Explain this thought process, please.

[jillio]

I agree. I don't think it's a solution for real life, unfortunately. However, I did say food for thought. Just something to think about. If the answer is "history would dramatically change", why? What makes us vote differently in those two scenarios 1) The way we do it now and 2) Properly informed voting?

In properly informed voting, I would think that the voter would have thought the solution to the problem he wants addressed all the way through and determined whether the course of action is even viable. That, most definately, would change history!:P

 

[Reba]

It is still an option. Any form of government has legal restrictions. At least in the U.S. you would just get fined rather than shot at dawn.

Why is it acceptable for the government to take away legal options for health care but it's not acceptable for the government to take away legal options for abortion and marriage?

 

[jillio]

Why is it acceptable for the government to take away legal options for health care but it's not acceptable for the government to take away legal options for abortion and marriage?

They are not taking away options for health care. You can still receive any health care you need from the doctor of your choice. You are confusing insurance with health care. You can still receive health care, or you can choose not to get health care. In the case of abortion, you are restricting medical medical care and violating the confidentiality and right to privacy between a physician and a patient. And in the case of same sex marraige, you are refusing rights to a minority population based on their minority status and the fact that their value system is different from yours.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Doesn't work.

 

[Reba]

They are not taking away options for health care. You can still receive any health care you need from the doctor of your choice. You are confusing insurance with health care. You can still receive health care, or you can choose not to get health care. In the case of abortion, you are restricting medical medical care and violating the confidentiality and right to privacy between a physician and a patient. And in the case of same sex marraige, you are refusing rights to a minority population based on their minority status and the fact that their value system is different from yours.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Doesn't work.

Yes, it does work.

If the government forces Americans to either get insurance under government rules or else be fined, then the government has taken away legal options for its citizens.

If the government forces Americans to adhere to restrictions on abortion and marriage or else be penalized, then the government has taken away legal options for its citizens.

If you want to be consistent, you will have to say there is no difference in the federal government controlling personal areas of life.

 

[kokonut]

Fish. Barrel.

 

[Beowulf]

Yes, it does work.

If the government forces Americans to either get insurance under government rules or else be fined, then the government has taken away legal options for its citizens.

If the government forces Americans to adhere to restrictions on abortion and marriage or else be penalized, then the government has taken away legal options for its citizens.

If you want to be consistent, you will have to say there is no difference in the federal government controlling personal areas of life.

If you get pulled over for speeding, just try telling the cop this is a free country.

 

[Jiro]

I agree. I don't think it's a solution for real life, unfortunately. However, I did say food for thought. Just something to think about. If the answer is "history would dramatically change", why? What makes us vote differently in those two scenarios 1) The way we do it now and 2) Properly informed voting?

utopia.

 

[Jiro]

They are not taking away options for health care. You can still receive any health care you need from the doctor of your choice. You are confusing insurance with health care. You can still receive health care, or you can choose not to get health care. In the case of abortion, you are restricting medical medical care and violating the confidentiality and right to privacy between a physician and a patient. And in the case of same sex marraige, you are refusing rights to a minority population based on their minority status and the fact that their value system is different from yours.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Doesn't work.

what happens if I choose NOT to have health insurance?

 

[Beowulf]

what happens if I choose NOT to have health insurance?

It depends on your community standards. They could conceivably hang you by your thumbs in the town square as a lesson to other serfs.

 

[Reba]

If you get pulled over for speeding, just try telling the cop this is a free country.

That's why I don't speed.

 

[Jiro]

It depends on your community standards. They could conceivably hang you by your thumbs in the town square as a lesson to other serfs.

*gasp*

We the community will be ready when you (not you, the tyrants) are.

 

[jillio]

Also, have anyone actually read The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I think you will be surprised at what rights we are supposed to have... when our country signed to become a member of United Nation. Once signed, they are required to follow the rules set by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which of course most countries doesn't follow. This includes...United States.

"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

For example, this clearly we didn't follow, because not everyone had access to medical services. Since not everyone were granted a health care they needed for their well-being and health. Some were denied one, other couldn't even afford decent one, etc.

I pat you on the back!

 

[jillio]

Yes, it does work.

If the government forces Americans to either get insurance under government rules or else be fined, then the government has taken away legal options for its citizens.

If the government forces Americans to adhere to restrictions on abortion and marriage or else be penalized, then the government has taken away legal options for its citizens.

If you want to be consistent, you will have to say there is no difference in the federal government controlling personal areas of life.

Still comparing apples to oranges. Not a valid comparison. There is as much difference in your examples as their is between negative reinforcement and punishment. Even though most people think they are the same thing, too.

 

[jillio]

what happens if I choose NOT to have health insurance?

Then you become responsible for facing the consequences of that action. But you still have the choice available to you. Just because you aren't willing to pay the consequences doesn't mean the choice is not there.