After years of complaining about the Rs legislating what goes on in your bedroom,

[Skidmore]

Dems (term loosely applied) on DU seem to be going them a couple of notches better lately. "Dems" on DU not only want to be in your bedroom but your refrigerator as well. I support full reproductive choice for all my sisters, and that includes the right to bear children too. It is none of your freaking business if that choice includes actual reproduction any more than it is your business whether I choose to terminate that pregnancy.

What I do with my income is none of your freaking business. Chances are that many who among the working class poor manage their income better than the middle or upper classes because THEY HAVE TO.

What I put in my fridge or cupboards is none of your freaking business. What I put in my body isn't either--animal, vegetable, or mineral. AND if I happen to be over your accepted standard (and there are a number of them) as to what constitutes the ideal body measurement, it is not up to you to decide that I am transgressing and do not have a mitigating health issue. That is between my doctor and me. Not you, the government, and me.

It is not your freaking business whether I worship a deity or not, and certainly is not the government's business either.

I have had it up to my eyeballs with the pontificating and condescending BS that passes for policy discussion lately here. If you are so concerned about the "health" of women and the general population, then let's work for a living wage, safe work environments, and affordable health care and food for everyone and not just sit around and browbeat others who don't meet your little litmus test of perfect. None of us are perfect in every way and ALL of us are at risk for health issues and disability. ALL of us are at risk to be impoverished and homeless. ALL of us are at risk of being persecuted as a member of some minority, depending on the political winds of the day. Quit nitpicking and start working for the common good.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I sure as hell agree...

You've already gone to the Greatest Page, but you should have at least one comment...

And now you do: Mine.

K&R

Well said!

[laughingliberal]

2. Very well said! Nothing to add, here. nt

[Better Today]

3. I guess my selective clicking on threads means I have no clue what you're talking

about. I've not seen what you are describing. Sorry you did.

I wonder though, do you support smoking bans?

[Posteritatis]

4. There's been lots of discussion of what the poor should be 'allowed' to own/eat/etc lately

Rather understandably it annoys some people.

[Jamastiene]

9. A lot of people didn't know there were poor people on this board,

it would seem. Now, we are being blamed for all the world's ills lately. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

[bertman]

61. If you poor people weren't fucking it up for the rest of us, we wouldn't be blaming you.

Signed,

Bill Yonairre

[Skidmore]

102. Dear Bill Yonairre,

You wouldn't be wealthy without poor people to exploit. And who'd polish your gold faucets, manicure your landscape, and primp your person for you? And who would you blame for your own excesses and poor decisionmaking?

Signed,

An unemployed working stiff

[bertman]

119. Dear Ingrate, Your lack of appreciation for that which is barely trickling down is duly noted.

Good luck. (With your attitude you'll need it)

Exploitatively,

Bill Yonnaire


P.S. Please, in future correspondence, address my personage as MR. Bill Yonnaire, serf.

}(

[DainBramaged]

11. Dupe

but I could stil use the space.....

[DainBramaged]

12. It annoys A LOT OF PEOPLE and Skid is correct

DU is becoming the nanny board. As the Pukes work to defeat everything Obama is Trying to accomplish.


I sometimes wonder if it isn't a concerted effort BY the Reich to disrupt our boards.

[Skidmore]

18. Bingo.

[mamaleah]

31. The old "my party would be better nannies than yours". Nannyism is bad

period.

It doesn't matter who is in charge, they do not always know what is best for you.

[Posteritatis]

70. I wouldn't agree on the concerted effort bit

Neither party's lacking for its authoritarian, micromanagerial contingent. They just have different targets for what they want to control, and the same "but it's different!" when called on their similarity to the other guys'.

I don't deny feeling some of it myself from time to time - duh, sometimes some broad regulations are a Good Thing - but I'm at least aware of it and either try to keep it in check or have a damned good reason for justifying it when I let it out. The "there oughta be a law" mentality's aggravating no matter where on the political spectrum it comes from in its usual kneejerk or moral-panic sense.

[Hekate]

59. An ugly little flame war was had over the poor having kids, too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7103510

[Posteritatis]

69. Yeah, I saw that earlier

It's sort of amazing the change that being (ostensibly) in power coupled with a siege mentality brought about around here, and that's before getting into the growing eugenicist mindset that's been showing up lately.

[kirby]

5. My *guess*...

Is that he is referring to the public health crisis in this country called Obesity. A public policy solution is to tax sodas and junk food. It would appear he is opposed to that.

[Skidmore]

8. "He" is opposed to the busybody mentality

that appears to have become the Holy Grail of what passes as rank and file Democrats on this board recently.

You did not read very carefully, did you? I addressed several areas of private concern which suddenly have been deemed to be desirous of legislation by this party.

[kirby]

21. Alright...

I read it very carefully. The poster said he 'randomly' clicked on a link and was confused about what the hell you were talking about.

I tried to elaborate on the one item that was unclear in your post based on my knowledge of current events. The reproductive freedom part was self-explanatory. Why does your inability to articulate turn into me not reading carefully? I read it loud and clear, and answered the persons question, without interjecting any commentary whatsoever. So why the hell are you jumping in my face?

[DWilliamsamh]

92. Agreed.... I was lost as well.

I have no clue what the OP was specifically referring to, as I am also a very selective "clicker."

[Quantess]

22. Yeah...this thread would be better if there were specific references

I have seen some issues discussed over the past few months that seem to fit into this category, but, like you, I don't know what the specific complaint is.

[jeff47]

120. +1

Tip: If you're going to complain about something that's "All over" a message board, you should be able to supply at least one link. And if it's truly "all over the place" you should supply several.

[SergeStorms]

90. I support smoking bans.........

in public enclosed spaces, but when they want to ban smoking outdoors, or in one's own home? That gets to be a bit too much. For the record, I'm a recovering smoker. I've been smoke-free for a little over 3 years now. It's a dirty, stinking habit, but it's a choice, and we should all support peoples' right to make make choices, whether we like those choices or not. Personally, I think people are much too fanatical about second hand smoke. The assertion that a small whiff of smoke outdoors is ruining someone's life seems a bit ridiculous to me, what with all the other pollutants we come into contact with each day. :shrug:

[The Green Manalishi]

121. The can of worms that opens up is, perhaps this:

To try to state the question that has not really been answered.

*IF* we had a health care system that covered everyone, at the expense of everyone, *THEN* should smokers and the obese be 'allowed' (as opposed to being dissuaded through punitive taxes or other,even more intrusive methods) to continue what are generally perceived to be voluntary lifestyles that use up a lot more of the limited resources.
e.g. - If you choose to smoke you are creating more need for health care just as someone who drives a big SUV (with no good reason to do so) creates more need for oil, with concomitant contributions to geopolitical instability and climate change.
In other words, what the government subsidizes it can arguably control, and if that is our health then banning smoking and penalizing those who eat crappily and/or do not exercise is a logical and legitimate policy.

Not saying I support this 'nanny state' view, but I think some of the above are issues that come into play if/as we move towards single payer or Medicare for all, even if they are only usually discussed tangentially.

[notesdev]

6. Amen

Command-and-control policy is NOT for the good of the working man.

What the working man needs is a decent wage and reasonable prices, and he can take care of himself without busybodies telling him what to do every moment of his life.

[Jamastiene]

7. I hate it when people who don't know you or your situation tell you how to live.

They have no clue. Yet, they think they know it all. They base everything on the availability of better "alternatives" on where they live, not you or me.

Where I live, there isn't even a movie theater, much less a Target or Costco. Forget a food bank or any of that stuff too. Doesn't exist here. I wish there was, but that's not the case. So, don't tell me how to live. I do the best I can with what little I have and don't bother anyone else.

Until someone walks a mile in someone else's shoes, they cannot even begin to claim to know.

Recommended, by the way.

[KittyWampus]

49. I hate it when DU'ers have their heads in the sand when it comes to the extent corporations

define who we are and what we eat.

[Lorien]

62. The corporations are pushing the crap, though

They aren't working to make healthy foods affordable. They are taking government corn subsidy money and putting corn products where they don't belong. That and a whole host of other "new" chemicals that don't belong in our food supply that helps to make junk food addictive.

I sure as hell would LIKE to see our government behave like the kind of responsible "nannies" they have in the EU by protecting us from utter and complete crap in our food supply. No more GM crops, cloned animals, and how about brown rice syrup, agave nectar and stevia instead of HFCS, sugar, and questionable lab created sugar substitutes? "Nanny State" is a popular term used by the Right Wing for decades to oppose the kind of regulation that keep corporations in check and the economy stable. Funny how it's suddenly being adopted by the Left. And if you look at the world's biggest "Nanny States", like Sweden and Denmark, you'll find prosperous Nations with populations that are far happier and healthier than ours-they just don't legislate personal MORALITY, that's the difference.

[lib_wit_it]

84. Very well said. /m

[Romis]

88. Thankyou!

It's what they put into our food that causes our health problems. BigFood, BigMed and BigPharma all
work hand in hand to make profits off of our ill-health.

[bvar22]

114. Recommending Post #62 by Lorien.

Public Health IS a "Public" issue.
Our government SHOULD be active in these issues, but the focus SHOULD be in regulating the BIG CORPORATIONS, not individual behavior.

There is stuff on the market labeled "food" that should never be consumed by Human Beings or animals.
There are other toxins being produced and marketed that are hazardous to our health.
I am more than happy to have a "Nanny" government stop that insanity.

[Cerridwen]

10. Ayup. I'm right there with you.

Authoritarian, punitive Americans in the US are scary regardless of political persuasion.

In response to the label "Big Brother" that the left assigned to the right, the right responded with "Nanny State," and many authoritarians took it as a compliment and ran with it.

I don't know if the punitive, authoritarian mindset is specific to the US. I do know it's the one with which I'm most familiar and it's ugly to beat all ugly. I've been amazed and saddened at the number of posters who blame the victim and resort to holier than thou talking points. I wish I were as perfect as they must be so I could judge others as unworthy of my compassion. It'd be a lot less painful for me. Cynical, curmudgeon that I am.

[Skidmore]

14. Absolutely.

I'm not angry with the President. I've become really angry at Congress and those who claim they are Dems and are willing to oppress the very people who got them there. If this government fails and we fail as a nation, this time it is on our side, and I'll be damned if I forgive and forget.

[Cerridwen]

24. Fortunately(?) for me, I'm enough of a cynic I expected what we got.

The largest majorities of any party at any time since FDR, followed by more of the same with a little nicer gilding on our collective cage. The fact that it's become so obvious is what will ruin this country as the crabs in the bucket realize they've been doing the work of the owners. I don't know that the 27% on the right of the political spectrum will care; I do imagine that many in the mushy center will start to wonder about the mush under their feet. We'll see which way they slide if they in fact realize what's been happening.

The current perception is that the Democrats are no better than the repubs. Once upon a time, Andre Agassi did a commercial in which he said, "Image is everything." In politics, perception is everything. The current perception of Democrats by a mostly uninformed populace, is not so great right now. I predict ugly followed by more ugly in many future elections.

[cark]

13. One reason I don't want government involved in HC

If government starts paying the medical bills for all/most of us Americans they will have a 'financial obligation' to tell you what to eat. Think seat belt laws, what government interest do they have by making me where a seat belt?

It is coming it is just a matter of time.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skidmore]

17. Do you have the same objection to the insurance claims person

telling you the same thing and paying through the nose for it? I'm happy with a public option because if there is not competition to get insurance pricing under control, you won't be able to afford private health insurance in the near future. Either a public competition or heavy regulation of the insurance industry needs to occur. The insurance companies are not your friend. They are bleeding us all dry in the interest of profits AND are de facto rationing health care. THEY currently decide who lives or dies and you don't get a vote on it.

[intheflow]

23. The public interest in making you wear a seatbelt

is so fire/police/medics won't have to scrape even more bodies off pavements than they already do; health care, public services and insurance costs don't go up because you were rushed to an emergency room after an accident; a National Highway Traffic Safety Authority found that "seat belt use saves an estimated $50 billion dollars annually in medical care, productivity losses and other costs from driving related injuries."

[cark]

29. Exactly my Point

a National Highway Traffic Safety Authority found that "seat belt use saves an estimated $50 billion dollars annually in medical care, productivity losses and other costs from driving related injuries."


This is going to be the future rationale to tell you what and how much you can eat and it will be tied to HC costs.

[DainBramaged]

44. Bullshit with a capital B

if you believe that, find another country to move to where they aren't taking away your freedoms. BTW, what freedoms have you lost since Obama was elected president?

[cark]

46. Great solution

What country should I move to? I should leave my friends, family and job because I don't want government overly involved in HC at the expense of personal freedom?


So you think it is entirely unrealistic that government will at some time in the future use HC costs to try and limit what and how much you eat? If you can not connect point A to B, then thats your problem.

[DainBramaged]

47. You keep trying to convince us we should be concerned with Health Care Reform

And I'll keep listening to that little voice in my head that's saying 'hmmmm, anti-health care reform on the DU, how strange'..........


PS you didn't answer my question bout freedom.....

[liberalhistorian]

53. And, once again, do you not think that private insurance

companies don't already do the same thing?

[sabrina 1]

77. And you think that private insurance cos whose only concern

is the bottom line, who already refuse to cover sick people, won't be refusing to cover people who cost them money unless they conform to what they decide is a healthy lifestyle? You don't think they will send their lobbyists to DC to buy off members of Congress to get laws passed that would provide them with loopholes to jump through once they are required to accept everyone?

Funny how none of this happens in other countries who do have national healthcare because there is no profit incentive to turn people down for treatment when they need it. The main purpose of healthcare in those civilized countries is to keep people alive by treating them when they are sick.

You are a product of a failed capitalistic system who has fallen for the private industry's PR against a system that would benefit Americans but would definitely threaten their profits.

This country is alone among civilized nations that does not have a national healthcare system. The reason is that we are a nation that puts profit before lives. But sooner or later we will join the rest of the civilized world. It's unfortunate that the opportunity to do so now has been missed. Especially since a majority of Americans are in favor of it.

[DWilliamsamh]

94. No the "problem" is your delusional paranoia

Even IF (and I am categorically stating I don't believe this to be a real concern) gov't tried to limit what or how much you ate, exactly what method do you suppose they would use to enforce this edict?

[Go2Peace]

118. Red Herring, the answer is to get further control of the government, not throw out HCR

I hear this all the time, government just screws everything up... well, of course it does not work well when there is a machine attempting to destroy and distort it's every effort.

Government *can* work very well, better for things lik HC than private industry and the answer is not to continue to allow private industry to be our "government" and our owners because we innacurately are afraid to govern ourselves, but instead to make sure the government runs the programs we entrust them with for the people and not for the corporations.

Government *is* good, when it is responsive to the people.

[liberalhistorian]

52. Ever heard of insurance companies and their

number-cruncher bureaucrats who decide for you what you can and cannot do or they won't cover you or will deny coverage? Who can decide that a freaking pimple is a "pre-existing condition" and, therefore, they won't cover you even if it has nothing to do with what your claim is? That is just as bad as what you fear will happen with a public option. Just because it's a private company doesn't mean it can't, won't and/or already doesn't act like an authoritarian dictator.

And I'll tell you this. Those whom I've known who've been on, or are still on, Medicare, have much less problem with it, and with obtaining coverage without much question, than they've had with private insurance. And if you think any private insurance company wants much to do with those over fifty, and particularly the 65-and-up group, I've got an igloo in Arizona I can sell you.

[cark]

54. Private Insurance

I don't like the way our current HC insurance system works. Insurance should be insurance, it should cover big unexpected costs, otherwise you should be spending your own money out of your own tax deductible HC account. That is the only way I know of to hold costs down, people watching over their own money. Have government step in and help only those who need it. Continuing with the same sort of system and expecting different results is insane, and that is what the current reform proposal do.

As far as current insurance goes, they cannot deny coverage on a whim. You signed a contract and if they break that contract you should sue them. There is no shortage of lawyers that would love to stick it to the big insurance companies if you have a legit claim.

As far as Medicare, it might be a great system, but it is going broke, fails to control costs and compensated doctors at a much lower rate that gets pasted on to everyone else

[me b zola]

75. Should access to health care, ie insurence be for profit?

[DWilliamsamh]

95. BWWWWaaaaHHHH HHHAAAWWW HHAAAAAWWW!!!!

"As far as current insurance goes, they cannot deny coverage on a whim. You signed a contract and if they break that contract you should sue them. There is no shortage of lawyers that would love to stick it to the big insurance companies if you have a legit claim. "

What HOOT!! You have shown yourself to be not a serious person who knows even a little bit about this subject. You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

[laughingliberal]

111. Define "big, unexpected costs"

Some of the most prescribed medications in this country run over $200 per month. These are not exotics for rare diseases. Wind up with heart disease and it's very easy to be spending 10 or 20 percent of your income on necessary medications. It is nothing for a routine surgery to run 10's of thousands of dollars. Doctor's visits are, generally, well over $100 and more for specialists. I agree people would not use services if they had to pay out of pocket. They would not fill all their prescriptions or see a doctor when they needed to. Short term savings so conditions go untreated until they are much more expensive. We already have that system.

Please go sell your 'ownership society' to people who haven't figured out that 'ownership' here means 'you're on your own. good luck.'

[Posteritatis]

26. Yeah, the tyrannical micromanagement of what I'm allowed to eat is so prevalent here in Canada.

Oh, wait.

[boppers]

76. I hear it's even worse in the UK.

No fatty, boiled, salty, or starchy food there!

:evilgrin:

[Ikonoklast]

28. Don't wear your seatbelt.

Be John Galt and show the rest of us what a rugged individualist you are.

But don't expect anyone else to pay for your health care through taxation when you smash your brains against the windshield and your family turns to the government for assitance.

The accident will eventually happen.

It is coming it is just a matter of time.

[cark]

33. And when you eat that 1/4 pound cheeseburger

and your arteries clog up don't ask me to pay for your healthcare. It is just a matter of time.

I think this is going to be the way this story plays out.

[Ikonoklast]

41. False equivalency.

What you are doing by not wearing a seatbelt is potentially harmful to others, not only yourself.

Libertarians never seem to grasp this fact.

You may be in an accident and lose control of your vehicle because you are not wearing a seatbelt, and are getting tossed around instead of maintaining control of your vehicle.

You may have passengers who then get injured or killed by your negligence, or hit a pedestrian because you failed to maintain control.

It can be as simple as a blown tire at speed, or trying to maneuver around debris in the road, and you going off the paved surface onto a rough berm and bouncing around.



What I do or do not eat only harms me.

[cark]

43. Costs were a primary arguement for upholding seat belt laws.

City of Wichita v. White, 205 Kan. 408, 410, 469 P.2d 287, 289 (1970). As one commentator aptly points out:

<89> The government provides roads as a service to its citizens, and part of that service is assuring that these roads will be safe and efficient. The motorist is not being overly imposed upon when asked to comply with minimal standards of behavior designed to reduce the dangers of his driving to other drivers. It is also difficult to object to the state's attempt to stop an individual from making the rest of society pay for the consequences of his risk-taking. Under a system of laissez-faire one could argue that a person's risk-taking would be his own business, but as the court noted in Kohrig our government provides services from the ambulance that delivers the injured motorist to the hospital to disability insurance. Having to buckle up may be inconvenient, but it is not an unreasonable price to pay for the use of public roads.


Simon v. Sargent, 346 F.Supp. 277, 279 (D.Mass.), aff'd, 409 U.S. 1020, 93 S.Ct. 463, 34 L.Ed.2d 312 (1972).

<75> Statistics certainly bear out the staggering direct and indirect costs attributable to injuries and deaths from automobile accidents. One commentator cites these statistics in support of using the police power to require the use of seat belts as a means of protecting the public treasury:

<76> The direct and indirect economic costs of these injuries and deaths is staggering. In 1977, the costs attributable to wage loss, medical expenses, insurance administration and property damage from motor vehicle accidents was 30.5 billion dollars. In 1978, the National Safety Council reported that 34.2 billion dollars was attributable to motor vehicle accidents. These statistics do not include the massive costs incurred by public agencies involved in automobile accident *859 situations (such as police, fire, and ambulance services, and the judiciary), indirect losses to employers from off-the-job accidents, commercial cargo losses, or damages awarded through litigation in excess of direct loss. Assuming that the economic loss for motor vehicle related injuries and deaths in 1979 will approximate those of 1977 and 1978, the total calculated loss for these three years is in the range of 90 to 100 billion dollars. A reasonable society would embrace the opportunity to reduce these costs.

[Ikonoklast]

45. No kidding.

What point, exactly, were you trying to make?

Those lower costs benefit all of us as a society.

This is a good thing, yes?

[DainBramaged]

103. So which health carrier or astroturf firm do you work for?

Come on, you can tell us, we'll be kind......


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cark]

113. Sorry

I am a structural engineer, but if you actually know of a company that wants to pay me to post in forums please foward me the info!

[AtheistCrusader]

133. HAHAHAHA aaaaaaaa oh man

Well, I've got a 4 point harness on the drivers side in my car, but hey, let us know how that coronary works out at 5:40pm in the middle of rush hour. I'm sure you'll be able to signal and carefully pull out of traffic and park on the shoulder when your heart vapor-locks.

What you do or do not eat impacts a lot more than just yourself. When a body fails, it can fail at just about any time, any place, and I guarantee, you can lose control of your car whether you're wearing a seatbelt or not.

Edit: To be clear, I am in favor of wearing seatbelts AND public option/single payer health care reform.

[FarLeftFist]

38. I can give you 100 reasons why you DO want Govt involved in HC

Unfortunately I don't think your post will last long enough for me to want to start that list.

[donco6]

63. Please don't wear a seat belt.

I highly recommend it. For you.

[Mopar151]

79. And especially don't use this kind

'Cuz the IIHS does'nt trust you to wear them, not dos the USDOT

[Hekate]

68. Your insurance company already will tell you what to eat and which pills they won't dispense....

Your insurance company is only too happy to exclude you from coverage for any of a thousand reasons. THEY are what's between you and your doctor, and THEY run the de facto "death panels" by denial of paid-for coverage.

Have you ever had to make a large claim against your health insurer? Anyone in your family get cancer and hit the "lifetime cap" for coverage? Ever had a kid in an accident that made him need facial reconstructive surgery and have Blue Cross try to pay the doc like it was just a boob job? And have a clerk in some city 500 miles away tell you they were going to deny claims, make you jump through hoops some more?

I could go on, but I assume you have never had to deal with what so many of the rest of us have had to. Perhaps you are young and have never been seriously injured or ill.

Perhaps you don't understand that the VA and Medicare are actually run by the government, that Medicare has administrative costs of under 2%. Private plans under Medicare Advantage have an 16.7% admin costs.

Private insurance companies like Blue Cross spend nearly 1/3 of their money (which is your money) on administrative, non-medical costs, and God knows how much more for advertising, corporate jets, CEO bonuses, and the like.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/
http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/700

Or maybe you are just a troll.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

Hekate

[Bette Noir]

73. No they won't.

Does Aetna monitor your diet now?

[me b zola]

74. Does medicare tell seniors what to eat?

What about veterans? Does the VA dictate what they can eat?


Please get the testicles out of your mouth before posting.

[JHB]

89. No, that's the reason to point to for why there should be no exclusions.

I agree it's a danger and all too likely to happen if not specifically addressed, but the solution is to address it and impose limitations in what it can do here, not leave it up to insurance companies who already do that very thing.

[laughingliberal]

108. We have not seen laws telling people what to eat in countries with single payer health care

and we see people here wanting to legislate our behavior without any help for getting health care.

This does sound like a RW talking point against giving our citizens what the citizens of other civilized nations have.

[Javaman]

110. Our token libertarian, folks. nt

[The Straight Story]

15. I keep saying "Your body, your choice" only applies by dems to one thing

And that the principle of it is something many abhor because they do, in fact, want to control you.

[Romulox]

19. Did you forget about the Drug Warriors (e.g. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden)?

Your vices aren't any more sacred than anybody else's. Nobody seriously believes the US Constitution offers a true "right to privacy", at any rate. In practice, the "right to privacy" has amounted to little more than a limited set of reproductive rights.

But the government has long held that it (not to mention private employers!) have the right to search through one's effluvia for evidence of contraband. Pot roast or pot? The principle's the same, it's just a matter of degree.

Or, long story short: first they came for the potheads, and I did not speak out...

[leftstreet]

25. +1

:thumbsup:

[SeattleGirl]

20. Couldn't have said it better myself, Skidmore

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Luminous Animal]

30. Hear! Hear! Bring back lead paint & asbestos!

Stupid nanny state. What I put in and on my walls is nobody's business!

[Posteritatis]

32. Mmmm, straw man. (nt)

[Luminous Animal]

36. It is the OP that has presented a straw man.

The vast majority of posts on DU in regards to food, are about environmental degradation of corporate agriculture and husbandry... about how our food choices are polluting our land, food, & water. Those posts quickly devolve into steak eaters vs tofu eaters and *poof* the topic is ignored.

[Posteritatis]

37. You missed the various "the poor shouldn't be allowed to buy X, Y or Z" discussions lately, then. nt

[Skidmore]

39. Or...the poor shouldn't be allowed to have children.

It is just plain disgusting. And from so-called Democrats--ostensibly the party of the working class.

[mamaleah]

40. I guess they only want Republicans to be able to have families.

Because that will lead to long lasting policies that help people....

[ShortnFiery]

34. Yes, American Crusade 2001+ is still thriving.

[mullard12ax7]

35. But didn't ya hear, "The Iraq War is Over, It Really Is"! Weeeeeeeeee

That dumb ass post got 100s of recs. When I posted how offensive it was that women got thrown under the bus in the health "insurance" bill, I got bashed repeatedly too. This place has a few good people, the rest are whorish hypocrites just as bad as the repuke torturers they want to let go.

It truly is representative of our country now, a corrupted and criminal culture of propagandized whores for failed capitalism.

[ixion]

42. thank you...

very well put. :applause:

[KittyWampus]

48. Sorry, but if you're not into protecting our food supply, holding food co's accountable and i

making sure Americans have access to healthy food YOU ARE NOT WORKING FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

[Skidmore]

50. Protecting the food supply is not what I'm talking about.

[DainBramaged]

56. And just what is the common good?

I have some time to read.

[KittyWampus]

116. Regarding our Food Supply- adequate access to whole foods

[DainBramaged]

135. As long as factory farms rule the corporate mindset

access to whole foods by the masses is impossible......

[Lorien]

64. +1. Why are some here fighting for the corporations right to poison us

and Big Pharma's right to profit from that?

[barbtries]

51. thank you

i fully agree.

[varelse]

55. Bookmarked, kicked, recommended

:applause:

This SO needed to be said. It bears repeating, too :)

[winyanstaz]

57. very well said...thank you...k & R

[donheld]

58. Oh my, what a rant! Excellent!

[Hekate]

60. Righteous rant, Skidmore. KnR.

:applause:

[Lyric]

65. Wonderful OP, Skidmore.

:hug:

[nashville_brook]

66. right on!

[ElboRuum]

67. I must say that I am amused by this thread.

I say this because, I too, have been noticing the encroaching nanny state mentality around here.

Where the amusing part occurs is when I think about those suggesting it. Wouldn't they be remarkably pissed off as all get out if someone suggested that they be forced to change or in some way be held negatively accountable for choices made against the will of the social order, a decision someone else came up with?

In a nanny state, the only truly happy people are the nannies. The only question is who shall it be?

[NuttyFluffers]

71. i wish this could be a sticky post at the top of GD...

honestly, the efforts to regulate the market to remove harmful unknowns is admirable -- that's promoting consumer awareness choice. but to push it into browbeating of said choices with claims that healthcare or whatever gov't necessity *should not* be extended to you is insulting nanny state mentality.

who and what i choose to boycott is my choice, and i invite others to view my arguments and choose if they wish to support me. but exactly the same courtesy extends to who and what i choose to patronize.

[Bette Noir]

72. It would only let me recommend once.

But, absofreakin'lutely, I've been appalled by the judgementalism I've seen on this board the last few days.

[kestrel91316]

78. Did I miss somebody telling somebody else who was on public assistance that maybe

they should forego the Twinkies and lose some weight so their diabetes wouldn't be so bad, and maybe their eight kids' diabetes might not be so bad either?

Damn. That would have been a fun thread to follow........

[Skidmore]

83. self delete

[earcandle]

80. yeah.

[20score]

81. Right freakin' on! K&R

[Confusious]

82. THOU shall eatest only the leafy greens

and tofu turkey and smoke only the weed known as "MaryJwana", and runeth thou everywhere, and not useth modern medicine, for these are pleasing in the eye of the new age vegan homeopath shaman, and toucheth not the weed known a "tabacco" nor haveth a BMI over 5, because these things are "icky", or eateth the meat of the cow, chicken, or pig, for theyeth have feelings too y'know.

SO SAYETH THE NEW AGE VEGAN HOMEOPATH SHAMAN

[gleaner]

85. Go you!

This is a ripsnorting good post. I agree. I'm Diabetic and careful about what I eat because of that but people who don't know it are always banging away at whether or not I eat high fructose, which I can't eat because of the Diabetes, or do I eat some other picky thing that doesn't concern them. If you want high fructose I will hand you a cup and a straw and you can have all you want. It is none of my business. I eat meat too, and that is also only my business. I have Multiple Sclerosis as well. I hit the health lottery;)

If I have one more person who tells me that I don't look like I have MS, I think I will spit snakes. What am I supposed to look like? What does MS look like? No one has yet been able to tell me.

[madmom]

86. Well said, thank you!!!!

[lildreamer316]

87. I wish I could rec this to infinity.

Thank you so very, very much for saying what needed to be said.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

91. Just like the "news" media

It's a matter of priorities.

[malaise]

93. Great post

Rec

[Odin2005]

96. +1. I hate nanny-staters that treat poor people like children.

[intheflow]

97. I liked the DUers who wanted to lock up the father who taught his child Klingon.

We have been infiltrated by radicals, but they aren't the radical left. I think many of them are the famed paid bloggers--or unpaid trolls--who come to DU to disrupt.

[NJmaverick]

98. what a crock of bull cookies!

when your health choices cost society 100s of thousands if not millions of dollars in unnecessary healthcare costs, it becomes society's issue not a private one.

[Orsino]

99. There is indeed a difference between Puritan meddling in others' bedrooms...

...and advocacy for legislation based on medical data. Both are intrusive, sure, but measurable harm should be the only basis for the restricting of individual liberties.

[Skidmore]

101. There is no difference.

Even medical/scientific data can be selectively used and is subject to the bias of the researcher or policy maker. We have seen this time and time again.

[Orsino]

106. No. The OP overreached.

With good intentions, certainly, but real data (suitably peer-reviewed) ought to drive policy.

[Skidmore]

115. I am the OP.

And there have been many times that peer-reviewed real data was ignored for the politically expedient or for profits. "Ought to" is often not reality. Look no further than the deceipt around the tobacco industry or how the oil industry colluded with the auto industry to suppress whole bodies of technological advances and destroy the environment. Look at how many pharmaceuticals made it onto the shelves and killed or harmed people, even with the presence of real data that should have kept it out of the market.

[Orsino]

117. The difference between "ought to" and reality is key...

...and is how the OP overreached.

[NJmaverick]

107. The dollar costs associated with type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiac issues are very real

[tomp]

104. thank you. obesity is a national health issue....

...at near-emergency levels, and should be treated as such.

that being said, draconian restrictions on what people are allowed to eat is not the way to go.

on the other hand, certain eating habits could easily be determined to be in the "danger to self" category, food addiction, or poor impulse control.

there are many aspects of obesity to discuss. as long as we have the best interests of individuals AND of society in balance, we should be OK.

[Posteritatis]

124. Definitely! Let's ban most sports and hobbies! (nt)

[NJmaverick]

126. and that comment makes sense how?

:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

127. You deny that both often result in large sums of healthcare costs? (nt)

[NJmaverick]

130. Professional sports pay for their own medical treatments

amateur sports do generate some one time costs to treat various injuries (and a small percentage of long term cost from chronic injuries). However these costs are balanced out by the medical benefits of being physically fit.

As for hobbies most hobbies contribute to mental well being and cause little injury.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. All of that crap springs from this faith based politics

not just the religious aspects, but the personality focus is also 'faith based' and so they are all raving about 'sin' and teh gay, and who eats what. They are all about control.

[Mad_Dem_X]

105. K&R.

[sojourner]

109. AMEN!!

[Deep13]

112. Sorry, but I can't agree.

What we consume has a measurable effect on how others live. Now, I don't approve of browbeating, pontificationg or condescention either (although the difference between stating the facts and pontificating can be pretty subjective), but facts are facts. How we live effects the environment, international relations, health care costs, labor practices and lobbying efforts. These things are qualitatively different than sexual practices which truly are private. And I support a woman's right to choose, sex education and birth control not only for ethical reasons, but because of the effects they have on the world. When it comes to production and consumption there really is no such thing as a purely private matter.

As far as worshipping a diety goes, taken literally your remark is true. But I am supposing you mean something more than your private thoughts about divinity and are including the theology and mythology that goes with it. The fact is what people believe affects not only what they do, but what others do too. Further, religion is entwined in a numerous public policy matters. However benign your personal beliefs are, if you support the Catholic or Mormon or any one of a number of other churches with your tithes, tuition and even presence; then you are in fact supporting oppressive policies here and around the world. That is a simple fact. Likewise, governmental policies that treat religions as charities with tax exemptions force all of us to support those policies.

So, I think your complaint is not well taken.

[pleah]

122. K&R

[guruoo]

123. I would never bring a child into the world unless I possessed the income

and resources necessary to support them, because, IMO,
to do otherwise would be both selfish, and irresponsible.

[Skidmore]

128. I respect your choice, but you also need to respect others too.

Resources can be defined in a number of ways and sometimes all the material resources in the world cannot take the place being welcomed into a home. I grew up dirt poor and I raised 2 kids on my own on limited "resources." I saw to it that they received educations and learned respect. At the time they were born, I no doubt would have been some one deemed unworthy of having children under the resource criteria. I know a good number of people like me. I do not consider them or myself to be irresponsible. I raised two productive, intelligent human beings who make the world a better place for being in it and who learned to value others over things.

[guruoo]

138. Glad to hear your kids turned out well. n/t

[DeSwiss]

125. K&R

- Well I'm sure that you won't like this article either: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/30/lincoln.fitness.overweight/index.html">College's too-fat-to-graduate rule under fire

[Johonny]

129. interesting thread

I agree with some of it. Disagree with others of it. I think the tone is very overarching, but I think it was direct at more specific targets. There probably is an IDEAL amount of societal feedback into your life. However all such mechanisms are going to be imperfect. Some would want none for fear of oppression. Other want clear cut mechanisms for fear of unsafe products and promotion of clearly dangerous behavior.

[Swamp Rat]

131. k&r

[tonysam]

132. +1,000,000

Busybodies of any political stripe drive me crazy. There is a lot of self-righteous nonsense against people who eat meat--which is natural, unlike being a vegetarian or vegan--all in the name of the environment and especially in the name of "animal rights," which these people don't understand what the latter truly entails (abolishing ALL animal domestication including having pets). There is a LOT of prejudice on DU, but it isn't the type of prejudice most people think of. There is widespread prejudice against the profoundly disabled (they deserve to be killed under the guise of "right-to-die"), those of a different religious persuasion, but most of all, prejudice against people who are not the media "standard" of "beauty" and of body size. A ton of ignorance is being spewed about diets and the "obese," while the real problem is bigotry against those who are different.

[Missy Vixen]

134. What a great post

I only wish I could recommend it more than once.

:woohoo:

[DainBramaged]

136. Post of the year, pay it forward.......

[niyad]

137. can't rec, but will kick. very well stated, and agree completely.