Soon to be incorporated in the Democrats election platform...
Welcome to the nanny state. You asked for it, and you got it. Disgusting. I won’t live like this. I’m supposed to be free.
And some GOPers’ platform too. Extremely sad and puzzling.
SUPER NANNY-STATE PING!
Please tell me that this is Iowahawk or The Onion. Please.
This is what socialized medicine gets you. Training to lay down and die for the good of the state like a good little sheep.
The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.
— G.K. Chesterson
“NSW Premier Morris Iemma, who sat in on the health stream, said there should be a shift towards preventative health and warned that health expenditure could consume the entire State budget by 2037.”
That’s what happens when you have universal, government paid healthcare — they will try to control all your activities. (Never mind that the money the government spends is actually the money the government takes away from the people, as taxes).
They are implementing something similar at my workplace. If you don’t submit, they will not subsidize your health care, which we already pay too much for.
In general, since they are helping pay, I can understand their stance. But, they are only going after smokers and the overweight. No testing for drugs, no survey for other unhealthy lifestyles, and no decrease in costs for those like myself who don’t require the maternity care that all our single moms do.
banning cigarettes....well, we know what the new cartels will be supplying....
how about putting a sock in each and every elitist with their 120# anemic bodies big fat mouth...
besides...this discriminates against people of larger ethnic builds...eastern Europeons, Italians, Pacific Islanders, blacks, etc...
Capital punishment for anyone twenty percent overweight.
I pay out of pocket for health care. I buy what I NEED.
When I had health insurance, with premiums deducted from my pay; and also contributed to an FSA to reduce my tax bite, I bought the health care I needed PLUS any “extra” care it took to make sure I was “getting my money’s worth”.
IF I had “universal health care”, you damned betcha I would use every service available, to make certain the government LOST money on me, until I bankrupted the B*****ds!
I lived under the regimes of TWO physician-governors (Dems, of course), and there were NO worse tyrants. Helmet laws, including knee & elbow pads for kids on bikes & skate boards; smoking laws; attempts at “fat taxes” and “junk food” taxes; “gun safety” laws; expansion of state insurance
coverages; mandated expansion of mandatory coverages in PRIVATE insurance policies sold in the state...and more and sillier.
Then raised taxes to give safety equipment to “the poor” who couldn’t afford the extra expense of the new mandates.
"an annual national fitness test where citizens would receive a financial incentive if they pass.
And what if they don't?
"said many participants had suggested a ban on cigarette sales by 2020.
"A lot of the health submissions suggested a ban on smoking by 2020," she said.
************************
As I am reading this I am eerily reminded of previous post. It may seem off topic at first but as you get further into it you will see it is exactly what I was talking about. They are doing it there and starting to grumble about it here...
When Will The Second Amendment Become A Right of All Citizens?
Sunday, March 16, 2008 12:14:27 PM · 53 of 140
TLI to kimber
In Heller, the court citing strict scrutiny might perhaps say the government must have a compelling interest to restrict firearms access to citizens but could restrict felons and those adjudicated as mentally deficient or mentally ill, which are current federal laws.
Well that is quite interesting. "but could restrict felons" Why? Do they not have rights? Let's see...
Former felon + First amendment, no problem.
Former felon + Fith Amendment, no problem.
Former felon + Sixth Amendment, no problem.
Former felon + Eighth Amendment, no problem.
etc, etc.
But the Second Amendment noooooo buddy, no way, right? VERY WRONG.
Lets use the example in the article, abortion.
"This is the biggest test of constitutional rights in decades since the now famous Roe v. Wade abortion case in 1973. It is most certainly one of the biggest constitutional rights case to hit the Supreme Court in the last one-hundred years."
Ok, an event, "before and after." This one is almost too easy. Does an illegal abortion (pre-`73) conviction eliminate that persons right to a legal abortion (now)? Duh, it is not even asked about.
Ok, lets address an actual enumerated right. Does a person that has a conviction for, oh, lets say libel can not write a novel? Or protest? Or give a speech? Of course they can. So, a previous conviction for a certain action or activity does not eliminate a Citizens right(s).
He actually gets close here but for the wrong reason.
"At the other end of the spectrum, the Supreme Court could get a case of weak-knees and loosely define when a local government can restrict Second Amendment rights using "rational basis review." The court might say that if it serves the best interest of public safety, a local government might then ban the ownership of firearms. Essentially, it's opening Pandora's box for years of litigation asking the court to continually define what is "in the best interest of public safety" on a case-by-case basis. That's not a good thing for anyone except lawyers and the justice system who will be guaranteed many healthy pay days with years, if not decades, of legal proceedings. Unfortunately, the victims of this type of ruling are otherwise law-abiding citizens who pay the price defending themselves from prosecution from an over-zealous legal system more than willing to test the limits of a weak Supreme Court ruling.
Just "common sense regulations" right? Not when it comes to my rights. He plays off the down side as being the cost of the defense. The down side is the fact that it ever happened at all.
What never ceases to amaze me is how folks can understand and apply rational thought to the issue of smokers or kids selling candy but they don’t get it when it is applying to the Second Amendment.
Apparently everyone has forgotten that it is only recently (relatively speaking) that this infringement FOR LIFE of a citizens Second Amendment rights has existed. This is for what is rapidly becoming a laundry list of new “crimes” some of which are only misdemeanors. Just since the 60s – 70’s has the nanny-state government decided that if anything ever occurs they can gleefully deny a Citizens Second Amendment rights. And just as in the example of the ban on smoker’s rights we shall also see a ban on gun owners rights.
When smoker’s rights were first violated it was “common sense.” Any one remember what the ban was? Airplanes and elevators. It’s just common sense, right? Now we have totally lunacy on the issue, banning smoking in totally outdoor areas, attempts at banning smoking in ones own home, city-wide bans, etc.
We are now starting to see attempts at violating a citizen’s Second Amendment rights for “mental” reasons. And just who is to be doing the deciding? Well the government of course! It is just common sense. And for what kind of issues? Well that would be unstable and suicidal, right? Remember this from the article... those adjudicated as mentally deficient or mentally ill.
Guess what smoking is in light of “modern” scientific data? Why, that is a huge health risk and everybody knows it. So, if you smoke (or eat “unhealthy” food) you are deliberate harming yourself and that is an indication of suicidal behavior. By-by Second Amendment rights and it will all be “legal”
But you will be disarmed just as if you had been caught robbing banks.
What is scary to me is how the federal government has sold this pig of a lifetime ban of a Citizen’s rights because of a legal issue. Did that person loose their First amendment rights because of an arrest? Or even a conviction? Did they loose their citizenship? NO!
So what gives with this fetish to take away a Citizens Second Amendment rights?
Easy. Once that is gone there is no way to prevent the government to "decide" that you don't really need any of the others as well. As long as ALL Citizens are free to FULLY arm themselves we shall retain our rights. If American Citizens do not have the firepower to back up a resounding NO to the federal government then we Citizens have become a paper tiger.
But it always starts with "common sense regulations." Regulations for "rational basis review" and "in the best interest of public safety" are all common sense, right?
If the government can cherry pick the Second Amendment away for reasons it can be the judge of or for that matter any "reason" at all then they are not ours, they are theirs and are granted, not protected.
Could be, deciding time is here for all of us.
How about Twinkie check points, & eating a Twinkie w/o a license? Snack free areas & buildings! Fat people roundups! Small chunks of a Snicker bar, sold on the corner for $5 a pop!
Which city will become the first “bad carb” FREE city?
And don't forget the disdainful stares, rude interruptions, & verbal abuse you'll get eating a hot dog in public!
All you anti-smoking, MADD mother, Drug Warriors, You deserve to die of extreme tofu boredom! This is your demon spawn! Now, eat your tofu & be happy about it!
Ok, if it is such a "positive experience" why don't they lead by example?
In other news...
Notice how the health minister carefully avoided saying anything about taking away beer and alcohol from her fellow Australians.