How Americans Continue to Relegate Themselves to Serfdom

[Francis]

I hate the fucking things. Wherever I have worked, I've always either managed to have them replaced, or at lease halved (Only 1 Instead of 2 fluro bulbs in each bay)
They give me the worst headaches.

Yes they cycle in in a bad way for people with Migraines and who are prone to seizures as well as depression.. It was said that they had improved to be much better but I believe it to be false as my depressions bouts are much worse around them and like I said I am about to get rid of them ( in my house ) for LED Light versions..

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]A common question about the use of fluorescent lights, such as the long tubes and the spiral compact fluorescent lights regards the potential for headaches, particularly migraines and some types of seizures. Due to the State of California's recent proposal to mandate the use of fluorescent lights (to save energy), this question has been frequently brought up in the media lately, such as on the Neal Boortz radio show and some newspapers.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]There is some truth to these claims, although they generally affect only a very small percentage of the population and there are solutions. For people affected by the flicker of fluorescent lights, the issue is very real.

[/FONT]
http://www.ehso.com/fluorescent_safety.php

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]Not to mention it is now illegal to dispose of these except to send them to a special centre due to the poison they release.. [/FONT]:mad

 

[cam elle toe]

I found it ironic as wel as annoying, that they had them all through the lecture room when I was studying NATURAL THERAPIES....:willy_nilly:

In a room that had heaps of windows, and the classes were in daytime:willy_nilly:

(well, they did for first term, then "Cammie confrontational" got rid of them)

 

[Tim]

Incandescent lights are not banned in the states. The only thing that changed were the efficiency requirements.
The incandescent light manufacturers have been able to keep up with these requirements and they are producing much more efficient bulbs.

The whole "banning" crap was started because they didn't think they would be able to get such high efficiency out of them... but if you give the industry a challenge, they tend to adapt and overcome.

 

[cam elle toe]

I'm still trying to figure how we got from Healthcare (or lack thereof) to lightbulbs!

 

[Accountable]

So silly

Why? :confused
How is that silly?

 

[Accountable]

Incandescent lights are not banned in the states. The only thing that changed were the efficiency requirements.
The incandescent light manufacturers have been able to keep up with these requirements and they are producing much more efficient bulbs.

The whole "banning" crap was started because they didn't think they would be able to get such high efficiency out of them... but if you give the industry a challenge, they tend to adapt and overcome.

It's these Nanny-state "challenges," as you so quaintly put it, that fly in the face of liberty and free market capitalism.

 

[Panacea]

I'm still trying to figure how we got from Healthcare (or lack thereof) to lightbulbs!

Universal healthcare and light bulb laws are both insidious forms of soul crushing tyranny, naturally they find each other in discussions.

Why? :confused
How is that silly?

I find it silly to get indignant about light bulb laws, it makes me giggle a bit, idk. :shrug:

 

[Accountable]

I find it silly to get indignant about light bulb laws, it makes me giggle a bit, idk. :shrug:

I find it disturbing that an otherwise intelligent person would view a legal mandate that, by definition, takes away people's freedom to choose a behavior, as either heartwarming or respectful. It is the opposite.

 

[Panacea]

I find it disturbing that an otherwise intelligent person would view a legal mandate that, by definition, takes away people's freedom to choose a behavior as either heartwarming or respectful. It is the opposite.

My intentionally smart ass post illustrated the perception of these decisions, not necessarily my personal views, and I don't think I'm off by much.

Still, I'm apathetic about such a mandate. It doesn't upset me.
I know your position and what you're saying, but technically there are many mandates that take away a person's freedom to choose a behavior, and we do find them either heartwarming or respectful. Drunk driving laws, sex offender laws, etc. I'm not intending to imply incandescent light bulbs are on par with sex offenders, I merely intend to assert I don't see a gross infringement of rights when it comes to light bulbs, just like I don't see a sex offender's rights infringed upon when they are legally disallowed from certain residences. I find the light bulb topic frivolous. We just don't share the same views.

 

[Accountable]

I find the light bulb LAW frivolous. Any needless infringement on liberty is a gross infringement, because history has shown that a minor infringement can be used to justify a greater one.
Your examples of drunk driving & sex offender laws protect liberty. This bulb law restricts liberty, harms the economy, and attempts to manipulate free market forces. It's interesting to analyze who benefits financially from such laws.
I agree with your comment on sex offenders.

 

[Johnfromokc]

You need to stop trying to try to scheme yourself into trying to make someone look bad and have a normal conversation.

I am attempting to have an informative conversation. You are making yourself look bad.

Sure, single payer can work, but you're also looking at countries with totally different situations, demographics, population numbers and culture. Even if it does work, there are still problems with it and just because it may work, doesn't mean it should be done.

Single payer is not the only way. Australia has a two tiered system the works extremely well - I mentioned that in the early posts in this thread. We could easily have a similar system here were it not for the health insurance lobby and their bought politicians and right wing conservo-libertarian mouth pieces in talk media and the useful idiots that repeat what they are told.

Further, "demographics", "population" and "culture" are nothing more than bullshit excuses for continuing the status quo. You can't get a much more diverse population than Europe. But then again, we do seem to have a lot more idiots here who cannot grasp simple concepts like voting for their own best interests.

They have mostly done this because they can monopolize in the areas in which they sell their insurance, with little competition. Drop the barriers and let them compete on a national scale. It is not less regulation, it is the market forcing them to make their product more attractive to people. That is brilliant.

No, they have done this because they have been allowed to purchase votes from our elected officials. The only thing that can bring insurance companies in line is a viable public option for health care and government regulation to force them to do what is right - something they have repeatedly proven themselves incapable of.

No, you are mischaracterizing my plan because you have a self interest in seeming like the Big Guy On The Block who likes to spread leftist dogma.

I did not mischaracterize your "plan". I simply summed it up - so maybe now you can see the flaws. If the desire to have a health care system that covers 100% of Americans and does not force people into bankruptcy because they cannot pay their bills makes me a leftist, I'll PROUDLY wear that label. If being conservative or libertarian means having no problem as your fellow Americans get fucked over - then you can have that title.

 

[All Else Failed]

I am attempting to have an informative conversation. You are making yourself look bad.

Probably not between using a bunch of hyperbole and exaggerations

Further, "demographics", "population" and "culture" are nothing more than bullshit excuses for continuing the status quo. You can't get a much more diverse population than Europe. But then again, we do seem to have a lot more idiots here who cannot grasp simple concepts like voting for their own best interests.

No, all of them are important because they define the populace. Some groups of people use the healthcare system more than others. Also, paying for the healthcare of a population of 30 million is much different than paying for a population of 300+ million.

and I'm not interested in keeping the status quo, I'm for fixing the system. I'm just not for any sort of socialized medicine being forced onto the people

No, they have done this because they have been allowed to purchase votes from our elected officials.

It has more to do with the fact that they have state-wide boundaries put around them in terms of who can buy what insurance where. This regulation actually hurts everyone in the long-run.


and a government so corrupt as ours is probably a seriously shitty entity to force people to "do the right thing".

I did not mischaracterize your "plan". I simply summed it up - so maybe now you can see the flaws.

No, you're not seeing what you do in these sort of conversations. You take someone's idea and then you go to the very extreme and make their ideas look like something they didn't even say because you're only interested in making fun of people who do not identify as being a left-winger

If being conservative or libertarian means having no problem as your fellow Americans get fucked over - then you can have that title.

actually conservatives and libertarians are for people NOT getting fucked over, since most of our problems come from the expanded federal government that oversteps its bounds. Liberals LOVE the nanny state and big government which constantly complicates things.

 

[Johnfromokc]

AEF - You have the right wing talking points memorized quite well. Not much sense continuing to converse with you. Conservo-libertarians are for not fucking over people??? :24: That's a good one. Got any more? You guys are the ones who are famous for saying shit like insuring a child with a disease she was born with is akin to insuring a burning house. Ya'll are for not fucking over the rich by actually having them pay proportionally for infrastructure - you don't give a fuck about your fellow Americans.

You figure you got yours so everybody else should be able to figure out how to get thiers or tough shit - they shouldn't have gotten diabetes, heart disease or cancer in the first place before they got a job with insurance like you - right AEF?. I would never wish it on anyone - but you might someday find out what it is like to have a $1,000,000 in health care bills, no job, home in forclosure, no hope to send your children to college and little hope of things ever getting better - and no sympathy or empathy from your conservo-libertarian friends.

 

[All Else Failed]

See, again you assume I have some how memorized some sort of list of things to say when all I really am doing is coming from a different approach that you do not agree with.


Yes, Conservatives and Libertarians are for the people. Republicans are not. Note that you need to see the difference between Conservatives and Republicans.



I am a working class American, by the way. All the left does is perpetuate big government by wanting an expansion of the federal system. This in turn creates a monstrosity that cannot spend its tax revenue right, creates endless bureaucracy and every day exposes itself to be the hight of corruption. Conservatives (not Republicans) and Libertarians want sane government. Sane government is small government.

You figure you got yours so everybody else should be able to figure out how to get thiers or tough shit

No sorry that is not what I think.


But yeah they shouldn't have chosen bad lifestyles that lent to their illnesses. Even then, I believe the system could be fixed so that they can afford whatever services they need.



Oh and kids don't need to go to college to be successful. That is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated on our youth for the past 50 years.

 

[Johnfromokc]

See, again you assume I have some how memorized some sort of list of things to say when all I really am doing is coming from a different approach that you do not agree with.

Your approach is not a different approach. You repeat the exact same talking points the right wing talk shows make. How is this somehow different becase you reapeat them here?

Yes, Conservatives and Libertarians are for the people. Republicans are not. Note that you need to see the difference between Conservatives and Republicans.

I used to be a "Conservative Libertarian" for many years - probably many more years than you if you'd like to compare dates. I KNOW exactly what conservatisim and libertarianism stand for. Don't fool youself into thinking you have some special knowledge.

I am a working class American, by the way.

You are one of millions fooled by the propaganda into voting against the best interests of yourself and your family.

All the left does is perpetuate big government by wanting an expansion of the federal system. This in turn creates a monstrosity that cannot spend its tax revenue right, creates endless bureaucracy and every day exposes itself to be the hight of corruption. Conservatives (not Republicans) and Libertarians want sane government. Sane government is small government.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard a right wing talk show host repeat those exact words I'd have retired 10 years ago. You have not discovered anything new. You did not concieve these thoughts for yourself. You are simply repeating what you have heard someone else repeat and thought it sounded good and made sense to you.

No sorry that is not what I think.

But you said that those people should be left to die right here in this thread. Have you changed your mind?

But yeah they shouldn't have chosen bad lifestyles that lent to their illnesses. Even then, I believe the system could be fixed so that they can afford whatever services they need.

And you ASSUME these people actually CHOSE to contract cancer? Did the little girl choose cystic fibrosis? Did the little boy choose autism? Did every one of the people who suffer health issues bring it on themselves? Conservo-libertarian types talk a good game about fixing the system but have done nothing but obstruct those who are actually trying to do what is right.

Do yourself a favor and go to your local childrens hospital - preferably one in a major metropolitan area and volunteer to help. Talk to the families. Hear their stories. Let a stressed out mother of a dying child cry on your shoulder. And then tell her she brought it on herself.

 

[All Else Failed]

Your approach is not a different approach. You repeat the exact same talking points the right wing talk shows make. How is this somehow different becase you reapeat them here?

similar ideas are said by a lot of people, get used to it

everything I've ever seen you type here could have come off of a leftist blog or something but I actually realize that certain memes perpetuate themselves in political discussions

I KNOW exactly what conservatisim and libertarianism stand for.

I don't think you really do. You constantly confuse Conservatism with Republicanism. The two are different.

You are one of millions fooled by the propaganda into voting against the best interests of yourself and your family.

Leftism is probably one of the greatest assaults on the family in the past 60 years. All it has ever done is expand government and increase taxes.

You have not discovered anything new. You did not concieve these thoughts for yourself. You are simply repeating what you have heard someone else repeat and thought it sounded good and made sense to you.

Sorry to break it to you but you believe in things that sound good to you as well. Those things are called "ideas" and they are "shared" throughout the ages to construct philisophical framewroks that our politics are derived from. Nothing is ever really new. Everything that you have said thus far has been said before, and you yourself are simply repeating things that sound good to you.


So?

But you said that those people should be left to die right here in this thread. Have you changed your mind?

I think SOME people who continue to make terrible decisions with their health (that are in the realm of their control) should not be helped by the federal government. They need to find their own.

And you ASSUME these people actually CHOSE to contract cancer? Did the little girl choose cystic fibrosis? Did the little boy choose autism? Did every one of the people who suffer health issues bring it on themselves? Conservo-libertarian types talk a good game about fixing the system but have done nothing but obstruct those who are actually trying to do what is right.


Do yourself a favor and go to your local childrens hospital - preferably one in a major metropolitan area and volunteer to help. Talk to the families. Hear their stories. Let a stressed out mother of a dying child cry on your shoulder. And then tell her she brought it on herself.

Annnnd here we go again. Taking what I say out of context is a specialty of yours, it seems. I said that things like overeating and other CHOSEN life decisions are in fact choices that people make that are detrimental to their health. Everything that you just listed are not in the realm of choice. Stop putting things in my mouth. You either have zero recollection of what we talk about for more than one post or you're purposefully lying.

 

[Alien Allen]

Health care reform should include making more options ala carte.

also the individual should be the one buying the insurance the same as in one of the European countries. Until recently people had no clue how much insurance costs.

One thing not mentioned often is how much the cost for medicine coverage has increased. It now is getting closer to 50% of the health insurance bill.

Two things that drive up costs are unnecessary office visits and meds. When I was a kid I had to be damn sick before my mom would take me to see the pediatrician. And I can not recall taking hardly any medicine. Now people go to the doctor at the first sign of a sneeze way too often and the doctors give out scripts way to readily. Back in those dark ages also most only had catastrophic insurance. People paid out of their pocket for most things unless it involved lab tests, xrays or going to the hospital.

We have a totally different culture now. And all the above has driven up costs across the board fo all care.. IMO

 

[CityGirl]

I appreciate the efforts to distinguish conservatives and libertarians from Republicans but in our 2 party system it seems an exercise in futility because most conservatives and libertarians will, on a national level at least, vote Republican or not at all and the contempt in which they hold the Democrats will ensure they vote Republican. To lay the blame for the nanny state in the laps of liberals,progressives and leftists proclaiming "Liberals LOVE the nanny state and big government which constantly complicates things" indicates slanted perspective. The nanny state is as much a result of the right as it is of the left. There are no greater examples of the bipartisan created "nanny state" than the PATRIOT Act and NDAA. How that glaring fact tends to escape people and how anyone can continue to lay the blame for nanny state at the feet of the left is beyond me.

 

[All Else Failed]

The nanny state is as much a result of the right as it is of the left. There are no greater examples of the bipartisan created "nanny state" than the PATRIOT Act and NDAA. How that glaring fact tends to escape people and how anyone can continue to lay the blame for nanny state at the feet of the left is beyond me.

I do not consider Republicans right-ists in any way. Modern Republicans are moderates at best when compared to what Republicans were, say, 40-50 years ago. The leftist paradigm encompasses both parties now.

 

[Johnfromokc]

The leftist paradigm encompasses both parties now.

Your righty-speak cracks me up. :lol

You wouldn't know a leftist if one walked up and put a boot right up your ass. :ninja You need to turn off Michael Savage -aka Mikey Weiner- and at least attempt to think for yourself.