choices, at least before the dems got into power, either take the cheap government option, or pay for your own on the open marketplace. I have no problem clamping down on drug users. Its a requirement at most places of employment. If you don't like it, start your own company and pay your own way.

Sorry, once again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you understand the general point I was trying to make?

I'm telling you reality. If you want to debate veiled esoteric issues you need to state them and back them up with credible facts.

 

[dblack]

I think this is a genuine trend, and I see very little opposing it (outside limited numbers of libertarian rabble-rousers). Am I paranoid?

Depends. What are the other instances of this trend?

Good question...

It seems to be a natural by product of the growing presumption that government is responsible for our overall well-being. It's used as a justification for a wide variety of the so-called "nanny-state" laws. Arguments over drug laws, seat-belt laws, helmet laws, etc.. usually come around to some claim that these personal decisions cost taxpayers money, and that that justifies government dictating behavior.

Really, you see this dynamic any time the government is providing a service. Unemployment insurance provokes the same kind of demands. "Free" public education creates a similar tension where taxpayers feel justified in dictating how other people's children are raised.