the government has no business drawing lines for me. I know what is best for me.
Thank you! This whole thing just reeks of those Truth commercials. They're solely geared towards cigarettes but it's the same concept. The only thing I read in this bill is punishing the choices of smokers for the sake of a welfare program. I wonder when they'll start taxing soda and McDonalds? Because after all, those are pretty damn unhealthy. No social stigmas against them though.
Except that it sort of is. Maintaining a well-functioning society is one of the fundamental tasks of gov't. And ours is explicitly given the authority and task by our constitution.
please give me a reference for that.
"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic traquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."
Promoting the general welfare is on exactly the same constitutional footing as the police and national defense functions of government.
kuzi16:
medicine all over the world was bad before 1900. we didnt have the technology to produce the things we have now.
I'm not talking about the things we have now. We did have the technology to provide much better medical care than people were getting. Why weren't people getting it? Because there was no regulation of medical care, no regulation of medicines (or what often passed for medicines), no requirement for accurate labeling of the contents of medicine, etc. Any knucklehead who decided what was best for him was to cook up some combination of alcohol and assorted medicinally useless plants, bottle it, and sell it as a cure for whooping cough could do just that. At best, sick people got ripped off. At worst, the "medicine" itself poisoned them. In the middle, they died of their illness because the "medicine" they thought would make them better had no medicinal value.
kuzi16:
government regulation of medicine was done for drug addicts.
That's simply incorrect. The first federal legislation on medicine was to prevent fraudulent claims from being made for the huge number of patent medicines various knuckleheads were making money selling. It had nothing to do with addicts. It was to protect the public from relying on false medical claims. Very little of the regulations we have for medicines even today are aimed at addicts. They're aimed at ensuring that the products sold as having medicinal value actually have scientifically demonstrated value for treating what they claim to treat, and are produced in safe, contaminant-free environments. IOW, they're intended to protect the general public -- the general welfare.
kuzi16:
but on the other hand, you have to draw those lines for yourself. the government has no business drawing lines for me. I know what is best for me.
And if you lived on an island all by yourself, what was best for you would be all that mattered. But since you live in a complex society with several hundred million other people, you don't get to just draw the lines where you think is best for you. It would be total anarchy.
My comment is that they are here to promote the general welfare, NOT to ensure it.
Also many many many laws are there to keep drug addicts from getting meds. If you don't believe it just get pulled over sometime with a console full of hydrocodone and see what happens...
Also many many many laws are there to keep drug addicts from getting meds. If you don't believe it just get pulled over sometime with a console full of hydrocodone and see what happens...
I'm trying not to today! I trust that there are plenty...may have exercised a few in my day.
And if you lived on an island all by yourself, what was best for you would be all that mattered. But since you live in a complex society with several hundred million other people, you don't get to just draw the lines where you think is best for you. It would be total anarchy.
... no it would be liberty.
"PROMOTE the general welfare" not ENSURE it.
i see what you are saying about medicine here. I think i phrased it a bit on the strange side. It was to help prevend addiction due to lack of understanding of what was in the bottle and what not. Knowing what is in it is very different than getting medicine for free.
we could also make an arguement that people have a general drive to do what is right for themselves. this drive would make people want to buy medicine that does what it says it does and is safe. a more capitalist system could actually take over and people would demand quality.
yes there would be stupid people out there with bathtub elixers and snake oils but they would soon be forced out of business once they were discovered.
but this isnt what the argument is about. in fact, this argument over the positives and negatives of the SCHIP bill is kind of moot. It passed. Obama will sign it. we have it.
its just a matter of time before they raise more taxes for it, or expand it even more.
Comments
Promoting the general welfare is on exactly the same constitutional footing as the police and national defense functions of government. I'm not talking about the things we have now. We did have the technology to provide much better medical care than people were getting. Why weren't people getting it? Because there was no regulation of medical care, no regulation of medicines (or what often passed for medicines), no requirement for accurate labeling of the contents of medicine, etc. Any knucklehead who decided what was best for him was to cook up some combination of alcohol and assorted medicinally useless plants, bottle it, and sell it as a cure for whooping cough could do just that. At best, sick people got ripped off. At worst, the "medicine" itself poisoned them. In the middle, they died of their illness because the "medicine" they thought would make them better had no medicinal value. That's simply incorrect. The first federal legislation on medicine was to prevent fraudulent claims from being made for the huge number of patent medicines various knuckleheads were making money selling. It had nothing to do with addicts. It was to protect the public from relying on false medical claims. Very little of the regulations we have for medicines even today are aimed at addicts. They're aimed at ensuring that the products sold as having medicinal value actually have scientifically demonstrated value for treating what they claim to treat, and are produced in safe, contaminant-free environments. IOW, they're intended to protect the general public -- the general welfare. And if you lived on an island all by yourself, what was best for you would be all that mattered. But since you live in a complex society with several hundred million other people, you don't get to just draw the lines where you think is best for you. It would be total anarchy.
Also many many many laws are there to keep drug addicts from getting meds. If you don't believe it just get pulled over sometime with a console full of hydrocodone and see what happens...
I'm trying not to today! I trust that there are plenty...may have exercised a few in my day.
"PROMOTE the general welfare" not ENSURE it.
i see what you are saying about medicine here. I think i phrased it a bit on the strange side. It was to help prevend addiction due to lack of understanding of what was in the bottle and what not. Knowing what is in it is very different than getting medicine for free.
we could also make an arguement that people have a general drive to do what is right for themselves. this drive would make people want to buy medicine that does what it says it does and is safe. a more capitalist system could actually take over and people would demand quality.
yes there would be stupid people out there with bathtub elixers and snake oils but they would soon be forced out of business once they were discovered.
but this isnt what the argument is about.
in fact, this argument over the positives and negatives of the SCHIP bill is kind of moot. It passed. Obama will sign it. we have it.
its just a matter of time before they raise more taxes for it, or expand it even more.
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his (ass).
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore..
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
It's supposed to just be kinda funny, but it's becoming more and more true everyday...