Health care policy discussion thread!

[Wolvenstar]

The biggest problem I have with the tax on junkfood, is that while this may contribute to childhood obesity/over-weightness, it is not the major component of obesity in children or adults.

 

I must again emphasize that while it is cheaper to go out and buy candybars and pop and chips, this is not the staple diet of people who are overweight. You do not have obese adults who fry up some macroni and chocolate bars for supper. They eat the same regular foods we do, only they consume a vastly larger amount of carbohydrates and fats through larger portions and increased meals.

 

Kimmiegibbler though does have a point, pop and chocolate bars/chips should be restricted to rare or special occasions. Just like when we were children. Even as an adult living on my own I have never had an urge to eat alot of junkfood, personally I do not enjoy potatochips or the way I feel when I eat them. However I will on occasion have a small chocolate bar, and I do drink pop (but not regularily).

 

 

I am against raising the tax on junkfood specifically because I do not believe it will have much of an effect on the percentages of obese/overweight Canadians. It's like trying to kill an elephant with a BB gun.

 

I have already discussed the addictive/compulsive properties of smoking/obesity. It a matter of willpower and there are many people who are too weak to change. That is why a strong handed method needs to be adopted, because many of these people are not strong enough to make the change for themselves.

 

 

As for the legality of cigarrettes. I do agree that they should be illegal, they are bad for you, worse than marijuana (unless you believe certain reports and not others, the states tends to try to make marijuana sound as bad as cocaine). The reason why they are not made illegal is because politicians get monetary backing from these companies.

 

We may be a more liberal country than the states, but this is still a capitalist nation, which means that those with money have power. The tobacco companies swim in money, and thus they have power, therefore we will not be able to illegalize tobacco products.

 

 

as for your comment on how charging smokers screams hypocrisy. Money (not all obviously) that comes from the taxes on tobacco products does fund public smoking-cessation groups. Also the raising of tobbaco taxes was a method of decreasing the smoking rate in Canada as well. It was thought that is cigarrettes cost more it would persuade some people to quit smoking because it is too damn expensive.

 

The reason why it is not hypocritical to charge smokers when it makes them sick: they put a strain on the healthcare because of their smoking, and this strain effects every non-smoker as well. Therefore to counter-balance the UNFAIR strain smokers put on non-smokers they have to pay when they get sick and need to go to the hospital.

 

Frankly I personally wish smoking was illegal, all forms. But since this is not possible for the reasons I have explained, I believe the next best thing is too make it so ridiculously expensive to be a smoker than unless you are in the highest portion of the upperclass that you can not afford it. Frankly instead of $10 a pack, I think cigarettes should be $100.

 

Not only that but increased taxation of tobacco products could mean more money being placed in smoking-cessation programs and public health awareness campaigns.

[Guest begaster]

Everyone's healthy and nobody's the least bit free. I will never understand people who are willing to give the government limitless power on deciding what we should be allowed to do, when they refer to actions that do not harm society in any appreciable fashion.

 

This isn't a question of health, it's a question of liberty. I don't want to live in a quasi-fascist state that tells people which vices they can and cannot have. Junk-food and cigarettes, then what? Alcohol to reduce MVA and addiction? Videogames and TV because kids spend too much time on their couches instead of running around outdoors? Credit cards because a lot of people spend compulsively with them and go into debt, causing serious emotional stress? I could go on.

 

I have my vices and you have yours. At a certain point, we all have to accept personal responsibility for what we choose to do. The government is not your mother. It has no right to remove the freedoms of its citizens for some ridiculous concept of greater good. It is here to make sure that I do not harm you, nor you me. It is not here to hold my hand and tell me what I can and cannot do, when my actions do not harm anyone but myself.

 

If you want to produce positive effects in fighting obesity, offer incentives for buying healthy foods. Help subsidize them to reduce their prices. Spend more for education on how to eat healthy. Teach, do not tell. It wasn't taxation that made cigarettes less popular - it was an information campaign on TV, in the schools, and from the parents that taught our generation that smoking really wasn't what it had been made out to be in the past.

[DalNeuron]

Heh... Check out this story.

Smoking 101: Getting paid to not light up

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/01/17/smoking-school.html

This is what I'm talking about. Use the carrot, not the stick. ALthough truthfully, I find it a little ridiculous. The idea is interesting though.

[Vallinar]

Everyone's healthy and nobody's the least bit free. I will never understand people who are willing to give the government limitless power on deciding what we should be allowed to do, when they refer to actions that do not harm society in any appreciable fashion.

 

This isn't a question of health, it's a question of liberty. I don't want to live in a quasi-fascist state that tells people which vices they can and cannot have. Junk-food and cigarettes, then what? Alcohol to reduce MVA and addiction? Videogames and TV because kids spend too much time on their couches instead of running around outdoors? Credit cards because a lot of people spend compulsively with them and go into debt, causing serious emotional stress? I could go on.

 

I have my vices and you have yours. At a certain point, we all have to accept personal responsibility for what we choose to do. The government is not your mother. It has no right to remove the freedoms of its citizens for some ridiculous concept of greater good. It is here to make sure that I do not harm you, nor you me. It is not here to hold my hand and tell me what I can and cannot do, when my actions do not harm anyone but myself.

 

If you want to produce positive effects in fighting obesity, offer incentives for buying healthy foods. Help subsidize them to reduce their prices. Spend more for education on how to eat healthy. Teach, do not tell. It wasn't taxation that made cigarettes less popular - it was an information campaign on TV, in the schools, and from the parents that taught our generation that smoking really wasn't what it had been made out to be in the past.

 

 

When a freedom intereferes with the freedom of others then the government SHOULD intervene. Why not promote anarchy and let everyone be "free" to do what they want?

[Guest begaster]

Ergo: It is not here to hold my hand and tell me what I can and cannot do, when my actions do not harm anyone but myself.

[Vallinar]

Ergo: It is not here to hold my hand and tell me what I can and cannot do, when my actions do not harm anyone but myself.

 

The drain imposed on the ehalthcare system DOES harm others.

[Wolvenstar]

Ergo: It is not here to hold my hand and tell me what I can and cannot do, when my actions do not harm anyone but myself.

 

1. Vallinar is right about the drain on healthcare.

 

2. So then we all should just turn a blind eye to suicides then, because those people are hurting (physically) no one else besides themselves? Is that it?

 

 

 

Lady above, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, we might as well just take our gene pool and swirl some feces around in it, just to see what happens.

 

Let people have their vices. People can have their vices, but just like anything that is meant to be enjoyed them must be earned! And being ability to breath is not a big enough acheivement to be allowed to destroy your body with the pollutants of tobacco, or the damaging effects of obesity. Sure if you maintain your health and keep to a decent level of fitness you are entitled to splurging a little every now and then, maybe have a night where you drink alot, or have a single cigar, or eat a choclate bar or two. These are rewards in life for achieving something. The problem is that people either don't care enough about their bodies, or aren't willing to put in the effort to make themselves better/healthier.

(for those who do put in the effort to change, I am not condemning them, if one is willing to put for the effort and willpower needed to change good for them, we should continue to encourage and support THESE people)

 

 

If it wasn't for the fact that people have taken unhealthy eating (including overeating), and "personal vices" to a gluttonous level, I wouldn't need to be here speaking about how the world would be a better place if smoking was illegal. The government is not our "mother" begaster but considering that the government is the only thing that has the power to change people's lifestyle's I say it should. Trust me IF I had the power to keep people from smoking or taking their "vices" to the excess, I would. Unfortunately the only things I will most likely be able to do in life is promote healthy choices, and keep my children from limiting their potential.

 

Being smart is not the only thing people need to strive for in the world. (and if anyone believes there is nothing wrong with staying stupid and not striving to learn there is something very very wrong with that person) People need to maintain balance in their lives. A strong mind must be balanced by a strong body, so few people in this age strive to realize their true potential.

 

 

Those out there who actually want to become healthier, and make a change in their lives do indeed deserve encouragement. There is nothing wrong with an obese person, as long as he/she is making the effort to get better. Same with smoking, if someone is trying to quit and needs help, then help and encouragement should be given.

 

Those are not the people who need to be dealt with by the strong handed methods I have spoked of earlier. While I wish every smoker/obose person/alcoholic wants to become better, I know this not to be true. There are people who love smoking and don't want to quit. Obese people who think that being fat is something to be proud of. People who love to go out every weekend and get so totally wasted that the damage their bodies. I don't want the government to "hold their hand" I want the government to give these people a wake-up call by giving them a backhand across the face, saying "what is wrong with you? You think smoking a pack a day/being 200 pounds overweight/drinking yourself to oblivion is a good thing!?"

 

 

Vices are not good things when in excesss, just like determination in excess is obsession, and desire in excess is gluttony. People need to maintain healthy minds and healthy bodies, or else we must as well forgo all the evolutionary advances we have taken and have yet to take, and climb back into a tree. Unhealthy lifestyles is not the path of evolution.

[Guest begaster]

No, the drain imposed on health care costs others. Now, from there, you can extrapolate that if they weren't taking up space, other people with serious problems of which they have no control could be, and that may be the case. In fact, I would say this is the absolute strongest argument presented. That being said, the answer is not to give away our freedoms. You create a very dangerous precedent by saying that anything that costs the health-care system money should be taxed, criminalized, etc. When is enough going to be enough? You can always be healthier which means you can always impose stricter guidelines. I exercise four-to-five times a week, should the government mandate that everyone else do the same? But then, if I exercised six times a week, wouldn't that be better for me? How about TV and videogames? If kids got out more, they'd lose weight. Should we tax/illegalize those in the pursuit of a healthier society?

 

Healthiness is a worthy goal, but it should not be arrived at by empowering the government at the expense of the citizenry. It creates an ugly, ugly precedent that can be used to take away the power the people need to hold on to. All for the "greater good". Incentives and education are the correct alternatives. Heavy taxation is not why people have stopped smoking, it's the public education that has ended the glamorization of tobacco that existed in earlier generations. The government can influence social policies without the stick. This, of course, doesn't even mention the simple fact that taxing fast food would hurt the poor far worse than the middle-to-upper classes.

 

Wolvenstar:

 

Suicide is precipitated by an emotional disturbance which leaves the person unable to rationally make these sorts of decisions. In such a case, you can protect them from themselves. The same cannot be said for eating fast food, drinking, or smoking. This is quite the terrible red herring, though.

 

Let me quickly go through the rest of your post and break down the biggest problems with it:

 

1. Your discussion of the gene pool, as if it is in any way relevant to the issue at hand. It is not. I'm not sure why you believe that lowering people's weights by reducing their bad food will somehow alter their genetics, but it won't. Your discussion of evolution is pointless as well, as if humanity is still evolving (which, since the advent of modern medicine and plentiful food is unlikely anyway), it surely isn't evolving in the way you'd like it to (the more educated you are, the less children you'll have on average). Regardless, what you're talking about is social engineering, not evolution.

 

2. Who are you to say what people should do with their bodies. You have some sort of belief that people should have to live their lives by your standards. This is simply not the case. You do not get to tell people what they can and cannot do based on your own beliefs. If someone wishes to live an unhealthy lifestyle, that is their prerogative, not yours. If I work hard all day in an office and need a few cigarettes to keep from going insane, who are you to say that I haven't EARNED it. And yes, I'm aware that if YOU had the power to keep people from enjoying their vices, you would. You believe yourself more correct than everyone else, as if you've discovered some sort of secret to having a high quality of life that the rest of us have missed. And, ultimately, herein lies the danger. People who believe they know what's best for everyone else. And once you start giving these people the sort of power to get it done, you set a dangerous precedent, and it becomes just a matter of time before they come after something you love in the pursuit of healthiness. So really, telling me that if it was up to you, why, no one would be allowed to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods, watch TV, or go a day without jogging, does not help your point. All it shows is the true danger to our freedoms should people like you begin to make the policies, while everyone else relinquished their freedoms under the mantra of "for the greater good!"

 

3. On that point, let's talk about your absolute intolerance towards anyone who subscribes to a different philosophy of life than you. In your post, you stated that there is "something very wrong" with anyone who is not trying to better themselves constantly. Yet, many people do not constantly try to learn more. Lots of people lack the desire to continue doing so, yet they are happy. The high-school dropout who works a stable job, comes home, pops open a beer, and watches six hours of TV before going to bed may not have your idea of a good lifestyle (nor mine), but if he is happy, there is nothing wrong with him. The simple fact that he is not living like you wish to does not mean that his form of living is wrong. It merely means that you possess a different viewpoint on what a meaningful, enjoyable life should entail.

You also state that "There is nothing wrong with an obese person, as long as he/she is making the effort to get better," and then extrapolate that to include smokers who want to quit. So then, I suppose that means there is something wrong with fat people and smokers? Only people who fit into your narrow opinion of what's okay are good people, then? And the rest need to be forced through strong-handed measures into line with your definition of who and what they have to be? That, my friend, is the opposite of freedom. It is despotism in its truest form.

[Vallinar]

No, the drain imposed on health care costs others. Now, from there, you can extrapolate that if they weren't taking up space, other people with serious problems of which they have no control could be, and that may be the case. In fact, I would say this is the absolute strongest argument presented. That being said, the answer is not to give away our freedoms. You create a very dangerous precedent by saying that anything that costs the health-care system money should be taxed, criminalized, etc. When is enough going to be enough? You can always be healthier which means you can always impose stricter guidelines. I exercise four-to-five times a week, should the government mandate that everyone else do the same? But then, if I exercised six times a week, wouldn't that be better for me? How about TV and videogames? If kids got out more, they'd lose weight. Should we tax/illegalize those in the pursuit of a healthier society?

 

Healthiness is a worthy goal, but it should not be arrived at by empowering the government at the expense of the citizenry. It creates an ugly, ugly precedent that can be used to take away the power the people need to hold on to. All for the "greater good". Incentives and education are the correct alternatives. Heavy taxation is not why people have stopped smoking, it's the public education that has ended the glamorization of tobacco that existed in earlier generations. The government can influence social policies without the stick. This, of course, doesn't even mention the simple fact that taxing fast food would hurt the poor far worse than the middle-to-upper classes.

 

Wolvenstar:

 

Suicide is precipitated by an emotional disturbance which leaves the person unable to rationally make these sorts of decisions. In such a case, you can protect them from themselves. The same cannot be said for eating fast food, drinking, or smoking. This is quite the terrible red herring, though.

 

Let me quickly go through the rest of your post and break down the biggest problems with it:

 

1. Your discussion of the gene pool, as if it is in any way relevant to the issue at hand. It is not. I'm not sure why you believe that lowering people's weights by reducing their bad food will somehow alter their genetics, but it won't. Your discussion of evolution is pointless as well, as if humanity is still evolving (which, since the advent of modern medicine and plentiful food is unlikely anyway), it surely isn't evolving in the way you'd like it to (the more educated you are, the less children you'll have on average). Regardless, what you're talking about is social engineering, not evolution.

 

2. Who are you to say what people should do with their bodies. You have some sort of belief that people should have to live their lives by your standards. This is simply not the case. You do not get to tell people what they can and cannot do based on your own beliefs. If someone wishes to live an unhealthy lifestyle, that is their prerogative, not yours. If I work hard all day in an office and need a few cigarettes to keep from going insane, who are you to say that I haven't EARNED it. And yes, I'm aware that if YOU had the power to keep people from enjoying their vices, you would. You believe yourself more correct than everyone else, as if you've discovered some sort of secret to having a high quality of life that the rest of us have missed. And, ultimately, herein lies the danger. People who believe they know what's best for everyone else. And once you start giving these people the sort of power to get it done, you set a dangerous precedent, and it becomes just a matter of time before they come after something you love in the pursuit of healthiness. So really, telling me that if it was up to you, why, no one would be allowed to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods, watch TV, or go a day without jogging, does not help your point. All it shows is the true danger to our freedoms should people like you begin to make the policies, while everyone else relinquished their freedoms under the mantra of "for the greater good!"

 

3. On that point, let's talk about your absolute intolerance towards anyone who subscribes to a different philosophy of life than you. In your post, you stated that there is "something very wrong" with anyone who is not trying to better themselves constantly. Yet, many people do not constantly try to learn more. Lots of people lack the desire to continue doing so, yet they are happy. The high-school dropout who works a stable job, comes home, pops open a beer, and watches six hours of TV before going to bed may not have your idea of a good lifestyle (nor mine), but if he is happy, there is nothing wrong with him. The simple fact that he is not living like you wish to does not mean that his form of living is wrong. It merely means that you possess a different viewpoint on what a meaningful, enjoyable life should entail.

You also state that "There is nothing wrong with an obese person, as long as he/she is making the effort to get better," and then extrapolate that to include smokers who want to quit. So then, I suppose that means there is something wrong with fat people and smokers? Only people who fit into your narrow opinion of what's okay are good people, then? And the rest need to be forced through strong-handed measures into line with your definition of who and what they have to be? That, my friend, is the opposite of freedom. It is despotism in its truest form.

 

But how do you define when freedom is to be upheld? People aren't free to do what ever they want in todays society; you can't steal, do certain drugs etc. Mostly these "freedoms" are stripped because they undermine the freedom of others. And this is the case with people who CHOOSE to adopt a ****ty lifestyle and then take up services in the healthcare system.

The gov'nt could easily ban cigs (just like they ban weed cocain act) but ofcourrse that would never happen because of how important cigs are for the economy (and how much power cig companies have). So why not "tax" or force people to pay extra for their self-destructive habits which take a tol on teh healthcare system? your not stripping away any freedoms; they can still screw themselves up, but they have to compensate for it by paying a little extra. Similar situation with obesity; if you want to eat crap and live a sedentary lifesyle and then expect to leach off of a free healthcare system you need to pay for your choices (which negatively affect others).

 

I think you'd draw the line there. You don't need to go ape**** and ban/tax all sorts of little things like video games.

[jmlconkl]

But how do you define when freedom is to be upheld? People aren't free to do what ever they want in todays society; you can't steal, do certain drugs etc. Mostly these "freedoms" are stripped because they undermine the freedom of others. And this is the case with people who CHOOSE to adopt a ****ty lifestyle and then take up services in the healthcare system.

The gov'nt could easily ban cigs (just like they ban weed cocain act) but ofcourrse that would never happen because of how important cigs are for the economy (and how much power cig companies have). So why not "tax" or force people to pay extra for their self-destructive habits which take a tol on teh healthcare system? your not stripping away any freedoms; they can still screw themselves up, but they have to compensate for it by paying a little extra. Similar situation with obesity; if you want to eat crap and live a sedentary lifesyle and then expect to leach off of a free healthcare system you need to pay for your choices (which negatively affect others).

 

I think you'd draw the line there. You don't need to go ape**** and ban/tax all sorts of little things like video games.

 

Exactly! Taxes on these sorts of "vices" are the only solution that both makes sense and is also ethically and economically justified.

 

1) You are not restricting anyones freedom to either indulge or set their own priorities in terms what they enjoy/how they spend their money. You aren't even saying they are wrong to smoke or eat fast food... it is a simple fact that someone who eats at mcdonalds for lunch everyday is more likely to to require certain health services, thus a tax to help ease this burden on the PUBLIC system makes complete sense, and helps to insure that the necessary healthcare services will actually be there when this person requires them. This is not even a moral judgement of whether smoking/binge eating are "wrong", just practicality!

 

2) You have the added bonus that this may discourage unhealthy practices that are both bad for the individual and costly to the country/public health system. Even if it doesn't discourage them, who cares, you know are at least generating the required funds to support the costs that these individuals willingly impose on the healthcare system by pursueing their respective vices.

 

3) Whether this is done in practice or not aside, the money generated from this taxes can and should go towards services that help these people directly, e.g., information campaigns on the health consequences of smoking/obesity, or health services/clinics for directly treating related conditions. How can you possibly argue that this isn't fair?

 

4) Someone posted that taxing fast food will just hurt poorer people more... this is NOT the case if the some of the taxes go towards subsidies for healthier food alternatives and education for poorer people about healthier food (which fits into the point above about using these taxes directly to benefit those who need it).

 

At the same time, it is unreasonable to say that these taxes are "unfair" to those who are not abusing to excess... if you only eat fast food once in a while or only drink/smoke within reason, good for you, you won't have to pay very much taxes (as the tax is proportional to your consumption). At the same time you could still benefit directly from things like healthy food subisidies provided by these taxes.

 

Further, people are still "free" to do whatever they want, and can still drink themselves to death if they see fit, they'll just have to contribute a littlemore towards the health services they will inevitably need.

 

How about some of the other major health policy issues in canada right now? Impact of private clinics and their role in the future of the public system? Others?

[Wolvenstar]

 

Suicide is precipitated by an emotional disturbance which leaves the person unable to rationally make these sorts of decisions. In such a case, you can protect them from themselves. The same cannot be said for eating fast food, drinking, or smoking. This is quite the terrible red herring, though.

 

 

2. People who believe they know what's best for everyone else. And once you start giving these people the sort of power to get it done, you set a dangerous precedent, and it becomes just a matter of time before they come after something you love in the pursuit of healthiness. So really, telling me that if it was up to you, why, no one would be allowed to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods, watch TV, or go a day without jogging, does not help your point. All it shows is the true danger to our freedoms should people like you begin to make the policies, while everyone else relinquished their freedoms under the mantra of "for the greater good!"

 

3. On that point, let's talk about your absolute intolerance towards anyone who subscribes to a different philosophy of life than you. In your post, you stated that there is "something very wrong" with anyone who is not trying to better themselves constantly. Yet, many people do not constantly try to learn more. Lots of people lack the desire to continue doing so, yet they are happy. The high-school dropout who works a stable job, comes home, pops open a beer, and watches six hours of TV before going to bed may not have your idea of a good lifestyle (nor mine), but if he is happy, there is nothing wrong with him. The simple fact that he is not living like you wish to does not mean that his form of living is wrong. It merely means that you possess a different viewpoint on what a meaningful, enjoyable life should entail.

You also state that "There is nothing wrong with an obese person, as long as he/she is making the effort to get better," and then extrapolate that to include smokers who want to quit. So then, I suppose that means there is something wrong with fat people and smokers? Only people who fit into your narrow opinion of what's okay are good people, then? And the rest need to be forced through strong-handed measures into line with your definition of who and what they have to be? That, my friend, is the opposite of freedom. It is despotism in its truest form.

 

 

 

 

First off, as for my talk about genetics and striving to reach one's true potential, I put that in because that is my personal beliefs....just like your earlier comments about everyone being healthy and no one being the least bit free.

 

Secondly since when did smoking/being obese/alcoholism become something people love? As far as I know most obese people don't love being the size they are, and most people with an alcohol problem aren't happy. Now I never said anything about banning alcohol, but I have talked about how binge drinking and alcolholism is wrong... But if you believe their is a benefit to binge drinking and/or alcoholism please feel free to point these out.

 

As for fatty foods, I don't believe you noticed that I was actually against raising taxes on "junk" foods, and said that there should be a move to lower the cost of healthier foods.

 

Now as to someone who subscribes to a different philosophy than me, I am not sure when smoking or being overweight became a philosphy, so I will just leave that part alone.

 

But as to what I said about people who are trying to change. I stick by that. There is NOTHING wrong with someone who wants to improve themselves and make their bodies healthier either by losing weight or stopping smoking. These people are trying to change themselves for the better and should be encouraged. Please tell me why we shouldn't encourage those who want to make themselves healtheir???

 

As for your supposing their is something wrong with overweight/obese people and smokers. Well yes there is, not something emotional, but physical. I am not trying to put those people down, I am saying that there is something wrong, and I say this because they are harming their bodies. Obesity does not benefit one's health, neither does smoking. I am not saying they are not "good people" I am saying that they are not healthy, and that not healthy is not good. Just the same as a broken leg is not good. Unless you wish to tell me that I am calling people with broken legs down because I just said that having a broken leg is not good. It's the same as me saying there is something wrong with homeless people. I am not saying they bad people, I am jsut saying that there is something wrong...and there is! They need a home, a job, and these people should be encouraged/helped into getting a home and a job. Is there something morally wrong with me saying homeless people should not be homeless???

 

I don't buy into this idea of "good" and/or "bad" people, the world isnt that black and white. Thus when I say that there is something wrong, I mean that there is something that needs to be fixed.

 

Now not only did I not say that anything other than tobacco products should be banned, I also said that alcohol, junk foods, and such things are only bad when taken in EXCESS. This is a far cry from banning these things.

 

As for these laws on exercising, you are now just going completely beyond what I have said. You can not take me saying "staying healthy is good" and extrapolate that I want there to be mandatory laws about exercise.

 

Although I must say that I am hugely in favor of ecouraging more exercise, and believe parents should encourage their kids to go outside and play more. Not only that but I largely support the governments efforts in this area, where they have made huge tax deductions on kids sports/recreation activities, to the point where parents can get $500 back at tax time just from having their kids in sports/whatever.

 

 

I do love how you completely ignore my statement that there should be balance in people's lives, that one should not just focus on their mind, but should also put energy into having a healthy body as well. No you skipped that and went straight for the learning. Perhaps John Doe is happy being a highschool drop-out working an entry-level job somewhere, coming home at night, drinking a 6pack of beer and going to bed. He may be happy doing this but that doesn't make it right. Just the same as some person may go home, buy some crack and be happy while shooting up but that doesn't make that right either.

 

 

As for where you are getting this idea about video games, please I beg you point out where I have EVER mentioned restricting/taxing/banning video games and I will pay you for every statement you find. Seriously where the heck are you getting this from? I am certainly not mentioning anything about this. You are stereotyping me with those who wish to ban everything, and this is your major shortcoming. I have said nothing, about such a topic, I dont think ANYONE other than you have mentioned it. So why, oh why do you keep going on about them????

 

 

 

Besides as Vallinar said there are alright certain things people can not do. Perhaps we should follow you idea of "true freedom" for everyone. Perhaps we should legalize the use of cocaine, crystal meth, pcp, exstacy, etc? Because if we are going to start tagging people to certain groups, and making assumptions on other issues based on what has been said then you must support the legalizing of these substances.

[ccc]

I agree with many of begaster's points.

 

Wolvenstar, a lot of what you say talks about "this is right" and "this isn't right" (ie. high school drop-out example). For a large part, I don't think that is the government's job. The government isn't there to tell us how to live our lives and what is the best thing to do to maximize our life expectancy.

 

However, Vallinar brought up an excellent point about illegal drugs (ie. meth). My response would be that the government does this to protect other people. The government is banning these drugs because those addicted to these drugs are a direct danger to society.

 

But you could argue - well smokers are a danger to society because they're using up my health-care dollars! My only response to that is the 'danger' caused by smokers in our health-care system is indirect. Whilst someone high on crystal meth may accidentally kill someone, smokers only affect us indirectly through the health-care system. And I think that makes a difference. Because the PURPOSE of health-care is often to help those smokers or people that have made mistakes in their life.

 

So all in all, I am definitely against any kind of tax or punishment or whatever that may limit the freedom of people. Yes, it may make us all healthier. But nobody likes to give up their autonomy. If I was a dictator, I would probably agree with all these taxes and make my people how to live a healthy life - they would thank me in the long run, right? But speaking from the point of view of a citizen in our democratic country, I will stick with the "autonomy always first" argument.

[Vallinar]

I agree with many of begaster's points.

 

Wolvenstar, a lot of what you say talks about "this is right" and "this isn't right" (ie. high school drop-out example). For a large part, I don't think that is the government's job. The government isn't there to tell us how to live our lives and what is the best thing to do to maximize our life expectancy.

 

However, Vallinar brought up an excellent point about illegal drugs (ie. meth). My response would be that the government does this to protect other people. The government is banning these drugs because those addicted to these drugs are a direct danger to society.

 

But you could argue - well smokers are a danger to society because they're using up my health-care dollars! My only response to that is the 'danger' caused by smokers in our health-care system is indirect. Whilst someone high on crystal meth may accidentally kill someone, smokers only affect us indirectly through the health-care system. And I think that makes a difference. Because the PURPOSE of health-care is often to help those smokers or people that have made mistakes in their life.

 

So all in all, I am definitely against any kind of tax or punishment or whatever that may limit the freedom of people. Yes, it may make us all healthier. But nobody likes to give up their autonomy. If I was a dictator, I would probably agree with all these taxes and make my people how to live a healthy life - they would thank me in the long run, right? But speaking from the point of view of a citizen in our democratic country, I will stick with the "autonomy always first" argument.

 

Well then what differentiates alcohol from meth?

[Alastriss]

Well then what differentiates alcohol from meth?

 

What I have to say has nothing to do with me quoting vallinar

But around where I am, teenagers are charged more for car insurance. Males are charged more than females, so is that being sexist?

finally me driving my acura will be more expensive than driving a toyota. Its not about freedom or fairness so we should put words away, but it is about who is more susceptible to incuring additional costs.

 

Finally, im sure for those who support the 'tax' or additional fee also support that rehabilitation programs to help with the addiction or problem will be instituted ie the patients won't just be left to fend for themselves

 

In sticking to your talk about freedom, the person with an unhealthy lifestyle is incurring costs on others and taking their freedom away by taxing the healthcare system. This can end up being manifesting itself as having someone who needs a biopsy wait even longer

 

finally, I bet you if we took a vote on whether or not people want to pay FOR a person who CHOOSES (no prader willi or any other medical condition) to eat big macs and incur additional costs because of obesity related problems..they'd vote no.

 

And if we were to not tax this individual, then the majority of people would say that their freedom was not exercised.

 

You should have caught at least one flaw with this above example ^^ but just to give a different perspective about freedom.

You can't look at one person's freedom without considering the collection of freedoms of people in a holistic manner.