Good On You Aust/NZ..

[froggy]

Is it the government's job to encourage people to give up smoking? Or should the people be free to choose whether they want to smoke or not? I'm of the opinion that if you have to use force to spread morality then it becomes inherently immoral.

Both NZ and Australia have public AND private health insurance. If my tax dollars are funding the public health system, then smokers can help fund that system via a tax on their disgusting habit.

People are free to choose to smoke. Are they free to expect my tax dollars to pay for their hospital visits that are due to the direct result of their disgusting habit?

Aren't the smoker's tax dollars also funding the public health system? And now they pay even more with the smokes tax? Don't smokers die sooner than non-smokers? Seems that would save the system some bucks.

Don't try to clear anything up for Dr, bubba Gump, she's a lunatic

 

[Dr Grump]

[

It fits everywhere. Just because you want to pay for your health care collectively doesn't mean you get a collective ownership over everybody's body. It's one of the problems of a socialized health care system, and why a market based system is preferable. People are accountable only to themselves.

As for car insurance, that's a market based premium based on risk. It isn't the government forcing the insurance providers to raise their prices.

I disagree. I see market-based = rich vs poor.

Of course we get 'partial' ownership of where the money goes, why shouldn't we? Why should I pay for somebody who doesn't take care of their body, sucking on somethign they know will make them sick?

Most smokers don't have health insurance because the premiums are too expensive...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[

It fits everywhere. Just because you want to pay for your health care collectively doesn't mean you get a collective ownership over everybody's body. It's one of the problems of a socialized health care system, and why a market based system is preferable. People are accountable only to themselves.

As for car insurance, that's a market based premium based on risk. It isn't the government forcing the insurance providers to raise their prices.

I disagree. I see market-based = rich vs poor.

Of course we get 'partial' ownership of where the money goes, why shouldn't we? Why should I pay for somebody who doesn't take care of their body, sucking on somethign they know will make them sick?

Most smokers don't have health insurance because the premiums are too expensive...

Do you eat candy? Do you think candy should be taxed that high as well? Do you work out everyday? Do you think working out everyday should be made mandatory? After all, you should be forced to take care of yourself so other people don't have to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle, right?

You say why should you pay for somebody who doesn't take care of their body? You shouldn't. But a better question is why should anybody have to pay for anybody else? It's a ridiculous notion in the first place.

 

[jillian]

Well I'd certainly agree that providing health care is a more admirable goal than killing people, but the laws of economics don't change regardless. How about we cut the wars and the income tax, and then more people could afford their own health care?

that isn't what most societies either want or expect. and it apparently works very well since we don't exactly have the best numbers in terms of health care.

Yeah spending money you don't have works for a while, but eventually the bills come due. Of course we don't have the best numbers in terms of health care, our practically socialized system has to compete with our other profligate spending in terms of war and military occupation as you already brought up.

but leaving things as they currently are would result in 50% of our GDP being used for health care within ten years.

i don't think we have a 'practically socialized system' at all. we just don't have a laissez fair economics system (thankfully). in terms of society's health, seems that a combo of the best of both systems is best.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

that isn't what most societies either want or expect. and it apparently works very well since we don't exactly have the best numbers in terms of health care.

Yeah spending money you don't have works for a while, but eventually the bills come due. Of course we don't have the best numbers in terms of health care, our practically socialized system has to compete with our other profligate spending in terms of war and military occupation as you already brought up.

but leaving things as they currently are would result in 50% of our GDP being used for health care within ten years.

i don't think we have a 'practically socialized system' at all. we just don't have a laissez fair economics system (thankfully). in terms of society's health, seems that a combo of the best of both systems is best.

What we have now is a combo of both systems, and it's obviously not best. And I'm not suggesting leaving things as they currently are, though I'm guessing you'd prefer that to the alternative I would propose.

 

[jillian]

Yeah spending money you don't have works for a while, but eventually the bills come due. Of course we don't have the best numbers in terms of health care, our practically socialized system has to compete with our other profligate spending in terms of war and military occupation as you already brought up.

but leaving things as they currently are would result in 50% of our GDP being used for health care within ten years.

i don't think we have a 'practically socialized system' at all. we just don't have a laissez fair economics system (thankfully). in terms of society's health, seems that a combo of the best of both systems is best.

What we have now is a combo of both systems, and it's obviously not best. And I'm not suggesting leaving things as they currently are, though I'm guessing you'd prefer that to the alternative I would propose.

i think that's probably true. have you ever read the jungle, by upton sinclair? that's where i see your type of economic system leading us back to.

when my grandmother came to this country, she worked in a sweat shop in ny's garment district. she was 12 and they would hide her in a closet so the inspectors wouldn't see her when they came to the shop.

the world is a better one today.

 

[elvis]

the governments haven't 'taken it upon themselves to force the taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care'. in every civilized country in the world, except for here, it is expected that no one be left without health care. as he pointed out, people can choose private medical care, too.

on the other hand, neither australia nor new zealand engaged in a 200 billion dollar war of choice.

Well since people can opt out of the public option there then will this hike in cigarette prices apply only to those on the public option? Of course not. It's one of the perverse situations created by socialized health care.

I'm not sure what the wars have to do with this issue.

because they could afford to provide health care because they weren't wasting their money on a war of choice.

i think that's a better priority

if the Iraq war had never been waged, the health care debate would be in the same position it is now.

 

[jillian]

Well since people can opt out of the public option there then will this hike in cigarette prices apply only to those on the public option? Of course not. It's one of the perverse situations created by socialized health care.

I'm not sure what the wars have to do with this issue.

because they could afford to provide health care because they weren't wasting their money on a war of choice.

i think that's a better priority

if the Iraq war had never been waged, the health care debate would be in the same position it is now.

don't you think that's silly? that there is an entire group of people who would spend hundreds of billions to wage war and not want to give a dime to make sure people have health insurance.

 

[elvis]

because they could afford to provide health care because they weren't wasting their money on a war of choice.

i think that's a better priority

if the Iraq war had never been waged, the health care debate would be in the same position it is now.

don't you think that's silly? that there is an entire group of people who would spend hundreds of billions to wage war and not want to give a dime to make sure people have health insurance.

I don't know where Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rumsfeld stand on health care.

 

[jillian]

if the Iraq war had never been waged, the health care debate would be in the same position it is now.

don't you think that's silly? that there is an entire group of people who would spend hundreds of billions to wage war and not want to give a dime to make sure people have health insurance.

I don't know where Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rumsfeld stand on health care.

given past history, i'd think they'd oppose. but would any of them have gotten to vote on health care?

you don't need to get to them... you have the mitch mcconnels.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

but leaving things as they currently are would result in 50% of our GDP being used for health care within ten years.

i don't think we have a 'practically socialized system' at all. we just don't have a laissez fair economics system (thankfully). in terms of society's health, seems that a combo of the best of both systems is best.

What we have now is a combo of both systems, and it's obviously not best. And I'm not suggesting leaving things as they currently are, though I'm guessing you'd prefer that to the alternative I would propose.

i think that's probably true. have you ever read the jungle, by upton sinclair? that's where i see your type of economic system leading us back to.

when my grandmother came to this country, she worked in a sweat shop in ny's garment district. she was 12 and they would hide her in a closet so the inspectors wouldn't see her when they came to the shop.

the world is a better one today.

I tend to look at works of fiction as just that, fiction.

May I ask what her other options were? I'd imagine it was either she work or her family didn't make enough to eat, right? The world is a better one today, but that's because our economy has grown to the point where it's possible for parents to make enough to support their family. It's not because of inspectors or regulations, it's because despite all these hindrances the market has been able to do what it naturally does.

 

[elvis]

don't you think that's silly? that there is an entire group of people who would spend hundreds of billions to wage war and not want to give a dime to make sure people have health insurance.

I don't know where Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rumsfeld stand on health care.

given past history, i'd think they'd oppose. but would any of them have gotten to vote on health care?

you don't need to get to them... you have the mitch mcconnels.

the individuals I mentioned are responsible for Iraq, imo. Bush was on the fence, IIRC. mitch mcconnell was one vote, same as Hillary and Biden.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well since people can opt out of the public option there then will this hike in cigarette prices apply only to those on the public option? Of course not. It's one of the perverse situations created by socialized health care.

I'm not sure what the wars have to do with this issue.

because they could afford to provide health care because they weren't wasting their money on a war of choice.

i think that's a better priority

if the Iraq war had never been waged, the health care debate would be in the same position it is now.

Probably. But we wouldn't be in as much debt as we are now.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you eat candy? Do you think candy should be taxed that high as well? Do you work out everyday? Do you think working out everyday should be made mandatory? After all, you should be forced to take care of yourself so other people don't have to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle, right?

You say why should you pay for somebody who doesn't take care of their body? You shouldn't. But a better question is why should anybody have to pay for anybody else? It's a ridiculous notion in the first place.

Yes, I do think some people eat too much and there are too many fat fucks around. Lazy, sedentary people need a kick up the butt. However, if I eat candy in moderation and exercise, then I won't put on weight. Can you name ONE thing that negates the massive ill effects smoking can cause?

No, it is not a ridiculous notion. We live in a society. As I have said to many people who think like you - it's all about YOU, YOU, YOU. ME, ME, ME. We don't live in a society of ME. We live in a collective whether you like it or not.

If you want to live 'freely' grow your own vegetables, build your own house - plumb it and wire it while you're at it - build your own car, pave your own highway, grow your own cotton to make your own clothes...I could go on....

 

[jillian]

What we have now is a combo of both systems, and it's obviously not best. And I'm not suggesting leaving things as they currently are, though I'm guessing you'd prefer that to the alternative I would propose.

i think that's probably true. have you ever read the jungle, by upton sinclair? that's where i see your type of economic system leading us back to.

when my grandmother came to this country, she worked in a sweat shop in ny's garment district. she was 12 and they would hide her in a closet so the inspectors wouldn't see her when they came to the shop.

the world is a better one today.

I tend to look at works of fiction as just that, fiction.

May I ask what her other options were? I'd imagine it was either she work or her family didn't make enough to eat, right? The world is a better one today, but that's because our economy has grown to the point where it's possible for parents to make enough to support their family. It's not because of inspectors or regulations, it's because despite all these hindrances the market has been able to do what it naturally does.

she and her four sisters all worked. their mother didn't once she came to this country.... i'm not quite sure why.

things changed because you're required to have your children in school now til they're 16 and you get charged with child neglect if you don't. the culture changed BECAUSE of inspectors and regulations which, in turn, allowed the system to grow.

the market does not naturally take care of people. markets satisfy only the corporations that are part of it and markets do not act in the best interests of society because they are amoral.

as for The Jungle, yes it was fiction, but so was Oliver Twist. Both reflected the social realities of their days. And both would have been incredibly ugly realities to live in.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you eat candy? Do you think candy should be taxed that high as well? Do you work out everyday? Do you think working out everyday should be made mandatory? After all, you should be forced to take care of yourself so other people don't have to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle, right?

You say why should you pay for somebody who doesn't take care of their body? You shouldn't. But a better question is why should anybody have to pay for anybody else? It's a ridiculous notion in the first place.

Yes, I do think some people eat too much and there are too many fat fucks around. Lazy, sedentary people need a kick up the butt. However, if I eat candy in moderation and exercise, then I won't put on weight. Can you name ONE thing that negates the massive ill effects smoking can cause?

No, it is not a ridiculous notion. We live in a society. As I have said to many people who think like you - it's all about YOU, YOU, YOU. ME, ME, ME. We don't live in a society of ME. We live in a collective whether you like it or not.

If you want to live 'freely' grow your own vegetables, build your own house - plumb it and wire it while you're at it - build your own car, pave your own highway, grow your own cotton to make your own clothes...I could go on....

Should people then be forced to get into an optimum weight range, and to an optimum body fat percentage? And if candy is bad for you then it should simply be banned outright, or at the very least taxed as much as cigarettes are. Sure you can exercise off any of the ill effects of the candy, but just imagine if you did that exercise and didn't eat the candy. Even better.

You don't find it a little bit ridiculous that you're complaining about having to pay for other people's health care while endorsing the system that says you have to do it? You don't think it's ridiculous that because you pay taxes you think you have an investment in the body of every other person in your country and have the right to tell them what they can or can't do with their bodies? And where does that end? As I'm trying to demonstrate with the above scenarios, how much is too much control over a person?

Why would I do that when there is a division of labor that makes it possible for me not to have to do that?

 

[AllieBaba]

Do you eat candy? Do you think candy should be taxed that high as well? Do you work out everyday? Do you think working out everyday should be made mandatory? After all, you should be forced to take care of yourself so other people don't have to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle, right?

You say why should you pay for somebody who doesn't take care of their body? You shouldn't. But a better question is why should anybody have to pay for anybody else? It's a ridiculous notion in the first place.

Yes, I do think some people eat too much and there are too many fat fucks around. Lazy, sedentary people need a kick up the butt. However, if I eat candy in moderation and exercise, then I won't put on weight. Can you name ONE thing that negates the massive ill effects smoking can cause?

No, it is not a ridiculous notion. We live in a society. As I have said to many people who think like you - it's all about YOU, YOU, YOU. ME, ME, ME. We don't live in a society of ME. We live in a collective whether you like it or not.

If you want to live 'freely' grow your own vegetables, build your own house - plumb it and wire it while you're at it - build your own car, pave your own highway, grow your own cotton to make your own clothes...I could go on....

So...it's perfectly right and moral that we not allow people to smoke or eat too much, because it's not healthy.

But it's not okay to tell men to keep shit off the ends of their dicks.

Perfect.

This is right up there with Obama telling us we MUST show proof of insurance or the IRS will take all we own...

But it's being "fascist" if we enforce laws already on the books in the case of Arizona's illegals.

 

[Dr Grump]

Should people then be forced to get into an optimum weight range, and to an optimum body fat percentage? And if candy is bad for you then it should simply be banned outright, or at the very least taxed as much as cigarettes are. Sure you can exercise off any of the ill effects of the candy, but just imagine if you did that exercise and didn't eat the candy. Even better.

You don't find it a little bit ridiculous that you're complaining about having to pay for other people's health care while endorsing the system that says you have to do it? You don't think it's ridiculous that because you pay taxes you think you have an investment in the body of every other person in your country and have the right to tell them what they can or can't do with their bodies? And where does that end? As I'm trying to demonstrate with the above scenarios, how much is too much control over a person?

Why would I do that when there is a division of labor that makes it possible for me not to have to do that?

My point is, there is a way, outside of taxation, to negate the negative affects of candy. There is no such remedy for smoking. You are comparing apples and oranges.

No, the system does not HAVE to do it. They pay more taxes through their smoking, which I think is brilliant. Make ciggies $50 a packet I say! I don't think I have an investment in their body because I pay taxes per se, but I do have an investment in how those taxes are spent. I thought you would be of the "personally responsibility" brigade. That being said, don't you think that if people indulge in a past time that is inherently bad with no redeeming features, then they should take their lumps? It ends with smoking. That and addiction to hardcore drugs, there are no good outcomes.

Not too sure what you mean by the division of labour and how it relates to what we are talking about..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

i think that's probably true. have you ever read the jungle, by upton sinclair? that's where i see your type of economic system leading us back to.

when my grandmother came to this country, she worked in a sweat shop in ny's garment district. she was 12 and they would hide her in a closet so the inspectors wouldn't see her when they came to the shop.

the world is a better one today.

I tend to look at works of fiction as just that, fiction.

May I ask what her other options were? I'd imagine it was either she work or her family didn't make enough to eat, right? The world is a better one today, but that's because our economy has grown to the point where it's possible for parents to make enough to support their family. It's not because of inspectors or regulations, it's because despite all these hindrances the market has been able to do what it naturally does.

she and her four sisters all worked. their mother didn't once she came to this country.... i'm not quite sure why.

things changed because you're required to have your children in school now til they're 16 and you get charged with child neglect if you don't. the culture changed BECAUSE of inspectors and regulations which, in turn, allowed the system to grow.

the market does not naturally take care of people. markets satisfy only the corporations that are part of it and markets do not act in the best interests of society because they are amoral.

as for The Jungle, yes it was fiction, but so was Oliver Twist. Both reflected the social realities of their days. And both would have been incredibly ugly realities to live in.

The law doesn't stop people from smoking weed, why would you think the law would stop children from skipping school and working if they had to? The culture changed because it was able to change, not because the government told it to change.

The market lifts up the standard of living for everyone.

I'm sure Harry Potter reflects some social realities of the day too, and I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world with wizards running about doing crazy things with magic.

 

[elvis]

I tend to look at works of fiction as just that, fiction.

May I ask what her other options were? I'd imagine it was either she work or her family didn't make enough to eat, right? The world is a better one today, but that's because our economy has grown to the point where it's possible for parents to make enough to support their family. It's not because of inspectors or regulations, it's because despite all these hindrances the market has been able to do what it naturally does.

she and her four sisters all worked. their mother didn't once she came to this country.... i'm not quite sure why.

things changed because you're required to have your children in school now til they're 16 and you get charged with child neglect if you don't. the culture changed BECAUSE of inspectors and regulations which, in turn, allowed the system to grow.

the market does not naturally take care of people. markets satisfy only the corporations that are part of it and markets do not act in the best interests of society because they are amoral.

as for The Jungle, yes it was fiction, but so was Oliver Twist. Both reflected the social realities of their days. And both would have been incredibly ugly realities to live in.

The law doesn't stop people from smoking weed, why would you think the law would stop children from skipping school and working if they had to? The culture changed because it was able to change, not because the government told it to change.

The market lifts up the standard of living for everyone.

I'm sure Harry Potter reflects some social realities of the day too, and I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world with wizards running about doing crazy things with magic.

harry potter represents a fantasy world. the Jungle reflects reality.