I don't know in which human society you grew up, but my parents taught me that there is a duty to help others.

 

I think you underestimate the number of people in human society.

 

True, assuming that you alone have the right and privilege to define who owns what. The entire definition of "property" is something society came up with. It doesn't exist in nature as a "right", only as something that can be forced on others as a rule.

And yes, you are at fault if you refuse to cure someone even though it is in your power.

But why don't you try it out? Wait until you are in a situation where somebody could die unless you helped and then tell that someone's mother than you didn't help because you had no duty to help and we'll see whether her instinct is to agree with you or to agree with me.

 

"I don't know in which human society you grew up, but my parents taught me that there is a duty to help others."

Don't get me started on cultural relativism. I really agree with you here. People ought to help each other, absolutely. But in that necessary since, they don't have to.

"I think you underestimate the number of people in human society."

This was just one of many examples of the same phenomenon. It is caused by the idea of diluted responsibility. Although, it is also influenced by the culture, the anonymity of the participants, and all sorts of other factors. 

I should point out that you can't leave your wallet on the street in NYC and expect your money not to be stolen, either. My point with that story was that human society does not do the right things. You can't use human society as a measure of what is good. That should be pretty obvious. Just look around.

"True, assuming that you alone have the right and privilege to define who owns what. The entire definition of "property" is something society came up with. It doesn't exist in nature as a "right", only as something that can be forced on others as a rule.

And yes, you are at fault if you refuse to cure someone even though it is in your power.

But why don't you try it out? Wait until you are in a situation where somebody could die unless you helped and then tell that someone's mother than you didn't help because you had no duty to help and we'll see whether her instinct is to agree with you or to agree with me."

The first part is more or less saying, "Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's." I agree.

You are not at fault. Certainly, though, someone might be upset by their son's death and looking for someone to blame. Why not a doctor? Why not the government? I would save the person to begin with, even though I don't have to. (I like to think I am a good person.) But if I didn't, sure, I would definitely lie about being able to have done it. People would not understand that it was the disease that caused death, not the unpaid doctor who stood by and watched. That does not change the fact that it really was not his fault.

Looks like the IRS is gearing up to hire thousands of armed stormtroopers to enforce their new expanded powers. Eventually, even many of the most fanatical liberals will rue this day.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/22/irs-looking-to-hiring-thousands-of-armed-tax-agents-to-enforce-health-care-laws

I see you are a slow reader, among other faults.

It actually started out well, but went into the sewer fast.  Why?

No, your bullsh*t.  The republicans did start out participating, but obama and the democrats figured they had large enough majorities so they did not listen.  I guess your memory only lasts as long as a gold fish.  It is a fact and easily googled (but not on RC so I guess you would never find it).

More BS from the king of BS.  So you are saying Pelosi, Reid, Baucus and Obama are Blue dogs?  THEY never had a chance, and did not care either (Stupak is as stupak does, right stupak?)

Thank you for making my point for me and refuting yours.  For someone not caring, you timed my response down to the second and took a lot of words to look stupid.  But then you dont need many to look that way as you have demonstrated so many times in the past.

Considering the source, you have seen nothing yet.

Which is one of the most obvious reasons this is bad law, and MF is just flat out wrong.  Any republican idea that was offered (and these are a couple) was DOA.  Obama said it, and reid and pelosi made sure it was so.  The MSM here in the US went along with the democrats in saying the republicans were not offering anything because they did not want to hear of the offers (most that would do good).  So ignorant fools like MF just parrotted the MSM line without actually seeing what was being done.

In the end, if SCOTUS does kill this, it will be because the democrats ignored the republican ideas.  Feds can regulate INTERstate commerce, but as you noted, health care does not have Interstate commerce because of stupid rules.

That's what I thought.

Not that I am against such regulations, far from it. But I would want it done properly, legally, and with some thought behind it.

As I said before, I am all for those liberal ideas. But the liberal implementation is just not it.

dp

They are not necessarily liberal ideas, the implementation is liberal.  Which usually means prone to failure, waste, mismanagement and fraud.

But that's not the case if you then get shielded from the consequences of not having insurance by being guaranteed (emergency) healthcare even if you can't pay for it. In such a situation someone who chooses not to be insured is effectively choosing to have other people pay for their healthcare, which in principle seems to run completely opposite to the point you raised.

 

If the principle embodied in the current health care reform law (that it is constitutional & acceptable to tax someone for not having something) survives challenges, there is no rational limit to permissible imposition of government micro-regulation.

Your weight greater than 125% of the government sanctioned ideal & you've not done 45 minutes on the treadmill an average of 3 days a week?  That'll be $200 on April 15th.

Your cholesterol >260 & you're not taking your statin?  That'll be $200 on April 15th.

You did not quit smoking this year?  That'll be $200 on April 15th.

You have diabetes & your A1c is not <7.5%?  That'll be $200 on April 15th.

Ad nauseum.

Daiwa your right. The problem is the people that can't see past today, past oohhh what did I get for "FREE" are oblivious to what tomorrow might bring. They are the ones dancing in the street today, while those maniacal little cog's are turning in DC, planning the next move.

*being tempted to post*

Ooooohh.. no. I won't touch that with a 10-foot pole.

This is not a free country and it is becoming less free every year. We don't need the Government, be it local, state, or federal dictating how we live our lives and making decisions about our health and welfare for us.

We need to take personal responsibilty for our own actions. If you are an adult it should be your choice whether or not you wear a seat belt or helmet, since the only person you endanger is yourself.

Insurance is nothing more than a legal, government endorsed scam. Pay me lots of money, but I won't give you anything in return unless something bad happens. Then I'll do everything in my power to avoid paying you, such as claiming negligence/act of god/fraud or anything else I can imagine. Regardless of whether I pay your claim or not I will probably drop you even if your claim is trivial compared to the amount you've already paid in. If I do decide to allow you to have a policy I will double your rates because you are a high risk.

Several states are challenging the Constitutionality of this bill. Last I read 13 state Attorney Generals are sueing the Federal Government over this. Hopefully the states will win or everyone that voted for that BS will be replaced with people that will listen to the American people and repeal the bill.

Oh, and they'll have the medical records (electronic records are already mandated; phased in, but mandated) so it'll be easy enough for them to know.  And if you think your records will be protected, good luck - the "public interest" will trump all.

Don't worry about it. Being in a marginally less-free country isn't that bad. You don't even notice the difference on the long run.

That's the crux of the issue. It lies with three basic groups in the US. 1. Many people who believe this (or we would be in worse trouble than we are) in personal responsibility. 2. Some that believe everyone owes them. And 3. Those that believe that group #1 and to some extent themselves (because many of these folks never consider themselves part of the problem) need to take care of everyone, regardless of the reason for their circumstance. 

Some may say Nitro, you must not think group #1 is part of the problem? My answer, if one is responsible for themselves how can they be the "problem". Now all people fall on hard times, that much is true. I'm not against helping someone until they can get on their feet. There are limits however. Group #1 tend to be very generous when it comes to helping the unfortunate. They just don't want to be told it is mandatory. Group #3 is insecure in the individuals ability, they need guidance from higher authority to maintain the perception of right or wrong.

Then you're really going to love Cap and Trade. That's taking money for a problem nobody is sure we can do anything about. Someone will get rich, everyone will pay high prices for everything, win-lose. With Insurance, at least you get a feel-good sensation that the money you spend might keep you from losing more.

Yep.  The slowly boiled frog never figures it out.

And it's not just the Feds who'll use/abuse your records.

Health Care, pre-March/2010, in the US was the epitomy of a socialistic society.  As you noted, no one was forced to buy insurance.  Yet, everyone was guaranteed health care.  And if you rolled the dice and lost, then it would cost you.  Yes, you would still get charged, but you would not lose life, liberty or the other necessities of life to pay for it.  In other words, while you may lose a lot of money and assets, you were still guaranteed food clothing and shelter.  The sob stories you hear are not about people being denied Health care, only Health Insurance.  And if they were unable to pay, Uncles Sam paid.  If they had some money/assets, then they paid what they could.

So Yes, America took care of its own.  But it did not give a free ride to the young entrepreneur forsaking health care that got clobbered by circumstances.  He still had to pay his way.

Now?  The rich get soaked, the middle class gets squeezed, no one has the freedom of choice, and the government gets to decide who lives and dies.  Death Panels?  The funny thing is they do not have to be in the new legislation.  The Feds already are the biggest denier of coverage in the US, so by extension, they are also the biggest cause of deaths due to lack of health care to Americans.  This bill does not change that. 

Palin was only partially right.  The death panels were there all along.

Unless you say something others object to.  Just yesterday we were treated to thought control by the canadians - ala Ann coulter.  America was the last bastion of freedom, but sadly it is becoming just another throught controlled society.

I didn't want to have to buy car insurance.

You clearly don't know a thing about canadian political climate if you think that because there was a manifestation against Ann Coulter in Ottawa, there are no ideological divergence in our country.

Edit: Not to forget one element, how does that affect Americans that a large protest against Ann Coulter happened?

Edit2: I just found an article. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/23/13336316.html As you can see, conservatives (your meaning) still have the right to say what they want. No one prevent them from saying things in the paper, writing editorials, or having their political party. But no one is preventing other peoples to protest against a very controversial and antagonising pundit.

Then don't.

Not even European countries like Germany force you to buy car insurance unless you buy a care and use it on publicly owned roads.

 I don't have car insurance. Would hate it if there were a law forcing me to get it.