But that's the life you choose. I'm against giving you the right to impose your choices on other people, just because you might think you know what choices are best.
The only people being restricted here are the vendors.
Only certain vendors... you can still buy 2-liters at the grocery store, for instance.
Which is why I think I find this over-the-line. The rules in New York City for soda will start to resemble those for alcohol... you can get an open beverage here, but not a closed beverage. For that you have to go over here. If you want a larger quantity, you can't get that at either of those places and you have to go over here instead. It's absurd.
will Obama pull an FDR and threaten to increase the number of Justices and pack the court with his appointees?
He's a little goose-stepping Nazi Statist that needs to mind his own business before he pisses off enough people that he finally pisses off the wrong Barrett M107 owner and/or retired special-ops guy that has no problem with sacrificing his own life to defend the US from domestic enemies, as in the oath.
TSA-like union goon to weigh and check your shit for fiber content and fill out a freakin' government form for each toilet visit?
I don't mean to insult you or anything like that, but could you please tone down the rhetoric? This is exactly the kind of talk that I was referring to.
Yeah, I don't buy into the slippery-slope stuff either - or rather, I don't think there is any avoiding it.
With the smoking bans, you can at least make the argument that the employees of an establishment don't really have a good choice - either breath smoke and get paid or don't breath smoke and find another line of work. Smoking taxes, you can make the argument that you are trying to recover some of the money that society loses to cigarette smoking. And then there is the whole issue of nicotine. Sugar is not a drug. It is a basic nutrient. You can subsist on sugar, salt, and water for quite a while. Try that with cigarettes, salt, and water (no fair eating the cigarettes):)
But that's OK - the point is that a slight increase in life expectancy would not by itself be justification for removing someone's freedom. Sure, telling someone that they have to buy 2 half-liter sodas instead of a single liter-sized soda isn't exactly the end of the world, but I feel like it crosses a line.
I'm all for NYC doing it because I don't live there anymore. I don't think there is any scientific evidence that this kind of law will help, but we'll soon have a nice little experiment.
LOL, don't know how you could call 18th century US a "nanny state"...
No, I'm not an anarchist, a communist, a socialist, or a Ron Paul fan.
I'm just someone who finds it hilarious that you can buy a cigarette or liquor but not a soda. And no, I'm not in favor of banning cigarettes or liquor (or marijuana, for that matter). I think this proposed ban is clearly crossing a line...
Never mind the people who actually pay the bill are the taxpayers, not the government.
That's not really true. The people paying many of the bills in (for instance) Mississippi live in New York. The proportion of political power you have is not directly correlated to the amount of taxes you pay.
There's an interesting funding strategy for government - a fixed poll tax:) In the US, you'd need $2.3 trillion in revenue from the 132,618,580 people who voted in the last presidential election. That would be $17,343 per voter...
Part of the AHA was a major expansion of people covered by Medicaid. Combine this with the correlation between obesity and poverty and you have a pretty strong argument that the fattest people will still not be paying for healthcare. I'm typing from memory, but I recall that 1/3 of the newly covered people in the AHA are college students - they will get covered either by their parent's policies or by purchasing insurance. Another 1/3 are poor people who will fall into the new medicare standards.
If you don't like the term "fatties", then say "fat people" or "the obese" or "differently weighted". I don't really care, and it doesn't change my argument.
Fatties die young, "healthy" refuse to die and instead spend years collecting social security and living in nursing homes.
black people are more likely to suffer from several expensive diseases
This almost certainly has to do with the correlation between race and poverty. If you are "pro" socialized medicine, then it stands to reason that you probably want to cover the poor as well, but I don't want to speak for anyone.
The problem is that those people were pretty ignorant, because we've had socialized medicine for over 30 years. It's horrible, expensive, incomplete, and inefficient to get your care in an ER and it has driven many hospitals out of business since no one pays for it... but it is socialized nonetheless.
The whole healthcare "debate" was framed along the typical polarized party-line, with very little constructive discussion at all.
Wow, shocking, a gentrifying northeastern city where few use cars to get to work and declining polluting industry is slightly ahead of the median of the country in life expectancy...
A question to you is, if you could live to be 100 as opposed to 80, but someone got to tell you what you could and could not do, would that be worth it?
*to wit: - I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion - I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them - I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment - I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life - I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate - I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but I feel that you are way off-base on some of the justifications for the programs you deride.
Government support for programs like daycare are for the good of the child, not the parent (though the parent may benefit as a byproduct). It is not the child's poor decisions that landed him with shitty parents, and the child should not be condemned to a miserable upbringing. The same thought process that leads to public education is what leads to things like child subsidies.
Addiction programs are not for the good of the addict, but for the good of society. Addicts spread disease and crime. If someone wants a ticket to a rehab center, that's a bargain for society.
The mortgage default situation was caused in part by the government's 30-year mortgage programs. While there is probably some merit in an argument that government should not have gotten into housing in the first place, they are there now and need to clean up their mess. If renegotiating mortgages is a cost-effective way to clean up, then pragmatically I have to support it.
Too big to fail is a similar situation. I'm not willing to watch the entire economy completely melt down just to uphold an ideal. The government had to step in, and where the criticism should be aimed is at the politicians for not having the capacity to correct the underlying problems. If it's any consolation, the stockholders of the bailed-out banks took a serious bath. If you were the unlucky stockholder of Citibank in 2007, your stock is now worth about 5% of what it was. Bank seizure would not have really changed things much for the stockholders, and the government would have been stuck with their toxic assets. Instead, the government made a small profit...
Slashdot Mirror
There is only defeating it and those who favor it.
Good luck on your quest, brave Quixote.
Oooo, good point. And they can make the seats and cubbies smaller so that they can get more workers in per square foot!
But that's the life you choose. I'm against giving you the right to impose your choices on other people, just because you might think you know what choices are best.
The only people being restricted here are the vendors.
Only certain vendors... you can still buy 2-liters at the grocery store, for instance.
Which is why I think I find this over-the-line. The rules in New York City for soda will start to resemble those for alcohol... you can get an open beverage here, but not a closed beverage. For that you have to go over here. If you want a larger quantity, you can't get that at either of those places and you have to go over here instead. It's absurd.
Free knee surgery for all!
Next question?
That's OK, I don't think we'll get anywhere.
will Obama pull an FDR and threaten to increase the number of Justices and pack the court with his appointees?
He's a little goose-stepping Nazi Statist that needs to mind his own business before he pisses off enough people that he finally pisses off the wrong Barrett M107 owner and/or retired special-ops guy that has no problem with sacrificing his own life to defend the US from domestic enemies, as in the oath.
TSA-like union goon to weigh and check your shit for fiber content and fill out a freakin' government form for each toilet visit?
I don't mean to insult you or anything like that, but could you please tone down the rhetoric? This is exactly the kind of talk that I was referring to.
Yeah, I don't buy into the slippery-slope stuff either - or rather, I don't think there is any avoiding it.
With the smoking bans, you can at least make the argument that the employees of an establishment don't really have a good choice - either breath smoke and get paid or don't breath smoke and find another line of work. Smoking taxes, you can make the argument that you are trying to recover some of the money that society loses to cigarette smoking. And then there is the whole issue of nicotine. Sugar is not a drug. It is a basic nutrient. You can subsist on sugar, salt, and water for quite a while. Try that with cigarettes, salt, and water (no fair eating the cigarettes) :)
Couldn't they have made them into the shape of the old red payphones? This seems like the company was being a bit arrogant.
If you are 79, I don't think any government program is going to buy you an extra 20 years - no matter how much freedom you give up :)
You are also not named flooey!
But that's OK - the point is that a slight increase in life expectancy would not by itself be justification for removing someone's freedom. Sure, telling someone that they have to buy 2 half-liter sodas instead of a single liter-sized soda isn't exactly the end of the world, but I feel like it crosses a line.
As long as there's a scientific consensus
I'm all for NYC doing it because I don't live there anymore. I don't think there is any scientific evidence that this kind of law will help, but we'll soon have a nice little experiment.
LOL, don't know how you could call 18th century US a "nanny state"...
No, I'm not an anarchist, a communist, a socialist, or a Ron Paul fan.
I'm just someone who finds it hilarious that you can buy a cigarette or liquor but not a soda. And no, I'm not in favor of banning cigarettes or liquor (or marijuana, for that matter). I think this proposed ban is clearly crossing a line...
Never mind the people who actually pay the bill are the taxpayers, not the government.
That's not really true. The people paying many of the bills in (for instance) Mississippi live in New York. The proportion of political power you have is not directly correlated to the amount of taxes you pay.
There's an interesting funding strategy for government - a fixed poll tax :) In the US, you'd need $2.3 trillion in revenue from the 132,618,580 people who voted in the last presidential election. That would be $17,343 per voter...
Soft because of the soft drinks or because the people who are drinking the 64oz size are a little soft around the middle?
Want it or not, they are about to get it.
Part of the AHA was a major expansion of people covered by Medicaid. Combine this with the correlation between obesity and poverty and you have a pretty strong argument that the fattest people will still not be paying for healthcare. I'm typing from memory, but I recall that 1/3 of the newly covered people in the AHA are college students - they will get covered either by their parent's policies or by purchasing insurance. Another 1/3 are poor people who will fall into the new medicare standards.
If you don't like the term "fatties", then say "fat people" or "the obese" or "differently weighted". I don't really care, and it doesn't change my argument.
Fatties die young, "healthy" refuse to die and instead spend years collecting social security and living in nursing homes.
Citation, please? And before you ask for mine, here is one that estimates obesity costing about $51 billion in medical expenses alone - a cost that would obviously be borne by a socialized health care system.
black people are more likely to suffer from several expensive diseases
This almost certainly has to do with the correlation between race and poverty. If you are "pro" socialized medicine, then it stands to reason that you probably want to cover the poor as well, but I don't want to speak for anyone.
Not the ones I know.
Oh, well, we should frame our whole national policy on the subset of people you know. That will save us money on actual research.
Right, that was the talking point.
The problem is that those people were pretty ignorant, because we've had socialized medicine for over 30 years. It's horrible, expensive, incomplete, and inefficient to get your care in an ER and it has driven many hospitals out of business since no one pays for it... but it is socialized nonetheless.
The whole healthcare "debate" was framed along the typical polarized party-line, with very little constructive discussion at all.
Wow, shocking, a gentrifying northeastern city where few use cars to get to work and declining polluting industry is slightly ahead of the median of the country in life expectancy...
A question to you is, if you could live to be 100 as opposed to 80, but someone got to tell you what you could and could not do, would that be worth it?
*to wit:
- I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
- I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
- I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
- I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
- I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
- I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but I feel that you are way off-base on some of the justifications for the programs you deride.
Government support for programs like daycare are for the good of the child, not the parent (though the parent may benefit as a byproduct). It is not the child's poor decisions that landed him with shitty parents, and the child should not be condemned to a miserable upbringing. The same thought process that leads to public education is what leads to things like child subsidies.
Addiction programs are not for the good of the addict, but for the good of society. Addicts spread disease and crime. If someone wants a ticket to a rehab center, that's a bargain for society.
The mortgage default situation was caused in part by the government's 30-year mortgage programs. While there is probably some merit in an argument that government should not have gotten into housing in the first place, they are there now and need to clean up their mess. If renegotiating mortgages is a cost-effective way to clean up, then pragmatically I have to support it.
Too big to fail is a similar situation. I'm not willing to watch the entire economy completely melt down just to uphold an ideal. The government had to step in, and where the criticism should be aimed is at the politicians for not having the capacity to correct the underlying problems. If it's any consolation, the stockholders of the bailed-out banks took a serious bath. If you were the unlucky stockholder of Citibank in 2007, your stock is now worth about 5% of what it was. Bank seizure would not have really changed things much for the stockholders, and the government would have been stuck with their toxic assets. Instead, the government made a small profit...
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
The nanny state is here!
Let us know how it goes, NYC!
Do you work in a trailer park?