I hear that day was pretty crazy around the observatory. Imagine the surprise of the scientist who looked through the telescope at the moon, only to see someone looking through a telescope straight back at him! It was only after he crapped his pants did they figure out they were looking at a mirror!
WE don't have a responsibility, PARENTS have a responsibility.
The loophole with that is when someone undermines the responsibility of a parent by selling them an M-rated game without the parent being around to consent to that. Asking that a parent or guardian be present when a kid is purchasing something above their "appropriate rating" as determined by an association of videogame publishers is, in no way, infringing upon your rights. It's taking the "granting of permission to view these materials" away from the store and putting them comfortably into those who YOU claim should have the responsibility to make those decisions. Is it a stupid law? Absolutely not. Is it neccessary to make a law about it? Very debatable.
Perhaps 24-hour parental surveillance would be a more "constitutional" way for parents to regulate their children's buying habits than having to be present when the kid buys a game? Are you daft?
The kids' parents have the responsibility. Get your big government nose out of my business.
That's the point of the bill. To make sure that the purchase is parentally responsible. This bill isn't in YOUR business unless you're in the business of selling R-rated materials to minors without parental consent.
I do wish people would stop using the "If you disagree with me, it's because you're a pompous religious prick" argument about legalizing everything that they want legalized. There are good reasons for keeping "casino gambling" illegal or taxed, and being a "pompous religious prick" has nothing to do with them. Gambling and religion are not exclusive. Gambling is highly addictive, which is why the scam works. If some guy sits down, wins $5,000 in 5 minutes, and walks away -- gambling wouldn't work for casinos. If that guy sits down, loses $500 in 5 minutes and walks away, gambling still isn't as profitable as they'd like. When that guy sits down, wins $5,000 in 5 minutes and says to himself "I just turned $500 into $5,000 -- imagine what I can turn $5,000 into?" he's going to lose $20,000 that month. He's hooked and will neglect his life for that sweet, sweet easy cash. The casino makes the real money from that kind of a guy, and he eventually goes belly up.
But that's all a red herring. Many, if not most, states have their own fishbowl lotteries that they reap revenue from. Having their lottos be the only game in town turns the entire state into an enormous casino (with a tendril in every gas station) that was unrivaled until the internet starting bringing in some "better options to win your money without leaving town!" online. Instead of a big game of chance, they have poker, blackjack, online casinos, etc. The states don't want to lose such an easy cashcow, so they adapt by saying "You can keep your online casino here, pal, but not at the expense of our revenue stream! Cough up some of what you're taking and we'll let you keep this dog and pony show operating."
You see, religion has little to do with this issue and more to do with some of your own.
This works both ways. When only one side has all the data, it can make whatever claims it wants to, and there's nothing anybody can do about it, because they're the scientists, and anyone who questions them is a moron.
Forget that these scientists have zero large-scale, successful predictive models, and only a few models were sporadically successful out of thousands of localized tests.
When the scientist comes out and tells me that I must submit to his incorrect predictive model, I'll call him a fraud and won't drink his kool-aid. I'll also roll my eyes whenever anyone argues on behalf of said scientist, because they're reciting his definitively-misinterpreted data. I'm not the science-hating chump. The man in the uniform trying to get his face on Time after he's been nothing but wrong with the data he hoards is the science-hating chump.
If they ran the LHC the same way they run climate data, the reports would look like: "The Higgs-Boson has been found by the LHC, we simply need to find out which particle it was!" or if Thomas Edison had acted this way, our lightbulbs would still last a few hours and be made of platinum filament.
I never understood how the Greeks could believe in their Pantheon as they seeming made up the stories as they went along... until I started reading evolutionary advocates trying to string together how their gods DNA, natural selection, solar energy, primordial soup, and enough Kronos shapes life in a cruel, but loving way. Just ask one how butterflies evolved (egg, caterpillar, crysalis, butterfly) and you will probably hear some completely fabricated machination of their imagination -- completely unsupported by any sort of research or study -- which makes for a good bedtime story, but a large percentage of these people WILL THINK THAT IS HOW IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW HE JUST DESCRIBED IT... This exercise does not work for entomologists, because they probably won't be making it up as they go along, rather they've probably read or studied it.
If it was real science, then when I ask "What do you estimate the average temperature for next solar cycle to be? What factors could throw a wrench in this estimate, and how much would they affect the outcome? (Volcanoes, solar flares, etc.)" and then in about 10 years, we could check their work. If they just say "no way to tell!" that's because they don't have a good enough grasp on what they do to make a predictive model or trying to enforce power over others. "4 degrees increase in temperatures, which could increase by.2 degrees for each solar flare or decrease.4 degrees for each year without major solar flare activity. This can also be modified by subtracting.001 degrees for every reduced percent of annual human carbon output." would be, for example, a proper, observable, testable prediction -- the sort of prediction that COULD be made by any idiot on a computer who had the data that climate scientists have at their disposal. At least then they could find out what sort of data we're MISSING. We could get more "That's odd..." moments when the data should fit but doesn't. Lately, the best they've done is "temperatures will probably rise next year" during a warming trend.
Color me unconvinced, and let's see what "uninformed masses" can do with the data they've gathered. Perhaps a few of them won't make the same mistakes the experts are making.
I am discussing reason, but it's reason you fail to see -- a psychological blindspot, if you will. As soon as I do offer some possible explanations, or at least points of discussion, you do a handwave and say "I'm not going to count that" exactly as I said you would -- because I'm a non-authoritative source. When I suggest you speak to an authoritative source, you come at me saying "Why would I need to do that? What would he tell me, Mr. Non-Authoritative Source?" and expect anything beyond an impotent answer... Who is being unreasonable?
If you insist that a SLASHDOTTER opens this can of worms for you, then let me put it this way: Children can grasp simple forms of violence (cats getting blown up by mice, knights slaying dragons). Children can also grasp simple forms of sexuality (kissing, puppy love, mommies and daddies). Violence is depicted in a myriad of ways, at different levels before becoming "pornographic" in their sense. Sexuality tends to scale to the level of perversion much more quickly (omg a boobie!). A perverted depiction of violence, such as seen in Reservoir Dogs, Saw, Hostel, and similar features, is not what the average parent would show their kids. (Unless their names are Mr. and Mrs. Strawman)
So now we venture into the psychology of a parent wanting what is best for a child. If you are a parent, and you realize your child can become desensitized or addicted to violence or sexuality (whether or not it's true) by exposure to it, which one do you worry about more? If the child is desensitized to violence, then they might have less sympathy for the suffering. If a child is desensitized to sexuality, then they are more likely to tilt toward sexual deviancy, paraphilias, or sexual apathy with their spouse. Which would you rather focus your prevention on? Then, at what levels of perversion can violence become a dangerous addiction? At what levels of perversion can sexuality become a dangerous addiction? As a parent, your job is to prune the psychological garden of a child so it is a healthy place where their mind can grow until they are ready to take over, and I can tell you that it's a hundred times easier to prune back violence than sex once it gets growing.
"What is pornography" is a conversation that would be much more interesting to have with a licensed psychologist than a slashdotter, but I hope that this answer can serve as an appetizer in the meantime.
Ahhh yes, don't complain, just avoid the problem. Just wait until it affects you. Wait until Sony buys NVidia and suddenly your graphics card now belongs to Sony with their new Nvidia EULA.
or
Nvidia decides, in order to protect its hardware from piracy, decides to do the same thing. Sorry, no online gaming with your video card until you agree to Nvidia's new EULA -- that they can switch off your card whenever they want, because it's really NVidia's card!
or
EA, Activision, Sony, and Ubisoft decide to lobby and press congress into helping them track down pirates by forcing Nvidia to do these kinds of checks.
(Substitute Nvidia with ATI as appropriate for your own system)
My comment had several implications. For one, you'll never be able to explain to a sociopath why a person can act altruistically. They don't understand morals or values that exist outside of "benefit myself." Attempting to analyze morals and values objectively -- like a sociopath does -- and ignore some "built-in" human elements, you'll never understand the reasoning. A pscyhologist can better explain how a human develops morals and values (when they are not sociopaths) and how they might come out differently than the ones that someone has invented for himself in the throes of sexual frustration, overanalyzation, nihilism, lonliness, etc.
A psychologist could also better explain the sexual maturity stages of children, and why viewing porn has a greater negative effect on children (and adults, for that matter). Any slashdotter could state the same here, but you wouldn't believe it. He could go on to explain the possible negative effects of viewing violence as well, and the implications of blocking violence from the mind of a child -- and then suggest to you why so many people are wired to accept one's depiction, yet abhor the other.
While slashdotters may dabble in psychology, read up on it, monitor the studies, take some college courses, etc -- psychologists actually do this stuff, and can explain things much better on the grounds that you will understand them -- like a physicist explaining quarks to someone who doesn't believe in them vs. a guy who read "Universe in a Nutshell" trying to do the same.
You've already had the reasoning explained to you a hundred times by the unprofessional -- so either you're the unreasonable one or you need a professional to explain it to you.
On a related note - why do HUMANS think they need to defend GOD? What is he the most nit picky SOB ever?
Things are sacred to people. To you, it appears your freedom is sacred. Sacred enough to die for. Sacred enough to kill for. Perhaps, though, you are not willing to take a human life for the sake of your freedom -- there are many thousands in this world who are willing to take a human life in the name of freedom (they fill our militaries).
For Muslims, the last man to walk and speak with the creator, whose travels and discourses with diety sanctified him to the point where his very image became sacred, is a solemn and sacred manifestation of the Creator's love to mankind, and is at least as important to them as freedom is to you -- and they feel dutybound to preserve its sanctity. Most of them are not willing to cause violence to ward off desecration -- but there are a few who are willing -- and it only takes a few.
And when asking them to just "lighten up" about it, take into account that not all things are funny to everyone. If you were riding on the subway with a hypothetical 4-year-old daughter of yours... going to bring-your-daughter to work day, and a stranger hops onto the train, looks at you, looks at your daughter, and tells you "You know what would be funny? If I raped your little girl right here! Just imagine -- me doing all sorts of things to her! Ha! Just kidding! I'm not even a pedophile!" Should you just lighten up and joke along with him? Or should you break the man's nose?
When you go to a website, and it says "Welcome, Thomas!" because your referrer website sent them to their homepage with something like "http://www.website.com/?name=Thomas" these guys set up the referrer to send you to a page that says something like "http://www.website.com/?name=[malicious code]" and the site says "Welcome !" and congratulations on your new site-specific keylogger.
That is an interesting point. I wonder if any insurance companies would be willing to cough up their data (as they have scads of it) on what the average non-smoker costs them vs. average smoker over the course of a lifetime. A quick google search tells me what the SMOKER would pay, but not what the insurance expects to pay. I'm sure insurance companies would hate to divulge such information, because if it turned out that what you say is true, then smokers could argue that they should only have to pay what nonsmokers pay (or less) -- and to answer their point, insurance companies would raise their rates for non-smokers to compensate... If only some slashdotter worked as a sys admin for a big insurance company and could easily tell us..........
I'm paying for smokers on my insurance, yes, but I wasn't required by the government to do so - it was a voluntary action. I wasn't being TAXED for them (except medicare), so it landed outside the government domain. Now that healthcare IS in the government domain, and has become a tax-payer issue, they CAN now make laws about your health. We let the camel into the tent.
People need to get over "I don't want to pay for your...." mentality and start think about whether it's good for society.
People need to get over the "Someone else will pay for my mistakes" mentality and start thinking about whether their actions carry consequences. You're trading accountability for apathy -- because "The government will take care of the poor and healthcare and everything else, so why should I?" and if they aren't fixed? "It's those dadgum rats in congress that got it wrong! Well I'll just keep sending them money!"
Meanwhile, instead of a bug fix on our healthcare, we've gotten an perpetuated, exaggerated, federally-mandated version! All the problems we were getting before, only bigger. Healthcare was expected to crash our economy before the housing market did, and the bill did NOTHING to solve those problems. It only made them worse. So perhaps we'll be able to all have some buggy form of healthcare for a few years, we will have a full-scale depression in another 10! Unless of course, someone decides to actually FIX the underlying problems of overpriced healthcare.
Slashdot Mirror
Iron Man was a much more enjoyable movie than Dark Knight.
I would say that's only my opinion, but I wrote on wikipedia they use it as a standard of measurement nowadays, so it's established fact.
I know of several who have pawned off their college educations for more time on WoW.
I hear that day was pretty crazy around the observatory. Imagine the surprise of the scientist who looked through the telescope at the moon, only to see someone looking through a telescope straight back at him! It was only after he crapped his pants did they figure out they were looking at a mirror!
WE don't have a responsibility, PARENTS have a responsibility.
The loophole with that is when someone undermines the responsibility of a parent by selling them an M-rated game without the parent being around to consent to that. Asking that a parent or guardian be present when a kid is purchasing something above their "appropriate rating" as determined by an association of videogame publishers is, in no way, infringing upon your rights. It's taking the "granting of permission to view these materials" away from the store and putting them comfortably into those who YOU claim should have the responsibility to make those decisions. Is it a stupid law? Absolutely not. Is it neccessary to make a law about it? Very debatable.
Perhaps 24-hour parental surveillance would be a more "constitutional" way for parents to regulate their children's buying habits than having to be present when the kid buys a game? Are you daft?
The kids' parents have the responsibility. Get your big government nose out of my business.
That's the point of the bill. To make sure that the purchase is parentally responsible. This bill isn't in YOUR business unless you're in the business of selling R-rated materials to minors without parental consent.
I do wish people would stop using the "If you disagree with me, it's because you're a pompous religious prick" argument about legalizing everything that they want legalized. There are good reasons for keeping "casino gambling" illegal or taxed, and being a "pompous religious prick" has nothing to do with them. Gambling and religion are not exclusive. Gambling is highly addictive, which is why the scam works. If some guy sits down, wins $5,000 in 5 minutes, and walks away -- gambling wouldn't work for casinos. If that guy sits down, loses $500 in 5 minutes and walks away, gambling still isn't as profitable as they'd like. When that guy sits down, wins $5,000 in 5 minutes and says to himself "I just turned $500 into $5,000 -- imagine what I can turn $5,000 into?" he's going to lose $20,000 that month. He's hooked and will neglect his life for that sweet, sweet easy cash. The casino makes the real money from that kind of a guy, and he eventually goes belly up.
But that's all a red herring. Many, if not most, states have their own fishbowl lotteries that they reap revenue from. Having their lottos be the only game in town turns the entire state into an enormous casino (with a tendril in every gas station) that was unrivaled until the internet starting bringing in some "better options to win your money without leaving town!" online. Instead of a big game of chance, they have poker, blackjack, online casinos, etc. The states don't want to lose such an easy cashcow, so they adapt by saying "You can keep your online casino here, pal, but not at the expense of our revenue stream! Cough up some of what you're taking and we'll let you keep this dog and pony show operating."
You see, religion has little to do with this issue and more to do with some of your own.
Where's the problem?
I'm sure those were the same words used when planning the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Bang Bang and Austria will have a new leader, that's all.
This works both ways. When only one side has all the data, it can make whatever claims it wants to, and there's nothing anybody can do about it, because they're the scientists, and anyone who questions them is a moron.
.2 degrees for each solar flare or decrease .4 degrees for each year without major solar flare activity. This can also be modified by subtracting .001 degrees for every reduced percent of annual human carbon output." would be, for example, a proper, observable, testable prediction -- the sort of prediction that COULD be made by any idiot on a computer who had the data that climate scientists have at their disposal. At least then they could find out what sort of data we're MISSING. We could get more "That's odd..." moments when the data should fit but doesn't. Lately, the best they've done is "temperatures will probably rise next year" during a warming trend.
Forget that these scientists have zero large-scale, successful predictive models, and only a few models were sporadically successful out of thousands of localized tests.
When the scientist comes out and tells me that I must submit to his incorrect predictive model, I'll call him a fraud and won't drink his kool-aid. I'll also roll my eyes whenever anyone argues on behalf of said scientist, because they're reciting his definitively-misinterpreted data. I'm not the science-hating chump. The man in the uniform trying to get his face on Time after he's been nothing but wrong with the data he hoards is the science-hating chump.
If they ran the LHC the same way they run climate data, the reports would look like: "The Higgs-Boson has been found by the LHC, we simply need to find out which particle it was!" or if Thomas Edison had acted this way, our lightbulbs would still last a few hours and be made of platinum filament.
I never understood how the Greeks could believe in their Pantheon as they seeming made up the stories as they went along... until I started reading evolutionary advocates trying to string together how their gods DNA, natural selection, solar energy, primordial soup, and enough Kronos shapes life in a cruel, but loving way. Just ask one how butterflies evolved (egg, caterpillar, crysalis, butterfly) and you will probably hear some completely fabricated machination of their imagination -- completely unsupported by any sort of research or study -- which makes for a good bedtime story, but a large percentage of these people WILL THINK THAT IS HOW IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW HE JUST DESCRIBED IT... This exercise does not work for entomologists, because they probably won't be making it up as they go along, rather they've probably read or studied it.
If it was real science, then when I ask "What do you estimate the average temperature for next solar cycle to be? What factors could throw a wrench in this estimate, and how much would they affect the outcome? (Volcanoes, solar flares, etc.)" and then in about 10 years, we could check their work. If they just say "no way to tell!" that's because they don't have a good enough grasp on what they do to make a predictive model or trying to enforce power over others. "4 degrees increase in temperatures, which could increase by
Color me unconvinced, and let's see what "uninformed masses" can do with the data they've gathered. Perhaps a few of them won't make the same mistakes the experts are making.
I am discussing reason, but it's reason you fail to see -- a psychological blindspot, if you will. As soon as I do offer some possible explanations, or at least points of discussion, you do a handwave and say "I'm not going to count that" exactly as I said you would -- because I'm a non-authoritative source. When I suggest you speak to an authoritative source, you come at me saying "Why would I need to do that? What would he tell me, Mr. Non-Authoritative Source?" and expect anything beyond an impotent answer... Who is being unreasonable?
If you insist that a SLASHDOTTER opens this can of worms for you, then let me put it this way: Children can grasp simple forms of violence (cats getting blown up by mice, knights slaying dragons). Children can also grasp simple forms of sexuality (kissing, puppy love, mommies and daddies). Violence is depicted in a myriad of ways, at different levels before becoming "pornographic" in their sense. Sexuality tends to scale to the level of perversion much more quickly (omg a boobie!). A perverted depiction of violence, such as seen in Reservoir Dogs, Saw, Hostel, and similar features, is not what the average parent would show their kids. (Unless their names are Mr. and Mrs. Strawman)
So now we venture into the psychology of a parent wanting what is best for a child. If you are a parent, and you realize your child can become desensitized or addicted to violence or sexuality (whether or not it's true) by exposure to it, which one do you worry about more? If the child is desensitized to violence, then they might have less sympathy for the suffering. If a child is desensitized to sexuality, then they are more likely to tilt toward sexual deviancy, paraphilias, or sexual apathy with their spouse. Which would you rather focus your prevention on? Then, at what levels of perversion can violence become a dangerous addiction? At what levels of perversion can sexuality become a dangerous addiction? As a parent, your job is to prune the psychological garden of a child so it is a healthy place where their mind can grow until they are ready to take over, and I can tell you that it's a hundred times easier to prune back violence than sex once it gets growing.
"What is pornography" is a conversation that would be much more interesting to have with a licensed psychologist than a slashdotter, but I hope that this answer can serve as an appetizer in the meantime.
Ahhh yes, don't complain, just avoid the problem. Just wait until it affects you. Wait until Sony buys NVidia and suddenly your graphics card now belongs to Sony with their new Nvidia EULA.
or
Nvidia decides, in order to protect its hardware from piracy, decides to do the same thing. Sorry, no online gaming with your video card until you agree to Nvidia's new EULA -- that they can switch off your card whenever they want, because it's really NVidia's card!
or
EA, Activision, Sony, and Ubisoft decide to lobby and press congress into helping them track down pirates by forcing Nvidia to do these kinds of checks.
(Substitute Nvidia with ATI as appropriate for your own system)
My comment had several implications. For one, you'll never be able to explain to a sociopath why a person can act altruistically. They don't understand morals or values that exist outside of "benefit myself." Attempting to analyze morals and values objectively -- like a sociopath does -- and ignore some "built-in" human elements, you'll never understand the reasoning. A pscyhologist can better explain how a human develops morals and values (when they are not sociopaths) and how they might come out differently than the ones that someone has invented for himself in the throes of sexual frustration, overanalyzation, nihilism, lonliness, etc.
A psychologist could also better explain the sexual maturity stages of children, and why viewing porn has a greater negative effect on children (and adults, for that matter). Any slashdotter could state the same here, but you wouldn't believe it. He could go on to explain the possible negative effects of viewing violence as well, and the implications of blocking violence from the mind of a child -- and then suggest to you why so many people are wired to accept one's depiction, yet abhor the other.
While slashdotters may dabble in psychology, read up on it, monitor the studies, take some college courses, etc -- psychologists actually do this stuff, and can explain things much better on the grounds that you will understand them -- like a physicist explaining quarks to someone who doesn't believe in them vs. a guy who read "Universe in a Nutshell" trying to do the same.
You've already had the reasoning explained to you a hundred times by the unprofessional -- so either you're the unreasonable one or you need a professional to explain it to you.
I don't understand that reasoning
This is a conversation better had with a licensed psychologist.
On a related note - why do HUMANS think they need to defend GOD? What is he the most nit picky SOB ever?
Things are sacred to people. To you, it appears your freedom is sacred. Sacred enough to die for. Sacred enough to kill for. Perhaps, though, you are not willing to take a human life for the sake of your freedom -- there are many thousands in this world who are willing to take a human life in the name of freedom (they fill our militaries).
For Muslims, the last man to walk and speak with the creator, whose travels and discourses with diety sanctified him to the point where his very image became sacred, is a solemn and sacred manifestation of the Creator's love to mankind, and is at least as important to them as freedom is to you -- and they feel dutybound to preserve its sanctity. Most of them are not willing to cause violence to ward off desecration -- but there are a few who are willing -- and it only takes a few.
And when asking them to just "lighten up" about it, take into account that not all things are funny to everyone. If you were riding on the subway with a hypothetical 4-year-old daughter of yours... going to bring-your-daughter to work day, and a stranger hops onto the train, looks at you, looks at your daughter, and tells you "You know what would be funny? If I raped your little girl right here! Just imagine -- me doing all sorts of things to her! Ha! Just kidding! I'm not even a pedophile!" Should you just lighten up and joke along with him? Or should you break the man's nose?
When you go to a website, and it says "Welcome, Thomas!" because your referrer website sent them to their homepage with something like "http://www.website.com/?name=Thomas" these guys set up the referrer to send you to a page that says something like "http://www.website.com/?name=[malicious code]" and the site says "Welcome !" and congratulations on your new site-specific keylogger.
You've got quite the memory if you can remember remember the 9th of November!
What are these unneccesssary scribblings you're adding to your code? This is a job for a single line:
System.out.println("12345678910");
Thank you, Captain Pedantic! Quick, make sure that everyone who mentions "Carbon emissions" changes their wording to "Carbon Dioxide Emissions"!
Which, in studied cases, can be offset by the reduction of nitrogen in grazed/mowed areas
That sounds like my experience with setting up SFTP:
Me: I want to create ftp accounts without creating them as user account for the console.
L1nux_M4st3r: Why would you ever want to do that, anyway?
Me: For the 9 out of 10 reasons I'd set up an FTP server.
L1nux_M4st3r: You can't do that. I can't think of one reason!
Me: That's it, I'm going back to windows.
L1nux_M4st3r: We didn't want your kind anyway. Go kiss Bill Gates for me, Micro$loth boy!
Indeed. The attitude and words "Why would you even want to do that?" are the most poisonous to the Linux community.
That may be true for movies... but I can never think of a single instance where I could listen to a song before I buy an entire album.
Too bad for US corps, we have this law here called The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that makes it illegal to bribe foreign officials.
Proof that the government hates competition.
That is an interesting point. I wonder if any insurance companies would be willing to cough up their data (as they have scads of it) on what the average non-smoker costs them vs. average smoker over the course of a lifetime. A quick google search tells me what the SMOKER would pay, but not what the insurance expects to pay. I'm sure insurance companies would hate to divulge such information, because if it turned out that what you say is true, then smokers could argue that they should only have to pay what nonsmokers pay (or less) -- and to answer their point, insurance companies would raise their rates for non-smokers to compensate... If only some slashdotter worked as a sys admin for a big insurance company and could easily tell us..........
You're already paying! Do you have insurance now?
I'm paying for smokers on my insurance, yes, but I wasn't required by the government to do so - it was a voluntary action. I wasn't being TAXED for them (except medicare), so it landed outside the government domain. Now that healthcare IS in the government domain, and has become a tax-payer issue, they CAN now make laws about your health. We let the camel into the tent.
People need to get over "I don't want to pay for your ...." mentality and start think about whether it's good for society.
People need to get over the "Someone else will pay for my mistakes" mentality and start thinking about whether their actions carry consequences. You're trading accountability for apathy -- because "The government will take care of the poor and healthcare and everything else, so why should I?" and if they aren't fixed? "It's those dadgum rats in congress that got it wrong! Well I'll just keep sending them money!"
Meanwhile, instead of a bug fix on our healthcare, we've gotten an perpetuated, exaggerated, federally-mandated version! All the problems we were getting before, only bigger. Healthcare was expected to crash our economy before the housing market did, and the bill did NOTHING to solve those problems. It only made them worse. So perhaps we'll be able to all have some buggy form of healthcare for a few years, we will have a full-scale depression in another 10! Unless of course, someone decides to actually FIX the underlying problems of overpriced healthcare.
But you're missing the point. Breaking away from these "crutches" should be a personal choice
Not if I'm being taxed for their medical bills.
You see, That is when government-mandated healthcare comes full circle.