Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 11:47:05 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


Government control of the airways is a Fascist concept regardless if the underlying issue is 'conservative' or 'liberal'.

In my opinion, the above is a leap in faith. The government is not operating a blanket policy of controlling the airwaves. It is one area of lives where we have a problem. If I felt this particular issue was a step towards fascism then I would not be best pleased. However, unlike the proposed ID card scheme, I do not consider this to be the case. It is the intention that captures my interest. I believe the ID card scheme holds sinsiter motives, I do not believe the fatty foods issue does.
 
 
Don't know if you'll be surprised by this answer or not, but I agree with you.

I am surprised Merc but clearly the reason is my perception rather than reality.

I point to "...provide for the common defense" clause of the Constitution's Preamble. The government role in the defense of the nation should stop at its borders. Broadening the interpretation of "defense" involved us in wars on your continent in the past and was used to rationalize our involvement in Iraq. Preemptive defense has been the position of many US administrations. Philosophically I may or may not have personally agreed with the historic reasoning for doing so. Pragmatically and especially in context of 2007 reality, there is no need to spill any USA blood for any 'Arthurian' type quest to bring "democracy" to to any part of the world.

Like a dog with a bone here, why do you consider it appropriate to allow the government to intrude in your life in order to protect the US borders?

I take this to mean you feel the government has cradle to grave responsibility for everyone of its citizens? The problem then becomes who's "interests" are "our interests".

Please see above. Do you consider the government's protection of your borders to be "cradling" you and US citizens?

You isolate on obesity to rationalize the need for government intervention in this case. What line will the government need to cross for their intersession to be not in your interest? If there isn't one than I respect you position as not being personally biased.

I've put forward my reasons for government intervention in the above post (and where and why I believe it should be allowed/accepted). The ID card scheme is not in my or society's interest - ditto the proposed DNA database for reasons I mentioned in another thread.

However, the same "acting in our interests" was used by Mr Blair to involve you in Iraq. Putting this back into political context, supposed the Mr. Blair's administration determined that, like pro-cheese advertisement, anti-Iraq information was prohibited from broadcast. Would you support that too? Or again, are cheese ads more subversive than anti-war, or pro-war for that matter, censorship?

No, I wouldn't support it. The key issue is intention. The government lied to us over Iraq - this is blatantly not in our interests. The government are not lying to us with cheese.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 11:48:52 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Also, the government has a responsibility to society to ensure a large minority of society are not a burden on the rest of society through using tax payers money to fund treatment for obesity. It would be interesting to know what the cost of treating obesity is to taxpayers because if it's high (and it's a possibility) then there would be uproar if it was publicised that treatment for obesity is basically pissing tax payers money up against the wall.. The public would want answers and they'd be wanting the government to step in and do something about obesity.



There is a whole stink of hypocrisy about governments in these sort of cases. They are concerned about the cost of the unhealthy living on the exchequer but they refuse to hit the companies that pedal shit because they contribute to political parties. Now whatever you say, quality cheese is not an unhealthy food in a balanced diet, it is rather wholesome. So rather than hit quality food they should hit the processed food industry but do they? Hell no, they take their money and let them carry on pedalling shit.


Agreed. Sainbsury's and their packaged food being a point in case. However, cheese is a start (for kids who do not have a balanced diet).

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 12:25:42 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:


Quesiton: What State does not have in some form or fashion a child heath care program?
Answer: NONE

But you are excluding that fact from consideration because its not "insurance"? Is the objective universal health insurance or universal access to care?


Those children represented in that statistic do not have any healthcare coverage of any sort whatsoever. They do not have state medical insurance. Their parents do not qualify for whatever reason for state insurance. I have been in that position myself, so I know how it is, and what the difference is. I had my son severely sprain his ankle and was stuck with over 2000 dollars in emergency room bills because we did not have insurance at the time. Universal access does not equate universal care. People have do not have insurance often wait until they are so sick that they need much more care than if they had preventative care. That is unacceptable when it comes to children. I do not know if you have ever tried to find a doctor being uninsured, but it is extremely difficult. Clinics often give substandard preventative care because they are overwhelmed.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 12:34:14 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

In my opinion, the above is a leap in faith. The government is not operating a blanket policy of controlling the airwaves. It is one area of lives where we have a problem. If I felt this particular issue was a step towards fascism then I would not be best pleased. However, unlike the proposed ID card scheme, I do not consider this to be the case. It is the intention that captures my interest. I believe the ID card scheme holds sinsiter motives, I do not believe the fatty foods issue does.

NG,
To me this is taking also taking a leap of faith just into a shallower pool. One where it is safe to dive as long as you believe it is, the other is always the same depth and doesn't require yours, or anyone else's personal perspective.

quote:

Like a dog with a bone here, why do you consider it appropriate to allow the government to intrude in your life in order to protect the US borders?

I don't the Constitution that I live under does. A 'world order' person would disagree and say there is no legal right - I'd disagree. Room for both positions.

quote:

Please see above. Do you consider the government's protection of your borders to be "cradling" you and US citizens?

No. For the same reason as above. It is a Constitutional requirement for the US government. Unlike any reference to restriction of what is eaten or how what is eaten is advertised, or the repression of any information whether I agree with it or not.

quote:

Merc: However, the same "acting in our interests" was used by Mr Blair to involve you in Iraq. Putting this back into political context, supposed the Mr. Blair's administration determined that, like pro-cheese advertisement, anti-Iraq information was prohibited from broadcast. Would you support that too? Or again, are cheese ads more subversive than anti-war, or pro-war for that matter, censorship?

No, I wouldn't support it. The key issue is intention. The government lied to us over Iraq - this is blatantly not in our interests. The government are not lying to us with cheese.

NG, happy to know that some issues of government intervention would be contrary to your position of the government interceded whenever it feels is should. I'm content with the distinction that I don't have to check and verify with anyone or go into tangent analysis to know that all repression of information or contrary positions - is repression and in is fascist. Even with the intent to correct inherently "bad" behavior, it is still repression and is not the responsibility of government.

I respect that our definition of repression and perhaps fascism differs, most likely because you believe if the intent is "good" it makes the action "good". Intent becomes the demarcation between good and bad repression not result. I don't agree, because I wouldn't argue the good "intent" of many laws and programs whose results were failures and tragedies. For example; Chamberlain's intent was to bring back "peace in our times" - nice intent; result - FAILURE. There are countless others. Look at the acclamation for the soon to be raised "minimum wage". Intent - Increased income for many. Result - With the same money available in the budget full time employees will become part time, a four employee business will somehow manage to be a 3 person business.

If intent is the determining factor then there is no such thing as accountability for result. If 20% of the employees working in the cheese factories of the UK are no longer employed due to this new measure - too bad for them? It wasn't really the intent of the advertisement restriction?

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 12:48:05 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

 I have been in that position myself, so I know how it is, and what the difference is. I had my son severely sprain his ankle and was stuck with over 2000 dollars in emergency room bills because we did not have insurance at the time. Universal access does not equate universal care. People have do not have insurance often wait until they are so sick that they need much more care than if they had preventative care. That is unacceptable when it comes to children. I do not know if you have ever tried to find a doctor being uninsured, but it is extremely difficult. Clinics often give substandard preventative care because they are overwhelmed.

If you don't qualify or your household make too much money to qualify than it is or was your decision to allocate money to things other than health coverage. I respect your right to do so. At a businessman/owner my decision is to pay for health coverage for my employees. It is in the budget. Offered the option to make that the responsibility of the government I'd benefit from eliminating that expense and having it replaced by a tax program that amounts to them paying for their own. However as a person - I'd be against such a measure. Whether business or personal it is a matter of prioritized budgeting. I'm in support of keeping that decision with you and me, both living with the consequences of that decision.

Did you get and review the itemized bill you received from the emergency room? Most likely you were subject to a surcharge to cover the cost of unpaid services rendered to other patients. If it was California, 40% of those patients were illegal aliens. Ridding the emergency ward of the requirement to care for these people wouldn't be desirable or charitable but it would be fiscally responsible.

Yes, I've had to secure care without insurance. Most recently when beth first moved in with me she didn't have coverage and needed care. Finding a doctor wasn't a problem.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 1:04:07 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		Actually my decision was based on not wanting to apply for government aid due to my pride, my job covered me but not my child. That is an unenviable situation that many have Merc. You assume that you know what resources I had or did not have. That is neither here nor there, 11 million children are uninsured. They have no voice in their parent's decision making, they have no right to reallocate resources to give themselves insurance. I did go on state aid when my son was very young and had asthma, I can tell you it was like pulling teeth to get a doctor on state aid.

You see, I do not care where a child was born when it  comes to them receiving medical treatment. I do not have more love for American children compared to others around the world. I do not find American babies intrinsically more worth giving care to.... a child is a child to me...



_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 1:16:39 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

NG,
To me this is taking also taking a leap of faith just into a shallower pool. One where it is safe to dive as long as you believe it is, the other is always the same depth and doesn't require yours, or anyone else's personal perspective.

Of course. I am giving my opinion on where and why the government should intervene on our behalf. Ultimately though, I believe in democracy so majority view holds court.

I don't the Constitution that I live under does.

What is your opinion? Do you personally believe it is right for your government to protect "your borders"? i.e. do you support this policy?

NG, happy to know that some issues of government intervention would be contrary to your position of the government interceded whenever it feels is should. I'm content with the distinction that I don't have to check and verify with anyone or go into tangent analysis to know that all repression of information or contrary positions - is repression and in is fascist. Even with the intent to correct inherently "bad" behavior, it is still repression and is not the responsibility of government.

I can see where you're coming from and I have a certain amount of sympathy with your point of view. However, ultimately, it is the preservation of democracy and civil liberty that drives the need for the public to have access to government information. If we are denied certain information then we are denied a key component of a transparent and accountable government. Where the government are withholding information relating to areas such as fraud, rigged voting, deliberate misleading etc then I would be among the first to say it is undemocratic. I do not believe withholding fatty foods information from kids is denying our civil liberties and democracy. Plus, all sorts of information is withheld from kids. For example, age limits on buying porn. I'm sure there are parents out there who appreciate the government passing laws to make sure their 8 year old kids can't buy porn when they are not in their parents' sight. Information on cheese is far from the only information kids are unable to view/read due to government enacted laws.
 


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 1:18:05 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Actually my decision was based on not wanting to apply for government aid due to my pride,

I respect your decision and strongly support your ability to continue to make them about every aspect of your life and the lives which you have responsibility.
quote:

You assume that you know what resources I had or did not have.
No, my response was not influenced by any knowledge assumed or otherwise of your resources. Although addressed to you, the concept of self determination and allocation of financial resources is consistent to being applied to everyone in every situation.
quote:

You see, I do not care where a child was born when it  comes to them receiving medical treatment. I do not have more love for American children compared to others around the world. I do not find American babies intrinsically more worth giving care to.... a child is a child to me...
Okay if it needs stating - Me too. Relevance? Go back to references made in the posts, even yours. You weren't denied treatment but your complaint was to the cost of treatment. I'll take the point introspective.

When beth needed care and I received a similar bill I contacted an insurance agent and determined getting her heath coverage and paying for it every month would cost just about what it cost for that single treatment. I made the decision not to get the coverage. A "good" decision because beth needed no further health care that year. Potentially a bad decision if she did. The decision was mine, not the government's  - which is the point of this thread.


Edited to include response to NG:

quote:

What is your opinion? Do you personally believe it is right for your government to protect "your borders"? i.e. do you support this policy?
My "personal" borders - no. The borders of the country yes. In the US there is no real ownership of land. Doubt that? - stop paying taxes and you'll soon have it repossessed by the true "owner". We lease it. Ultimate ownership and the responsibility for protection and defense is the responsibility of the government.

This is a situation where my opinion is immaterial except for the interpretation of preemptive defense outside the physical borders. On that issue, my opinion is the US should not intercede in any country. Our military should be recalled, and any corporation or business who choses to operate outside the US should not expect or get any protection for any reason. If corporations want protection they should build their factories and hire their workers from within the borders of the US. The price of raw goods and services it between the corporations and the countries or individuals outside the US they choose. Should their businesses be 'nationalized' by those countries they should expect and get no relief from the government of the USA.

quote:

I can see where you're coming from and I have a certain amount of sympathy with your point of view. However, ultimately, it is the preservation of democracy and civil liberty that drives the need for the public to have access to government information.

A good point to stop beating this horse, who if not dead, is wearing a lot of welts.

It should be noted that your reliance on democracy to insure civil liberties isn't always a true test. For example, if you believe in the 'civil liberty' in same sex marriage you can not rely on 'democracy' to obtain that result. Every time the issue has been put to a vote here in the US it has not passed. It is why currently in Massachusetts, the incoming governor is trying to suppress the Massachusetts legislators from voting on the proposal to put the same sex marriage law on the ballot.

If in all cases you rely on a democratic majority test to determine if a 'civil liberty' should be implemented many common and "good" civil liberties would never have occurred.

But that's a different discussion for a different day.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 1/4/2007 1:37:49 PM >

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 1:38:36 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		OK, lets say I chose not to take my son to the doctor, he has a broken ankle that healed improperly because I did not have him insured. That to me would be unacceptable. The point is that it is not the child's fault their parent has other priorities and does not take them to get preventative medical care. Three personal examples:

A friend of my sister's godchildren died from leukemia when she was 8 years old, her mother was a single mom, dismissed symptoms away because she had no insurance. Her daughter may have lost her life because of that.

I had a friend that had a retail job without insurance. She got suddenly ill to the point of being code blue upon her arrival to the hospital. She made just 50 dollars more in the quarter than would have made her eligible for state help. She was stuck with a bill of over 30k and the surgeon waved his fees. She had to claim bankruptcy and she was only 21. This is the story of so many people.

My own father was losing his business due the real estate market crashing in the late 70s early 80s. He started having chest pains that he ignored because he could not afford medical insurance anymore and let it lapse. He died on the table during open heart surgery because he waited too long to get medical help.. this tragically happens all to often too. As a result of losing him this imperiled our family economically.

I cannot begin to tell you how important preventative medicine is, and yet the uninsured and the state insured often do not get it... we could save many lives if they did. If you perceive that cutting in on your freedom, well I do not see myself as being less free if we as a nation have universal healthcare.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 1:43:26 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
You need to define "proper health-care".


A topic close to the heart right now.
 
My foster parents have the best insurance than money can buy, and we have an ongoing medical situation in our family. I don't want to bore you with a bunch of stories ... just trust me, I have a ton of them. Let me give you the latest. Yesterday I was visiting and noticed they were giving Joan more blood, and it was just collecting in her arm and shoulder (she is on blood thinner), which causes more pressure, and more pain ... so they give her more pain killers, which she reacts to poorly. It makes here hemoglobin drop, which makes them give her more blood. Vicious circle. I called the doctor all day ... this is our third docter by the way, all highly recommended ... and in spite of all my calls, I never get a call back. Meanwhile, the nurses are asking me what I want done. My foster dad is on a business trip ... it's just me ... I'm twenty years old and have no experience with this, and the doctor won't even return my calls. I finally get his nurse last night, who tells me that the doctor will meet me at the hospital at five in the morning. So, I get up at three in the morning and show up on time. Guess what happened?  Not a thing ... the doctor never showed. Again, I called and called ... and it wasn't until about the tenth call that his nurse called me back. She told me the bad weather kept him from doing his rounds. Well gee ... I got here from fucking Katy, which is a long drive. Unless he came from Iceland, he couldn't have had any worse weather than I had.
 
I'm sorry ... our healthcare system sucks ass! These people can't tell time. If they tell you surgery will be at three in the afternoon that means seven at night, unless it's later. If they tell you they will have MRI results at noon, that means later ... maybe the next day ... and maybe not at all. I have been battling this for months. I have never has a doctor return my phone call ... not even once. They keep you in the dark then want you to make important decisions.
 
BUT ... the bills come on time, every time ... and they sure want paid on time.
 
Our healthcare system is good at one thing ... billing. It's our health for a profit, and nothing more. There is no free market motivation to do a good job. What the fuck do they care ... the patients will probably die anyway, with the way they treat them.
 
I can only imagne what people with no insurance get for care.
 
Sorry ... this is a total vent.  

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 1:49:18 PM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

NG,
To me this is taking also taking a leap of faith just into a shallower pool. One where it is safe to dive as long as you believe it is, the other is always the same depth and doesn't require yours, or anyone else's personal perspective.

Of course. I am giving my opinion on where and why the government should intervene on our behalf. Ultimately though, I believe in democracy so majority view holds court.

I don't the Constitution that I live under does.

What is your opinion? Do you personally believe it is right for your government to protect "your borders"? i.e. do you support this policy?

NG, happy to know that some issues of government intervention would be contrary to your position of the government interceded whenever it feels is should. I'm content with the distinction that I don't have to check and verify with anyone or go into tangent analysis to know that all repression of information or contrary positions - is repression and in is fascist. Even with the intent to correct inherently "bad" behavior, it is still repression and is not the responsibility of government.

I can see where you're coming from and I have a certain amount of sympathy with your point of view. However, ultimately, it is the preservation of democracy and civil liberty that drives the need for the public to have access to government information. If we are denied certain information then we are denied a key component of a transparent and accountable government. Where the government are withholding information relating to areas such as fraud, rigged voting, deliberate misleading etc then I would be among the first to say it is undemocratic. I do not believe withholding fatty foods information from kids is denying our civil liberties and democracy. Plus, all sorts of information is withheld from kids. For example, age limits on buying porn. I'm sure there are parents out there who appreciate the government passing laws to make sure their 8 year old kids can't buy porn when they are not in their parents' sight. Information on cheese is far from the only information kids are unable to view/read due to government enacted laws.
 




If restricting somebodies right to earn a living is not an infraction on civil liberties then what is? The industry I work within is very heavily regulated by the govt, so much so that only our administrative centre is within the UK (and even that is under notice of closure), a staff of approximately  120 or so, if there were no restrictions on our operations we could easily employ 10 times that amount. How many of those managers, clerks, and admin assitants are going to be able to relocate internationally? A grand total of 5 have been deemed important enought to be offered a relocation package, the rest, well I am afraid for them it is back to welfare, families or the problem of hunting down a new job. How much thought did the government give these people when regulation was imposed because a few vocal people demanded it? Bear in mind of course that mine is just one company that is lucky enough to operate internationally so we could make up the financial slack elsewhere, many other companies went to the wall.

Anybody who tries the "its for your own good" line on me automatically makes me think the exact opposite, namely that it is for their good and to my detriment. If you are to hold to the belief that with this being a democracy and the majority view counts, then judging by such things as election turn outs, the majority view could well be "who gives a shit", ie apathy.

The point is not about the govt witholding information on cheese, all the information is within the public domain anyway. The point is that the govt are wanting to ban the advertisement of a product, they are wanting to dictate to a private entity how they may try sell their product. In essence it is no different at all from the govt banning an ad on any dating site, especially ones that cater to our desires because some poor soul might hook up with the wrong person.

I do think that given all the other costly problems society has that have been mentioned elsewhere, such as crime, substance abuse, etc etc that the legislation and work involved in banning the advertisement of certain foods at certain times of day is to be blunt a ridiculous waste. As with most legislation of its type the proposal is very vague, covers many things it should not do, and often does not cover the areas it is trying to. At the end of the day have the restrictions on the advertising of alcohol made any difference? I shall not offer an answer, but merely suggest asking any cop or ambulance staff that works friday lates in a city centre. Those who care will have already sorted out the family diets, those that dont, well they are either really gullible folks who will buy whatever appears on the screen*, or they just dont care and it wont make any difference at all.


*Snake oil available, limited offer, finance available subject to status, terms & conditions apply, see remainder of disclaimer below:)

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 1:49:45 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


quote:

What is your opinion? Do you personally believe it is right for your government to protect "your borders"? i.e. do you support this policy?
My "personal" borders - no. The borders of the country yes. In the US there is no real ownership of land. Doubt that? - stop paying taxes and you'll soon have it repossessed by the true "owner". We lease it. Ultimate ownership and the responsibility for protection and defense is the responsibility of the government.

Merc, the above in bold tells me you believe in a certain amount of government intrusion in US society. If you were to say it's not personal then I could say the same with the cheese issue. As said in a much earlier post, our real difference of opinion is where the line is drawn and why.

But that's a different discussion for a different day.

I personally believe this is key. For my money, the intrusion on civil liberties is where the government over-steps the mark.


Not sure if you missed the below from my earlier post. Any thoughts?
 
Plus, all sorts of information is withheld from kids. For example, age limits on buying porn. I'm sure there are parents out there who appreciate the government passing laws to make sure their 8 year old kids can't buy porn when they are not in their parents' sight. Information on cheese is far from the only information kids are unable to view/read due to government enacted laws. 


 




_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 1:56:46 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Julia,
I appreciate all the sad stories and could add to them. People, and unfortunately children die. As bad as it is, bankruptcy laws are in place for just the reason that your friend used them. Business planning, as with personal budgeting is a prioritized process. This is life. I don't want intervention by the government telling me that instead of taking a family vacation I must insure survivorship benefits are in place for my family in the event of my death. 

Fact is, all your examples could have been less disastrous and tragic if a different personal decision was made somewhere in the process. I can point to one decision I made a little over 5 years ago that had a similar life altering result.

Your solution is putting the government in the position of mother/father and benevolent caregiver that cures all ills and fixes all problems. You want the government to be make some/most/all personal decisions for you. I, respectfully, do not; under any circumstance.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 2:01:51 PM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		On the subject of healthcare and government interference...........

Given the state of healthcare in this country you really do not want the state to make it freely available to all. I was unsure if I should laugh or cry when I read of an MRI scan results being a couple of hours late, or an op being postponed a few hours. It took me 8 months to get an MRI scan scheduled here, another month before the results were available to my personal doctor. An op would not be postponed for a few hours here, but perhaps even a few years. As a result of all this I pay a great deal of money for private medical coverage above and beyond the taxes I pay into the national health system.

Unfortunately the most reproductive entity on earth is a bureauocracy, and I think we can all agree how much governments love them. Given a choice between a healtcare system based on profit and one based on paper shuffling, I will take profit anyday, I guess paying extra insurance proves that point. If only it were easy to provide a value for money system that covered everybodies needs.

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 2:07:28 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Julia,
I appreciate all the sad stories and could add to them. People, and unfortunately children die. As bad as it is, bankruptcy laws are in place for just the reason that your friend used them. Business planning, as with personal budgeting is a prioritized process. This is life. I don't want intervention by the government telling me that instead of taking a family vacation I must insure survivorship benefits are in place for my family in the event of my death. 

Fact is, all your examples could have been less disastrous and tragic if a different personal decision was made somewhere in the process. I can point to one decision I made a little over 5 years ago that had a similar life altering result.

Your solution is putting the government in the position of mother/father and benevolent caregiver that cures all ills and fixes all problems. You want the government to be make some/most/all personal decisions for you. I, respectfully, do not; under any circumstance.


No, I want the profit out of the current healthcare system.  I will reiterate, children do not get to consent to their parent's priorities of not insuring them. The stories I highlighted were just a few that show how broken our system is, and as you stated yourself, you could add to them.

Having lost someone due to a lack of medical insurance left a gaping hole in my heart and my life, and I would definitely consent to the government preventing that tragedy by giving all of us the same medical insurance that congress has. I did not consent to real estate market crashing, I did not consent to losing our home because of it, and I certainly did not consent to my father feeling he had to choose between food for us and medical attention. I wish he would have chosen the medical attention.

Howabout this, we all get to opt in to a state ran medical insurance that cannot drop us because we become too sick or use it too much in one year? One that will cut out the middle man and we have low or no copay? One like we have for our elderly... I would join the state insurance and others would probably too. I bet it would end up being cheaper because it would not be set up for profit.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 2:20:47 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

If restricting somebodies right to earn a living is not an infraction on civil liberties then what is?

I disagree. Civil liberties are intended to be for the good of wider society as well as for the good of an individual.

Your argument suggests contract killers have a right to earn a living. The government steps in to censor various forms of potential earners. It is not an invasion of civil liberties to do so. Think badger baiting, dog fighting, contract killing, seal clubbing etc.

Anybody who tries the "its for your own good" line on me automatically makes me think the exact opposite,

Fair enough. I prefer to listen to what they have to say and make my own decision. It's exactly what good business and finance managers do - they listen to the views of many and make their own decision.

the majority view could well be "who gives a shit", ie apathy.

Apathy is a huge problem in Britain. You're in good company with this point of view as it has been posted many times on this board.

The point is that the govt are wanting to ban the advertisement of a product, they are wanting to dictate to a private entity how they may try sell their product.

Loads of products are censored e.g . porn to kids, guns, knives, fur products, certain animal meat. This is one of many. A view is taken on what is right for our society. If people believe it is fascism and the government are over-stepping the mark then campaign to revoke such provisions. Majority view holds.

I do think that given all the other costly problems society has that have been mentioned elsewhere, such as crime, substance abuse, etc etc that the legislation and work involved in banning the advertisement of certain foods at certain times of day is to be blunt a ridiculous waste.

I can't agree. Obesity is a real problem. Parents and teachers are struggling to get to grips with it. Time for a last resort, helping hand from the government.

As with most legislation of its type the proposal is very vague, covers many things it should not do, and often does not cover the areas it is trying to. At the end of the day have the restrictions on the advertising of alcohol made any difference?

Completely different. Alcohol is so ingrained in British society it is going to take something extra special to make inroads into the problem of alcoholism.

Those who care will have already sorted out the family diets, those that dont, well they are either really gullible folks who will buy whatever appears on the screen*, or they just dont care and it wont make any difference at all.

I can see the government argument. Kids are not always with their parents. When they're at school there is less chance of them eating rubbish if they're not being bombarded with advertisements for rubbish food.

You know what, they tried something similar in the US for adults. A Canadian firm put together an advert which went along the lines of "A North American consumes 30 times as much as an Indian and 8 times as much as a Chinese, give it a rest for a day". The advert was fully funded yet the big US TV stations refused to show the adverts due to corporate pressure. Personally, I would rather see the health of a kid protected than allow corporations to market their shit food to gullable kids who don't know any different.



edited for typo

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 1/4/2007 2:24:10 PM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 2:28:04 PM   
HatesParisHilton


Posts: 3513
Joined: 12/27/2006
Status: offline 		So ownership of spanking PICS is now gonna be illegal.  Great.  Definately a step towards Orwell's Nightmare and definitely a doff of the chapeau to V for Vendetta (poor ol' Alan More was SO correct over 20 years ago, it seems).

_____________________________

I am (now) "Hiltie", hear me ROARRRRR! And have a cuffy cake, they're nice.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 2:36:25 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton

So ownership of spanking PICS is now gonna be illegal.  Great.  Definately a step towards Orwell's Nightmare and definitely a doff of the chapeau to V for Vendetta (poor ol' Alan More was SO correct over 20 years ago, it seems).


I'm with you.

Two consenting adults = no problem. You pay your money take your chances etc.

On the otherhand, one kid not old enough to make informed decisions = problem.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to HatesParisHilton)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 2:37:52 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Not sure if you missed the below from my earlier post. Any thoughts?
 
Plus, all sorts of information is withheld from kids. For example, age limits on buying porn. I'm sure there are parents out there who appreciate the government passing laws to make sure their 8 year old kids can't buy porn when they are not in their parents' sight. Information on cheese is far from the only information kids are unable to view/read due to government enacted laws. 

NG,
Not just for consistency but because of true belief I don't have any need for the government to dictate what is seen, or heard, based upon some arbitrary "age of consent". The responsibility for access should be with the parents. Puritanical beliefs becoming laws may be fundamental to the US, but by their vary nature, create what they hope to repress. When my grandparents married she was 13 he 19. In 2007 it would be statutory rape, in the early part of the 20th century it was common. Go back further and by 40 you were considered "old". Chronological age restriction is a moving target depending on the era.

Insisting that the number of times traveled around the sun be the determining factor of access creates more problems than it solves. Many street gangs here in the US actively recruit very young members for much of their work offering money and pointing to the fact that most likely if caught perpetrating a crime the person would be treated as a juvenile. As a result we are surrounded by hypocrisy.  My least favorite example is the ability of an 18 year old to die in Iraq but not get a beer in the US? An 8 year old buying porn? A difficult image to consider, but maybe if the porn, or better yet nudity wasn't such a 'secret' the 8 year old would use the money instead to buy some cheese he saw advertised during his/her cartoons.

I was brought up with wine at the table from a young age so drinking never had the excitement element. I think the last time it was "exciting" to get a drink at a bar was the day before it became legal to do so. I believe the same would be true with all the age restricted vices.

I too know of many parents who need/want the government or someone else to monitor their children. I always took that responsibility personally, and with as little, and any would be completely unintended, hypocrisy as possible.

quote:

Merc, the above in bold tells me you believe in a certain amount of government intrusion in US society. If you were to say it's not personal then I could say the same with the cheese issue. As said in a much earlier post, our real difference of opinion is where the line is drawn and why.
On this issue, alluding to a countries borders, I don't see it as a "government intrusion" I see it as defining government. As the Vatican is defined by its walls so is any country defined by its borders. If you see this as a semantic argument I won't change my opinion, but I respect yours.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. - 1/4/2007 2:47:49 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

NG,
Not just for consistency but because of true belief I don't have any need for the government to dictate what is seen, or heard, based upon some arbitrary "age of consent". The responsibility for access should be with the parents. Puritanical beliefs becoming laws may be fundamental to the US, but by their vary nature, create what they hope to repress.

Merc, I agree parents have a responsibility to bring up their kids in an appropriate manner. An issue for me is parents can't possibly watch their kids 24/7 thus they need a spot of help e.g. laws to prevent young'uns buying porn, knives, guns etc (when parents aren't around to supervise).

If you see this as a semantic argument I won't change my opinion, but I respect yours.

I agree. We've had a good crack at it. Some good points made. Call it a draw and live to fight another day. 



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109