Comments about ‘Letters: Intertwined problems’

"the government will take care of my $1,000 diabetes doctor bills once Obamacare is fully implemented. Take that scenario across the nation."

That scenario is already across the nation. Private insurance premiums, Medicare, Medicaid, most of us are already paying for the health choices of others in some way or another.

But it does raise an interesting point about the ethics of everyone in the health care pool paying for someone else's self-inflicted health problems.

Your letter would be more persuasive if you had actually researched the issue enough to not start off with a misconception - Big Gulps are not banned in New York City. Restaurants, sports parks, and certain other establishments cannot sell sugary beverages in containers larger than 16 ounces - patrons can buy as many of these containers as they would like. Convenience stores, grocery stores, and bodegas are not covered by these limitations and can sell drinks in whatever size they want.

Your letter starts off with unfounded hyperbole - there is no reason to believe the rest of it is anything different.

Those of us who believe that natural consequences are the best way to help people make good choices think that this is the perfect reason why we shouldn't have national health care.

Let people choose. If they choose to eat stupid, and get health problems from that, they will pay for that choice in health care costs and in poor health. Same with smoking, same with drinking. I am okay with letting the "punishment fit the 'crime'" so to speak.

When government takes over some of the consequences, people are less likely make good choices. So then the government takes away those choices to reduce its liability. This is a loss of freedom.

Freedom always comes with responsibility and consequences.
Free programs aren't really free, and they reduce the responsibility of the recipients, in exchange for loss of freedoms.

I prefer freedom! I can't imagine why anyone else wouldn't.

Kalindra

Big Gulps are over 16 oz, so doesn't that mean they are banned in NY? You contradict yourself.

Emajor

If you want to protest the outrageous profits pharmaceutical companies make on diabetic supplies, I'm in!

Government abuse of the citizenry happens at all levels. The Constitution does not allow Obamacare, yet the Court told us that it is a TAX; therefore, it is allowed. I doubt that New York's constitution allows for governmental control of the foods that New Yorkers eat, but the citizens have allowed that intrusion into their lives.

As long a citizens allow government to take away their liberties, government will continue to steal our freedoms. Elected officials count on us being cowards. They count on us sitting back and "taking it". Until we stand up for our freedoms, we will continue to lose those freedoms.

The people control the government in America - all levels of government. No matter how many "community organizers" post and tell us otherwise, we are still the United States of America. We still are the only nation on earth where the government derives its power from the governed. Obama wants to change that. Various mayors and governors want to change that. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want to change that. At least four of the five judges on the Supreme Court want to change that.

It's time to stand up and speak out.

@ Christian 24-7: Since Big Gulps are sold at convenience stores (7-11s to be exact) and the ban does not apply to convenience stores, no - stating the facts if the law does not make me contradict myself.

Again, research and reading comprehension are good things.

This letter is simply foolish.

Most of the government regulations so far are RECOMMENDATIONS. They are not laws.

And, we are already paying for the consequences of the dietary preferences of others. We're paying for it through increased insurance premiums and being forced to pay for health care for those who are uninsured.

"Obamacare" will actually help relieve that. After all, don't conservatives constantly yowl about "personal responsibility." If so, why do they refuse to acknowledge that requiring everyone to have insurance is not actually personal responsibility?

So let me understand this --

It's OK to get Government involved in banning smoking and drinking because it's bad for our health,

yet, it's a direct threat to our "Freedom" to get Governemnt involved in banning excessive sugars and carbohydrates for exactly the very same reasons [because it's bad for our health], and then twisted into being an evil Government conspiracy control issue?

I don't follow hypocritical conservative logic.

Just end corn and sugar subsidies: they make junk food artificially cheap

Until you're willing to tackle the gorilla in this room, cigarettes, you're just blowing smoke around the edges.

Mike --

If you want to keep Government out of people lives and choices, and let people have the freedom to destroy their lives anyway they want,

Why are you against marijuana, cigarettes, pornography and abortion? [other than the LDS church has asked US to abstain from them?]

There is nothing in the Constitution specifically allowing Government to control those bad behaviors.
Yet you support some, and not others.

Why the double-standard and hypocracy?

Airnaut--

The difference is simple, choices that only destroy the choosers life are free choice, but when others' lives are greatly harmed by ones choice, then society has a responsibility to stand up for the rights of would be victims.

Hence drinking is permitted as it primarily harms the drinker, but driving while intoxicated is not permitted because it harms others.

To my knowledge pornography is legal except child porn. Child porn is illegal because it harms children.

Abortion should be illegal by the same standard, but isn't. Don't bother telling me unborn humans aren't children. I know for a fact that they are not anything but humans. But others have others ideas. I guess they think fetuses grow into plants or kittens or something.

Here is another irony in the law:

We allow people to smoke around their children causing known harm, but Christian Scientist families, who don't believe in medical care, will be required to pay for health care, either by premium or by fine, and their children are sometimes medically treated by the state usurping parental authority and choice.

There are a lot of issues still unaddressed, with Obamacare causing even more.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT
Airnaut--

The difference is simple, choices that only destroy the choosers life are free choice, but when others' lives are greatly harmed by ones choice, then society has a responsibility to stand up for the rights of would be victims.

==========

Kind of like when WallStreet destroyed middle America, and wiped out their savings and retirements?
What about cars, trucks and factories polluting our air? Another Conservative blind eye businees, to heck with the people?
Smoking pot does what to you?
Civil Unions or Domestic partnerships hurt you how?

You see - it's this sort of blantant hypocracy by Conservatives that chides me daily.

My Libertariansim in me says -- it's a free country, it's my life, you stay out of it.
And my Left-leaning liberalism that says -- you Conservatives, it's a free country, it's my life - you stay out of it.

I grow tired of Conservatives telling eveyone how much they support Freedom,
but turn right around and start demanding and forcing everyone to conform to their way or else.