[Wondergirl]

now let's see . What is more harmful ,some food dished out in moderation by the school lunch

All some kids eat is fries and pizza -- and ice cream.

Then I sit down like a couch potato the rest of the day to watch the football games.

There you go! You've bought right into it!

[speechlesstx]

In think it has to happen. The rights we think we should have are sometimes in conflict with 'the public good'. I think this is the point Wondergirl was making in relation to health care.

Come on Tut, we're talking about a vegetable.

[speechlesstx]

All some kids eat is fries and pizza -- and ice cream.

Then let's ban stupid parents instead.

[cdad]

Then let's ban stupid parents instead.

That will never happen. The system makes far too much money on those types of parents.

[Wondergirl]

Then let's ban stupid parents instead.

Banning isn't necessary. Educating them on how to parent will work for me.

[speechlesstx]

Banning isn't necessary. Educating them on how to parent will work for me.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Kind of like with banning cell phone use while driving.

[cdad]

Banning isn't necessary. Educating them on how to parent will work for me.

Personally I think that in today's world they might want to think about testing before turning on the texting feature of a phone. If the person in question can't form basic sentences and know how to write properly then they shouldn't be allowed to use that feature. Its ruining the english language.

[Wondergirl]

[Texting is] ruining the english language.

I'm with you, brother! You should (like I did) join up with some Q&A site to see how that's working...

And it's destroying social life. I'll never forget the first time I drove past a group of students waiting for the school bus in the morning who weren't talking with each other (heavens!), but each was busily poking his finger onto tiny squares on a thing about the size of a 3x5 card.

[cdad]

I'm with you, brother! You should (like I did) join up with some Q&A site to see how that's working....

And it's destroying social life. I'll never forget the first time I drove past a group of students waiting for the school bus in the morning who weren't talking with each other (heavens!), but each was busily poking his finger onto tiny squares on a thing about the size of a 3x5 card.

Lol. They do that at the malls too. I guess Im too old to understand.

[speechlesstx]

I'm 50 and I find texting quite useful actually, and considering I have to work with a bunch of young 18 to 20 something's - it's sometimes the only way to communicate.

[cdad]

I'm 50 and I find texting quite useful actually, and considering I have to work with a bunch of young 18 to 20 somethings - it's sometimes the only way to communicate.

Well lets see. I don't have a problem reading what you have written. But try that with some of the ones you have been texting with or the teens at the mall and that is a different story. Look around AMHD and you will see its running rampant. Imagine what job applications look like.

[Wondergirl]

it's sometimes the only way to communicate.

And why would that be?

[TUT317]

And who determines the "public good" that your talking about?

Hi Cal,

Good question. Most people accept we shouldn't have complete freedom to do as we like. By the same token it follows that the state should not have complete authority over everyone. The public good in this case is when the public welfare is at stake.

I don't think it matters if we are talking about obesity, cigarettes, or mobile phones. If the public has a genuine stake in these things then it may well have to happen that freedoms need to be infringed upon.

Using mobile phones while driving is obviously unsafe and no one has the right to put themselves and other people at risk. No one would disagree with that.

In Australia we have a national health care system. Obesity and smoking are a big drain on the budget. Australian tax payers are paying people to have the right to smoke and then seek medical treatment after 30, 40, years. The same type of argument applies to obesity. People can eat what they like but the taxpayer has to pay for their insulin if they develop diabetes as a direct result of their decision to eat the wrong foods.

The public good in this case is determined by the Government who acknowledges that the taxpayer wants value for money when it comes to health care. In other words, we should not have to pay for preventable diseases.

[cdad]

Hi Cal,

Good question. Most people accept we shouldn't have complete freedom to do as we like. By the same token it follows that the state should not have complete authority over everyone. The public good in this case is when the public welfare is at stake.

I don't think it matters if we are talking about obesity, cigarettes, or mobile phones. If the public has a genuine stake in these things then it may well have to happen that freedoms need to be infringed upon.

Using mobile phones while driving is obviously unsafe and no one has the right to put themselves and other people at risk. No one would disagree with that.

In Australia we have a national health care system. Obesity and smoking are a big drain on the budget. Australian tax payers are paying people to have the right to smoke and then seek medical treatment after 30, 40, years. The same type of argument applies to obesity. People can eat what they like but the taxpayer has to pay for their insulin if they develop diabetes as a direct result of their decision to eat the wrong foods.

The public good in this case is determined by the Government who acknowledges that the taxpayer wants value for money when it comes to health care. In other words, we should not have to pay for preventable diseases.

I find this argument a little funny because using that analagy you could ban just about everything using the public good as codification. What about activities like driving a car, motorcycle riding, hang gliding, sking, rock climbing ?

When you just pick there will always be flaws. Here is an example that I saw in my lifetime. Persons being admitted to a hospital with a deadly virus yet allowed to roam the public after it was discovered. Does that sound like it benefited the public good?

[TUT317]

I find this argument alittle funny because using that analagy you could ban just about everything using the public good as codification. What about activities like driving a car, motorcycle riding, hang gliding, sking, rock climbing ?

When you just pick and choose there will always be flaws. Here is an example that I saw in my lifetime. Persons being admited to a hospital with a deadly virus yet allowed to roam the public after it was discovered. Does that sound like it benefited the public good?

Hi again Cal

Doesn't sound like it was in the good at all.

Interesting you mention dangerous activities. A few years ago there was a series of incidents where people through they would set out in small craft in order to try and do the impossible. There was a call to ban such activities because of the cost of sea rescue. Again, it is largely funded by the taxpayer.

There is no easy answer to this problem. Does freedom of speech allow someone to run into a crowded auditorium and yell, 'FIRE',when there is no fire? Should we stop this person exercising their freedom of speech when there is a danger of people being hurt?

In Australia we don't stop people from smoking, overeating, or undertaking some crazy adventure. We just discourage them from doing these things.

Again no easy answer

Regards

Tut

[tomder55]

The public good in this case is determined by the Government who acknowledges that the taxpayer wants value for money when it comes to health care. In other words, we should not have to pay for preventable diseases.

Yet here choice is being eroded in health care options which means that the public will increasingly be obliged to assume the risk.

If there is risky behavior then the person doing the risky behavior should bear the cost. That is why auto policies have premiums ,that is why in many cases daredevils are fined if a rescue has to be attempted.It is why the man in Tennessee ,who took the chance and didn't pay his annual fire dept fee ,should at a minimum pay a huge fine if the dept is then called upon to put a fire out in his home.
With private health insurance there can be built in incentives for the obese to reduce their weight. But that won't happen in a society where the government decides that everyone must have the same health care plan. Then of course the state must employ soft tyranny to achieve it's objectives.Like I said already ,when you choose to live off the largess of others ,then you shouldn't complain about the strings attached .When you are forced to... that's a horse of a different color .

* it occures to me that largess may not be the appropriate term since it's implies a voluntary benevolence. Confiscating and redistribution of wealth does not fit the definition of largess.

[TUT317]

Yet here choice is being eroded in health care options which means that the public will increasingly be obliged to assume the risk.

If there is risky behavior then the person doing the risky behavior should bear the cost. That is why auto policies have premiums ,that is why in many cases daredevils are fined if a rescue has to be attempted.It is why the man in Tennessee ,who took the chance and didn't pay his annual fire dept fee ,should at a minimum pay a huge fine if the dept is then called upon to put a fire out in his home.
With private health insurance there can be built in incentives for the obese to reduce their weight. But that won't happen in a society where the government decides that everyone must have the same health care plan. Then of course the state must employ soft tyranny to acheive it's objectives.Like I said already ,when you choose to live off the largess of others ,then you shouldn't complain about the strings attached .When you are forced to.............that's a horse of a different color .

Hi Tom,

Consider this example. Being old and silly as I am a few years I decided to take up snowboarding. I just so happened that I meet another old person ( younger than me, but relatively old given the activity). A bit of a rarity so we decided to try and out do each other. The ultimate challenge for us was the terrain park. I jokingly said to him before we embarked, "Is you insurance paid up?". His reply was, "What insurance> I can't afford it".

As it turned out I was the one who needed medical attention and eventually an operation. It wouldn't have matter if I had managed to get to the bottom unscathed and he was the one who need his knee reconstructed. The cost to both of us is the same. This is what equity is all about.

Regards

Tut

[tomder55]

TUT ,considering your example it would be reasonable for the public to insist that the other guy cease that activity. Simularily in a single payer nanny state system the government would be justified in banning the activity.
In the example cited in the op I already said that people who expect the government to feed them shouldn't complain too much about what the government decides to feed them .

Consider my example. Here in New York we have a mayor who thinks he knows better than us what we should and shouldn't eat .He is taking authoritarian steps to implement his notions.
Where public money is involved he plans on banning the purchase of soda /carbonated beverages .

But he also wants to ban the use of salt in city restaurants. For now his "guidelines " are "voluntary" . But legislation has already been proposed in our State legislature that would "prohibit restaurants from using salt when preparing customers' meals." A restaurant would be fined $1,000 each time a chef cooked with salt.

Now this is hysteria because ,just like the potato ;the health risks associated are being tremedously overstated.

Now , some consumers actually want the choice of a low salt diet ,and the free market has responded . Quite frankly ;many healthy choices become more palatable with the addition of a little salt(including many of these veggies being promoted for healthy alternative) . I would also argue that where there is health risks in salt ,it comes from the bleaching done in the commercial processing. Natural sea salts are loaded with needed minerals.

Public health ,like AGW is unsettled science. What is consensus one day is yesterday's silly pretext. Yes by definition there are liberties surrendered to live in civil society. But when does public interest cross the line ?

[TUT317]

TUT ,considering your example it would be reasonable for the public to insist that the other guy cease that activity. Simularily in a single payer nanny state system the government would be justified in banning the activity.

Hi Tom,

Herein lies the problem.

Is it ,'the free market' that determines what my fiend can and cannot do?

[tomder55]

The 'free market' is a tool of free people.It allows for the free exchange of goods and services between free people .It's win win . Your friend comes to an agreement between himself and the person he's purchasing the service from... both win . Let's not talk in absolutes here because I already conceeded that dependent people depend on the good will of others (or the coercive powers of the government to force others to pay for the services). In a free market your friend is the one making the choice. He says he can't afford the insurance ,but that was from what I can tell ,a choice he made. Clearly his inability to pay for health insurance did not affect his ability to pay for his risky recreational pursuits. On the other hand you may have someone who has similar financial situations as he who doesn't buy or rent the snowboard. Who maybe cooks at home ,and makes similar sacrifices so they can do the responsible action of purchasing the insurance ( why did he need to pay for it anyway ? I thought your nanny state has a form of universal coverage?) .
The question is ? Why was he engaging in risky activity if he knew he had no insurance ? Answer... because he knew if he hurt himself someone else would foot the bill.
The system you are promoting is merchatile . There are winners and losers ;most time decided by the government referee .