Ok, only slightly unrelated: The FDA is currently conducting a research panel to determine if menthol should be banned. They are touting it towards mentholated cigarettes. So the public is all on board, "Yeah, ban menthol! Put Camel out of busines (they only make menthol cigs)! Death to the tobacco industry!" Alright. I can sort of understand. Here's the kicker: no one thinks about what else would be affected. No more Carmex. No more Vicks. No more Halls. Really think about it. What do you give your child when they have a cold if you don't want to drug them with cold meds? For me, I rub a little Mentolatum on their chest for a more restful sleep. But that wouldn't be possible anymore if they ban menthol.
Good post, Amie. I don't care for the government regulating anything like that unless it is mind-altering--and then really only for the danger you could be to others. Another thought about government run healthcare....all people are going to die from something. No body lasts forever. We will all succumb to a disease or deterioration. It irritates me to no end how they seem to think that if you are a correct weight, eat right and exercise that you will live forever. If you do all those things and have an inherently healthy composition, you won't get sick till you are closer to 100 years old. Then they will deny you benefits because you won't live much longer anyway.
oh, well that law was discussed in the bible as well. Money is the root of evil. ok not ALL but MUCH. how many times do we find money linked to crime, law breaking, and er politicians?, ha, couldn't resist. People that crave power, control, also are after money. The whole surface issue of the health care problem is MONEY. So you can't talk long about health w/o talking about money, gov and control, and who's going to get money/care, and who will be left out. After all, contrary to Obama's beliefs in spreading the wealth, he will only spread it to whoever he wants to. well there we made out circle going back to the ideals of Hitler lol Do you know some claim to not even believe in the holocaust? How nuts is that? are they really that deceived or in denial? Soooo many people have 'it won't happen to me syndrome', it's pretty frightening.
It is the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. not the money itself. But I do agree with you on your post. Most don't realize that in a socialist or one of those other types of governments that we don't want the wealth doesn't get spread around it gets moved to those in power, not the general population.
In another thread, we learned that a crash helmet saved someone's life. While a sizable number object to the government forcing us to wear crash helmets or seat belts, they save thousands of lives every year. Would we prefer the government not force us to wear them?
Not all "socialist" governments are the same. In Canada the wealth is spread around to the general population quite well. In addition to government health care, the government gives out monthly checks to mid-lower income families to help increase the standard of living (ranging from $0-over $1000 depending on your income the previous year). They also give out checks of $100 per young child per month to most of the population. And it doesn't come with the welfare stigma because it isn't welfare. It is just how it is. At least here in Canada I feel as through the wealth is spread to those who need it more. A big motivating factor for moving away from the USA was what went on in Capitol Hill at the end of 2008. I had huge taxes to pay as a small business owner and where did my taxes go? Corporations, military, etc.
That's right, I would! For one thing, they are not required as far as motercycles go in Ohio. My husband refers to them as "Brain Buckets". It bothers me to no end that my children are REQUIRED to wear a helmet while biking. Now, understand *I* would make them wear one most of the time, but I don't like the GOVERNMENT taking that decision away from me. And there are times when a person is actually killed as a result of wearing a seatbelt, not being able to get out of a dangerous situation fast enough.
We can argue over whether such things should be mandated by government or priced out of existence by insurance companies, but there's another issue here. Report after report reveals how many lives are saved as a result of wearing seat belts. More than that, the cost of treating injuries sustained in a serious crash is less when the injuries are less serious, which they usually are when someone is wearing a seat belt. Let's say you are diligent about wearing a seat belt, and I am reckless and never wear one. I get into a serious crash, and tens of thousands of dollars are spent fixing my injuries. As a result, insurance premiums go up for both of us. Health care costs rise for both of us. Is it fair that you should pay for my reckless choices?
Oh if only I lived in the state of Denial. Instead I live in Ohio...I know it all can happen to me. UGH.
And we also know that smoking causes lung cancer. So let's just make cigarettes against the law. Alchohol, too! (OH! Guess that was tried already! Didn't work too well!) And let's go back to the main topic, obesity. Why should my insurance go up to pay for people who chose to live an unhealthy lifestyle? Let's pass laws instead that regulate what a person buys/eats, or limits their caloric intake, or regulates what a restaurant can/cannot serve. And we can have parents be required to write up meal plans that must be OK'd by speciallly trained nutritionists, because an untrained person cannot POSSIBLY be able to develop healthy meals.... WHERE DOES IT STOP???
It stops when individuals are financially and morally responsible for their actions. If I can afford to insure myself, then I should be allowed to drive without wearing a seatbelt or ride without a crash helmet. If, instead, I purchase an insurance policy with a premium to everyone that depends in part on my actions, then I must accept the rules of that policy - such as wearing a seatbelt. The same goes for a medical insurance policy if I smoke or drink heavily. If I don't like paying more, then I stop smoking or I insure myself. It also stops when commonsense demands it. Of course I should not have to get a nutritionist's approval before planning meals; however, maybe I should be prevented from driving without a seatbelt. It's a matter of finding the right balance. The existence of some sensible rules does not imply that the government plans to regulate our every move.
In a perfect world, yes. But that will never happen. There will always be those who are irresponsible, and no amount of laws will change that. You cannot legislate sense. The laws only regulate those who chose to follow them. Why shouldn't you get a nutritionist's approval? I mean, wouldn't that cut back on obesity, and isn't that in the best interest for our country?
No, history shows that it doesn't stop until the society becomes run by a dictator--of course there are multiple stops on that road including wide-reaching government and legislating from the bench (which is possible due to an emergent dictator appointing judges). There are times when societies have not tolerated this progression and never allowed themselves to reach the dictator's grand finale, but those societies have either formed a group of citizen soldiers or fled in a mass exodus.
