Most people are not responsible enough to make rational decisions about what they put in their body. Cigarettes are bad for you and most people want to quit but can't largely because they are everywhere. Cigarettes how they currently are should be illegal. I don't agree with the advertising techniques and additives used by businesses to entice people to try these products. It makes perfect sense why capitalists don't want some bigger entity to say how to profit off of and mislead consumers.
@raldakejla I think single payer health care legislation has a better chance of being passed in the U.S. than what you suggest becoming law. It would be horribly unpopular unlike the smoking ban. The majority of people support the smoking ban where an even larger majority would be against banning being unhealthy. What you suggest is too despotic and heavy handed.
@raldakejla If the individuals stupid act is negatively effecting the health of the public than legislation may be justified. Most people want to quit anyway but cannot. Would you defend big tobacco to have the right to sell this addictive and deadly product?
@RedOutcast Free market theories might suggest that the consumer would realize how harmful this product is. Like a doctor who performs poorly and effect people health negatively. People would stop doing business with the doctor. Knowing that nicotine Marlboro's will kill you, the consumer will abandon this product and the tobacco companies will fail because of it. Didn't happen and the consumer got ass raped by the invisible hand once again.
Now, I hate to be the man who pokes holes in your strawman, but you should note that the health costs from cigarettes have been known AND PUT ON CIGARETTE PACKS for over forty years. It isn't as if the harmfull nature of the substance or it's addictive effects are unknown. So the question still stands, how do you justify taking away a legal substance just because you dislike it? And for bonus points, explain what you'll do about the much greater health costs of the elderly.
@AdamaGeist The majority has the right to breathe clean air when smoking is optional and it can be done outside. That is the courteous thing to do. The government isn't telling anyone they can't smoke. Just not in most areas with other people who can breathe it in. What is so wrong about that? If u are referring to greater health costs because more smokers will be alive in old age, I don't think we should only look at the long term utilitarian perspective of cost.
@RedOutcast Except it's also being banned outside. And in private residences. They ARE telling people they can't smoke. I thought for someone pushing smoking regulation, you'd be aware of how aggressive things already are. My bad, I assumed you'd be knowledgeable about the topic you supported.
As for the elderly, no. I was bringing up the simple fact that people over 70 cost more in health resources than smokers or cancer patients do. So when, for the common good, will you eliminate them?
@RedOutcast - Show me the law that states the People, any people, have the right to breathe in clean air. If you're in a city (the only place where this seems to be a problem) you're going to be breathing in all sorts of contaminants. Your argument is an attempt at justifying fascist overreach that CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED!
Wow. You have such a SOLID grasp on sarcasm, don't you?
Here's how it works. You start banning things for 'the good of the common man', and quite soon you're regulating every step of every person's life. Me? I don't want to be an ant in your colony. So how about a new idea: You don't like what the people around you are doing? Go someplace else where they WILL do exactly what you want them to. But keep your damn hands off of my food, and my rights. Fascist.
@AdamaGeist Can you give me an example of where more and more regulation as lead to the regulation of everyone's personal life and perhaps totalitarian communism? As far as I know the majority of heavily regulated European nations are not complaining to much (except for the freemarketeers as usual because they can't exercise their god given right to sell addictive substances).
You mean, outside of Russia and China from the sixties to the eighties? Well, then I'd have to say modern day North America, where people are steadily pushing for the government to take over more and more of the economy, from paying for housing to paying for health care, while at the same time taking away what they can eat, how much food costs, if they can smoke...
Or if that's too much Irony for you, how about Venezuela?
@AdamaGeist The U.S. looks very little like a totalitarian state intervening in the areas you describe. Just because there is redistribution of wealth doesn't mean its totalitarian. The nanny is necessary because the market is too unstable without government intervention. This has been seen time and time again. For a modern example, deregulation of the banks rocked the entire world market and played a huge role in our economic recession/depression in some places.
Seriously. Watch the Nanny of the Month videos. Just watch what is already occuring in the US. I've seen salt almost banned in New York, and Pate was banned in Chicago for a short while. Pets were banned in California. Fish Pedicures in NY State.
I know I can't trust you to do things in my best interest, why should I trust you do do what's in everyone's best interest?
And don't bring up the government and the banks, or you'll really be humiliated over home loan regulations.
@RedOutcast That final sentence was very funny, considering the regulators of the entire banking system (Federal Reserve, FDIC, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Congress) actually created the housing bubble and subsequent financial collapse. Keep telling yourself that the people running the government are Santa Clause, I'm sure it will come true someday
Lo and behold, outdoor smoking has been banned in NYC. Who saw THAT coming?
RedOutcast isn't interested in the reality of the banking collapse. He doesn't care that the subprime sector of the mortgage industry, the one which failed, was by far the most heavily regulated. He's interested in the government legislating his morality onto the rest of us. Some people worship a deity, while others worship the state/the collective. RedOutcast is certainly in the latter camp.
I personally believe that everyone has a choice in what they can and cant eat, but i would rather NOT walk into walmart or any other store and see people who are overweight. Although these things that are getting banned are a little rediculous. I smoke but yes its understandable
i don't know how anyone can argue in favour of the governments 'right' to control what people in eat... 'junk food increase our medicare costs' well that's exactly why medicine should not be socialized. 'but everyone needs medicine to survive!' well, everyone needs food too, should farming be run by the state? no, because they're hopelessly inefficient and would cause mass starvation like in old russia, north korea, china etc. what is so hard to understand about freedom?
@AxelQC then step away fm people smoking you idiot....YOU ARE HUMAN at least partially aren't you? YOU HAVE A CHOICE don't take away someone else's choice...you are a communists if you do...but Obama's followers are exactly that and don't even realize it..
@AxelQC@AxelQC then step away fm people smoking you idiot....YOU ARE HUMAN at least partially aren't you? YOU HAVE A CHOICE don't take away someone else's choice...you are a communists if you do...but Obama's followers are exactly that and don't even realize it..
@FatherTime89 then step away fm soda you idiot....YOU ARE HUMAN at least partially aren't you? YOU HAVE A CHOICE don't take away someone else's choice...you are a communists if you do...but Obama's followers are exactly that and don't even realize it..
Bloomber just isn't a mayor, he's the RULER of NYC. In fact, he could be effectively called Dictator of New York. Who needs freedom when Bloomberg is amongst us?
When you entrust your healthcare to the public, not surprisingly, the public has a interest in your health. You can't separate these measures from the growing role of government in the healthcare system.
Socially liberal now means that we should legalize marijuana, but at the same time ban tobacco. And that we should legalize marijuana not because we realize that the government should not dictate what you do with your own body, but because we should tax the shit out of it and increase the states revenue.
This less about salt, tobacco, sugar, etc. & more about control. It's what they can "get away with", seeing how much the people will take. Unfortunately, due the the increasing "pussification" of American's, people tend to take more & more. BIG government senses that & in turn, taxes, takes, & bans more & more. If people don't stand up & fight for their rights, there will literally be nothing left to fight for. Nothing worth while anyway. I shudder at the thought of life 20yrs from now.
I decide what I put in my body, not the government. If I want to eat healthy, then I will eat healthy foods. If I want to go out and spluge, then I will do that. Man, he's just as bad as Arnold.
Banning salt is phenomenally dumb, not only due to the idea's absurd violation of powers, but because basic salt has been shown to have zero negative health effects. Bloomberg needs to do more research, right after he finishes f@#%ing himself.
I hate New York. It is the California of the East Coast. Everything is New York this, and New York that. New York should get over itself. There are many good things to do in cities like Philly, DC, Baltimore. Cheaper easier to get to, etc.
Define a liberal? Define a conservative? These words are thrown around with such reckless abandon that they have lost much of their original meaning.
Bloomberg seems par the course in my minds eye of what a Liberal is socially. A nanny who wants every one to get along and be healthy- or else. Liberals who don't do that, like the ones who are for legalization of drugs, I don't consider Liberal socially. I consider Libertarian socially.
I think it is because "socially liberal" has changed character lately. It used to mean a person thought the state should mind their own business in matters like immigration, marriage, religion, drugs, and so forth.
Now it has transformed to mean the state should stay out of those things, but get involved in protecting people from evil corporations and their unhealthy products or punishing/rewarding people depending on how they spend their money, and how environmentally sound that spending is.
I agree. They shouldn't even be allowed to use that term anymore. They should be forced to use more form fitting terminology. (using nanny) Nannocracy, Nannocrat, Republicanny. (Liberals) Liberaless (dumb 1) That's it, I can't think of more. The main thing is they all have several things in common. They are useless, control freaks, lying weasels.
You are a genius! Who said anything about minorities? Do you have something against minorities? Do you think gov'ts have any business telling adults how to make responsible decisions?
Yes, they do have that responsibility. In certain circumstances. For instance, the speed limit. We have a law that says 55 MPH. It's really more of a guideline for responsible driving. We have laws in place to maintain civilization.
HOWEVER! These people need to get the @%$& off of my cheese burger! And perhaps we could use the cash to find a cure for cancer and emphazima. That way I don't ever have to quite smoking.
Or maybe the fact that we eat at Burger King shouldn't be the government's fucking business and the government has no right to try to force us to adopt their approved eating habits. But by all means continue with the straw men instead of real arguments.
If their so concerned about how much soda we drink and all the unhealthy foods we eat why don't they just so giving tax breaks to grow corn and produce high fructose corn syrup. It's in everything.
Most people just seem incredibly unaware of just how much the state dictates how you should live your life. Tax breaks for home ownership, tax breaks for married people, tax breaks for employer-provided health care. Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The government is charging you to live how you want to live if you do not subscribe to these things.
This is what happens when you decide to give an arbitrary group of people the power to decide what ideas become laws.
@787Bisurdaddy you're exactly right...we need to research all of these taxes and ordinances and get back to the roots of our country and take the Gov't out of our lives so we can create our own communities that will have the characteristics we desire...not the gov't hand in everything...this PROGRESSIVE communism masked as democracy that we've NEVER signed up to be a part of has got to end soon.
I would agree that some of our Medicine is Socialized (like social security) but not the part that I pay for! What I was asking him was concerned about the difference between European and American health care.
"I would agree that some of our Medicine is Socialized (like social security) but not the part that I pay for!"
That makes no sense. Every person in every country pays for health care whether it is socialized or not. Socialized health care isn't free, despite what some people would have you believe...
787Bisurdaddy-Agreed that's not what I meant. I was talking to someone who believes that we already have socialized medicine. Trust me I am well aware that not only do I have to pay for my own health coverage through private insurance, I'm also forced into paying for other peoples social security, medicare, and welfare by the US government. It's how I punished for actually working for a living.
Well yes, we don't have a fully socialized health care system, but we don't have a fully private one either.
I see that you understand this, but I don't think it gets said enough. People like to slam the US health care system as some kind of example for why the free market is a failure, when it isn't even close to being free market.
Little Mike is a borderline dwarf. His need to control is legendary. There are too many stories of employees at Bloomberg LLC losing promotions for going to bars after work. During the smoking debate, in response to my testimony at the City Council hearings, Little Mike said, literally, that workers should take his example and go to the gym instead of a bar. This was in response to my observation that 9/11 workers may enjoy a smoke and beer with Monday Night Football. That's Mike.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's a pretty slick video; wonder who paid for it; Coca Cola, the Tobacco Institute, or the Chamber of Commerece?
This Nanny thing is a pretty lame effort at astroturf (i.e., a pretend "grassroots" movement) by lumping everything into one big bowl - smoking, cupcakes, soda pop, etc. I 'm not saying some folks aren't unhappy with one or another of these rules - folks ALWAYS hate new restrictions. I, for one, am glad whenever they ban smoking (but I don't miss every dearly departed ex-smoker).
Yeah smoking is annoying I guess people who decide to smoke should have a gun pointed to their head! FOR THE GLORY OF THE STATE AND THE WILL OF THE GLORIOUS PROLETARIAT COLLECTIVE OF THE PEOPLE!
Me too. I know I can't be bothered to avoid smoking establishments, because I want to do whatever the hell I damn well please, other people be damned!
Me too, I mean other people are doing something I don't like, there's no way I can just ignore them or try to settle on a compromise. I need to make sure that if they try it they'll be prosecuted for it. Aren't I just the greatest.
It's funny how the liberal-left is terrified of America having religious values -- values that might foster horrible ideas like "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" or "thou shalt not steal" or "love your neighbor" or... But boy-oh-boy are they eager to tell everyone what to do and what not to do. And more importantly, they want to require it by force of law, not merely to promote it as a social value. I.e., they truly want to take away your freedom to do what you want.
Nothing comparable. The closest thing you'll find today is outlawing abortion and limiting marriage to 1-man-1-woman (something that most atheists want, too). Regardless, in this day and age, the threat of micro-managing our personal lives comes from only one place: the liberal-left. And my whole point is that the Left has no standing to oppose 'forcing your values on others." They want it more than anyone, they just have different ideas about what it should be.
It is comparable you can find tons of conservative Christian sites that want to ban pornography or sex toys (seriously such people were nanny of the month not that long ago) and trying to censor media. Look up the war on sex (on this channel no less). It may not be as big as liberal meddling but it's just as repulsive and nothing to ignore.
FatherTime, websites aside, I don't know of any mainstream Christian groups that seek such things. Oppose it and want to encourage others to avoid it, yes, but not ban it by force of law. Regardless, I can't see it happening, ever.
The whole goal is to maintain balance in society (the wants & needs of individuals vs wants & needs of society) and towards those ends, we identify problems and go after them. Liberals are the threat to liberty today, and yet THEY fret about Christians (in 2009)
I'm just saying that there are those on the right that would gladly take away our rights as well. In fact while he was still attorney general gonzales started a war on porn so I don't think it's as fringe as one would hope (still probably less than the shmucks on the left).
It was news to me that AG Gonzales started a "war on porn," so I Googled it, and the only thing that came up related to child pornography. Does one need to be a Christian to want to ban that from society?
Truth is, we DO want to ban SOME things: those things that that we can confidently conclude are ALWAYS harmful to OTHERS. Salt, Trans-Fat, etc., may harm the one who eats it in excess, but that's our business, not the state's. And there's no problem if consumed moderately
FT, all I saw on P1 related to child porn, but did find (later on) on P2, references to videos adults engaging in sex, and enforcing *existing* laws. And it seemed to focus on specific broadcast locations, such as hotels. Anyway, I still don't know the specifics.
"The Nanny State" is about protecting us from ourselves. That's what a nanny does.
I suspect that the porn issue has to do with public decency, similar to why we don't allow nudity (or more) on billboards.
One thought about the nanny state, as it relates to socialized medicine: If Dems get what they want (single-payer) that then forms the legal/political foundation for being a "nanny" about our personal health habits. The argument might go like this: The state has a vested interest in your health, because the state is paying for your medical bills; ergo, the state can legislate your behavior as it relates to your health.
And that's yet another reason to oppose socialized medicine.
lol, watching dumb Americans debate their health system is HILARIOUS.
"We are Americans, why should we have a Universal healthcare system like Europe, Canada and Australia that covers everyone in their country for half the price we pay, doesn't have anyone declaring bankruptcy and that allows them to buy American made drugs at half the price we pay?"
You retards call it socialism, smart people call it collective bargaining power, on behalf of the people.
You claim to be intelligent, and yet, you display none of it in your comment.
I've studied the health care issue at length and depth, and when weighing the pros and cons of each system, I think ours is better. It needs reforms -- reforms which would lower costs -- but that has nothing to do with it being free-market based. And countries with socialized medicine have been feeding off of the U.S.'s innovations and money for too long.
Even though it covers only 85% of the population, costs twice as much as anyone else in the world pays for the same services and bankrupts 600,000 people a year, you say it is better.
Looks like you might need to study a bit harder and use more references than the Bible and the Fox network.
Btw, i never claimed to be intelligent, and I only called out "dumb Americans", note that I didn't say "all" Americans.
Thank you for informing me which group you belong to.
Truly intelligent people can win debates by the force of their arguments alone. They don't need name-calling to win. And yes, when you call others "stupid," that means you think you're a LOT more intelligent.
Anyway, most of what you wrote is misinformed or stupid. You should try researching it beyond your obvious liberal sources. And BTW, where in the Bible is socialized medicine mentioned? Also, I rarely watch TV. Got any more brilliant insights to share, Einstein?
When did I call anyone stupid? I believe I said dumb. You can't "Win" when it comes to FACTS. This is not a competition. The facts I stated are just that, facts. Political leaning has nothing to do with facts (Except in America i guess).
The FACTS are, America does not provide Univeral Healcare for all of its citizens (Fact, not debatable). You spend far more than every other Western nation for the same services (fact, not debatable). You pay more than we do for drugs (fact, not debatable
1) Explain the difference between stupid and dumb.
2) Who disputes that the US doesn't have socialized medicine?
3) No, they aren't the "same services." They're similar but ONLY if you are young and healthy. As you age and your health declines, the dollar value of your life goes down, and you're more likely to get cut off from expensive treatments. Check out Britain's "NICE" agency.
4) Drugs: other countries pay less, because the US essentially subsidizes it. That should stop.
4)Bullshit, i can guarantee Pfizer or the like is not losing any money selling us sensible priced drugs. You Americans just don't know how to work together to drive a hard bargain, then blame someone else because you got ripped off.
4) Not BS. Here's how it works: Non-US countries w/ socialized medicine tell the drug companies what they will pay for the drugs. The drug companies accept it, because that's the only choice, AND because they can make up the difference in the US. Without the US as it is now, you wouldn't have the drugs and/or the low prices. BUT, if we were allowed to "re-import" the drugs from other countries, that would undermine this subsidy, and then you'd have to pay the true cost of it, or go without
1) You've never heard of someone making a dumb mistake or being permanently stupid? Moving on...
2) What's your problem with "socialized"? That's what it is, when everyone, collectively, pays for and gets the same thing. In Europe, the "Social Democrats" push for the socializing of many services, and call themselves socialist. Anyway, health care is available to any American, the only question is how it's paid.
3) You're forgetting the total cost. That discount is paid by others.
Arguing that the US needs socialized health care because the current system costs more is like arguing that a fish needs a bicycle because it breathes underwater. Not only does it make no sense, it's pointless.
If the goal is to reduce cost, then you have to examine why health care costs are so high in the first place. Heavy government subsidies which encourage greater use, AMA restriction of doctors, and cost of innovation aren't going to be reduced by additional government involvement.
If you have socialized medicine how do you even know what the real cost of your medications are? There can not be real oversight on government spending? Why do you assume that people on the opposite side of the world from you would have the same answer to health care as your country? In the US every state has the right to develop their own statewide socialized medicine, although none have a successful program.
Oh most definetly. We only pay around average 2 dollars I believe on check up, which is less then England and Canada. Plus Health care is the most regulated service out there. What makes us think more bureaucratic control of a good will improve the health of us and others alike?
The Market produces quality and quantity. The Government produces neither.
Most Democrats don't "recognize it as an economic disaster". Most don't even care, they just want govt. to take care of them. And most (elected) Republicans don't have the balls to restore sane economic policy, and end the ripoff.
You guys pay less for drugs than we do because we're the ones spending all the money to create them. Turning our health care system over to the government isn't going to do anything to make it cheaper. In fact, it would just increase cost and decrease innovation, so you guys wouldn't end up being able to get all these great drugs for cheap from us anymore... I can't actually understand why you'd WANT us to go to a socialized system.
Central planning is the reason our economy is falling apart.
"ergo, the state can legislate your behavior as it relates to your health."
That would be true, except the state can just extort more money out of its citizens when it runs out. Or just deny them coverage. Both of which would probably still happen even if they used that logic to ban all of the stuff that is bad for us.
The state is going to pass whatever laws it wants regardless. There are many reasons to oppose socialized health care, but this one is pretty weak when you think about it.
It already is. Prostitution is illegal, and the only reason for that is, again, legislation of morality. Legalizing prostitution would allow prostitutes to work in a safe environment, eliminate thug pimps, provide better health standards, reduce crime, and also reduce the cost of arresting and jailing people for a victimless crime.
The same can be said of the war on drugs.
AA is often state-mandated, and is nothing but religious nonsense,
limiting marriage to 1-man-1-woman is something that most atheists want too? that is news to me. do you have evidence? or are you just making up statistics?
On second thought, you might be right about that. I don't know the stats on atheist views on marriage, I just know that the nation as a whole is for 1-man-1-woman. But I doubt that only *conservative* Christians can account for all of that (liberal Christians are all in favor of same-sex marriage). Regardless, you don't have to be Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or any other mainstream religion) to have that view. There are good secular arguments.
I don't know any atheists that support denying marriage rights to homosexuals, mostly because they understand that marriage is a state-sanctioned process encouraged by state-sponsored benefits. My personal opinion is that homosexuals SHOULDN'T have legal marriage rights, and neither should heterosexuals. Granting anyone special privileges for getting married is legislation of morality.
The fact is that people want to force their values on us (and already are) from both the left AND the right.
"...maintain balance in society (the wants & needs of individuals vs wants & needs of society) and towards those ends, we identify problems and go after them."
That is complete horseshit. You're outright stating that the religious right is better equipped to identify societal problems and fix them, which is exactly the same excuse the left is giving.
I'll let you in on a little secret: our country was founded upon the rights of the individual, not the wants and needs of society.
IS IT TIME?! Go to USRevolution2 (dot com) and get the flag of the Second American Revolution. They're made in Texas and look exactly like Betsy Ross' flag, but with a Roman numeral "II" in the center of the 13 stars. They make great gifts for family, friends and recovering Liberals.
Oh I get Blumberg, New York economy is number one, there is no crime there. No problems to think of actually well except for this. Yep I get it (sarcasm)
So one can of soda a day can add on ten pounds a year? There's this amazing thing called exercise which burns calories. Bloomy may want to look into that
I can think of worse coercive police statists than health nazis like Bloomberg. How about the war on drug warriors who bust into the wrong homes and shoot innocent residents?
how about the war on drug warriors who bust in and bother people in their own fucking homes doing what they want when they aren't bothering anyone else.
fuck the "war" on drugs. it's just a war on the american people.
Wise man once said: The only good politician is a politician with a gun to his head. Put that gun in his hand and you can kiss your liberties goodbye.
But what will we do if we don't have someone in a position of authority tell us what to do? I have religious leaders to tell me moral from immoral, why not government officials to tell me what products I am allowed to buy and how to use them :p
Bloomberg honestly believes its within his power to police dinner tables. Anyone who thinks government should police dinner tables is a genuine moron and should be ashamed of themselves. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
I hate to see smokers.
felpaluche 2 months ago
Most people are not responsible enough to make rational decisions about what they put in their body. Cigarettes are bad for you and most people want to quit but can't largely because they are everywhere. Cigarettes how they currently are should be illegal. I don't agree with the advertising techniques and additives used by businesses to entice people to try these products. It makes perfect sense why capitalists don't want some bigger entity to say how to profit off of and mislead consumers.
RedOutcast 1 year ago
@RedOutcast lets just ban being unhealthy
raldakejla 1 year ago
@raldakejla I think single payer health care legislation has a better chance of being passed in the U.S. than what you suggest becoming law. It would be horribly unpopular unlike the smoking ban. The majority of people support the smoking ban where an even larger majority would be against banning being unhealthy. What you suggest is too despotic and heavy handed.
RedOutcast 1 year ago
@RedOutcast how about letting people make their own choices about what they do, regardless of whether it would be considered stupid?
raldakejla 1 year ago
@raldakejla If the individuals stupid act is negatively effecting the health of the public than legislation may be justified. Most people want to quit anyway but cannot. Would you defend big tobacco to have the right to sell this addictive and deadly product?
RedOutcast 1 year ago
@RedOutcast Free market theories might suggest that the consumer would realize how harmful this product is. Like a doctor who performs poorly and effect people health negatively. People would stop doing business with the doctor. Knowing that nicotine Marlboro's will kill you, the consumer will abandon this product and the tobacco companies will fail because of it. Didn't happen and the consumer got ass raped by the invisible hand once again.
RedOutcast 1 year ago
@RedOutcast What about personal responsibility? The government does not own any individual.
raldakejla 1 year ago
@RedOutcast
Now, I hate to be the man who pokes holes in your strawman, but you should note that the health costs from cigarettes have been known AND PUT ON CIGARETTE PACKS for over forty years. It isn't as if the harmfull nature of the substance or it's addictive effects are unknown. So the question still stands, how do you justify taking away a legal substance just because you dislike it? And for bonus points, explain what you'll do about the much greater health costs of the elderly.
AdamaGeist 1 year ago
@AdamaGeist The majority has the right to breathe clean air when smoking is optional and it can be done outside. That is the courteous thing to do. The government isn't telling anyone they can't smoke. Just not in most areas with other people who can breathe it in. What is so wrong about that? If u are referring to greater health costs because more smokers will be alive in old age, I don't think we should only look at the long term utilitarian perspective of cost.
RedOutcast 1 year ago
@RedOutcast Except it's also being banned outside. And in private residences. They ARE telling people they can't smoke. I thought for someone pushing smoking regulation, you'd be aware of how aggressive things already are. My bad, I assumed you'd be knowledgeable about the topic you supported.
As for the elderly, no. I was bringing up the simple fact that people over 70 cost more in health resources than smokers or cancer patients do. So when, for the common good, will you eliminate them?
AdamaGeist 1 year ago
@RedOutcast - Show me the law that states the People, any people, have the right to breathe in clean air. If you're in a city (the only place where this seems to be a problem) you're going to be breathing in all sorts of contaminants. Your argument is an attempt at justifying fascist overreach that CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED!
Slipknotyk06 9 months ago
@RedOutcast
Wow. You have such a SOLID grasp on sarcasm, don't you?
Here's how it works. You start banning things for 'the good of the common man', and quite soon you're regulating every step of every person's life. Me? I don't want to be an ant in your colony. So how about a new idea: You don't like what the people around you are doing? Go someplace else where they WILL do exactly what you want them to. But keep your damn hands off of my food, and my rights. Fascist.
AdamaGeist 1 year ago
@AdamaGeist Can you give me an example of where more and more regulation as lead to the regulation of everyone's personal life and perhaps totalitarian communism? As far as I know the majority of heavily regulated European nations are not complaining to much (except for the freemarketeers as usual because they can't exercise their god given right to sell addictive substances).
RedOutcast 1 year ago
@RedOutcast
You mean, outside of Russia and China from the sixties to the eighties? Well, then I'd have to say modern day North America, where people are steadily pushing for the government to take over more and more of the economy, from paying for housing to paying for health care, while at the same time taking away what they can eat, how much food costs, if they can smoke...
Or if that's too much Irony for you, how about Venezuela?
AdamaGeist 1 year ago
Comment removed
RedOutcast 1 year ago
@AdamaGeist The U.S. looks very little like a totalitarian state intervening in the areas you describe. Just because there is redistribution of wealth doesn't mean its totalitarian. The nanny is necessary because the market is too unstable without government intervention. This has been seen time and time again. For a modern example, deregulation of the banks rocked the entire world market and played a huge role in our economic recession/depression in some places.
RedOutcast 1 year ago
@RedOutcast
Seriously. Watch the Nanny of the Month videos. Just watch what is already occuring in the US. I've seen salt almost banned in New York, and Pate was banned in Chicago for a short while. Pets were banned in California. Fish Pedicures in NY State.
I know I can't trust you to do things in my best interest, why should I trust you do do what's in everyone's best interest?
And don't bring up the government and the banks, or you'll really be humiliated over home loan regulations.
AdamaGeist 1 year ago
@RedOutcast That final sentence was very funny, considering the regulators of the entire banking system (Federal Reserve, FDIC, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Congress) actually created the housing bubble and subsequent financial collapse. Keep telling yourself that the people running the government are Santa Clause, I'm sure it will come true someday
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
@EyeAmTheIlluminati
Lo and behold, outdoor smoking has been banned in NYC. Who saw THAT coming?
RedOutcast isn't interested in the reality of the banking collapse. He doesn't care that the subprime sector of the mortgage industry, the one which failed, was by far the most heavily regulated. He's interested in the government legislating his morality onto the rest of us. Some people worship a deity, while others worship the state/the collective. RedOutcast is certainly in the latter camp.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
We need more people speaking out. This country is not overrun with rebels and free thinkers. It's overrun with sheep and conformists.
Bill Maher
This video makes me want a cigarette! See you guys a little later!
LindaDooWop 1 year ago
I never smoked a cigarette until I was nine.
H. L. Mencken
LindaDooWop 1 year ago
A prohibitionist is the sort of man one couldn't care to drink with, even if he drank.
H. L. Mencken
LindaDooWop 1 year ago
What a pain in the ass he is! I'd rather die of too many goodies than be nagged to death!
LindaDooWop 1 year ago
Why won't they leave us alone??
sleedolfine15 1 year ago
Fun fact: Bloomberg puts salt on his pizza.
cempirology 1 year ago 3
I personally believe that everyone has a choice in what they can and cant eat, but i would rather NOT walk into walmart or any other store and see people who are overweight. Although these things that are getting banned are a little rediculous. I smoke but yes its understandable
Iplayphone 1 year ago
same people that argue for smaller government ask for it to ban things like trans-fat in the next breath. how about don't buy it if it's shit.
tekproxy 1 year ago
That pizza looks awesome.
elsquibbs 1 year ago 5
i don't know how anyone can argue in favour of the governments 'right' to control what people in eat... 'junk food increase our medicare costs' well that's exactly why medicine should not be socialized. 'but everyone needs medicine to survive!' well, everyone needs food too, should farming be run by the state? no, because they're hopelessly inefficient and would cause mass starvation like in old russia, north korea, china etc. what is so hard to understand about freedom?
DaveC86 1 year ago 4
Smoking isn't just bad for your health, it's bad for mine.
I don't care what you do to your body, but your smoking poisons the air I breath.
AxelQC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AxelQC second hand smoke is bullshit
surrealnumber 1 year ago
@AxelQC then step away fm people smoking you idiot....YOU ARE HUMAN at least partially aren't you? YOU HAVE A CHOICE don't take away someone else's choice...you are a communists if you do...but Obama's followers are exactly that and don't even realize it..
mchip65 1 year ago
@AxelQC @AxelQC then step away fm people smoking you idiot....YOU ARE HUMAN at least partially aren't you? YOU HAVE A CHOICE don't take away someone else's choice...you are a communists if you do...but Obama's followers are exactly that and don't even realize it..
mchip65 1 year ago
1 can of soda a day can make you 10 pounds fatter in a year?
Who the fuck drinks 1 can of soda a day or more importantly who drinks 1 can of soda a day and doesn't think it's bad for them?
And 10 pounds oooh scary.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FatherTime89 then step away fm soda you idiot....YOU ARE HUMAN at least partially aren't you? YOU HAVE A CHOICE don't take away someone else's choice...you are a communists if you do...but Obama's followers are exactly that and don't even realize it..
mchip65 1 year ago
Bloomber just isn't a mayor, he's the RULER of NYC. In fact, he could be effectively called Dictator of New York. Who needs freedom when Bloomberg is amongst us?
joe80dman 1 year ago 2
When you entrust your healthcare to the public, not surprisingly, the public has a interest in your health. You can't separate these measures from the growing role of government in the healthcare system.
Mulder18 1 year ago 4
pizza!!! oh i'm so hungry now!
TabbiBmore 1 year ago
Screw the Nanny state. I'll do what I want. My right to eat what I want. Just like my right to say what I want.
opacid 1 year ago
Socially liberal now means that we should legalize marijuana, but at the same time ban tobacco. And that we should legalize marijuana not because we realize that the government should not dictate what you do with your own body, but because we should tax the shit out of it and increase the states revenue.
enomarekim 1 year ago 4
@enomarekim
hah, well said.
DaveC86 1 year ago
@enomarekim Yeah, the hypocrisy of both parties shouting "Freedom! to a certain extent."
pSychOAtDawn 1 year ago
This less about salt, tobacco, sugar, etc. & more about control. It's what they can "get away with", seeing how much the people will take. Unfortunately, due the the increasing "pussification" of American's, people tend to take more & more. BIG government senses that & in turn, taxes, takes, & bans more & more. If people don't stand up & fight for their rights, there will literally be nothing left to fight for. Nothing worth while anyway. I shudder at the thought of life 20yrs from now.
gjc82071 1 year ago 2
I decide what I put in my body, not the government. If I want to eat healthy, then I will eat healthy foods. If I want to go out and spluge, then I will do that. Man, he's just as bad as Arnold.
Altoman5 2 years ago
Even before I started the video I knew who the winner was. Why hasn't Bloomberg been assassinated yet?
So are people like me who need a high-salt diet supposed to stay out of New York form now on?
kittyprydekissme 2 years ago
Wow. I had no idea Bloomberg was such a fuck face.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 17
Banning salt is phenomenally dumb, not only due to the idea's absurd violation of powers, but because basic salt has been shown to have zero negative health effects. Bloomberg needs to do more research, right after he finishes f@#%ing himself.
DrRosenpenis 2 years ago
reactionary power grabbing rretadhs
corenothing 2 years ago
I hate New York. It is the California of the East Coast. Everything is New York this, and New York that. New York should get over itself. There are many good things to do in cities like Philly, DC, Baltimore. Cheaper easier to get to, etc.
Psugrad1998 2 years ago 3
why is know your meme under related videos?
FatherTime89 2 years ago
Bad as Bloomberg may be, Daley in Chicago is even worse.
jimwalsh2001 2 years ago
As far as I know, Bloomberg is relatively fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A strange target for Reason.
cellspotbiz 2 years ago
I'd define Bloomberg a statist New Leftist socially, not a real liberal.
msohsixefzakutwo 2 years ago 4
Define a liberal? Define a conservative? These words are thrown around with such reckless abandon that they have lost much of their original meaning.
Bloomberg seems par the course in my minds eye of what a Liberal is socially. A nanny who wants every one to get along and be healthy- or else. Liberals who don't do that, like the ones who are for legalization of drugs, I don't consider Liberal socially. I consider Libertarian socially.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Bloomberg's an independent and I consider him just an asshole. I believe a true Liberal wouldn't enact such BS as banning trans fats.
(oh and I don't consider my Liberal).
FatherTime89 2 years ago 3
Indeed
dons123111 2 years ago 2
I think it is because "socially liberal" has changed character lately. It used to mean a person thought the state should mind their own business in matters like immigration, marriage, religion, drugs, and so forth.
Now it has transformed to mean the state should stay out of those things, but get involved in protecting people from evil corporations and their unhealthy products or punishing/rewarding people depending on how they spend their money, and how environmentally sound that spending is.
mmsayre 2 years ago
I agree. They shouldn't even be allowed to use that term anymore. They should be forced to use more form fitting terminology. (using nanny) Nannocracy, Nannocrat, Republicanny. (Liberals) Liberaless (dumb 1) That's it, I can't think of more. The main thing is they all have several things in common. They are useless, control freaks, lying weasels.
gjc82071 1 year ago 3
bloomberg needs a lawn dart in the head
amagilly 2 years ago
Where can I find new lawn darts?! Weren't they banned for our safety?
jefevonQ 2 years ago
You are a genius! Who said anything about minorities? Do you have something against minorities? Do you think gov'ts have any business telling adults how to make responsible decisions?
NoEoAoRo 2 years ago
Yes, they do have that responsibility. In certain circumstances. For instance, the speed limit. We have a law that says 55 MPH. It's really more of a guideline for responsible driving. We have laws in place to maintain civilization.
HOWEVER! These people need to get the @%$& off of my cheese burger! And perhaps we could use the cash to find a cure for cancer and emphazima. That way I don't ever have to quite smoking.
jefevonQ 2 years ago
@DrWizardMan
Or maybe the fact that we eat at Burger King shouldn't be the government's fucking business and the government has no right to try to force us to adopt their approved eating habits. But by all means continue with the straw men instead of real arguments.
FatherTime89 2 years ago 34
Amen Fathertime!
order9066 2 years ago
Bloomberg is quite a dolt-
nesterhaus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I never subscribed to your shitty videos yet somehow youtube says I am? Reported as worthless spam this is
chowner 2 years ago
Hey there, nice race card you got there!
krsnadas 2 years ago
If their so concerned about how much soda we drink and all the unhealthy foods we eat why don't they just so giving tax breaks to grow corn and produce high fructose corn syrup. It's in everything.
13R1CK4 2 years ago 2
Most people just seem incredibly unaware of just how much the state dictates how you should live your life. Tax breaks for home ownership, tax breaks for married people, tax breaks for employer-provided health care. Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The government is charging you to live how you want to live if you do not subscribe to these things.
This is what happens when you decide to give an arbitrary group of people the power to decide what ideas become laws.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 4
@787Bisurdaddy you're exactly right...we need to research all of these taxes and ordinances and get back to the roots of our country and take the Gov't out of our lives so we can create our own communities that will have the characteristics we desire...not the gov't hand in everything...this PROGRESSIVE communism masked as democracy that we've NEVER signed up to be a part of has got to end soon.
mchip65 1 year ago 2
@mchip65
using progressive as a slur :}
glenn beck should be imprisoned for taking advantage of easily suggestible mentally retarded people
frother 1 year ago
I would agree that some of our Medicine is Socialized (like social security) but not the part that I pay for! What I was asking him was concerned about the difference between European and American health care.
13R1CK4 2 years ago
"I would agree that some of our Medicine is Socialized (like social security) but not the part that I pay for!"
That makes no sense. Every person in every country pays for health care whether it is socialized or not. Socialized health care isn't free, despite what some people would have you believe...
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 3
787Bisurdaddy-Agreed that's not what I meant. I was talking to someone who believes that we already have socialized medicine. Trust me I am well aware that not only do I have to pay for my own health coverage through private insurance, I'm also forced into paying for other peoples social security, medicare, and welfare by the US government. It's how I punished for actually working for a living.
13R1CK4 2 years ago
Well yes, we don't have a fully socialized health care system, but we don't have a fully private one either.
I see that you understand this, but I don't think it gets said enough. People like to slam the US health care system as some kind of example for why the free market is a failure, when it isn't even close to being free market.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 4
Oh, and sorry for the misunderstanding.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
This is what you get when you imagine that a piece of paper can stop a bullet.
If George Bush made only one true statement it was: "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper"
Taxation is coerced. Coercion is violence. Government is violence.
furyofbongos 2 years ago 2
This tee-totalling, vegan non-smoker says... stay out of other people's business. And Bloomberg can go to blazes.
Aeschylus 2 years ago
My question is:
"What is wrong with the minds of the people who elect and reelect him?"
It seems that millions of people use emotional logic instead of fact based logic.
trime1851 2 years ago
A war on salt? Why not ban sunshine or gravity?
wpaxton 2 years ago
Wow, sorry for you New Yorkers!
Nonoyawns 2 years ago
great video...the govt is getting way out of hand locally and federally
MaladaptiveCatalyst 2 years ago 2
My 5 year old was watching this over my shoulder, and yelled, "Don't listen to them about the sweets!" LOL!
Even kids know better than Bloomberg.
annilita 2 years ago 3
Anyone object to labeling Mr. Bloomberg a Food Nazi?
FatherTime89 2 years ago 3
I am praying for the end of this government.
truthsabre7 2 years ago 2
You'll be praying for a long long long long long long.... long time my friend.
highonhayek 2 years ago
Wanna bet.
truthsabre7 2 years ago
Little Mike is a borderline dwarf. His need to control is legendary. There are too many stories of employees at Bloomberg LLC losing promotions for going to bars after work. During the smoking debate, in response to my testimony at the City Council hearings, Little Mike said, literally, that workers should take his example and go to the gym instead of a bar. This was in response to my observation that 9/11 workers may enjoy a smoke and beer with Monday Night Football. That's Mike.
MarcusCMarcellus 2 years ago 3
i hate those nannys
Frances3654 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's a pretty slick video; wonder who paid for it; Coca Cola, the Tobacco Institute, or the Chamber of Commerece?
This Nanny thing is a pretty lame effort at astroturf (i.e., a pretend "grassroots" movement) by lumping everything into one big bowl - smoking, cupcakes, soda pop, etc. I 'm not saying some folks aren't unhappy with one or another of these rules - folks ALWAYS hate new restrictions. I, for one, am glad whenever they ban smoking (but I don't miss every dearly departed ex-smoker).
local2458 2 years ago
Yeah smoking is annoying I guess people who decide to smoke should have a gun pointed to their head! FOR THE GLORY OF THE STATE AND THE WILL OF THE GLORIOUS PROLETARIAT COLLECTIVE OF THE PEOPLE!
Ksabrs45 2 years ago 6
And government never has ulterior motives, taxes and inefficient spending are good for the economy -_- Opinion and advertisements are always biased.
TheRealFallenDemon 2 years ago
You are so far removed from being a free man it behooves you to move to North Korea or Cuba. You are unworthy of freedom.
MarcusCMarcellus 2 years ago 5
@local2458
"I, for one, am glad whenever they ban smoking"
So you're perfectly fine with government taking away freedom and trying to control how others behave?
Don't come crying when they want to ban something you like.
FatherTime89 2 years ago 4
Cool story, bro.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Comment removed
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I, for one, am glad whenever they ban smoking"
Me too. I know I can't be bothered to avoid smoking establishments, because I want to do whatever the hell I damn well please, other people be damned!
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
@787Bisurdaddy
Me too, I mean other people are doing something I don't like, there's no way I can just ignore them or try to settle on a compromise. I need to make sure that if they try it they'll be prosecuted for it. Aren't I just the greatest.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
It's funny how the liberal-left is terrified of America having religious values -- values that might foster horrible ideas like "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" or "thou shalt not steal" or "love your neighbor" or... But boy-oh-boy are they eager to tell everyone what to do and what not to do. And more importantly, they want to require it by force of law, not merely to promote it as a social value. I.e., they truly want to take away your freedom to do what you want.
DonTruman 2 years ago 2
@DonTruman
And the religious don't want to do the exact same thing?
Jesus Christ you can find examples of this crap in past nannies of the month.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
@FatherTime89
Seriously how many times have we heard some religious group wanting to ban something because it's against God's will or some crap.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
FatherTime,
Nothing comparable. The closest thing you'll find today is outlawing abortion and limiting marriage to 1-man-1-woman (something that most atheists want, too). Regardless, in this day and age, the threat of micro-managing our personal lives comes from only one place: the liberal-left. And my whole point is that the Left has no standing to oppose 'forcing your values on others." They want it more than anyone, they just have different ideas about what it should be.
DonTruman 2 years ago
@DonTruman
It is comparable you can find tons of conservative Christian sites that want to ban pornography or sex toys (seriously such people were nanny of the month not that long ago) and trying to censor media. Look up the war on sex (on this channel no less). It may not be as big as liberal meddling but it's just as repulsive and nothing to ignore.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
FatherTime, websites aside, I don't know of any mainstream Christian groups that seek such things. Oppose it and want to encourage others to avoid it, yes, but not ban it by force of law. Regardless, I can't see it happening, ever.
The whole goal is to maintain balance in society (the wants & needs of individuals vs wants & needs of society) and towards those ends, we identify problems and go after them. Liberals are the threat to liberty today, and yet THEY fret about Christians (in 2009)
DonTruman 2 years ago
@DonTruman
I'm just saying that there are those on the right that would gladly take away our rights as well. In fact while he was still attorney general gonzales started a war on porn so I don't think it's as fringe as one would hope (still probably less than the shmucks on the left).
FatherTime89 2 years ago 3
FatherTime,
It was news to me that AG Gonzales started a "war on porn," so I Googled it, and the only thing that came up related to child pornography. Does one need to be a Christian to want to ban that from society?
Truth is, we DO want to ban SOME things: those things that that we can confidently conclude are ALWAYS harmful to OTHERS. Salt, Trans-Fat, etc., may harm the one who eats it in excess, but that's our business, not the state's. And there's no problem if consumed moderately
DonTruman 2 years ago
really, the second thing I found talked of him attacking regular porn not child porn.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
oh and so did the first, just google gonzales war on porn. It's from 2005 but still.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
FT, all I saw on P1 related to child porn, but did find (later on) on P2, references to videos adults engaging in sex, and enforcing *existing* laws. And it seemed to focus on specific broadcast locations, such as hotels. Anyway, I still don't know the specifics.
"The Nanny State" is about protecting us from ourselves. That's what a nanny does.
I suspect that the porn issue has to do with public decency, similar to why we don't allow nudity (or more) on billboards.
DonTruman 2 years ago
Yeah- heaven forbid a human being sees the unclothed image of another human being. It would be so damaging. zzzzzzzzzz
mikekole 2 years ago
What a stupid comment, Mike.
DonTruman 2 years ago
One thought about the nanny state, as it relates to socialized medicine: If Dems get what they want (single-payer) that then forms the legal/political foundation for being a "nanny" about our personal health habits. The argument might go like this: The state has a vested interest in your health, because the state is paying for your medical bills; ergo, the state can legislate your behavior as it relates to your health.
And that's yet another reason to oppose socialized medicine.
DonTruman 2 years ago
lol, watching dumb Americans debate their health system is HILARIOUS.
"We are Americans, why should we have a Universal healthcare system like Europe, Canada and Australia that covers everyone in their country for half the price we pay, doesn't have anyone declaring bankruptcy and that allows them to buy American made drugs at half the price we pay?"
You retards call it socialism, smart people call it collective bargaining power, on behalf of the people.
Enjoy your third world country.
coffeebuzzz 2 years ago
Coffee,
You claim to be intelligent, and yet, you display none of it in your comment.
I've studied the health care issue at length and depth, and when weighing the pros and cons of each system, I think ours is better. It needs reforms -- reforms which would lower costs -- but that has nothing to do with it being free-market based. And countries with socialized medicine have been feeding off of the U.S.'s innovations and money for too long.
DonTruman 2 years ago
Typical American response.
Even though it covers only 85% of the population, costs twice as much as anyone else in the world pays for the same services and bankrupts 600,000 people a year, you say it is better.
Looks like you might need to study a bit harder and use more references than the Bible and the Fox network.
Btw, i never claimed to be intelligent, and I only called out "dumb Americans", note that I didn't say "all" Americans.
Thank you for informing me which group you belong to.
coffeebuzzz 2 years ago
Coffee,
Truly intelligent people can win debates by the force of their arguments alone. They don't need name-calling to win. And yes, when you call others "stupid," that means you think you're a LOT more intelligent.
Anyway, most of what you wrote is misinformed or stupid. You should try researching it beyond your obvious liberal sources. And BTW, where in the Bible is socialized medicine mentioned? Also, I rarely watch TV. Got any more brilliant insights to share, Einstein?
DonTruman 2 years ago
When did I call anyone stupid? I believe I said dumb. You can't "Win" when it comes to FACTS. This is not a competition. The facts I stated are just that, facts. Political leaning has nothing to do with facts (Except in America i guess).
The FACTS are, America does not provide Univeral Healcare for all of its citizens (Fact, not debatable). You spend far more than every other Western nation for the same services (fact, not debatable). You pay more than we do for drugs (fact, not debatable
coffeebuzzz 2 years ago
Coffee,
1) Explain the difference between stupid and dumb.
2) Who disputes that the US doesn't have socialized medicine?
3) No, they aren't the "same services." They're similar but ONLY if you are young and healthy. As you age and your health declines, the dollar value of your life goes down, and you're more likely to get cut off from expensive treatments. Check out Britain's "NICE" agency.
4) Drugs: other countries pay less, because the US essentially subsidizes it. That should stop.
DonTruman 2 years ago
Don
1) stupid is making a mistake, dumb is never learning from past mistakes and repeating them.
2) I was talking about universal healthcare for every citizen, not the mechanism that funds it. (nice random socialist rhetoric though)
3) Yes, same services. MRI in the US costs 1500-4500, in Australia, same machine used, cost to consumer is 600.
Travel insurance to the US costs 3 times anywhere else on the planet.
My full comprehensive private medical coverage costs $1400 per year, not month.
coffeebuzzz 2 years ago
cont'
4)Bullshit, i can guarantee Pfizer or the like is not losing any money selling us sensible priced drugs. You Americans just don't know how to work together to drive a hard bargain, then blame someone else because you got ripped off.
coffeebuzzz 2 years ago
4) Not BS. Here's how it works: Non-US countries w/ socialized medicine tell the drug companies what they will pay for the drugs. The drug companies accept it, because that's the only choice, AND because they can make up the difference in the US. Without the US as it is now, you wouldn't have the drugs and/or the low prices. BUT, if we were allowed to "re-import" the drugs from other countries, that would undermine this subsidy, and then you'd have to pay the true cost of it, or go without
DonTruman 2 years ago
Coffee
1) You've never heard of someone making a dumb mistake or being permanently stupid? Moving on...
2) What's your problem with "socialized"? That's what it is, when everyone, collectively, pays for and gets the same thing. In Europe, the "Social Democrats" push for the socializing of many services, and call themselves socialist. Anyway, health care is available to any American, the only question is how it's paid.
3) You're forgetting the total cost. That discount is paid by others.
DonTruman 2 years ago
Arguing that the US needs socialized health care because the current system costs more is like arguing that a fish needs a bicycle because it breathes underwater. Not only does it make no sense, it's pointless.
If the goal is to reduce cost, then you have to examine why health care costs are so high in the first place. Heavy government subsidies which encourage greater use, AMA restriction of doctors, and cost of innovation aren't going to be reduced by additional government involvement.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
If you have socialized medicine how do you even know what the real cost of your medications are? There can not be real oversight on government spending? Why do you assume that people on the opposite side of the world from you would have the same answer to health care as your country? In the US every state has the right to develop their own statewide socialized medicine, although none have a successful program.
13R1CK4 2 years ago
@13R1CK4 We already have socialized Medicine. We've had it that way for quite some time.
Betty5150 2 years ago
Betty,
And just look how great Medicare has worked. Even Democrats recognize it as an economic disaster.
Or how about Massachusetts' journey into socialized medicine? How well has that worked out?
And to think that Democrats hold up Medicare as something we want to expand to all Americans: It failed, so let's force everyone into it!
Folks, Democrats who are in-the-know, know that this won't save money or improve care. That's not their goal.
DonTruman 2 years ago
Oh most definetly. We only pay around average 2 dollars I believe on check up, which is less then England and Canada. Plus Health care is the most regulated service out there. What makes us think more bureaucratic control of a good will improve the health of us and others alike?
The Market produces quality and quantity. The Government produces neither.
Betty5150 2 years ago
Most Democrats don't "recognize it as an economic disaster". Most don't even care, they just want govt. to take care of them. And most (elected) Republicans don't have the balls to restore sane economic policy, and end the ripoff.
singlespeak 2 years ago
You guys pay less for drugs than we do because we're the ones spending all the money to create them. Turning our health care system over to the government isn't going to do anything to make it cheaper. In fact, it would just increase cost and decrease innovation, so you guys wouldn't end up being able to get all these great drugs for cheap from us anymore... I can't actually understand why you'd WANT us to go to a socialized system.
Central planning is the reason our economy is falling apart.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 2
"ergo, the state can legislate your behavior as it relates to your health."
That would be true, except the state can just extort more money out of its citizens when it runs out. Or just deny them coverage. Both of which would probably still happen even if they used that logic to ban all of the stuff that is bad for us.
The state is going to pass whatever laws it wants regardless. There are many reasons to oppose socialized health care, but this one is pretty weak when you think about it.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"but not ban it by force of law. "
It already is. Prostitution is illegal, and the only reason for that is, again, legislation of morality. Legalizing prostitution would allow prostitutes to work in a safe environment, eliminate thug pimps, provide better health standards, reduce crime, and also reduce the cost of arresting and jailing people for a victimless crime.
The same can be said of the war on drugs.
AA is often state-mandated, and is nothing but religious nonsense,
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
@787Bisurdaddy
Just out of curiosity are you a fan of Penn and Teller Bullshit?
FatherTime89 2 years ago
Yes, I am.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
@787Bisurdaddy
I knew it! That's the show that got me interested in reason in the first place.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
limiting marriage to 1-man-1-woman is something that most atheists want too? that is news to me. do you have evidence? or are you just making up statistics?
scott01019 2 years ago
Scott,
On second thought, you might be right about that. I don't know the stats on atheist views on marriage, I just know that the nation as a whole is for 1-man-1-woman. But I doubt that only *conservative* Christians can account for all of that (liberal Christians are all in favor of same-sex marriage). Regardless, you don't have to be Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or any other mainstream religion) to have that view. There are good secular arguments.
DonTruman 2 years ago
I don't know any atheists that support denying marriage rights to homosexuals, mostly because they understand that marriage is a state-sanctioned process encouraged by state-sponsored benefits. My personal opinion is that homosexuals SHOULDN'T have legal marriage rights, and neither should heterosexuals. Granting anyone special privileges for getting married is legislation of morality.
The fact is that people want to force their values on us (and already are) from both the left AND the right.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"...maintain balance in society (the wants & needs of individuals vs wants & needs of society) and towards those ends, we identify problems and go after them."
That is complete horseshit. You're outright stating that the religious right is better equipped to identify societal problems and fix them, which is exactly the same excuse the left is giving.
I'll let you in on a little secret: our country was founded upon the rights of the individual, not the wants and needs of society.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Cool story, bro.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IS IT TIME?! Go to USRevolution2 (dot com) and get the flag of the Second American Revolution. They're made in Texas and look exactly like Betsy Ross' flag, but with a Roman numeral "II" in the center of the 13 stars. They make great gifts for family, friends and recovering Liberals.
usrevolution2 2 years ago 2
Good Call by ReasonTV.
New York and Bloomberg are the liberal armpit of the east coast.
averagejoe040 2 years ago 6
0:42
Disgusting
MrPloppy1 2 years ago
NYC has too many rules in general.
tiecuando 2 years ago 2
Could call by Reason.
sniper6081 2 years ago
Oh I get Blumberg, New York economy is number one, there is no crime there. No problems to think of actually well except for this. Yep I get it (sarcasm)
samuils 2 years ago
So one can of soda a day can add on ten pounds a year? There's this amazing thing called exercise which burns calories. Bloomy may want to look into that
RemoSC49 2 years ago
I don't care about NYC. I don't have to live there. I do care about the federal government though, because there is nowhere else to go.
capitalist4life 2 years ago 2
fuck bloomberg...
POLYMORPHLEGION 2 years ago 6
What is up with NYC? I would no more vote for this midget ( no offense midgets) . He reminds me of the Mayor of Munchkin Land in the Wizard of OZ.
irisojects 2 years ago 2
I can think of worse coercive police statists than health nazis like Bloomberg. How about the war on drug warriors who bust into the wrong homes and shoot innocent residents?
ComradeLaissezFaire 2 years ago
@ComradeLaissezFaire
how about the war on drug warriors who bust in and bother people in their own fucking homes doing what they want when they aren't bothering anyone else.
fuck the "war" on drugs. it's just a war on the american people.
legalize
spandy1212 2 years ago 4
"Vices are not crimes." - Lysander Spooner
gritpipe 2 years ago 6
fascism with a smile
arubberball 2 years ago 8
It's just totalitarianism in the guise of do-gooder-ism. Ya know, democrats.
haypenny 2 years ago 6
Wise man once said: The only good politician is a politician with a gun to his head. Put that gun in his hand and you can kiss your liberties goodbye.
lordthawkeye 2 years ago
But what will we do if we don't have someone in a position of authority tell us what to do? I have religious leaders to tell me moral from immoral, why not government officials to tell me what products I am allowed to buy and how to use them :p
benjaminbartholomew 2 years ago
I am certainly hoping this is sarcasm!
mcv47 2 years ago 2
From me, certainly. However, there are people who say such horrid things and mean it. :(
benjaminbartholomew 2 years ago
Whew! Thanks for clearing that up.
mcv47 2 years ago
Bloomberg honestly believes its within his power to police dinner tables. Anyone who thinks government should police dinner tables is a genuine moron and should be ashamed of themselves. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
Infantry9 2 years ago 7
Comment removed
slatur1 2 years ago
If I hadn't read your profile, I'd say you worked for the U.S. government, because that's exactly what they're telling us, too! :-)
gritpipe 2 years ago 3
What the hell do you care if I'm a fat disgusting pig or not?
IVoteNone 2 years ago