Direct Goverment (Mind) Control
But... I go to Wal-Mart because I choose to!
----
Is it fair to say that opposition to the bottle bill is not based on monetary concerns but more along the overarching philosophy that government should not be involved in promoting behavior?
How do you reconcile disdain for social policies that reward good behavior, e.g., recycling and (here I am assuming) support for social policies that discourage bad behavior, e.g., felony convictions and imprisonment?
Maybe you don't. I've never believed that the death penalty was ever a deterent. I do see the bottle bill as an incentive that works to promote good behavior. So, I'd say my split support is based on the honey/vinegar/flies cliche.
I wish I had a better example of a stick policy to pair with the bottle bill carrot.
What's everyones take on "vice" taxes for liquor and smokes?
_______________________________
FACT - the elderly are ruining our government sponsored futures by living too long - surely if they were smoking 80 fags a day whilst drinking heavily and shoving dangerous narcotics down their throats and having wild unprotected sex with random partners they would:
A) enjoy their retirement a bit more
B) be more fun to hang out with
C) die younger
this way everyone’s a winner - the elderly get the retirement they gave up their 20's working for, we would all get grandparents that would be fun to hang out with and the social security system wouldn’t collapse under the strain of people living longer than their working lives in retirement
as Garrison once said “come on die youngâ€
and on that note im off on two weeks holidays – biya!!
maybe Pam is refering to Amsterdam heathcare- does the Govt pay for HC over there?
BTW from a language standpoint shouldn't the term "affordable healthcare" become two words that are polar opposites like military intelligence, jumbo shrimp, pretty ugly????
_______________________________
_______________________________
I think we all agree that recycling is a good thing, while robbing banks is a bad thing. I didn't intend to discuss how society best comes to an agreement on which behaviors are good and which are bad (which seems to be your point), but whether or not it's worthwhile or moral for a society to use positive and negative inducements on it's citizens.
Still don't see the bottle bill as a carrot, mind you, but we have another thread for that.
Yes, it's called "elections."
If there is irony here it's that the US federal government currently spends more per capita on healthcare than some countries that provide "socialized" medicine.
You know, as much as I am for socialised healthcare, I am absolutely enraged by the lack of doctor-patient communication here. People have no idea why they're prescribed anything, or what their prescription does, or why they need a certain test, or what the risks are for any given procedure... the Dutch public are like children in that way, with the medical establishment being Mommy. Mommy says "take this pill" and we say, "yes, Mommy!" When I go to my doctor and start asking questions, she gets all fidgety and acts like she's in the CIA.
I'm for socialising the insurance mechanism (more people in the pool, lower costs for all), I'm not for socialising the dispersment mechanism (you should be able to choose a doctor you are comfortable with).
Or you _swear_ to kill yourself by said age via said methods.
Pass a law stating that it is _illegal_ to pay for any healthcare above and beyond what the system will pay for you if you have an annual income over X dollars or are in any way employed by the government. This will not include vanity healthcare. Work out that law without any glaring loopholes and you'll have fantastic socialized healthcare in a week.
As Americans, we understand much more about our treatment because we are given so many choices about that treatment, and we demand to know more about our treatment because we have seen things go wrong when you blindly follow whatever the doctor orders. From the Dutch perspective, your viewpoint as a patient is only important in that you are the client, you are the owner of the body in question, and you can say "that hurts" or "this feels wrong". I don't think payment or personality (in an individual sense) come into it - it's a symptom of socialised medicine as a philosophy.
It's like our supermarkets - if you're lucky there are 6 choices of rice (white commercial name brand X, white commercial generic brand Y, brown commercial name brand X, brown commercial generic brand Y, white organic brand Z, brown organic brand Z). Think about how many choices of rices you have in your local supermarket - it's overwhelming to a European. But as a free market we Yanks like having all those choices. We don't find them overwhelming because we enjoy learning about our different choices. Europeans also like making choices, but not too many - that's what governments are for.
Does that make sense? Am I rambling?
I can see a scenario where people get married for tax benefits alone, definitely as part of the reasoning. People get married to avoid deportation, right?
I think a more likely scenario is that people get married for the health insurance.
________________
<i>--Feminazi </i>
Anyone?