[CTphpnwb]

xclite, on 22 June 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

IN TODAY'S NEWS: If you hang out with an obese person, and later trigger diabetes, it's a life choice and you have to pay the full cost.

Wait, see how you can't prove that hanging out with the obese person lead to the diabetes? Maybe the person would have triggered it anyway.

No. If you hang out with an obese person and you make the same choices they make, then you're making a life style choice and should pay full cost. Of course, if you only make those choices for a short time you'll only pay that cost for a short time.

[macosxnerd101]

BenignDesign, on 22 June 2011 - 02:32 PM, said:

macosxnerd101, on 22 June 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

Life is an STD.

FINALLY! Someone gets it!

Does that mean we can get it?

[BenignDesign]

So... you recommend that big brother follow every person around perpetually tracking every movement, every word, every meal... just in case something we choose to do might one day influence our health?

Good plan.

macosxnerd101, on 22 June 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

BenignDesign, on 22 June 2011 - 02:32 PM, said:

macosxnerd101, on 22 June 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

Life is an STD.

FINALLY! Someone gets it!

Does that mean we can get it?

NO! I don't want diabeetus!!

This post has been edited by BenignDesign: 22 June 2011 - 11:37 AM

[CTphpnwb]

Curtis Rutland, on 22 June 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

Quote

I'll try to make this simple: I believe that if you choose to do something that raises costs to taxpayers then taxpayers have the right to pass those costs back to you. In fact, I see it as Governments responsibility to do just that on behalf of the taxpayers.

In that case, you're on the wrong crusade, buddy. Driving kills far more people every single day than smoking. It also causes more injury (even to people other than the driver!), and significantly more property damage. We should have a massive tax on driving, by your logic.

Yes, and that tax should be used to build a better public transportation system. Talk about killing two birds with one stone! That would help with energy independence and global warming while saving tax dollars, lives, and increasing tax revenue!

I never said I'd stop at making cigarette smokers pay their fair share. I think I said that anything that needlessly costs taxpayers money should be taxed.

[xclite]

Yeah I mentioned the insane overhead before. He refuses to accept that it is impossible to define when somebody chose to be diabetic or not. Two people on an identical diet and workout plan could end up with one having diabetes and one not. Is it the diabetic person's fault they got diabetes?

[BenignDesign]

The government needlessly costs taxpayers money.

[macosxnerd101]

BenignDesign, on 22 June 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

The government needlessly costs taxpayers money.

This. I think we need to give the government a whole bottle of anti-agra personally.

[modi123_1]

Do you know who's been running sans government overhead and needlessly costing the people money? Somalia. Yup... government free since 1991.

[macosxnerd101]

I'm not saying no government. But let's re-evaluate it's functions and delegate appropriately. Government is the opposite of computing- it should be specialized to do specific tasks, not handle everything under the Sun (pun intended).

[lordofduct]

CT, again your entire debate... I don't understand how this corrolates to higher taxes and the sort.

If you want these people to pay their due justice for the choices they make. Then why don't we just not pay for their medical, or make the system a bit more balanced for them, reform the medical system in that respect (which is another debate all together as we all probably have varying ideas of what would make a proper medical system).

That way they will pay it, with out the convoluted method of sin taxes that levied against anyone who makes a perceived bad choice no matter they already take monitary precautions as is (only a portion of those who receive medical care default on said bills).

Maybe, depending the reform, they could pay for it in the most ultimate way, and not cost you a dime.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 22 June 2011 - 11:49 AM

[CTphpnwb]

xclite, on 22 June 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

Yeah I mentioned the insane overhead before. He refuses to accept that it is impossible to define when somebody chose to be diabetic or not. Two people on an identical diet and workout plan could end up with one having diabetes and one not. Is it the diabetic person's fault they got diabetes?

No, you refuse to accept that there is no need to worry about specific individuals. Take a tax on fast food for example, or cigarettes! Either targets the behavior and not the individual. It's market driven: simple and efficient. If you aren't making the bad choices then you don't have to pay for them.

[BenignDesign]

But if you made a bad choice when you were 16 years old and got sick 30 years later... fuck you. You brought it on yourself.

[lordofduct]

And how is that not social engineering through a system of financial penalization for choices someone decides are 'bad'?

[supersloth]

uh, cigarettes are highly taxed.

[xclite]

It's been brought up several times that cigarettes are heavily taxed, and in some states there has been a movement to tax unhealthy foods. As LoD said - you were arguing points that didn't really relate to what you've started saying on the last page or two.