First of all I’m from Canada, so here we obviously have “free” universal healthcare, as paid by the Government via taxes. My question or argument is this.
If the state makes health its responsibility by taking on the mantle of universal healthcare, does it not in a way also take proxy ownership of the body? What I mean by this is just as infrastructure, city hall, parliament etc are state property because public money paid for them, could one not argue that the body is also state property?
Were this true it would imply that to damage a body is a crime against the state( ie murder, which is charged as crime against the state and not a civil form of litigation). In turn it would follow that harming your OWN body is a crime against the state.
What I imply from this string of assumptions is, in a country paying for health care, is willful self destruction through poor health, substance abuse and laziness not the equivalent of graffito-tagging, arson or murder in terms of culpability?
the state government does not build people in test tubes. i see genetic patent and copyright laws being used to actually control people physically before the state tries it.
Its not the act of building I’m talking about its the assumption of responsibility.
Another analogy.
I buy a car and lend it to you and you wreck it. I’m the one liable for it. Not the manufacturer who made it(parents) or you who borrowed it(fatty). I’m footing the bill(state) and if I don’t want to wrongly pay for what you did with negligence I have to take legal action against you.
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
Its not the act of building I’m talking about its the assumption of responsibility.
Another analogy.
I buy a car and lend it to you and you wreck it. I’m the one liable for it. Not the manufacturer who made it(parents) or you who borrowed it(fatty). I’m footing the bill(state) and if I don’t want to wrongly pay for what you did with negligence I have to take legal action against you.[/quote]
youre still paying for it one way or another, through insurance or taxes.
just like someone else helped you pay (through taxes) to have the road said car was crashed on.
until the 13th amendment is somehow nullified. theres no way the federal govn’t could find the grounds to control people in such physical ways.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
MementoMori wrote:
Its not the act of building I’m talking about its the assumption of responsibility.
Another analogy.
I buy a car and lend it to you and you wreck it. I’m the one liable for it. Not the manufacturer who made it(parents) or you who borrowed it(fatty). I’m footing the bill(state) and if I don’t want to wrongly pay for what you did with negligence I have to take legal action against you.
youre still paying for it one way or another, through insurance or taxes.
just like someone else helped you pay (through taxes) to have the road said car was crashed on.
until the 13th amendment is somehow nullified. theres no way the federal govn’t could find the grounds to control people in such physical ways.[/quote]
13th amendment is American buddy. Clearly there are laws against state ownership or else this would be a whole different arugment. What I’m saying is does the precedent of state paying for health imply ownership of health.
Orion gets it. What I’m arguing is that through this precedent yes state does own us. So from that could you not justify punishing those who damage state property (own body).
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
Orion gets it. What I’m arguing is that through this precedent yes state does own us. So from that could you not justify punishing those who damage state property (own body).[/quote]
Yes, they should. If folks want government owning a portion of my life (what’s used to raise the taxes I pay) I want government to control their lifestyles. No unhealthy diets, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, and no risky sex. If I have a responsibility FOR someone else, they have a responsibility TO me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
MementoMori wrote:
Orion gets it. What I’m arguing is that through this precedent yes state does own us. So from that could you not justify punishing those who damage state property (own body).
Yes, they should. If folks want government owning a portion of my life (what’s used to raise the taxes I pay) I want government to control their lifestyles. No unhealthy diets, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, and no risky sex. If I have a responsibility FOR someone else, they have a responsibility TO me.[/quote]
Well, if the government wants to limit my unhealthy diet, I guess I should get rid of all the protein and fat I eat and have 12 servings of grains every day…fuck!
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
MementoMori wrote:
Orion gets it. What I’m arguing is that through this precedent yes state does own us. So from that could you not justify punishing those who damage state property (own body).
Yes, they should. If folks want government owning a portion of my life (what’s used to raise the taxes I pay) I want government to control their lifestyles. No unhealthy diets, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, and no risky sex. If I have a responsibility FOR someone else, they have a responsibility TO me.
Well, if the government wants to limit my unhealthy diet, I guess I should get rid of all the protein and fat I eat and have 12 servings of grains every day…fuck![/quote]
Of course. They should leave you as much choice in the matter as they do with the taxpayer who really wants no part of UHC.
Good point Push. The healthy ideal by the government would probably be far closer to Laboeuf than CT.
But on the other hand punishment toward other forms of state property is restrictive not proscriptive. You’re not forced to paint the building, just not to burn it down.
They don’t have to force what they think is right just punish what is proven wrong.
Or not make me pay for that obese coke addict’s quadruple bypass.
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
13th amendment is American buddy. Clearly there are laws against state ownership or else this would be a whole different arugment. What I’m saying is does the precedent of state paying for health imply ownership of health.
Orion gets it. What I’m arguing is that through this precedent yes state does own us. So from that could you not justify punishing those who damage state property (own body).[/quote]
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
MementoMori wrote:
Orion gets it. What I’m arguing is that through this precedent yes state does own us. So from that could you not justify punishing those who damage state property (own body).
Yes, they should. If folks want government owning a portion of my life (what’s used to raise the taxes I pay) I want government to control their lifestyles. No unhealthy diets, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, and no risky sex. If I have a responsibility FOR someone else, they have a responsibility TO me.
Well, if the government wants to limit my unhealthy diet, I guess I should get rid of all the protein and fat I eat and have 12 servings of grains every day…fuck![/quote]
Orion gets it. What I’m arguing is that through this precedent yes state does own us. So from that could you not justify punishing those who damage state property (own body).[/quote]
They already do by heavy taxes on tobacco, alcohol, soda, and anything else the gov’t deems “unhealthy”