Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:23:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1449 times
|
| |
|
|
This is a kind of digression, I think...this thread seems to be going all over
the place. =)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
| |
I’m inclined to say “at least until proper laws are put in place to keep
anyone at all from suing over your injuries” should be replaced with “at
least until proper laws are put in place to appropriately distribute
liability”
|
Which provides support for the idea of socialized medicine, because if the
health services needed to recover from an injury are free they cannot be sued
for, right? Was that your point, Frank?
I don’t actually want socialized medicine, not in an ideal situation. But as I
have noted often of late, if we are going to be taxed like a socialist country,
then I also want the services that would justify the cost of government.
| |
Why? Well, by your logic, I could argue we should have laws requiring
pedestrians to wear helmets also.
|
Exactly. The orgy of government overprotection we are currently engaged in
results in things like this:
A VAT on fat?
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2988314.stm
The British Medical Association (BMA) is discussing a proposal to charge 17.5%
VAT on high-fat foods such as biscuits, cakes and processed meals. A doctors’
conference last week discussed a motion by Dr Martin Breach which said: “Given
the epidemic of obesity related disease in the UK, this conference strongly
supports the concept of a tax on saturated fats, in effect a VAT on fat.” This
is an outrage.
Interestingly, when you have socialized medicine what you are doing with your
body *IS* your neighbor’s business because the cost of health maintenance is
being spread to him and everyone else. Right? I can easily see where behavior
might be regulated, not for moral grounds (but you never know...), but in the
interest of keeping rising health care costs down.
I am not positive of this fact, but I think some of the taxes on tobacco in the
U.S. are predicated on discouraging people from the use the product. Now, I
dont think that there’s a problem in regulating the use of tobacco in public
spaces, but discouraging people from using a product and doing what they should
freely be able to do in their own spaces is outrageous to me. Frankly, it’s no
one else’s business. Fairly warned of the consequences of their actions, people
should smoke until they drop dead for all I care. note: I admit, I am a
non-smoker.
What’s next? A condom tax? You know, even with a condom I might catch some
deadly form of the clap, or something else that doesn’t kill me but is
contagious and raises health care costs -- which might be even worse to the
perceived bottom line.
Is this a private or public matter?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
