• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

The Mangler said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Because Government is always needed to take care of those who can’t care for themselves. Unless you’re OK with people who can’t afford medical care to just die in the streets.

And if you’re not OK with that, it’s ultimately more efficient for the government to spend money and make laws that encourage preventative choices and care, rather than wait to pay for an ER visit to treat obesity/diabetes/heart attacks.
 
TownieDeac said:
There should be no stop signs or traffic lights. Drivers should be given the choice to yield or not yield. LIBERTY
Click to expand...

Vegan lifestyle is healthier so we are going to outlaw all other types of food. The current population of the world is unsustainable so we are going to allow people whose social security numbers end in an odd digit to have one child but even digit numbers may not have children. A speed limit of 55 mph saves fuel and lives so we are going to adapt all car such that its impossible to drive over 55 mph that is while we allow cars.
 
The Mangler said:
Vegan lifestyle is healthier so we are going to outlaw all other types of food. The current population of the world is unsustainable so we are going to allow people whose social security numbers end in an odd digit to have one child but even digit numbers may not have children. A speed limit of 55 mph saves fuel and lives so we are going to adapt all car such that its impossible to drive over 55 mph that is while we allow cars.
Click to expand...

hey, you're free to move to Somalia or some other state guided by the Great Hand
 
So...in this case do you just not want the government to provide any free or reduced lunches for kids who would currently qualify for them?

What's your alternative? I guess you can say just let the kids not eat at school, but that seems pretty harsh since for a lot of kids in this situation that may be their only meal of the day.
 
Have you tried reading what I've already posted? It's all within the last few posts.
 
The case for public health has been pretty well made over the past 100 years. We can certainly debate it at the margins but the underlying rationale is pretty much beyond dispute for a modern society IMHO.

Enjoy all the freedoms you want, just pay (ie tax) the costs associated with those freedoms.
 
The Mangler said:
It's all about liberty. I don't want the government involved in whether an individual buys health insurance, gets an abortion, has a 48 ounce soda or eats a cheeseburger and fries for lunch. Those should be individual choices. If the government wants to provide some healthy options that students can choose if they desire that's great. On the other hand, I believe that forcing people into a particular behavior often makes them more resistant than they otherwise would have been and as a result is counterproductive. Unless we are going to have government controlling adult behaviors kids need to learn to make choices for themselves. What better place to do that than school?
Click to expand...

So you want 6-10 year old kids deciding what they should eat at lunch. How about letting them decide if they go to school? Take tests?

What could go wrong with allowing an eight year old to make such decisions?
 
The Mangler said:
It's all about liberty. I don't want the government involved in whether an individual buys health insurance, gets an abortion, has a 48 ounce soda or eats a cheeseburger and fries for lunch. Those should be individual choices. If the government wants to provide some healthy options that students can choose if they desire that's great. On the other hand, I believe that forcing people into a particular behavior often makes them more resistant than they otherwise would have been and as a result is counterproductive. Unless we are going to have government controlling adult behaviors kids need to learn to make choices for themselves. What better place to do that than school?
Click to expand...

I'm ok with kids making choices for themselves

however, if I'm buying the kids' lunches, which is what I'm doing for free lunches in schools, I'd prefer they be healthy* lunches

*I recognize this means free lunches will go uneaten and, while not ideal, I'm ok with this given the alternatives
*I also recognize the government has not always been the best at determining what is healthy (see: low-fat, low-cholesterol) and so we need to be sure that the right people are setting the menus

ETA: and in fact, blindly trusting government to look out for its citizens' best interest is foolhardy at best, considering, from the opioid thread, that in August, 2015, over objections from critics, (Purdue Pharma) received F.D.A. approval to market OxyContin to children as young as eleven
 
Last edited:
Beats blindly trusting big business to look out for the citizens' best interest. Without the FDA, they'd market Oxy to kids younger than eleven.
 
well of course; the point is that all levels of government are bought/controlled/influenced by big (and smaller) business
 
Sure. The solution isn’t less government and more big business. It’s better government.
 
Republicans skewered Michelle Obama for proposing healthy lunches for kids. They called her all sorts of names for trying help kids eat properly and learn more.

Reagan famously had ketchup listed as a vegetable to save money on school lunches. I'd trust Michelle Obama over Republicans on this every time.
 
thatguy2016 said:
or, not blindly trusting government
Click to expand...

So what’s your solution? Each individual person has to figure out for his or herself which products to trust and be liable for the decisions they make with no legal recourse?
 
Nah. When people see something is FDA approved they believe it’s safe to put in or on their bodies.

That’s not a bad thing. It’s better than people having to rely on all kinds of random information out there. That would be a free market free for all.

So the solution is better government.
 
TownieDeac said:
Do you not see the difference between reasonable restrictions and unreasonable restrictions? I thought I was making it easy for you to counterargue but you chose to double down.
Click to expand...

You were throwing out absurdities so I showed the same could be done on the other side. If everyone agreed to which restrictions were reasonable and which weren't there wouldn't be an issue here. I guess I'd prefer we err on missing some reasonable restrictions rather than implement some that are unreasonable.
 
The Mangler said:
You were throwing out absurdities so I showed the same could be done on the other side. If everyone agreed to which restrictions were reasonable and which weren't there wouldn't be an issue here. I guess I'd prefer we err on missing some reasonable restrictions rather than implement some that are unreasonable.
Click to expand...

What do reasonable and unreasonable look like policy-wise?
 
The Mangler said:
You were throwing out absurdities so I showed the same could be done on the other side. If everyone agreed to which restrictions were reasonable and which weren't there wouldn't be an issue here. I guess I'd prefer we err on missing some reasonable restrictions rather than implement some that are unreasonable.
Click to expand...

And most would be able to learn from history that there are basic things that makes societies function efficiently. Even if you deem them “unreasonable”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top