| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Should Soft Drinks be Against the Law? |
||||||
|
drinking, if you want to. That will end up COSTING you a lot of money, time and inconvenience at the very least and possibly time in jail. Or, you have the choice to buy a smaller, less powerful, fuel efficient and economical car and drive it as a "defensive driver". This will SAVE you a lot of money, time, and inconvenience. The important point to remember here is that it is YOUR CHOICE which to do. YOU get to reap the rewards (whatever they are) for the decision you make. YOU are responsible, nobody else. The same is true for the foods we eat and drink, and all the other decisions we make. Government has NO right to mandate what we eat, drink, or can not eat or drink. And, it should not mandate rules like that to ALL of us because of the people who do make the bad decisions. People should bear the cost of their poor decisions as well as get the benefit from their good decisions, in this case possibly, by attaching higher insurance premiums to their health care. But ALL of us should not be forced to pay for health care costs caused by bad decisions made by other people, just as we should not be forced to follow mandates caused by bad decisions of other people. |
||||||
|
softy is right not tobacco, alcohol, fast food, soda pop, cocaine, meth. nothing. we are supposed to be the land of freedom. softy is right - only he does not go far enough. he seems to have come around to the idea that marijuana prohibition is silly and wasteful and against american principles of liberty. but he needs to extend this logical idea to ALL things that do not directly harm others. now, if you want to talk about taxation and/or restricting these items from consumption by minors, i am totally in support of that. but adults should have the right to poison themselves if they want to do so. |
||||||
|
<<But ALL of us should not be forced to pay for health care costs caused by bad decisions made by other people, just as we should not be forced to follow mandates caused by bad decisions of other people.>> If you tax the products and use the tax to pay for health care, then the bad decisions pay for themselves. |
||||||
|
And, taxation (but not excessive taxation) is indeed one way to manage undesirable or unhealthy behaviors that do impact others (e.g., impacts to health care costs). So, I agree with Itchy. |
||||||
|
itchy, chaz for themselves." NO, you are both wrong. If you tax the products you will reduce consumption by a very small percentage of users, yes. BUT, you will have no effect on most users because when addicted to something, it is very difficult to get rid of the desire to use it. You WILL, however, have a good possibility of making the remaining users into criminals as they will steal for the money to pay for it, OR they will not use that money to help their kids, families etc. Additionally, if you continue raising the tax on these products, you are harming those people who use them responsibly... still at their expense rather than the expense of those who use them irresponsibly. You need to punish those who make the bad, poor decisions and not those that make the decent decisions. |
||||||
|
the remaining users into criminals as they will steal for the money to pay for it, OR they will not use that money to help their kids, families etc.>> This already happens when drugs (or anything else) are criminalised. I'm not advocating continually increasing the price of addictive substances disproportionally and exploiting the addicts, that is the current philosophy of the criminal dealers. I'm advocating finding the equilibrium where people pay into the tax pot as much as they take out through their generally increased medical costs. It depends very much on the kind of addiction, I don't suppose there are many people who would get to a point where they would steal to pay for sugary drinks. Increased taxation would definitely work for non or mildly addictive substances. I take your point that the relationship is not linear for addictive substances, but the goal of taxation in this case is not to eliminate consumption, I still believe people should be free to make decisions about their own body so long as they are educated about the risks, the goal is rather to find the equilibrium whereby addicts can be given medical care without other people having to fund it. 'Responsible' users are adversely affected yes, but when equilibrium is reached their contributions would be vastly outweighed by those of the heavy users and so the effect is minimal. It may also serve to discourage responsible users from becoming future heavy users, but again that depends on the type of addiction. |
||||||
|
I guess I have no sympathy for people who willingly destroy their life whether they be chain smokers, binge drinkers or crack addicts. Saying that alcohol is the most dangerous drug, and it's legal is a stupid argument. Everybody drinks. Think of what would happen if everybody had access to heroin. |
||||||
|
I find that suggestion abhorrent. No one should ever be refused treatment no matter if their condition is their fault or not. If you start determining who should be treated based on a subjective view of who is deserving then you go down very ethically sketchy roads very quickly. Do you stop treating fat people? Do you stop treating people who attempt suicide? Do you stop treating people who injure themselves while participating in extreme sports? <<Getting them to "pay for the cost" isn't enough because how do you pay for wasting somebody's time, like a more deserving patient?>> The extra money goes towards extra hospital staff and the time a 'more deserving patient' waits is the same as it would otherwise be. Is that unfeasible? <<Saying that alcohol is the most dangerous drug, and it's legal is a stupid argument. Everybody drinks. Think of what would happen if everybody had access to heroin.>> Granted Heroin is possibly where I would draw the line due to it's extreme addictiveness, opiates have brought entire nations to their knees, though I expect there would still be a vast majority that wouldn't touch it whether it was legal or not. Comparing alcohol to Heroin is a bit misleading, sure heroin is worse by nearly every measure. However when you look at other drugs that are deemed to be illicit the fact that alcohol is legal, and that most can indulge in it in moderation without seriously affecting their health, just shows that less dangerous drugs could be legalised without causing the myriad of social problems that are often predicted. |
||||||
|
musket |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
access to heroin and any other drug you can think of. You CHOOSE not to search it out. This is silly, no one here defends the idea of laws that deny people the right to choose the size of there soft drink. Bloomberg is a donkey in every sense of the word, Big Daddy watching out for us ignorant slobs. |
||||||
|
vic good for you! |
||||||
|
I smoke MMJ .. I realized I never came down from the first trip ... and never would. Yeah, I think we would be better off without the War on Drugs? People would still destroy themselves. Let 'em. This is another reason we need that fence along the Southern border. Just pitch the sick junkies over the fence along with the illegals. |
||||||
|
vic |
||||||
|
itchy the increased health care costs of those who make poor health & diet decisions. This is a punishment on society while doing nothing to inhibit the bad behavior. What is wrong with letting the Insurance companies raise insurance premiums to these people, based on their decisions. Left alone, these companies charge insurance premiums based on risk. So, if we have a progressive rate for insurance based on risk, it would not punish society AND it would encourage better decision making on those who need it. It is a win-win. What do you think? |
||||||
|
soft drinks and the clap developed from Western European feudalism, in which there was an implicit contract between the serf and the feudal lord ===> the serf pledged fruits of his labour and his men for military service, and the feudal lord pledged protection; now how realistic is it to expect today's individual to be entirely free of the need for some sort of avuncular protection from his government -- oops, that is by his government -- ? Can our society -- can our species -- realistically trust the individual to make the right, informed, healthy choices? Well one lesson from nature which may illuminate this issue is the relationship between men as a host and the gonorrhea bacteria: Over time those individuals inflicted with severe "razor-blades" pain as well as other more disgusting symptoms sought out medical attention, and killed the disease; while those inflicted with a gonorrheal strain that lacked the trait of causing pain -- tended to neglect getting medical attention, and this strain of the Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacterium survived: it is this "cunning", antibiotic-resistent strain which is now a worldwide, epidemic threat, and that is thanks to our relying on individuals among us to both know what is best -- and to do it. Am sure others might cite the environmental fate of our home -- our entire world -- as another. And whether about soft drinks or the clap, and our need to be Protected from them (or even something as benign as candy: before the FDA cocaine was a common ingredient adulterating American candies), I would just quote John Webster's stage character Monticelco: There are "Sweetmeats which rot the eater." |
||||||
|
based on their decisions. Left alone, these companies charge insurance premiums based on risk.>> They charge based on risk, and charge based on how they can make a profit, and can refuse to insure people they believe to be too risky. You end up having people in society who can't have healthcare, and I consider that to be wrong. Also it ends up more expensive for everyone, on average, because private enterprise has to take their share rather than running it as a non-profit. So it's really lose-lose as far as I can see. |
||||||
|
I find that suggestion abhorrent. No one should ever be refused treatment no matter if their condition is their fault or not. If you start determining who should be treated based on a subjective view of who is deserving then you go down very ethically sketchy roads very quickly. Do you stop treating fat people? Do you stop treating people who attempt suicide? Do you stop treating people who injure themselves while participating in extreme sports? >> I find it abhorrent that other people who have medical conditions are unable to be treated quickly in favour of another person who deliberately injured themself, yes. I don't care if this makes me a horrible person, but I find it abhorrent that career alcoholics are given several liver transplants in their lifetime because of their lifestyle choices. <<The extra money goes towards extra hospital staff and the time a 'more deserving patient' waits is the same as it would otherwise be. Is that unfeasible? >> How do you know this? There would be a lot more drug patients if it was legalized. <<everybody does have access to heroin >> I don't. I would not have a clue where to get any form of illicit drug perhaps aside from MJ. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The Doctor ... |
||||||
|
musket |
||||||
|
vic ... |
||||||
|
But ... get the "free" Doctor. He's not quite as skilled as the one you actually pay for. It's the same as if you were hungry and had no money to pay for food. You're not getting the $100 steak dinner with all the trimmings when you have to beg someone. You take what you can get. I know! It's not fair. You can make it better. Just go to school and become a Dr. ... Then work for free. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Getting it .. with me, I'm not a doctor. If I were, I'd go back to school and study law 'cause I'd never make any money in medicine. Schools are "free", how's that working out? Think you've got the biggest brains teaching for light weight pay? The government runs that scam, in collusion with the unions. Plenty tax $$ spent, little return per dollar spent. Most of the money goes to the top. What is left we pay the lowly respected teachers. It would be the same with the government in charge of your healthcare. Most of the $$ would go to the suits in an office somewhere, the doctors would be paid like schools teachers (little), but they'd form a union I'm sure. Then what? |
||||||
|
industrial nations that DO have universal health care / "socialised medicine". They pretty much all have better overall health outcomes than the US and pay considerably less. Their doctors may well earn less than in the US but they generally seem to consider it worth the effort to have studied their chosen career....... |
||||||
|
Mark ... |
||||||
|
markallen nations. NOT! And I suppose that explains why so many Americans travel to Europe for their health care. NOT! chaz5. I'm quite cynical about lots of things. You, on the other hand are quite gullible about most everything .... also, you've got your nose up about 3 different buttholes in here and are beginning to sound like an ecco. |
||||||
|
I dont I used to worry that if government controlled health care then they would decide our fate. Now I am seeing insurance companies doing the same thing so I think to myself , what is the difference? I actually pay for my insurance and its only applied to the things they say. My doctor has to word things in specific ways or insurance doesn't cover it. So I asked him, are you the doctor or are they? I was basically told the insurance companies control the health care. |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
