Seat Belts, Health Care

[dairygirl4u2c]

Vote before debating.



1. If we require people to wear seat belts, why do we not require to pay a ninety dollar tax for not signing into health care? If there's a difference here, how is the tax worse than the loss of freedom?

2. What do we do when those people who do not sign into the health care system, get hit by a bus, or have another emergency? If the ultimate answer is, they should just smell of elderberries it up, is anyone willing to come out and say it? (it seems the ultimate premise of many conservatives on similar issues, is this, but they will never admit it. it'd be interesting to see someone admit it.) If we have the system and those chose not to partake, it's easier to say it, but it's still hard. (easier to say it, than say, if they got hit by a bus in today's system where emergencies are covered.. it'd be interesting to see people say that that shouldnt be covered either, to just be blunt.. that bluntness would be refreshing. it's what's circled around but never conceded to)

i dont like the idea of requiring people to pay the tax, but i dont know how to address this on the other hand.

Edited March 25, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[BibleReader]

I agree, it is a huge loss of freedom and just another step towards tyranny. I live in upstate NY and we're used to this kind of stuff. There are licenses and taxes for just about everything. I don't like them, but I still have the freedom to not use the services being taxed. For instance, we are required to pay for auto insurance before we can even register a car. I suppose we don't have to drive if we don't want to. That is the way it is though. I am completely against this method of health care reform. They eliminate the freedom of choice here. It is a lot like drug laws, people have the right to an informed decision. The ideas behind freedom are slowly being abolished. The real question is, is there anything we can do about it. According to USA today, the general consensus says that according to polls Americans are now in favor of the plan. I think they are uninformed in general about the bill, and I'm not sure of the accuracy of the polls.

What are the chances of a referendum?

[Vincent Vega]

No and no.
Re: the seatbelts thing, I feel like it's a very simply and minimally obstructive precaution that could likely save my life in an accident. That said, it's an encroachment of personal freedoms to say that everyone must wear their seatbelt. Since when is the government my mother? It's not is the answer.
I also think smoking is a disgusting and deleterious habit, but I'm not in favour of outlawing it. We're big boys here, we can make our own decisions.

[BibleReader]

Why can't they propose a bill that regulates the health system so that it isn't so costly. Further more if they wish public health care, they could absorb all of the health industry and tax people an extra 20% and send them a little card in the mail allowing them to use the system for free. Then people who don't want to pay the extra tax can just not have a card. Health care would be more affordable, regulated, and make everybody happy. You could opt out, and just not pay the tax, and pay at use of service. This would still allow for a small number of private insurances to stay in practice for the non-members should they so choose.

Is that so difficult? They complicate the hell out of everything and smother the people until they can't live.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='24 March 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1269490708' post='2079577']
No and no.
Re: the seatbelts thing, I feel like it's a very simply and minimally obstructive precaution that could likely save my life in an accident. That said, it's an encroachment of personal freedoms to say that everyone must wear their seatbelt. Since when is the government my mother? It's not is the answer.
I also think smoking is a disgusting and deleterious habit, but I'm not in favour of outlawing it. We're big boys here, we can make our own decisions.
[/quote]

well one could say that driving is not actually a priviledge, and if we can restrict drunk or incompetant people from driving, it makes sense for safety reasons. also since with a seat belt on you are in more control of the car, which affects other drivers than yourself.

same with not wearing helmets on motorcycles(and in my opinion this cshould count for non full face ones without a visor as well) cause at any decent speed above crawling, the wind (not to mention bugs etc) in your eyes causes tears to well up, squiting etc, severely reducing your vision of the road. even with a windshield on the front and sunglasses(which dont block wind past 20 mph.

its called encroachment by some people, i call it common sense. if you dont have it, done drive.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='25 March 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1269500847' post='2079638']
well one could say that driving is not actually a priviledge, and if we can restrict drunk or incompetant people from driving, it makes sense for safety reasons. also since with a seat belt on you are in more control of the car, which affects other drivers than yourself.
[/quote]

Driving safely is a right. One has no right to endanger others. I always wear a seat belt, because I believe the costs are ridiculous compared to the potential benefits. That does not mean I have the right to use violence or the threat of violence to make [i]you[/i] wear a seat belt or a helmet. And if [i]I[/i] do not have that right, I cannot [i]give[/i] that right to a third party, whether it be a legislator or a policeman.

~Sternhauser

[God Conquers]

I just think its hilarious that dairygirl is still making polls.

I haven't posted regularly in like 5 years and its the same.

[kamiller42]

If you refuse to wear a seatbelt, you do pay a fine, which is what the dear leader is doing if you don't get insurance. I can choose to not drive, and many people don't, and never have to pay a seatbelt fine. I have no choice with obamacare. It's play or pay. Healthcare is a right.

[Winchester]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='25 March 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1269490708' post='2079577']
No and no.
Re: the seatbelts thing, I feel like it's a very simply and minimally obstructive precaution that could likely save my life in an accident. That said, it's an encroachment of personal freedoms to say that everyone must wear their seatbelt. Since when is the government my mother? It's not is the answer.
I also think smoking is a disgusting and deleterious habit, but I'm not in favour of outlawing it. We're big boys here, we can make our own decisions.
[/quote]
Operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right. Being thrown from a moving vehicle at speed is a danger to others and causes longer obstruction of the roadways and increases danger. The government is well within its rights to require seatbelts. Just as it's within it's rights to regulate vehicle safety features.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Winchester' date='25 March 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1269532724' post='2079741']
Operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right. Being thrown from a moving vehicle at speed is a danger to others and causes longer obstruction of the roadways and increases danger. The government is well within its rights to require seatbelts. Just as it's within it's rights to regulate vehicle safety features.
[/quote]

I agree. The seat belt is not just for our protection, but for the safety of others.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='25 March 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1269535987' post='2079758']
I agree. The seat belt is not just for our protection, but for the safety of others.
[/quote]
And it affects the overall insurance risk rating for a community. Lower risk rating = better rates = wallet with more cash. So not wearing seat belts costs you and me money!

[Apotheoun]

The states have powers that the federal government does not have, so the constitutionality of seat belt laws are a local issue (i.e., they would be either constitutional or not based on the constitutions of the several states). It must never be forgotten that the U.S. Constitution is a document that is intended to institute the federal government while also delineating and limiting federal power. If the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give a specific power to the federal government it follows that it does not have that power, and the power in question is reserved either to the several states or to the people.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 March 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1269539288' post='2079794']
The states have powers that the federal government does not have, so the constitutionality of seat belt laws are a local issue (i.e., they would be either constitutional or not based on the constitutions of the several states). It must never be forgotten that the U.S. Constitution is a document that is intended to institute the federal government while also delineating and limiting federal power. If the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give a specific power to the federal government it follows that it does not have that power, and the power in question is reserved either to the several states or to the people.
[/quote]
That is true. You know how the federal government gets around that. "Excuse Mr. State. If you don't enact this seat belt law, you won't receive your transportation funds."

[Winchester]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='25 March 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1269543503' post='2079835']
That is true. You know how the federal government gets around that. "Excuse Mr. State. If you don't enact this seat belt law, you won't receive your transportation funds."
[/quote]
This sort of coercion is exactly why taxes should not go straight from the citizen to the Fed.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='25 March 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1269538202' post='2079776']
And it affects the overall insurance risk rating for a community. Lower risk rating = better rates = wallet with more cash. So not wearing seat belts costs you and me money!
[/quote]
Based on that it would seem that people being sedentary, smoking or eating junk food costs you and me money. Where does one draw the line in terms of legislating behavior and private lives? I find the "[i]no seat belt is a danger to others[/i]" argument to be somewhat compelling, but its force depends entirely on its factuality, which I'm inclined to question. When reading your statement my first impulse was to question the system, and second to consider the rampant popularity of statistical fallacy. Thirdly, I was prompted to remember my own radical asininity and wonder why I'm even compelled to taint this thread with my sophomoric thoughts.