If you don't want to slap this guy, I'll do it for you

[BrokenPaw]

The issue is people letting themselves get into terrible condition and then letting the gov't pick up the tab for their negligence.  Option 1 for dealing with it is to get the gov't out of that business.  That isn't going to happen for all sorts of reasons, mostly political.  Option 2 is to tell people that if they won't take responsibility for their own health care costs then we're going to make them do it.

Are you actually, seriously, while in full possession of you mental faculties, saying (in essence) that because the government won't stop being invasive and overbearing, that we should make the government more invasive and overbearing, so that people don't have to deal with the consequences of the current level of invasive overbearingness?

How do you hope to wake people up to the need for change in government, if every time a ludicrous government policy makes life difficult for someone, you endorse creating another ludicrous government policy in order to shift the infringement to someone else?

Essentially you're playing NIMBY politics.  You're saying that as long as a government infringement is not getting in your way, it's all right for it to continue on indefinitely through institutional inertia.

-BP 

[Perd Hapley]

BrokenPaw, I'd say you're in for some name-calling, four-letter words, or at the very least a categorical denial of your ability to follow a logical train of thought. 

[The Rabbi]

The issue is people letting themselves get into terrible condition and then letting the gov't pick up the tab for their negligence.  Option 1 for dealing with it is to get the gov't out of that business.  That isn't going to happen for all sorts of reasons, mostly political.  Option 2 is to tell people that if they won't take responsibility for their own health care costs then we're going to make them do it.

Are you actually, seriously, while in full possession of you mental faculties, saying (in essence) that because the government won't stop being invasive and overbearing, that we should make the government more invasive and overbearing, so that people don't have to deal with the consequences of the current level of invasive overbearingness?

How do you hope to wake people up to the need for change in government, if every time a ludicrous government policy makes life difficult for someone, you endorse creating another ludicrous government policy in order to shift the infringement to someone else?

Essentially you're playing NIMBY politics.  You're saying that as long as a government infringement is not getting in your way, it's all right for it to continue on indefinitely through institutional inertia.

-BP 

I am not saying any such thing.  I am suggesting that if people want a benefit then the part paying for it can name whatever conditions it wants.  Do you have a problem with people taking responsibility for themselves?  Maybe we should offer free drugs so people can sell them on the street to make extra money.  Or maybe you think addressing any problem with a government program short of eliminating it is just giving in.  If so there is nothing to argue with.
Geez, Libertarians.....

[BrokenPaw]

I'll say this slower, and use smaller words, so that my point is not lost.  Again.

The government has a program that is bad.  It makes people pay for other people's medicine.  That means that the people paying get upset because the people getting the medicine are doing bad things that make them need more medicine.

I am saying that the way to solve the problem is to stop the government from making people pay for other people's medicine.

You seem to be saying that because the government makes people pay for other people's medicine, it's all right to let the government tell people what they can and can't do, because they might do something that makes them need medicine.

Is that about it?  Is everyone, right down the the 3rd-grade reading level able to understand the point I'm making?

As for your question:

Do you have a problem with people taking responsibility for themselves?

No, I'm arguing that people should take complete responsibility for themselves.  They should pay for their own medical care, either out of pocket, or by buying medical insurance, and if they cannot pay, then, oops, that risk they were taking was too big of one, and they leave the gene pool.  How have you managed to twist this around to say that I am against personal responsibility? 

It is you, sir, when you say that the state is already paying for people's health care to a greater or lesser degree, and therefore should have a say in everyone's health-related decisions, who are arguing in favor of diminished personal responsibility.

-BP

[Mannlicher]

I can't understand people's reactions here.  The writer is correct: other people's poor health habits cost him money in terms of higher taxes, higher health insurance premiums, etc.  He isnt trying to save anyone from themselves, he is trying to save himself money.  For a bunch of people who call themselves Libertarians, this shouldn't be hard to sympathize with.
I remember reading a story about a company whose health care costs were skyrocketing.  They instituted a penalty when  claims reached a certain amount (or something like that).  People who were overweight and/or smoked started getting pressure from the coworkers to change their lifestyles to reduce the penalties.  It worked.

and I am sure that this self appointed twit has habits that cost others money.  One solution is to stop having the frigging government pay for everything.  If a fatty has a stroke, let HIM pay for it, or die.  Simple.

[richyoung]

The issue is people letting themselves get into terrible condition ... 

"Letting"  And just exactly WHO should anyone need to "let" them do ANYTHING?

and then letting the gov't pick up the tab for their negligence.

 

I think what you MEANT to say was "letting government force taxpayers to pay for someone else's health care other than their own, with NO Constitutional or legal basis to commit such theft".


 

Option 1 for dealing with it is to get the gov't out of that business.  That isn't going to happen for all sorts of reasons, mostly political.  Option 2 is to tell people that if they won't take responsibility for their own health care costs then we're going to make them do it.  Why is that a problem?  If you take something from someone aren't you obligated to play by their rules?  Or do you think encouraging irresponsibility is good policy?

Who's to say what is or isn't irresponsible?  Whatever heapened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  If it makes someone happy to eat, what business is it of anyone elses?  What * I * think is irresponsible is to respond to government over-reaching to call for more... government over-reaching, so long as one's PERSONAL oxes aren't being gored...

[BrokenPaw]

Rich, this is getting scary.  Maybe we should go on tour or something.  We could call it "Diametric Agreement".

-BP

[richyoung]

...or "Contentious D"...

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll say this slower, and use smaller words, so that my point is not lost.  Again.

The government has a program that is bad.  It makes people pay for other people's medicine.  That means that the people paying get upset because the people getting the medicine are doing bad things that make them need more medicine.

I am saying that the way to solve the problem is to stop the government from making people pay for other people's medicine.

You seem to be saying that because the government makes people pay for other people's medicine, it's all right to let the government tell people what they can and can't do, because they might do something that makes them need medicine.

Is that about it?  Is everyone, right down the the 3rd-grade reading level able to understand the point I'm making?

As for your question:

Do you have a problem with people taking responsibility for themselves?

No, I'm arguing that people should take complete responsibility for themselves.  They should pay for their own medical care, either out of pocket, or by buying medical insurance, and if they cannot pay, then, oops, that risk they were taking was too big of one, and they leave the gene pool.  How have you managed to twist this around to say that I am against personal responsibility? 

It is you, sir, when you say that the state is already paying for people's health care to a greater or lesser degree, and therefore should have a say in everyone's health-related decisions, who are arguing in favor of diminished personal responsibility.

-BP

Here.  Get someone to read over my post #23 above to you.  Have them explain it to you in words you can grasp, because obviously I failed to reach your level.  See where I suggested that the best option was to get gov't out of the healthcare business altogether.  See where I also mentioned this is probably not going to happen.  See where I suggested a second option that if people insisted on getting government to pay, then government had every right to set the terms. 
Now, what about any of this is unclear to you?  What about it do you disagree with and on what grounds?
Do you disagree that the best thing is to get gov;t out of providing healthcare?
Do you disagree this isn't going to happen in our lifetimes?
Do you disagree that people ought to take responsibility one way or another for their own actions?
If the answer to all these is no, then you have no argument with me and need to go reply to other threads.

[Gewehr98]

Nah, don't deny me the fun. I'll drive over to Milwaukee this weekend, and bitch-slap the bastard myself.  Then I'll thank him for his tax contributions to my military retirement, and remind him that my 6-foot, 200 pound frame (15 pounds over the "healthy" BMI numbers) will still kick his pencil-neck geek whiny-assed schoolteacher physique in a contest of push-ups, sit-ups, and 1.5 mile timed run.  Then I'll bitch-slap him again for good measure. 

This spoiled brat is most assuredly one of those party-line school faculty lounge soapbox assmunches who spouts revisionist history, guns are bad, and doesn't realize there are more expensive evils coming from his tax dollars every year - like my retirement and anything else under the guise of the DoD.  Government healthcare is but a drop in the proverbial bucket. Of course, I've learned the hard way that Wisconsin schoolteachers have a union approaching that of the Mob.  The troops-to-teachers program, popular everywhere else in the Union, is dying a slow death in Wisconsin - the teachers here don't want the competition, nor do they want folks familiar with discipline and accountability to come in and clean house. So they've made it very difficult for a returning GI to get the required credentials to make the transition.  Fork 'em! 

[BrokenPaw]

Have them explain it to you in words you can grasp, because obviously I failed to reach your level.

Ad hominem.  You lose.

Do you disagree that the best thing is to get gov;t out of providing healthcare?
Do you disagree this isn't going to happen in our lifetimes?
Do you disagree that people ought to take responsibility one way or another for their own actions?

No.  No.  No.  I disagree with none of those.

And yet, I draw a different conclusion than you do.  Because your third premise is flawed; you are suggesting that "Bob taking responsibility for his own actions" includes "Bob making sure that his actions do not cause a government-mandated infringement to devolve upon Jim".  And you're wrong.  Bob is responsible for Bob, and Jim is responsible for Jim, and if the government makes it otherwise, that's not Bob's fault.

-BP

[InfidelSerf]

While it's obvious he's your typical pompous elitist type that feels they know better than all.
He makes a valid point, the only problem is his solution.  His solution is to attack the "victims" and argue for increases in their TAXES.

When the real problem is a larger pill that we must all swallow. And that is the simple fact that ones health and well being is and should always be your own responsibility.
Health care has gotten out of control, because it, like every other governmental attempt to regulate human behavior and decision making processes is flawed and doomed to fail.
When we allow government to step in and micro-manage our lives, we are asking for the unintended consequenses that we face today.


The moment we decide we want goverment to handle those decisions we are no longer free.
Of course that moment has passed.. it's up to us now to change the simple fact that we are not free, just living the illusion.

It's so easy for everyone to attack "big business" and capitalism as a whole the way the mass media would like you to. When the hard reality is that no one and I mean NO ONE owes you anything, not an education,  not healthcare or a job.  It's not capitalism that is "bringing/holding you down"  It's the elitists that would like you to think that the sole pursuit of ones happiness and future is a bleak one.  That it CAN'T be done alone.  You must rely on their help and handout.
We need to shut them up and push them out of the business of making business!

We need to demand that they have no right to the most inntimate of details concerning our financial lives.
Eliminate the three evils of our time
IncomeTax, Property Tax, Probate

Get governement out of healthcare and you solve his dilemma
[rantModeOff]

[Perd Hapley]

Have them explain it to you in words you can grasp, because obviously I failed to reach your level.

Ad hominem.  You lose.

Well, shucks, BrokenPaw, don't you recall using very similar words with Rabbi not long ago?  

I'll say this slower, and use smaller words, so that my point is not lost.  

[Monkeyleg]

It wasn't my intent to start an argument over government health care.

I was just floored by the writer's pompous arrogance. His implied question was, "why can't everybody be as wonderful as me?"

Again, I've been skinny all my life. A  couple of weeks ago, I weighed in at 188. That's too much, so I'll need to get more exercise and change diet.

But that's not my point. The food police are already forcing restaurants (in NYC, anyway) to march in conformity. And, probably fearful of lawsuits, some national restaurant chains have already fallen into lockstep.

The writer appears to be in the vanguard of this movement. And it ticks me off.

It's the right of any restaurant owner to serve whatever he thinks will attract customers. And it's the right of those customers to either eat the food, or choose another restaurant. I hope we can all agree on that point.

The food police are the logical extension of the smoking police and the gun police, all of whom operate on the premise of doing  their work for the good of the public.

Well, "the good of the public" is only as noble a goal as the beliefs of those who are appointed artibers of the public good. If this gun is too big, and that one is too small, then it follows that this dinner can be too big, that one too small, this car too big and that one too small, until we reach the logical conclusion of such arbitrary decisions: which people are acceptable, and which are not.

As I mentioned before, my wife is overweight (something I never mention to her; she knows it). Just watching her is exhausting. She's a whirlwind of physical activity, and eats like a bird.

Yet, she's still overweight. What am I supposed to do? Shoot her?

Be careful what you wish for with regard to public policy. Eventually, they're going to get around to you.

[BrokenPaw]

Have them explain it to you in words you can grasp, because obviously I failed to reach your level.

Ad hominem.  You lose.

Well, shucks, BrokenPaw, don't you recall using very similar words with Rabbi not long ago? 

I'll say this slower, and use smaller words, so that my point is not lost. 

Sorry, Fistful, but no.  I said that I would use smaller words so that my point would not be lost.  I did not say anything about anyone's ability to grasp the concept, or whether their intellectual level was insufficient to the task. 

I was rephrasing my arguments in terms that anyone could understand, not because I in any way think that Rabbi cannot understand.  On the contrary, I believe it takes a very sharp wit to be able to wriggle and wend ones way through a debate with as care as he does; someone who was not exceptionally bright would hardly be able to sidestep any and all arguments as well as he does.  I phrased my words the way I did so as to make my point so obvious that not even Rabbi could pretend to misinterpret what I was saying.

I have a lot of respect for Rabbi's skill with words.  I have little respect for the conclusions he draws and the opinions he asserts. 

On the other hand, it's fairly obvious that Rabbi has nothing but disdain for me, and for anyone else who disagrees with him.

Fistful, you and I can disagree, but be polite about it.  Evidence is mounting that Rabbi cannot be polite when someone does not accept his assertions as fact. 

That said, we've hijacked Monkeyleg's thread, so I shall withdraw from it with apologies to him.  Screeds, diatribes, imprecations, further ad hominems, disagreements, lavish complements on my restraint, and the like may be sent my way via PM or e-mail.

-BP

[Perd Hapley]

  Evidence is mounting that Rabbi cannot be polite when someone does not accept his assertions as fact.

 
Evidence done mounted and rode off into the sunset singing "Happy Trails."  Where have you been?  Actually, Rabbi is capable of polite disagreement on some occasions.  Some. 

[Monkeyleg]

Nobody has hijacked my thread. All I'm trying to do is point out the writer's arrogance. Others are trying to take the writer's position to either back up or deny their own positions on federal, state, and local health care.

Notice that I did not mention any of the above in my rant. My rant was about the writer, not the topic of government-subsidized health care.

But the writer is an advocate of what most of us have called "the slippery slope."

We're not on a "slippery slope" right now. We're sliding down at 150 mph, and the track has been well-greased.

[The Rabbi]

Have them explain it to you in words you can grasp, because obviously I failed to reach your level.

Ad hominem.  You lose.

Do you disagree that the best thing is to get gov;t out of providing healthcare?
Do you disagree this isn't going to happen in our lifetimes?
Do you disagree that people ought to take responsibility one way or another for their own actions?

No.  No.  No.  I disagree with none of those.

And yet, I draw a different conclusion than you do.  Because your third premise is flawed; you are suggesting that "Bob taking responsibility for his own actions" includes "Bob making sure that his actions do not cause a government-mandated infringement to devolve upon Jim".  And you're wrong.  Bob is responsible for Bob, and Jim is responsible for Jim, and if the government makes it otherwise, that's not Bob's fault.

-BP

I have no idea why you are so argumentative and disagreeable, even while agreeing with me.
So Happy Holiday Season.

[Target Farget]

I haet fat people.

it takes no effort to not be fat. i have been slim for decades just by not being a dumbass.

all you fat people push up the cost of insurance and probably put as much load on our healthcare as the illegils.

i dont drink worthless soft drinks. i dont eat a dozen donuts at once, and i dont watch stupid sports games for hours each day. HMMM I WONDER WHY IM NOT FAT.

fat people want you to think that it takes work to be anything but fat. WRONG. it takes effort to be a DISGUSTING FATBODY. being slim is easy if you arent a lazy sack of crap. not being fat DOES NOT require you to spend thousands of dollars on equipment and gym memberships. altho once you have bevcome a fatbutt it will take work to not be one which most people dont have the gumption for.

i see people watching and their limbs look like bloated hocks of ham. i dont understand how they are self ambulatory.

now i dont blame mcdonalds and i dont support any kind of regulation of food. the food is not doing this to you. abuse of food is.

stupid fat people always have to speed-waddle in front of meh with a cart loaded with cases of diet pepsi and cakes when im walking into the 10 items or less line. i dont know why but they always have to see me  with my armful of groceries and lumber in front of me as fast as they can.

[Perd Hapley]

If this troll isn't Blackburn, he's close enough.

His first post to the forum:

i was going to do some business with a.heist of muzzelflash but some googling lead me here to his blackburn alias, can i get some community input on if i can trust him?

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4996.msg75854#msg75854

[griz]

I don't know if it's Blackburn, but he might have missed a day or two when he went to charm school.

[auschip]

Meh, I'm 6'4 and weigh 265lbs.  I'm overweight and based on everything I have seen online my BMI considers me to be obese.  Then again, I wrestle for 3 hours a week (2 90 minute sessions of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu), my Blood pressure was 116/72, and I can bench 285.  I am fat, but I would wager I'm in better health then many "skinny" people.

[Werewolf]

I can trace my family history and causes of death all the way back to the 1830's.

If wars, colon cancer or some lung disease didn't kill 'em (about a 1/4) then my ancestors all lived well into their 80's and 90's. One lived to age 104. Not a heart attack or heart disease in the bunch.

By modern medical standards everyone of them was fat (my maternal grandfather was obese by any standard - he died at the age of 95). My own doctor knows my family history and still insists that I am at risk for heart disease and type II diabetes. He completely ignores the fact that genetics is the prime risk factor for both. It doesn't matter that my blood pressure runs in the 120 over 75-80 range. It doesn't matter that my fasting blood sugar level is below 90 and it only goes up to 120 after eating. All he focuses on is my 230 pound weight and my 230 cholesterol level ignoring the fact that my Cholesterol ratio is 2:1 (anything under 4 is good, 2:1 is really good).

Nope all doctors seem to care about is weight and cholesterol. They seem incapable of evaluating the big picture. Probably just generating extra revenue for themselves why else would they keep changing the standards (10 years ago my 230 Cholesterol was just fine but now...).

[Target Farget]

If this troll isn't Blackburn, he's close enough.

His first post to the forum:

i was going to do some business with a.heist of muzzelflash but some googling lead me here to his blackburn alias, can i get some community input on if i can trust him?

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4996.msg75854#msg75854

i am not troling, sorry. and my first post was why i came to this site (and have been directed here by having some of my topcis closed on thr in the past months) i guess now that i am a member of the community, ican ask the question again.

[Tallpine]

I try to eat something from the five basic food groups every day: sugar, salt, chocolate, caffeine, and cholesterol. 

5-10 and about 155 pounds.  Like Fezzik the Giant, I don't even exercise.  I guess I'm too tired for that after cutting and splitting all our firewood (only heat source), feeding and hauling water to the horses, working odd-jobs of construction and forest fuel reduction, and fighting wildfires in the summer.

Back when I worked full time in the woods, I sometimes fried my meat and potatoes in a skillet full of grease, and then poured extra grease on top.  That was when I was cutting timber in 2 feet of snow at 20 below zero.