Create Dependence, Make Demands. The common strategy of all government

[Althea]

The only reason why i am not for this law is because it will bring on shrill accusations of nanny-stateism, without any corresponding benefit. I mean, this just isn't going to impact obesity. It's picking a fight that even if you win, you don't gain anything.

True. I don't agree with this approach, and I haven't had a soda in 30 years. That said:

If you want to drown yourself in (govt. subsidized) high fructose corn syrup, just ask for a refill.

Seems pretty easy to me.

If you want to cut down on obesity, make all people who ingest poisenous soft drinks responsible for the cost of their own healthcare.

And charge them a higher premium.

 

[Haiku]

Or tax it like cigarettes and take the government subsidies away.

 

[NOVA]

Real conservatives swill gallons of high-fructose corn syrup daily.

Prove it.....link up

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's the same strategy any pimp will use with a prostitute. Get her hooked on a drug, then when she's strung out, she needs to come to you for cash, and she will do what you say. Before long, the pimp's will is ironclad.

This is the same strategy our government always takes, and it's the path they are following when things like the ACA come up. Always keep this in mind. Governments long term plan is to wriggle it's way into every corner and facet of ones life, so that one becomes strung out on the governments handouts. Then, the government is within full rights to make whatever demands of you, because you are now forced to live off their guided hand.

NY is currently trying to ban "large soft drinks" to counter obesity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/n...l=1&adxnnlx=1338470009-hRUBzZ9ALkfvA/zRp06KrQ

Give them an inch, they will take a mile. Once you put the health of citizens on the dole, you now have the right to dictate what they eat, what their portions are, how often they should exercise, and on and on and on, because now their poor choices effect all of the taxpayers by raising health costs.

Make no mistake, the more you get from the government, the greater license you give them to dictate your lives and the choices you make.

Really? Can you site me specific examples of this related to health care management?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Show one country with government health that implemented any such policy. Dozens of countries, fifty-plus years....there must be many. Show ONE.

It has absolutely nothing to do with government health care.

This thread is so stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

maybe this will teach you not to support the far reaching effect of government. Imagine if this vaginal probe thing was national instead of state level. Everyone loves big national government until it effects themselves adversely. Maybe it's time to realize the best defense against this type of stuff is to limit the power, so if you end up in a fucked up state, you at least have options.

If you support big government, it's only a matter of time before someone you don't like very much, or agree very much with, gets into power. Then it's probing time for all.

Why are you being so fucking stupid??? This attempt at making this a law was made by right wing Republicans who hate women. But I repeat myself.

And the only thing it taught me was that Republicans hate women. Which I already knew.

Oh yeah, it also taught me that when women get pissed they say 'NO MORE MISS NICE GUY, DOWN ON YOUR KNEES FUCKWIT.

And the fuckwits get down on their knees and grovel and beg for forgiveness.

Unless you didn't notice that women kicked the haters who tried to pass this law in their shriveled nuts and the law didn't get signed.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I see proleDarla is at it again. The point isn't about soft drinks per se. That is admittedly a rather trivial issue. The point is that the more you have the government involved with aspects of people lives, the amount of control, from trivial to non trivial things, increases inevitably. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize someone that is fatter? That person is contributing to higher healthcare costs. So eventually we will end up with a system that for example, likely penalizes people for being over certain weights, because the government has made one persons problem everyones problem. This is always their ultimate goal for control, you rope everyone in under a particular umbrella, and now you have carte blanche to dictate all sorts of terms, because being under the same umbrella allows them to get all dictatorial on you for the "common good"

Spiraling health care costs have nothing to do with government health care. And we are all sharing those costs. Perhaps you do not know how insurance works? Need a short course?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Spiraling health care costs have nothing to do with government health care.

darla you are missing my point. My point is that if you tie a population together, under a particular umbrella, you give government the power to make whatever demands they wish, because now one person's decisions effects everyone else. If we keep people separated on an individual level, this wont happen.

 

[Damocles]

It's really not a very difficult to enforce law, because it basically only involves something that has to be done in public. And restaurants already have health inspectors. If anyone really wants a lot of soft drink in one sitting, I'd imagine they'd just go and buy it at a store, which this law doesn't affect.

What has that to do with my post?

 

[christiefan915]

I think it is time for me to pick up Atlas Shrugged again... Part II is coming out soon...



I can't wait.

OMG...

 

[Damocles]

Where's that phone call with the dude ordering a pizza where they check into his background, access his medical file, then start telling him what kind of pizza he can order?

 

[CanceledB]

It's amazing how attempting to ban super-sized soda garners far more male outrage than attempting to legally mandate a 12 inch wand being shoved up a woman's vagina.

Thank you for that much-needed calling of attention to the absurd warpage of perspective.

 

[CanceledB]

Where's that phone call with the dude ordering a pizza where they check into his background, access his medical file, then start telling him what kind of pizza he can order?

It's on another planet, that's where.

 

[Damocles]

It's on another planet, that's where.

Nah, it's funny. Don't get so upset that people don't want government doing this (or shoving wands up vaginas for that matter) that you can't see the good tasting fruit on the tree in front of you...

 

[apple0154]

darla you are missing my point. My point is that if you tie a population together, under a particular umbrella, you give government the power to make whatever demands they wish, because now one person's decisions effects everyone else. If we keep people separated on an individual level, this wont happen.

If that's your point then the example you used does nothing to support it as dozens of countries have had government health for half a century and nothing, absolutely nothing, has occurred remotely resembling your example. What your example does support is the argument made by government health care proponents that those opposed to it have absolutely no knowledge concerning government medical. No one who knew anything about government medical would use such an example.

This is the result of the propaganda from the right. A concerted effort of disinformation composed of lies and scare tactics repeated over and over leading to people such as yourself accepting it as common wisdom to the point it's used as an example. It's like someone describing the climate in a little known area of the world and saying, "The humidity is terrible. It's like the Amazon rain forest or Las Vegas." Obvious the individual knows nothing about Las Vegas or they would never have said that.

The point of this post is not to deride your example as we all make errors. The point is to show how the right has poisoned the entire conversation with lies about everything from the government selecting your doctor to death panels which is all utter nonsense. The best way to find out what government health care is like is to research other countries that have government health care.

There seems to be two main arguments against it and one contradicts the other. The first is people will not have a choice when it comes to medical care and the second is once people get used to "free" health care they'll never want to return to a "pay or suffer" system. If government medical is so bad the people would want to return to the old system but they don't. In every country the citizens insist on keeping their respective plans. No exception. That, alone, should settle the argument concerning government health care.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

apple you don't understand what I am saying.

 

[apple0154]

apple you don't understand what I am saying.

In msg #18 you wrote,

I see proleDarla is at it again. The point isn't about soft drinks per se. That is admittedly a rather trivial issue. The point is that the more you have the government involved with aspects of people lives, the amount of control, from trivial to non trivial things, increases inevitably. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize someone that is fatter? That person is contributing to higher healthcare costs. So eventually we will end up with a system that for example, likely penalizes people for being over certain weights, because the government has made one persons problem everyones problem. This is always their ultimate goal for control, you rope everyone in under a particular umbrella, and now you have carte blanche to dictate all sorts of terms, because being under the same umbrella allows them to get all dictatorial on you for the "common good"

But that isn't how government health care works.

Why should the American taxpayer subsidize someone who is fatter? The same reason the fat person is subsidizing the alcoholic who gets liver disease. The same reason men subsidize birth costs. The same reason women subsidize prostate cancer treatments. The same reason fat, lazy people have to subsidize the skiers who break legs and all those other athletic types who injure themselves playing with various sized balls. The bicyclist and the jogger who can't grasp the idea roads and streets are made for cars.

When programs such as health care is under one umbrella everyone is more free to pursue their interests. Whether it's the young adult wanting to go camping and exploring without worrying about being able to cover medical expenses if they get injured to the middle aged man who decides to paint his eavestroughs medical care is no longer a restriction. Obviously, no one is going to deliberately injure themselves so freedom from worry alows many to pursue happiness; as in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Take government subsidized child care which many countries offer. Parents are able to work or further their education. Artists, business professionals, nurses.....staying home to look after one 3-year-old. Fine, if that's what they want. Absurd, if they can't afford to pay a babysitter. A complete waste of talent.

That's why government programs are beneficial. They offer people more freedom.

As for Bloomberg and the soft drink caper there's always one whacko in the crowd but if it bugs people too much they'll vote him out.

 

[blackascoal]

It's the same strategy any pimp will use with a prostitute. Get her hooked on a drug, then when she's strung out, she needs to come to you for cash, and she will do what you say. Before long, the pimp's will is ironclad.

This is the same strategy our government always takes, and it's the path they are following when things like the ACA come up. Always keep this in mind. Governments long term plan is to wriggle it's way into every corner and facet of ones life, so that one becomes strung out on the governments handouts. Then, the government is within full rights to make whatever demands of you, because you are now forced to live off their guided hand.

NY is currently trying to ban "large soft drinks" to counter obesity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/n...l=1&adxnnlx=1338470009-hRUBzZ9ALkfvA/zRp06KrQ

Give them an inch, they will take a mile. Once you put the health of citizens on the dole, you now have the right to dictate what they eat, what their portions are, how often they should exercise, and on and on and on, because now their poor choices effect all of the taxpayers by raising health costs.

Make no mistake, the more you get from the government, the greater license you give them to dictate your lives and the choices you make.

The glaring reality is that the more you allow CORPORATIONS to rule your government, the less there is for anyone. They are dictating your lives in ways that the liberals you whine about would never allow.

Telling American seniors to invest in the stock market for their security???? That's intelligent?

Question: Would cradle-to-grave free healthcare and education be in the best interest of America?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

In msg #18 you wrote,

But that isn't how government health care works.

Why should the American taxpayer subsidize someone who is fatter? The same reason the fat person is subsidizing the alcoholic who gets liver disease. The same reason men subsidize birth costs. The same reason women subsidize prostate cancer treatments. The same reason fat, lazy people have to subsidize the skiers who break legs and all those other athletic types who injure themselves playing with various sized balls. The bicyclist and the jogger who can't grasp the idea roads and streets are made for cars.

When programs such as health care is under one umbrella everyone is more free to pursue their interests. Whether it's the young adult wanting to go camping and exploring without worrying about being able to cover medical expenses if they get injured to the middle aged man who decides to paint his eavestroughs medical care is no longer a restriction. Obviously, no one is going to deliberately injure themselves so freedom from worry alows many to pursue happiness; as in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Take government subsidized child care which many countries offer. Parents are able to work or further their education. Artists, business professionals, nurses.....staying home to look after one 3-year-old. Fine, if that's what they want. Absurd, if they can't afford to pay a babysitter. A complete waste of talent.

That's why government programs are beneficial. They offer people more freedom.

As for Bloomberg and the soft drink caper there's always one whacko in the crowd but if it bugs people too much they'll vote him out.

Well said Apple, and it just so happens to be the same way insurance works! What do you know?!

And let's not forget the genius SUV owners who believe that because they have four wheel drives they can go fast on icy/snowy roads. I know this body guy who loves them. He always says, you can count on them never understanding that they have the same rubber tires as everyone else and when rubber meets ice...$$$$ for him and health care costs for the rest of us.

And a million other things none of us can even think of because all human beings are fallible.

 

[apple0154]

The glaring reality is that the more you allow CORPORATIONS to rule your government, the less there is for anyone. They are dictating your lives in ways that the liberals you whine about would never allow.

Telling American seniors to invest in the stock market for their security???? That's intelligent?

Question: Would cradle-to-grave free healthcare and education be in the best interest of America?

The sad thing is before pensions (Social Security) that's exactly what people did. They invested, be it in businesses or in their farm or simply put their money in the bank. They had all the freedom they ever wanted and we saw what the depression did. That's precisely why Obama told the Repubs not to come to the table with old, tired, worn-out ideas.

When I hear people say give the private sector a chance and get rid of government programs a legitimate question to ask is, "What planet are you from?” because their Bible must read, “In the beginning God created Heaven and earth and government programs.” They think government programs have always been in effect but the truth is for over 3,000 years of recorded history these “programs” were privately controlled for 2,900 years. It’s less than 100 years most government programs have been in effect; social security, welfare, medicaid/medicare, etc. The private sector had 2,900 years to get it right. Or if they want to talk about the US only the private sector had over 150 years to perfect their “programs” (1776 – 1935) only to end up with the depression.

Where some folks get their ideas from I'll never know. It's like they just dropped in from outer space without any idea of earth's history.