Do you Support Government Intervention Regarding Health Issues?

[mal]

For example, should the Government be able to Ban Smoking 100%?

Tax you for Eating Food that could Cause Heart Disease?...

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.



peace...

 

[TheSuaveOne]

I don't think they should be able to ban things like that, however, I do believe they have the right to to penalize (ie sin tax) individuals if they are on a government funded healthcare plan.

-TSO

 

[JenT]

I heard they were going to test this new dimension of tyranny at Gunny's house tomorrow night. They plan to take away his extra-cheesey nachos and beer.

Sort of like testing a nuclear bomb out in the desert...

 

[mal]

I don't think they should be able to ban things like that, however, I do believe they have the right to to penalize (ie sin tax) individuals if they are on a government funded healthcare plan.

-TSO

Interesting...

What if they can't Pay?... Hence they are on the System?



peace...

 

[rightwinger]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the Federal government can require reasonable warning labels and signage, but it cannot constitutionally punish somebody for using a legal product. The government can legitimately make information available so long as the source of that information is also made available--fat content, trans fats, salt content, calorie count, cancer statistics for smokers, etc. etc. etc.--but if the product is legal, then nobody should be taxed or discriminated against in any way for using it. I have no problem with taxes being imposed on the products themselves as the people have the option of using the product or not.

I don't want the government providing health insurance in any form, but if it does, then it should do as the private sector does. If you smoke or are overweight etc., you pay a higher premium than those with healthier lifestyles.

 

[Oldandtired]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

Jaywalkers?
Smokers?
Drinkers?
Those that fall down and break their hip when they had a drink....2 drinks..3?
Snow skiiers?
Parasailers?
Skydivers?

Perhaps now you see why a public option paid for by the American Tax payer is an issue?

Are you aware of the issues such as "a 200 pound man can have 2 drinks before he loses right to an insurance claim, but a 100 pound woman can only have 1"....

 

[JenT]

I think the Federal government can require reasonable warning labels and signage, but it cannot constitutionally punish somebody for using a legal product. The government can legitimately make information available so long as the source of that information is also made available--fat content, trans fats, salt content, calorie count, cancer statistics for smokers, etc. etc. etc.--but if the product is legal, then nobody should be taxed or discriminated against in any way for using it. I have no problem with taxes being imposed on the products themselves as the people have the option of using the product or not.

I don't want the government providing health insurance in any form, but if it does, then it should do as the private sector does. If you smoke or are overweight etc., you pay a higher premium than those with healthier lifestyles.

Great. Let's tax all the frequenters at San Francisco bath houses...

 

[Vel]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

Responses like this are EXACTLY why we must NEVER allow the government to have decision making control over health care.

 

[JenT]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

Jaywalkers?
Smokers?
Drinkers?
Those that fall down and break their hip when they had a drink....2 drinks..3?
Snow skiiers?
Parasailers?
Skydivers?

Perhaps now you see why a public option paid for by the American Tax payer is an issue?

Are you aware of the issues such as "a 200 pound man can have 2 drinks before he loses right to an insurance claim, but a 100 pound woman can only have 1"....

Exactly. Let's tax the walker for going outside of the house (tons of danger there) and the couch potatoe for staying inside the house, (tons of danger there).

 

[JenT]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

Responses like this are EXACTLY why we must NEVER allow the government to have decision making control over health care.

They're not supposed to have control at all, WE ARE.

 

[Oldandtired]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

Responses like this are EXACTLY why we must NEVER allow the government to have decision making control over health care.

Yep....

So I assume rightwinger lives a life with zero risk to his health.

I mean...

Football?
Ice skating?
Driving a car?
Flying from the middle east?

Exactly who would determine what a "high risk" lifestyle is?

 

[Foxfyre]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

I agree. People engaged in high risk activities should accept responsibility for all consequences and expense of those activities. Also, people who choose to live near earthquake faults, avalanche or landslide zones, forested/heavy brush areas, damaging wind, hail, hurricane country, on flood plains, etc. should be required to buy insurance against the risks they are assuming or be willing to suffer the consequences of the loss of their property if they don't have insurance. The taxpayer should not be required to assume that risk for them.

 

[Oldandtired]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

I agree. People engaged in high risk activities should accept responsibility for all consequences and expense of those activities. Also, people who choose to live near earthquake faults, avalanche or landslide zones, forested/heavy brush areas, damaging wind, hail, hurricane country, on flood plains, etc. should be required to buy insurance against the risks they are assuming or be willing to suffer the consequences of the loss of their property if they don't have insurance. The taxpayer should not be required to assume that risk for them.

Exactly...so why implement policy where they would?
That should be up to the insurance companies and the free market to determine.
And by the way....just curious...per your meterological and geological "high risk zones"........what's left? Ohio?

 

[mal]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

How about a Penalty for the Risk?...

Like the Sin Taxes being Proposed in Places like New York on Food?



peace...

 

[Vel]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

I agree. People engaged in high risk activities should accept responsibility for all consequences and expense of those activities. Also, people who choose to live near earthquake faults, avalanche or landslide zones, forested/heavy brush areas, damaging wind, hail, hurricane country, on flood plains, etc. should be required to buy insurance against the risks they are assuming or be willing to suffer the consequences of the loss of their property if they don't have insurance. The taxpayer should not be required to assume that risk for them.

It started snowing here today after most people were already at work . Surely the safe thing to do is for people to stay at work and not drive home. Do you consider driving in the snow ( in the South ) to be "high risk" behavior?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

I agree. People engaged in high risk activities should accept responsibility for all consequences and expense of those activities. Also, people who choose to live near earthquake faults, avalanche or landslide zones, forested/heavy brush areas, damaging wind, hail, hurricane country, on flood plains, etc. should be required to buy insurance against the risks they are assuming or be willing to suffer the consequences of the loss of their property if they don't have insurance. The taxpayer should not be required to assume that risk for them.

It started snowing here today after most people were already at work . Surely the safe thing to do is for people to stay at work and not drive home. Do you consider driving in the snow ( in the South ) to be "high risk" behavior?

I certainly expect those who choose to do so to have adequate auto insurance. Don't you?

 

[rightwinger]

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

Responses like this are EXACTLY why we must NEVER allow the government to have decision making control over health care.

Yep....

So I assume rightwinger lives a life with zero risk to his health.

I mean...

Football?
Ice skating?
Driving a car?
Flying from the middle east?

Exactly who would determine what a "high risk" lifestyle is?

There is a difference between risk and "high risk"

Sailing around the world alone in a 12 foot boat to make a record and expecting the taxpayer to resue you when you don't make it, hangliding off a cliff and having the taxpayer rescue you when you crash, sending your balloon boy aloft and expecting the taxpayers to rescue him..

Exactly who would determine what a "high risk" lifestyle is?[/

I will volunteer to decide what is high risk

 

[Oldandtired]

I agree. People engaged in high risk activities should accept responsibility for all consequences and expense of those activities. Also, people who choose to live near earthquake faults, avalanche or landslide zones, forested/heavy brush areas, damaging wind, hail, hurricane country, on flood plains, etc. should be required to buy insurance against the risks they are assuming or be willing to suffer the consequences of the loss of their property if they don't have insurance. The taxpayer should not be required to assume that risk for them.

It started snowing here today after most people were already at work . Surely the safe thing to do is for people to stay at work and not drive home. Do you consider driving in the snow ( in the South ) to be "high risk" behavior?

I certainly expect those who choose to do so to have adequate auto insurance. Don't you?

And if they are hurt in the accident?

 

[Oldandtired]

Responses like this are EXACTLY why we must NEVER allow the government to have decision making control over health care.

Yep....

So I assume rightwinger lives a life with zero risk to his health.

I mean...

Football?
Ice skating?
Driving a car?
Flying from the middle east?

Exactly who would determine what a "high risk" lifestyle is?

There is a difference between risk and "high risk"

Sailing around the world alone in a 12 foot boat to make a record and expecting the taxpayer to resue you when you don't make it, hangliding off a cliff and having the taxpayer rescue you when you crash, sending your balloon boy aloft and expecting the taxpayers to rescue him..

Exactly who would determine what a "high risk" lifestyle is?[/

I will volunteer to decide what is high risk

So tell me...

What is a higher risk:

a 50 year old man that runs 20 miles a week
Or
a 50 year old man that is overweight and sits on the couch and eats chips all day?