Okay... but most if not all of the insurance companies are based in the US... those insurance companies then give it to their executives are employees and to the hospitals and whatever the companies happen to invest in... this money will most likely stay in the system... what the employees do with it is outside of the scope of healthcare reform anyways
No... I am not saying you eat lead paint... I am making the comparison because both lead paint and junk food harm society.
Perhaps not outright banned but at least regulated.
The laws have very good use because it deters people... sure there aren't cops on every corner yet it still stops a lot of underaged drinking...
Well... when people use the ER because they have severe health problems --and ER rooms can't deny service to anybody...because everybody has the right to life.
Drug use leads to increased crime --such as robbery and murder along with gang violence... plus a lot of the drugs lead to severe health problems.
I think you're making a lot of your arguments on the presumption that everybody lives in a isolated bubble but, you've got to realize that are choices that an individual can make that can cause severe harm to others thus allowing that individual to infringe on the rights of others
Well... fat people have a choice to be fat... they just know that it will cost more. The choice is still there.
Skiing and football only harm those who decide to ski or play football while obesity provides a threat to general society.
Without governmental protection of the working class they would be walked on by big corporations because big corporations will do anything for cash. Corporations are powerful enough to get all their wealth without government support. In a completely free market competition will eventually die down as one large company rises to the top --which can't be taken down by standard competition because it can undercut any price. The late 1800s was pretty damn close to a completely free market so it can appropriately show what would happen under a free system.
Keep in mind in the 1800s hardly any corporations were supported by the government yet companies like Standard Oil and United Steel rose as huge monopolies.... a completely free market will inherently be abusive to the working class.
What the drunk driver who crashes into the school bus killing several completely innocent children.
Or the fact that drug addicts are more likely to turn to crime in order to pay for their habit because nobody wants to hire them because they are drug addicts.
Hard drugs and alcohol are harmful to society and we'd be better off without them.
Every action an individual makes will ultimately affect other people which may infringe on the rights to live of others.
No... they're aren't benefits to being a fat slob because you're unhealthy and to buy the food that makes you unhealthy you have to pay more. That's the idea behind it... if you're healthy you probably buy less junk food and thus aren't subjected to the tax.
well if junk food is banned... people have to eat something so opens the market to healthier options.
Well in the late 1800s in the US an almost completely free market was around and the very few rich completely abused the working class and essentially controlled the government. There is no example of a pure free market society because they ultimately get taken down because they ,in the long run, go against the common good.
Both lead paint and junk food are an inherent harm to society. That is how the two can be compared.
How is underaged drinking forced by the government? The government doesn't make teens drink... and even if alcohol was legal for teenagers it would still have the same negative affects.
Yes the government does the obligation to prevent individuals from screwing over society.. why should one person be able to ruin the lives of a dozen people... sure they have the choice to ruin there own lives but they shouldn't have the choice to ruin the lives of others.
The problem is that widespread drug use degrades and harms society as a whole. No individual should have that power. This is the reason why governments are created; to makes sure each gets their own dues. Being harmed by the choices of others goes against that tenet and the government should be obliged to stop that from happening.
Both made leaps and bounds, but the internet takes the take because it is open to pretty much everyone... everyone can post to the internet and have their voice heard it's the epitome of free speech and will help spread democratic ideals throughout the world.
Okay... lets put it this way...
sin taxes make me pay back into society what they take out of it... the government makes more money to put into healthcare which ultimately goes back into paying for the healthcare of those who are obese.
Control over what is sold has been done for centuries in this nation and it is ultimately beneficial to the economy. Sure... less things can be sold but by banning or regulating these products you open up a market for other things as well.
A completely Free-market society can only lead to an oligarchy of sorts which should be prevented.
Well... you've really stated how it is bad thing but, socialism is good because it increases the general welfare which is the primary duty of a government. Free market capitalism is nice and dandy but it does open the opportunity for the rich to abuse the working class... socialism works to prevent this
Well... there isn't a reason why the government can't ban certain types of food... the precedent is already there since the government can limit alcohol consumption... if the government can ban things such as lead paint for reasons why can't they ban foods that are unhealthy. I'm not got governments taking over individual choice but, honestly, people shouldn't be allowed to choose things that can harm all of society like what happens when obesity rates go up.
You never say that underaged drinking isn't a personal choice but argue that obesity is worse because it is a personal choice. By stating that argument you are implying that underaged drinking is not a personal choice. It makes no sense to use the personal choice argument for either side of this debate
... I'm pretty sure that nothing harmful is going to happen because of the Hadron Collider... no black holes are going to erupt... the earth is not going to implode on itself. The hype about all of this just that-- a hype. Yet the knowledge we can gain from this Collider can move us leaps and bounds in what we know about physics.
There are times when certain religious practices are detrimental to society and, thus these practices should be stopped. There are many cases where this has happened. Take inter-racial marriages for example. Churches would not perform these marriages because of a religious belief yet it was fully in the governments power (under the 14th amendment) to bar this practice. The same goes for healthcare. The practice of a church discouraging the purchase of healthcare harms society and thus it is the job of the government to undo these harms.
The first amendment was created to prevent the government from make explicit laws against a particular faith... that is that the intent of the law had to be the quelling of a particular religion. This is not the case for healthcare
There is also the necessary and proper clause which states that congress has the power to do whatever is needed to in order to ensure that it can perform the other powers given to it in the congress... which includes increasing the general welfare of the populace.
Also the government makes industries buy stuff all of the time under the powers of the EPA and the FDA... so they do have the power to mandate the purchase of something.
Guns are something that modern society should have no need for. They represent violence and war; both of which have ravaged humanity.Arguing over which gun is the best is like arguing what kind of narcotic is the best. It doesn't matter which one is the best because society would be better without both of them.
Obama is taking this country from a corporate dominated one and giving some of that power to common-man; which is what this country should have stood for in the first place. Sure his policies have not been perfect but, hardly any politician is perfect. He's revamped student loans, healthcare, both wars, the economy and, has added several consumer protection laws.
Well thats too bad because it's very unlikely that it's going to happen this November.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/
With a worst case scenario the democrats would still have 53 seats in the senate and about 238 in the house which still both constitute a majority
sorry to kind of burst your bubble there...
Obesity is still a societal problem even if it derives from personal choice. Why can't the government intervene in diet? Recently in New York City all trans fats were banned. Clinton set up the federal ban of selling sugary sodas in school vending machines. The government can stop their mass subsidizing of corn products which should cut back on the use of corn syrup. There is also the concept of the sin tax. Why doesn't poor diet choice call for government intervention when the poor individual choice is causing a societal harm?
Underaged drinking is also a problem of personal choice. Why does the government have the right to intervene in alcohol use yet, it can't intervene when it comes to other components of the individuals diet?
And to top it all off. You're off topic at this point. The topic didn't ask which was a bigger problem that can be solved through government intervention; it just asked what which was the bigger problem.
Well, guess what...
when the banks collapse the economy gets screwed over big time... the banks are the institutions in which credit is dispersed throughout out economy... our current economy cannot exist without banks. Banks are vital. There is no foundation to argue that if the banks collapsed then the economy would do better.
The U.S. Economy is based off the foundation of consumer faith in the value of the dollar... this may link to the debt in some instances but there are other factors involved-- such as inflation and the liquidity of credit in the system
Being able to control inflation of the value of the dollar and basic lending interest rates to banking institutions both work to create a central policy for banking which creates a safety net for banks in case of bank runs. Okay, when banks run out of cash they can't lend any to anybody so creating this safety net will --in most cases-- prevent this from happening. Banks are crucial to the economy and the Federal Reserve creates a central bank which helps out the banks.
You state that the Panic of '08 is a result of the policies of the Fed, yet you offer no warrant for that. Central banking is crucial for the economy because it is meant to prevent bank runs. The reason it didn't work in 2008 was because when all banks fun out of cash there is no initial lender to give out the cash and, the TARP loans (which were used to save the banks) can be seen as an extension of central banking.
I guess I need to elaborate on the interest rates. These interest rates are the rates in which the Reserve will lend out its cash to the banks. These rates directly influence at what rates these banks can lend out to consumers.
I think we can all agree that when banks collapse the economy hurts.
I assume the topic here is based solely on children. Children don't have the mental level that adults do; they are in a sense incapable of making good decisions and, thus should not be allowed to be autonomous. Parents --or at least the great majority of them-- want what is best for their child and, will use their mature judgement to determine how to achieve that objective. This why children should have to listen to their parents; it's for their own sake. Children are not able to handle free choice and shouldn't be exposed a high level of substantial choice. Adolescents on the other hand should start being exposed to such choices but, that is out of the scope of the topic.
Yet, those who are obese can hurt others as well... not directly, but by increasing the cost of healthcare for others driving people into a condition where they cannot afford healthcare, which is not good for society as a whole. Obesity has a lot more health problems than underage drinking, and it affects a larger portion of the population.
And when it comes to a dispute on an issue that is where voting comes into play... whatever the majority sees as the standard can be used as the community standard.
Plus I don't see how that example of a person dying in a hospital bed works because it fails to meet the first 2 conditions which means whether or not it meets the 3rd condition a moot point.
Obesity is harming a very large percentage of our population and, it's symptoms are very drastic: diabetes, cancer, heart disease, liver disease and, etc. Underaged drinking sucks... but it's nearly on the scale that obesity is.
In fact obesity is a worse problem for us than starvation is for a lot of African nations.... and that's pretty bad
It looks like with our limited scope of technology it's going to be a long time before we find alien life which leads me to believe that somewhere out there in space there is a super-intelligent Alien race which use some sort of warp-gravitation device to find us... they'll probably come to earth and steal all of our gold and women so hopefully this will happen a long time fro, now.
Well... it depends on how you look at it...
When it comes to culture and history France definitely takes the cake. France has an amazingly colorful history that anyone can get lost in. From all their wars to their revolutions France certainly stands in the forefront of a lot of European history. When it comes to cuisine and art the French can't be beat. The only nation that even comes close is Italy.
Of course when it comes to politics Canada has the edge. Canada mirrors are system yet has a more liberal tendency to it so it is helpful in showing what could work in the USA.... plus they are economically intertwined with us which in an almost symbiotic relationship...
I guess I can where you getting from this but, all I feel you are doing is arguing from a pedantic point of view rather than looking at the core of the topic.
Though I like your manner of distinguishing hate from dislike because I do feel that people use language that is too strong at times.
Yes, because it is all you get... this is your chance to do what you want to be the influence you want to be. Seek adventure, read a book, learn a skill, save a life, or do anything to increase your quality of life in both intellectual and physical ways.
Of course life is worth living... what else are you doing to do with it?
