Home Non Cigar Related

not quite cigar related

kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395152,00.html


this is just what we need. the government tellin private corporations how to run things in the name of public health. is alcohol next? how about fattening food... oh wait that already IS under attack.

whatever happened to personal responsability? if people make poor choices, let them. its their fault that they have messed themselves up. its not the governments place to get involved with our lives.

end rant.
«1345

Comments

  • j0z3rj0z3r Posts: 9,403
    but kuzi, if the guvment dun tell us wut ta do, hows we apposed to tell whats right and whats not? /backwoods hick

    In all seriousness though, its the same old story: "Americans are not responsible for their poor health, its someone else's fault dammit." Who's fault? you ask, more on that at 11.
  • ScramblerScrambler Posts: 746 ✭✭
    The way I see it, it comes down to this: The politicians believe that the average American isn't smart enough to make good decisions on their own. I highly doubt there is any adult in America that doesn't know the risk associated with cigarettes. Since we obviously aren't making the "right" decisions for ourselves, the Government is going to make those decisions for us.

    Most of the politicians believe in all honesty they are doing whats best for the people. Personally, I think its arrogant and insulting of them to think they are better qualified to make personal decisions for us.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    Scrambler:
    Personally, I think its arrogant and insulting of them to think they are better qualified to make personal decisions for us.
    well said.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    If OooohBama is elected it will be more of this type control. One word to describe him...Pretentious.

    http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302137342405551
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    yeah... i cant undrstand why anyone would want to vote for that commie.
    and when i ask anyone all they can say is "bla bla bla change bla bla Bush Sucks bla bla change bla bla bla." thereis going to be change alright. Higher taxes. Weaker economy. Nanny Stateism. Higher Oil prices. More social programs that will inevitably go bankrupt. But at least we will pull out of Iraq and let that fledgling country fend for itself and that will result in hundreds of thouisands (if not millions) of deaths.

    thats change i can believe in.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    oh yeah, you may think that bush sucks, but there is one thing to remember:
    Bush is not running for office this election.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    Yeah, funny how Obama still brings up his name nd then tries to relate him to McCain. McCain fought Bush on a lot of issues. But Obama can't know that since he has only been in the senate for 3 YEARS!
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Bad Andy:
    Yeah, funny how Obama still brings up his name nd then tries to relate him to McCain. McCain fought Bush on a lot of issues. But Obama can't know that since he has only been in the senate for 3 YEARS!
    Hmm.. he can't know that because he's only been in the Senate for three years. But you know that. How long have you been in the Senate?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    Bad Andy:
    Yeah, funny how Obama still brings up his name nd then tries to relate him to McCain. McCain fought Bush on a lot of issues. But Obama can't know that since he has only been in the senate for 3 YEARS!
    Hmm.. he can't know that because he's only been in the Senate for three years. But you know that. How long have you been in the Senate?
    andy isnt running to sit in the oval office. thats the difference.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    Bad Andy:
    Yeah, funny how Obama still brings up his name nd then tries to relate him to McCain. McCain fought Bush on a lot of issues. But Obama can't know that since he has only been in the senate for 3 YEARS!
    Hmm.. he can't know that because he's only been in the Senate for three years. But you know that. How long have you been in the Senate?
    andy isnt running to sit in the oval office. thats the difference.


    how long have YOU been in the senate, dutyje?
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    Obama refuses to admit things to himself, like the surged didn't work. If it didn't work then how the hell did he come over here and fly around so safely. Bush even came to Al Anbar province. I'm sitting on the base that Bush came to last year right now.

    I haven't been in the senate but as a voter, it is my responsibility to know the issues that matter to me, my family and my life. That is the problem with voters nowadays. They watch tv and listen to slanted views (on both sides) and then do not verify what they see and hear to get the whole story and make an informed decision. Hence why a lot of people are watching the nightly news like it is entertainment news and not a political race. You can even see Obama on the E network, WHY! Because he does not have voters or constituents he has fans and followers.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    Bad Andy:
    You can even see Obama on the E network, WHY! Because he does not have voters or constituents he has fans and followers.
    again well said
  • zoom6zoomzoom6zoom Posts: 1,214
    Actually, BO was only in the Senate for 143 working days before he started running for President.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    I think he actually started running when he gave that speech at the Dem Convention in 04. Before he was elected to the senate.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    dutyje:
    Bad Andy:
    Yeah, funny how Obama still brings up his name nd then tries to relate him to McCain. McCain fought Bush on a lot of issues. But Obama can't know that since he has only been in the senate for 3 YEARS!
    Hmm.. he can't know that because he's only been in the Senate for three years. But you know that. How long have you been in the Senate?
    andy isnt running to sit in the oval office. thats the difference.


    how long have YOU been in the senate, dutyje?
    I've never been a senator. I was merely pointing out that the argument Obama can't know something that somebody else knows due to his short time in the Senate would only be valid if the person he was compared to had served for a greater time in the Senate.

    Regarding politics, I don't claim to have any unique ability to determine whether either of the two candidates is more qualified. The most important issue to me and my family is healthcare, which would require too much time to discuss at length. I don't believe there is any single human being that can effect sufficient change at any level of our government to adequately address this issue.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    Well, as far as healthcare is concerned, and I don't know your situation so I have no intention to offend. But Obama and the Dems want universal healthcare. If you have any questions on how that is you can look at the Canandians and the Brit. They both have a a gov't ran healthcare. But I pose one question for you in that respect, when was the last time gov't did anything better (ie. more efficient, cheaper, better managed) than a private business could do it?
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Well, I have a ton of Canadian friends, and they're always raving about how much they like their system of healthcare. I'm on a global call every day, facilitated by Brits, but I've never asked them about their healthcare situation.

    My issue with healthcare is this: A few years ago, I took a contract job at the bank. In doing this, I had to come up with a health insurance option for myself. The contracting firm had plans that they offered, and I could get one privately for myself. The group plans were clearly cheaper because I have an annual prescription drug cost of over $15,000 (multiple sclerosis).

    Anyway, even with my large costs, and using a group plan which is not priced on my current health condition, I would have needed to have over five major relapses, as well as a catastrophic auto accident with my family, just to break even on the insurance costs (premiums paid vs. benefits gained).

    I couldn't, however, go uninsured and just pay my costs out of pocket. Multiple sclerosis is an incurable disease. If I were to elect to go uninsured, my MS becomes a pre-existing condition, and would not be covered by any future policy. The prescription drug benefit was capped at $50 / month. With $1,300 / month in drug expenses, that would mean I'd be responsible for the other $1,250. Healthcare in this country is legalized extortion. Drug companies are not motivated to find cures, because treatments ensure a permanent customer base.

    As far as the comparison between government and business, I'll sum it up this way: I know of no major successful corporation that would make somebody an executive over one of its largest divisions simply because they thought he was funny in "Kindergarten Cop."
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    I'm sorry about your situation, it is outside of the normal healthcare requirements. I would say that certain cases could get assistance. Medical and Drugs are messed up right now, a lot of it being regulations and there own insurance issues. Again things could be better if gov't got out of the way.

    Hey the Gipper was pretty darn good. The Last Action Hero is just that, the last. We have to deal with The ONE now. Obama is no longer the presumptive Dem candidate, he is the presumptuous president.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    No need to aplogize for my situation. I am in excellent health. I don't believe that private industry can solve the healthcare crisis better than government, because the laws of economics do not hold true. There is no supply/demand correlation to control health costs, because it is something people cannot choose to do without. I do feel people should assume a consumerist responsibility when seeking healthcare. As an example, I have not seen my neurologist in over four years, and have not taken my medication in over three years. I do this because I do not believe I receive a value in return for these services and treatments. There are other patients, with a more severe course of MS, who do get value for those treatments.

    My father was a physician, and my grandfather was a prominent psychiatrist. One of my good friends is a sales executive for a major pharmaceutical company. Despite all this, I could go on at length about the failings of our nation's healthcare system.

    With respect to the core issue of the OP, my views are simple. The right of our politicians to legislate ends at the point where the actions of one man infringe on the basic right of another man to live peacefully in the pursuit of his own choice. An example of this would be a seat belt law. You harm no individual other than yourself by choosing not to wear a seat belt. In my opinion, individuals are responsible for managing their own well-being, and we don't need to enlist a host of liars and crooks as our babysitters.
  • j0z3rj0z3r Posts: 9,403
    dutyje:
    With respect to the core issue of the OP, my views are simple. The right of our politicians to legislate ends at the point where the actions of one man infringe on the basic right of another man to live peacefully in the pursuit of his own choice. An example of this would be a seat belt law. You harm no individual other than yourself by choosing not to wear a seat belt. In my opinion, individuals are responsible for managing their own well-being, and we don't need to enlist a host of liars and crooks as our babysitters.
    First let me say that I agree whole-heartedly with the above quoted text. However, I am curious as to how far you hold these views. Example, does your view apply to drug use, and if so do you feel drugs should be legalized with the end responsibility resting on those who would use them ( assuming any damage was only incurred solely by the user)?

    While I agree that our government, the very one that is in place to serve the tax paying citizens, tends to overstep its bounds quite frequently, I just wonder what the alternative is. I for one would not like to find out the hard way that a babysitting government is better for us than one that lets us be. Suppose its hard to say for sure though.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    That's an excellent argument, Joe, with respect to drug use. I would wonder if you could quantify the "collateral" damage of hardcore drug use. For example, I would guess that marijuana use has very little effect (no more than alcohol) on any individual other than the user. I don't really have much experience to speak from to make that case. Highly-addictive drugs would carry a significantly increased likelihood of collateral damage, either through direct causes (accidents) or other criminal behavior to support a habit (theft).

  • j0z3rj0z3r Posts: 9,403
    This is somewhat hypothetical, but let us assume there is no collateral damage. Then, from a hypothetical standpoint, all potential damage should be reflected upon the user. I understand this is obviously not a realistic model, but it gives a basis to form an opinion as to how much intervention is enough, and at what point it becomes too much when we take into account the idea of "protecting us from ourselves".

    And, speaking from personal experience, as far as collateral damage is concerned, I believe alcohol to be far more damaging, to both the user and those around, than marijuana. I'm not a pot advocate by any means, but I've never known anyone to be killed by someone under the influence of it either.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    I can agree that it is difficult to have economic normalities in healthcare but it is better than universal healthcare. Where you will be taxed like crazy which is a big part of BHO's plan anyways. You tax like he wants to and the economy will tank.

    I too, believe in individual rights. Its the bill of rights. Its what the gov't is supposed to protect but slowly they have been taking more and more of our rights under the guise of 'for our own good and benefit'. If it continues we will be in a socialist state before we know it. BHO's history proves that he lean that way extremely.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    Bad Andy:
    I can agree that it is difficult to have economic normalities in healthcare but it is better than universal healthcare. Where you will be taxed like crazy which is a big part of BHO's plan anyways. You tax like he wants to and the economy will tank.
    there is only one cure for poverty:
    wealth
    redistrabution of wealth does not create any true wealth. we want true wealth. Socialism is by deffinition "redistrabution of wealth" even in the health care system. it will eventually fail, just like every other social program has and will fail.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Joe, using your hypothetical, I would see no need to legislate the substance. As far as marijuana, I don't believe you can find any proof that it is more likely to cause collateral damage, but I also don't believe you can say conclusively that it is less likely.

    As far as the rest of the thrad, any argument employing the word "socialism" fails to address the issues really at hand. I think everyone would agree that the nation has a responsibility, as a collective, to fund its activities, rather than accumulate debt. Aside from the structure of this tax (tax the rich, tax the poor, tax the corporations, etc), there should be no debate on that point. The difficult work begins when determining how to most responsibly apply the available resources. In other words, take a hard look at the existing programs to determine whether or not they are worthwhile. Also, take a look at this convoluted mess of laws and determine which are unintelligible, unenforcible, or those which unnecessarily infringe on freedom of the people.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    dutyje:
    Aside from the structure of this tax (tax the rich, tax the poor, tax the corporations, etc), there should be no debate on that point.

    FAIRTAX.ORG
    dutyje:
    The difficult work begins when determining how to most responsibly apply the available resources. In other words, take a hard look at the existing programs to determine whether or not they are worthwhile. Also, take a look at this convoluted mess of laws and determine which are unintelligible, unenforcible, or those which unnecessarily infringe on freedom of the people.

    That's easy...sort of...use the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment has essentialy been thrown out when you look at some of the things that the federal gov't has been doing over the last few decades. It is a mess that we can clean up if people and politicians would their heads out of their rears.
  • Smoke=FireSmoke=Fire Posts: 692 ✭✭
    dutyje:
    The difficult work begins when determining how to most responsibly apply the available resources. In other words, take a hard look at the existing programs to determine whether or not they are worthwhile.
    Keep in mind the following viewpoints are my own, and pulled directly from my ***...the place where I most often keep my head.

    In this regard, I have to take a quote from our friend Karl, but with a twist in his meaning..."From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"; or in layman's terms "you get what you earn". My personal feelings on the bulk of the social programs is that they fail, horribly. And of that opinion I think that socialized medicine would fare no better. I do agree however that current medical costs are astronomical, and should be regulated or capped.

    As for our other social programs, I think that any program that makes one group of people pay for the sustenance of another group who adds nothing to the collective is wrong. And please, don't tell me of the beauty and sanctity of all life, and how we are all richer in spirit that everyone is alive. We have reached critical mass with the current crop of social programs, and all the good intentions of those who implemented them have gone awry.

    We can no longer afford to be a welfare state; we will in all probability not even be able to pay out the social security benefits I have paid into all these years (I'm 44, and have been working since I was 16). And i have taken steps myself to cover that; I've been responsible. But to continuously pay out "benefits", whether in funds, food stamps, and/or medical care for people who contribute nothing to the very national properity that sustains them is untenable. If you cannot sustain yourself on the most very basic level (food, shelter, water) than simply put you die to make room for someone who can. I have no issue with helping someone up if they have fallen, until they can stand on their own feet again; I take issue with carrying them around on my back for the rest of my life.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    AMEN...

    I am 32 and I will NEVER see any of my SS funds. They have already been spent by politicians, they have done this for decades. The gov't did the same with SS funds as Enron did with thier employees pensions. No Pol has been sued, fired or charged with any crime for this and it has been done by both sides. The only way to bring down the deficit is to cut spending greatly and tax smartly (FAIRTAX.ORG) to allow business, the market, and the economy to do what it is supposed to do.

    Basically, if anyone wants social programs to continue, stiffling taxes and for the gov't to run more of thier lives then move to Europe...I heard Obama is running for President over there.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    it seems that some in the world think that personal responsability is "mean," or "racist," when it is neither. If every last person took care of themselves with no government assistence, they would have nobody to blame but themselves when things went wrong. Im not poor because i work hard. I am not "lucky," or "living off mom and dad," and i dont "just know the right people." I work hard every day for what i have. Taking my money and giving it to someone is bad enough, but saying that its going to help others and then being spent otherwise is even worse. Every govenment program wastes tons of money and loses it quickly. they waste the money they take from me. MY MONEY!!
    sicialized medicine will be no different. it will hemmorage money from the get go. there will be an unlimited demand because its "free." this will cause the cost to skyrocket and hence taxes to go up. its a cycle. the country will colapse under the wieght of itself if we keep getting more and more socialist.

    i need to stop typing abotu this because i have too much running through my head about it and its not quite comming out how i want. My fingers cant keep up with my mind. iduno.

    let it just be known that i will vote for whoever will take less money out of my pocket, and let the free market work the way it should be. I dont want or need a handout. I just want to be left alone.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    BTW im all about a fair tax
Sign In or Register to comment.