11 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackIt is more than a personal choice when the goverment has to pay for the expenses of your dumb decisions. I'd have less problem if we were ok with letting those people die if they cannot pay for medical treatement related to smoking.
This is not about banning or allowing. It is about providing accurate information so citizens can take responsibility by making an informed choice.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by quackquackThat's the problem with the nanny state, it takes away personal freedom and personal responsibility. If you don't subsidize medical care, then people can live and let live.
It is more than a personal choice when the goverment has to pay for the expenses of your dumb decisions. I'd have less problem if we were ok with letting those people die if they cannot pay for medical treatement related to smoking.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by EladarI object far greater to the state taking away my money to pay for one dumb decisions (smoking) than the fact that the state might take away someones freedom to smoke (something that is destructive to themsleves and those around them).
That's the problem with the nanny state, it takes away personal freedom and personal responsibility. If you don't subsidize medical care, then people can live and let live.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by EladarMore likely, people can just die if medical care isn't subsidized for those who can't afford it. That seems to be A-OK with the right wing nuts here.
That's the problem with the nanny state, it takes away personal freedom and personal responsibility. If you don't subsidize medical care, then people can live and let live.
11 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEveryone does not get to live in a manson, eat in a four star restaurant, get the best tickets for the entertainment of their choice. Healthcare should be no different.
More likely, people can just die if medical care isn't subsidized for those who can't afford it. That seems to be A-OK with the right wing nuts here.
But if we decide it is different, then at the very least the government should stop people from destructive expensive habits like cigarettes.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by quackquackHealth care is a necessity not a luxury like the other items you disingenuously mention. You often die if you don't get health care when you need it. And even the most primitive societies take care of their sick; the idea that the richest one on Earth would refuse to is outrageous.
Everyone does not get to live in a manson, eat in a four star restaurant, get the best tickets for the entertainment of their choice. Healthcare should be no different.
But if we decide it is different, then at the very least the government should stop people from destructive expensive habits like cigarettes.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by quackquackLetting people die of causes that are treatable is not in our nature.
It is more than a personal choice when the goverment has to pay for the expenses of your dumb decisions. I'd have less problem if we were ok with letting those people die if they cannot pay for medical treatement related to smoking.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by EladarAre you really so ignorant as to believe that simply "getting a job" enables you to pay the cost of catastrophic illness? And are you really simple minded enough to think that anyone can just get a job when presently 30 million people in the US are un- and under-employed?
People can get a job.
The stupidity level of right wingers here is appalling.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76Like Pal, I don't see where the policy has anything to do with "personal responsibility". I do think the policy is a bit silly and unnecessary, however.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022390-10391704.html?
[quote]Can the federal government scare cigarette smokers into stopping with a new campaign of horrific images to be placed on cigarette packages?
They're certainly going to try.
Images of corpses, cancer patients, and diseased lungs are just some of whats in store in graphic new warning la ...[text shortened]... oy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
Sad.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by PalynkaForcing private companies to use scare tactics on consumers regarding their own products (and putting a picture of a corpse on the box is a scare tactic... smoking is dangerous and, IMO, stupid, but it is not a guaranteed death sentence) is essentially the same as saying that people cannot be trusted to make decisions based on rational bases by themselves.
I don't understand how putting images that show the consequences of smoking "not trusting the personal responsibility of the people".
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackPutting a picture of a corpse on a box of cigarettes is not "accurate information." It is a Pavlovian scare tactic.
This is not about banning or allowing. It is about providing accurate information so citizens can take responsibility by making an informed choice.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76That's quite a stretch; you must be taking Chicken Little lessons from whodey.
Forcing private companies to use scare tactics on consumers regarding their own products (and putting a picture of a corpse on the box is a scare tactic... smoking is dangerous and, IMO, stupid, but it is not a guaranteed death sentence) is essentially the same as saying that people cannot be trusted to make decisions based on rational bases by themselves.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, let's make this simple.
That's quite a stretch; you must be taking Chicken Little lessons from whodey.
Is or is not putting a picture of a corpse on a box of a product something other than rationally informing consumers of the potential danger involved?
Is there a less draconian way of informing consumers of the dangers that would be equally effective... assuming your goal is to disseminate information and not to scare?