|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 04/21/2010 : 23:00:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And the results we liberals forgo to preserve ideals don't generally involve people's health. |
Don't self-defeating ideologies involve people's health? For example, some people choose faith healing over real medicine based on it. If I'm not mistaken, "liberals" (don't like the word, means completely different things to different people) would defend their right to do that, and maybe even the right of "faith healers" to offer their services (they do, but maybe we disagree).
| And the government has already labeled "recreational" drugs as a dangerous activity, along with prostitution, child pornography, rape, murder, speeding, driving drunk, etc., etc.. |
Child pornography, rape, and murder aren't analogous. They take away the rights of others in a very immediate way and we don't consider children able to make such decisions.
I essentially disagree with prostitution being illegal for the same reason I disagree with this particular regulation. A lack of criminalization does not necessarily lead to bad consequences, so I would rather place the burden on individuals to make good choices.
I do think recreational drugs are analogous, and I do support their being illegal (for some drugs at least, not necessarily the same ones that currently are). The difference here, I think, is that drugs (the ones for which I don't support decriminalization) take away the ability of one to be rational to a particularly extreme extent (while on the drug or when addicted) whereas eating unhealthy foods does not necessarily do that.
If there is no ideal to preserve in the sense of government defining dangerous activities worth doing, why don't we go ahead and expand it to alcohol, all unhealthy foods, and anything else gov chooses to call dangerous (when not endangering others)? I'm open to an argument, but it seems to become as though actuaries deciding what can be sold to me.
| Yes, there needs to be a balancing act. We've already swung too far into the "nanny State," when for a while (less so today) parents felt outraged if local, state or the Federal government didn't criminalize the slightest damn insults to their delicate childrens' sensibilities. The pendulum seems to be swinging back towards greater personal responsibility, but we still have a problem when people can't or won't take control of themselves. And that problem will always exist, because humans aren't rationality machines. |
How is it swinging toward personal responsibility? I mean as far as I can tell, more of our responsibilities are being transferred to government (which they transfer non-specifically back into the tax pool). I don't necessarily think that's always bad, but I actually perceive the opposite trend.
| The linked-to story speaks about the 40 years of failed policy on this issue, does it not? The IOM is noting that the previous political recommendations are a complete failure. |
40 years of failed policy yet I've managed to go through 13 years of public schools without hearing the first mention of how much salt one should eat or the consequences of consuming too much. Maybe I'm an anomaly, or my particular schools were anomalies, but I suspect education in nutrition is this bad in many parts of the U.S. I think actually teaching these things would be a more passive, less intrusive way to encourage better eating habits. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 01:51:53 [Permalink]
|
For all those against such regulations, I am still not following you how this regulation would be taking away my choice. As far as I can see, if I would want to buy products with less salt, the choice for those products is actually very limited. And as far as I can see, people can still buy salt to flavor their dishes.
Yes, this is limiting a company's right to do things. Screw them. It is expanding individual choice. And when it comes to individual choice versus company choice, screw the company. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 06:08:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
In PA, the helmet law was rescinded. In my opinion, if you're dumb enough to ride without a helmet, than you can pay entirely out of your own pocket for any medical expenses incurred because you didn't have proper head protection.
|
Hey we agree on something. Too bad our current health care system does not allow for this. Although I can't really think of a health care system without insurance companies. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 06:48:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
To follow up on this thought, we are FAR more in danger of being oppressed by corporations than by our government.
|
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force.
Corporations do not take property away for not paying property taxes.
Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for.
Corporations do not take money by force because someone dies.
Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances.
Corporations do not tell me how much salt can be in a product I buy.
Corporations do not tell me I cannot smoke in a private restaurant or bar.
Corporations do not waste my money on pork.
Corporations do not spend more of my money than they earn.
Corporations do not send our citizens to die in wars.
Corporations do not tell me I need topay for a permit to put an awning on my house.
Corporations do not force me to buy healthcare.
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 06:50:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
There again it should not be government's place to do that. It is the consumers place to demand it from the companies.
|
Why? Why should a companies be allowed to run in a manner oppressive to the individual.
|
Why can't we say the same about the government? I have to deal with the government. Private companies I do not have to deal with. (Oops, I forgot I am forced to deal with healthcare providers) |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 06:57:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
With a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," there should be no such distinction. If Congress passes laws regulating the salt content of processed foods, that's "the will of the people" in action.
|
But that is not how our constitution is written. The will of the people cannot (or is not supposed to) override our rights given to us in the constitution. I am not saying salt is a right only that your statement does not apply to all situations.
Also, in real life this is not always the case. Even though over 53% of the people did not want the current healthcare bill passed it was still passed over the will of the people. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 07:14:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
There again it should not be government's place to do that. It is the consumers place to demand it from the companies.
|
Why? Why should a companies be allowed to run in a manner oppressive to the individual.
|
Why can't we say the same about the government? I have to deal with the government. Private companies I do not have to deal with. (Oops, I forgot I am forced to deal with healthcare providers)
|
Exactly. We have no choice but to deal with the government. With companies we have a choice of who to deal with...even health care providers.
We haven't gotten to the Soylent Green stage of society yet. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 07:27:00 [Permalink]
|
Notice that you didn't actually answer my question. It was:
"For all those against such regulations, I am still not following you how this regulation would be taking away my choice. As far as I can see, if I would want to buy products with less salt, the choice for those products is actually very limited. And as far as I can see, people can still buy salt to flavor their dishes."
Do I really need to frase the question in baby terms?
Originally posted by Robb
Why can't we say the same about the government? I have to deal with the government. Private companies I do not have to deal with. (Oops, I forgot I am forced to deal with healthcare providers)
|
And this is not actually true. That is one the problems. For many products the number of producers is limited and the production methods used by these producers is very much similar.
And you do have to deal with private companies, how else are you going to get your food? You get it through those private companies, not in any other way. Which returns to one of myths of market capitalism, namely that you actually have a choice. The choice you have is very limited, because in general products are made by a limited number of large corporations and those large corporations have very similar production processes and ingredients.
So could you please answer my actual question from a reality-based perspective, not from some mythical ideal that doesn't exist? Thanks. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 07:28:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Exactly. We have no choice but to deal with the government. With companies we have a choice of who to deal with...even health care providers.
We haven't gotten to the Soylent Green stage of society yet.
|
Sorry, but this is actual complete bullshit, especially in the case of health care providers. Do I really have to explain to you why?
(Edited to add a hint: why this doesn't apply to healthcare providers in particular is actually explained in basic economic textbooks on the free market, although this is generally subsequently ignored by economic policy makers. Some keywords to give you some more hints: ability to make a choice, monopolism, limited availability of services) |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 04/22/2010 07:31:17 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 07:32:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Fripp
To follow up on this thought, we are FAR more in danger of being oppressed by corporations than by our government.
|
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force.
Corporations do not take property away for not paying property taxes.
Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for.
Corporations do not take money by force because someone dies.
Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances.
Corporations do not tell me how much salt can be in a product I buy.
Corporations do not tell me I cannot smoke in a private restaurant or bar.
Corporations do not waste my money on pork.
Corporations do not spend more of my money than they earn.
Corporations do not send our citizens to die in wars.
Corporations do not tell me I need topay for a permit to put an awning on my house.
Corporations do not force me to buy healthcare.
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations.
|
Oh brother.  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 07:42:07 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry, but this is actual complete bullshit, especially in the case of health care providers. Do I actually have to explain to you why? |
Yes you do.
I have a choice about my health care. I can choose who to buy my insurance from. I can buy it through my employer, my wife's employer, or any number of other companies. I did my homework and found out which plan worked best for my wife and me. I chose the insurance offered through my employer. There are restrictions about what health care providers I can use to get the maximum benefit from my insurance but that was why I did my homework. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 07:52:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Yes you do.
I have a choice about my health care. I can choose who to buy my insurance from. I can buy it through my employer, my wife's employer, or any number of other companies. I did my homework and found out which plan worked best for my wife and me. I chose the insurance offered through my employer. There are restrictions about what health care providers I can use to get the maximum benefit from my insurance but that was why I did my homework.
|
Okay, you were talking about health insurance, not health care. Please next time be specific.
But even with health insurance, in the USA you may have a choice, but many people with pre-existing conditions do not. And when you actually have an insurance, we know from your system that insurers will do anything they can to not pay your healthcare costs. But this will only become clear after you have made those healthcare costs, not before. In that respect I'm quite happy to be living in the Netherlands, where health insurers are heavily regulated and cannot try these kinds of tricks. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 08:03:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Fripp
To follow up on this thought, we are FAR more in danger of being oppressed by corporations than by our government.
|
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force.
Corporations do not take property away for not paying property taxes.
Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for.
Corporations do not take money by force because someone dies.
Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances.
Corporations do not tell me how much salt can be in a product I buy.
Corporations do not tell me I cannot smoke in a private restaurant or bar.
Corporations do not waste my money on pork.
Corporations do not spend more of my money than they earn.
Corporations do not send our citizens to die in wars.
Corporations do not tell me I need topay for a permit to put an awning on my house.
Corporations do not force me to buy healthcare.
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations. |
This discussion has become mired in ideology, in my opinion. The litany of red herrings and strawmen above demonstrates this vividly.
As I recall, this began as a question about whether or not government regulations should mandate maximum levels of salt in processed foods.
Lower salt in foods is demonstrably better for health. The proposed regs would be a restriction of corporate "rights," certainly. (Despite what the GOP Supreme Court decided recently on political matters, I feel corporations should not be treated as people in terms of rights.)
In no way, however, would the human beings who are the consumers be restricted or denied their rights. People who want more salt need merely use their shakers. Unlike people, corporations do not feel pain when they are poked in the eye. Nor are they likely to suffer economically even if their foods are a bit less attractive, since their competitors will have to lower salt levels, too.
Consumers would benefit not only by getting less salt in general, but by having a new freedom to adjust salt levels to whatever they find tasteful, or feel is healthy.
I see the proposed regs as a wash for corporations, but as a definite benefit to consumers, even for those who will employ their salt shakers injudiciously. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 08:16:06 [Permalink]
|
Okay, you were talking about health insurance, not health care. Please next time be specific.
|
They go hand in-hand. Each insurance provider (that I investigated anyway) used different health care providers. Some had no restrictions on which health care providers could be utilized. One thing that I found commom with the insurance providers was that each one had an 18 month pre-existing condition clause.I don't recall what their policies were about cancer though.
My point is that I had a choice of which insurance provider to use. Part of my decision was based on which health care provider they utilized for maximum benefit. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 08:23:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
They go hand in-hand. Each insurance provider (that I investigated anyway) used different health care providers. Some had no restrictions on which health care providers could be utilized. One thing that I found commom with the insurance providers was that each one had an 18 month pre-existing condition clause.I don't recall what their policies were about cancer though.
My point is that I had a choice of which insurance provider to use. Part of my decision was based on which health care provider they utilized for maximum benefit.
|
And my point is that for many people this choice does not exist, that for many situations where you need health care you aren't in the situation to choose at that moment and that the number of health care providers, especially regarding acute care, in your area will be limited. It is not a true free market system.
edited to add: And to get this back to the salt-discussion, this applies there to. The number of products and suppliers delivering food with a low salt content is limited. Hence, there is no real choice for the consumer.
Which returns for the question I have yet to see answered: "How are the salt regulations a limitation for the freedom of the individual?" |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 04/22/2010 08:28:14 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
So it starts
