Has the fdas reaction to ecigs made you lose faith in govt

[DC2]

My premises were:
- That one agrees with paying for others actions when one signs the insurance policy.
- That one agrees that one's insurance premiums can rise when someone harms themselves or are harmed.
- That one can't be 'robbed' or 'harmed' by someone else's actions when they have consented to the either of the above.

With which premise do you disagree?

It sounds to me like you are saying that if I don't want to have to pay for the higher cost of others performing activities that put themselves at higher risk for need of health care, then I can simply not sign up for my employer's health insurance, nor any other health insurance plan for that matter.

I disagree that it's that simple.

But if you know of a way for people to get reasonably affordable health care to cover themselves in case of some unforeseen or random disease or accident, where they don't have to pay for others who voluntarily put themselves in positions of higher risk, then let me know about it please.

I will both sign up for that option, and then agree with you.

 

[Wellner]

I'm going to add a vote for yes, but in all honesty, I lost faith in both a long time ago.

 

[Kent C]

Deadcat2 says - It sounds to me like you are saying that if I don't want to have to pay for the higher cost of others performing activities that put themselves at higher risk for need of health care, then I can simply not sign up for my employer's health insurance, nor any other health insurance plan for that matter.

You read well. That's exactly what I'm saying. When you sign on, those are the terms. And therefore you can't consider yourself 'harmed' when premiums rise. Which was your original "argument".

I disagree that it's that simple.


Which part isn't that simple?

But if you know of a way for people to get reasonably affordable health care to cover themselves in case of some unforeseen or random disease or accident, where they don't have to pay for others who voluntarily put themselves in positions of higher risk, then let me know about it please.

You have basically two choices:
1. Pay for medical directly
2. Pay for medical as part of a collective

If you choose 2, then you can't claim you are 'harmed' when your premiums go up as a result of someone else's actions - again, You said:

"Again, just for the sake of a different opinion.

Yes, not wearing a seat belt harms others.
And not wearing a helmet harms others.

It raises the insurance premiums that my company has to pay.
It means that I will make less money than I could.
It takes money out of my pocket"

And I can appreciate that you did say "for the sake of a different opinion" so I took that at face value (iow, you might not die for those ideas ;-) but I wanted to point out how that is simply not the case.

To make the point more blatant of how a person who consents to something isn't "harmed' or that their 'rights aren't violated' when what they consent to has predictable and agreed upon results:

To say that someone who has the same insurance company as you 'takes money out of your pocket by not wearing a seat belt' would be the same as a boxer claiming that he was criminally 'assaulted' by his opponent. Lol.

 

[DC2]

Which part isn't that simple?

Deciding to forego medical insurance of some kind is nowhere near that simple.
You not only put your entire future at risk, but the future of your family as well.

Sure, logically I "agree" to help pay for the harm others may do themselves when I sign up.
But it's not like there is really a realistic alternative.

Therefore, I contend that people are essentially "forced" into paying for others.
And in that context, they do me harm when they put themselves at unnecessary risk.


It sounds like you are making the same argument I always make with respect to "social contracts".
When you decide to become part of a society, you are implicitly agreeing to abide by their rules.
In return you enjoy the conveniences of society and the protection society provides.

But on the other hand, who really "decides" to join a society.
It's not like there are a whole lot of realistic alternatives.

 

[Kent C]

Deadcat2 says - Deciding to forego medical insurance of some kind is nowhere near that simple.
You not only put your entire future at risk, but the future of your family as well.

Oh yeah, Foregoing medical insurance is another option. Agreed not a good one. But that fact that it is not a viable option doesn't change the mechanics. Once you agree to something, like the boxer, you can't claim harm.

Sure, logically I "agree" to help pay for the harm others may do themselves when I sign up.
But it's not like there is really a realistic alternative.

There hasn't always been medical insurance. How did people survive!! Don't say they didn't, because that simply isn't the case.

Therefore, I contend that people are essentially "forced" into paying for others.

You're trying to 'sell' your case by the use of 'essentially forced'. You are not forced. You have a choice. I agree that the choice right now isn't good but at this point there is no gun at your head. That could change soon.

And in that context, they do me harm when they put themselves at unnecessary risk.

The context 'essentially forced' is not true. And even if it were, or even if it will be, it will not be the persons being what you call irresponsible (what others may call 'free') that is causing you harm - it is either your choice or the gov't, in the event of a gov't healthcare plan, where you are forced to take it, that is operative, not the person who, for example, would: "NEVER, EVER make my child wear a helmet while riding a bicycle."

It sounds like you are making the same argument I always make with respect to "social contracts".

Well as you state below there are no 'social contracts', only individual contracts. In Locke's state of nature you do what you need to survive. In a Constitutional Republic you don't violate others rights, and you certainly don't claim your rights have been violated when they haven't been. In a mixed economy or a socialist one, then all bets are off - there's nowhere to put the line as to who is 'harming' who. If you are exhaling carbon dioxide, in some people's minds you're violating their rights. So rather than making up 'essentially forced' arguments, you're better off integrity wise to just admit the truth of the matter, no? You've agreed to something and you know that possible results, so be man enough to not blame someone else, regardless of how 'irresponsible' you think they are, for 'violating your rights'. That's the end of civilization not the beginning.

When you decide to become part of a society, you are implicitly agreeing to abide by their rules. In return you enjoy the conveniences of society and the protection society provides.

"Implicitly agreeing" is as bogus as "essentially forced". And "society" doesn't provide you 'protection'. You either do that yourself or arrange it through a proper gov't but most governments, currently and historically have been a bigger danger than 'society'.

But on the other hand, who really "decides" to join a society.

You're on to something there

It's not like there are a whole lot of realistic alternatives.

One way to make realistic alternatives is to stop buying into and promoting their fallacious premises like: 'when you don't wear a seat belt you're violating my rights'. And I don't even think that's idiotic, just wrong. Think of the idiotic subjective driven 'laws' that can come, once there is no objective standard whatsoever for "rights violations". Let's keep 'rights violations' to direct harm as they relate to individuals... as they do in reality, not 'twice or 5x removed'.

Just imagine the multitude of 'harmful actions' that people within a collective could come up with that when violated will increase your premiums and you might get a glimpse of why I would want you to reconsider your premises.

 

[Kent C]

Deadcat2 - we can take this to PM if you wish. Just PM me. Doubt others are as interested as we are at this point

 

[MrKai]

The responses to this thread have been interesting to say the least...but a subtle, yet wholly relevant point seems to escape many:

Both Stalin AND Hitler were Fascists...just different sides of the same coin.

That is to say, if or not your government "asks" you to give up your liberty for "the social good" or "the State" you are still losing your freedom.

The problem with Government comes from the people we send to represent us, nothing more, nothing less. The age of the Citizen-Statesman has long since passed us by, and those who yearn or demand it are shouted down as "conservative" or "passé"...but believe you me, we'll never get better government until we stop electing divisive political drones that only view things as a "Party beneficial" issue, practice brinksmanship over sound policy, and are attempting to fund the re-election coffers 2 years prior to the next vote.

Add to this the trend of rewarding mediocrity, a lack of a real Press (the press now is basically agitprop; the Government as a whole isn't the enemy, just the opposing party) and the chilling effect of "punishing success" and you have what we have right now.

Want to change government? Stop electing people that tell you what you want to hear, and instead have shown you that they do what they say.

-K

 

[MrKai]

Deadcat: Deciding to forgo medical insurance is a right. The implementation being offered in the current Health Reform Bill is literally, without question, an absurd tax for *being alive* and is wholly UNACCEPTABLE.

You must pay the government for insurance you may not want or need, essentially to support others, or you must pay someone the government has cleared to take the money.

Absolutely not. No.

Every tax that has existed thus far has a way not to pay it, generally by not participating in the commerce that generates the levy.

Having a tax that the only way to avoid paying it is not living in the country or being dead is not acceptable. Period. It is the antithesis of liberty.

Forcing people to do things for the "State" or for "Society" is the very core of what defines Fascism. That is what it is. It doesn't matter the excuse given for the robbery of the liberty of the individual, it is still what it is.

-K

 

[me who]

Umm... NO, my blinders came off long ago.

 

[tmbrown327]

I voted yes, but isn't this poll kind of a foregone conclusion in this forum? I'd really be interested in a poll like this in the mainstream population to bounce how we vapers feel as compared to the general opinion, including the non-vapers and non-smokers.

 

[Mac]

Although I never particularly trusted the government to begin with. This certainly proves that they are in fact evil and valuie money over human life.

 

[green-lantern]

Great idea for a poll but just like the 1st guy to post in the thread my faith in the government was pretty much gone a long time ago. This has just been the proof that confirms they do not care about the people. They only want the power, money and control.

 

[DC2]

Just imagine the multitude of 'harmful actions' that people within a collective could come up with that when violated will increase your premiums and you might get a glimpse of why I would want you to reconsider your premises.

They're not my premises, they are the premises being used by those making the various laws that people complain are taking away our freedoms one by one. And as with everything, there is basically a line to be drawn, where society wants to draw it, that is intended to keep things from going too far. And as with all lines, it will always be moving. Recent trends are that it keeps moving further and further in the direction of finding more such "harmful actions" to legislate against.

 

[Mr Sinister]

I voted yes because there was no choice for "I lost faith in the government and any government agency a long time ago."

RON PAUL IN 2012

END THE FED

 

[DC2]

Deadcat2 - we can take this to PM if you wish. Just PM me. Doubt others are as interested as we are at this point

Oops, too late.

 

[suhrim21]

you really dont have the right option up there. You would have to have faith in the government to be able to loose faith over the FDA.

I havent had faith in the government since I was in 8th grade and opened my eyes to what was going on.

 

[Kent C]

Deadcat2 says - They're not my premises...

You didn't create them, but you give them power when you take them on to justify yourself 'being harmed'. They have no power by themselves, only what you and others give to them by buying into them.

they are the premises being used by those making the various laws that people complain are taking away our freedoms one by one.

Like when someone says they're being robbed by someone not wearing a seat belt? Wonder what was used before there were seat belts?

And as with everything, there is basically a line to be drawn, where society wants to draw it, that is intended to keep things from going too far. And as with all lines, it will always be moving.

Kinda like a 'living constitution,' right?

Recent trends are that it keeps moving further and further in the direction of finding more such "harmful actions" to legislate against.

"Recent trends" are a reflection of what the politicians want and what they think their constituents want. As long as people think they are harmed by someone else's actions which have no direct affect on their actual rights, then the concept of true rights is diluted to something non-sensical and we become a nation of victims who claim harm at the drop of a hat, stop construction of housing because of a toad, yet let current low income housing deteriorate to combat zone appearance, claim cow farts are 'harming us', and use any type of convoluted sophistry to justify it.

 

[ECS-Mike]

Here is what I dont undestand. Our elected officials work for us, we dont work for them. We elected them to carry out our will.

There is no opposing group to this. This isnt something like gay marriage where you have two opposing groups of tax paying citizens, who equally have the right to their opinion on the subject at hand and it requires something that is truly fair for both sides.

It is the will of the people vs the will of big business, so why is this even a question.

We have become complacent in so many ways that our elected officials think we are asking their permission for something, and we're not. We're telling them what they want. There is a large community around personal vapes, and we need to apply real pressure

 

[DC2]

Like when someone says they're being robbed by someone not wearing a seat belt?

Yes, exactly.

"Recent trends" are a reflection of what the politicians want and what they think their constituents want. As long as people think they are harmed by someone else's actions which have no direct affect on their actual rights, then the concept of true rights is diluted to something non-sensical and we become a nation of victims who claim harm at the drop of a hat, stop construction of housing because of a toad, yet let current low income housing deteriorate to combat zone appearance, claim cow farts are 'harming us', and use any type of convoluted sophistry to justify it.

Right, like no longer being able to open a freaking window in a hotel room.

 

[ladyraj]

If I had any doubts about the FDA and the government before...they were squelched today:

FDA starts collecting tobacco fees

FDA starts collecting tobacco fees | Richmond Times-Dispatch

This sounds like a partnership to me. Add in the fact that over two thirds of the cost per pack of ciggies supports the state and federal government. That's a cash cow that e-cigs can't fill.