Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Conservatism

Conservatism Conservatism Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 1st, 2011, 03:56 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
I am all for people being healthy, but this is more nanny state stuff, this time by Republicans:



PHOENIX Arizona's cash-strapped Medicaid program is considering charging patients $50 a year if they smoke, have diabetes or are overweight. A spokeswoman for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System said Friday that the fee is intended to rein in health care costs by pushing patients to keep themselves healthy. How are you going to enforce the payment? It will cost more to collect than it will bring in. $50 won't make someone stop smoking if the extortive taxes do not already.



"It engages the consumer to start having a greater awareness of how they fit into the bigger health care puzzle," said Monica Coury, spokeswoman for AHCCCS. "We want to be able to provide health care to people. And we want to stretch our dollars as far as we can. Part of that is engaging people to take better care of themselves." Cut off their food stamps so they won't have so much to eat (I'm just kidding).



Some private employers and state governments have instituted higher insurance premiums for workers who are overweight or smoke, but Arizona's plan would mark the first time a state-federal health care program for low-income residents has charged people for unhealthy lifestyles.



The fee would apply only to certain childless adults. Someone who is responsible and does not have children that they cannot afford doesn't have to pay the $50. I realize that the children shouldn't be punished for their parent's issues, but we are also talking about $50.



One part of the proposal affects people with diabetes. Coury says diabetics who fail to follow their doctor's orders to lose weight would be subjected to the $50 charge.



Democratic state Sen. Kyrsten Sinema said that isn't fair to diabetics.



"This would fine people with medical conditions beyond their own power and control," Sinema said. "I just don't think it's fair to vilify someone with diabetes."



People who are obese or chronically ill, and those who smoke, would need to work with a primary-care physician to develop a plan to help them lose weight and otherwise improve their health. Patients who don't meet specified goals would be required to pay the $50 under the proposal. Doesn't that cost money?



The plan requires approval by the Republican-controlled Legislature, which has been considering $500 million of cuts to Arizona's Medicaid program to help eliminate a state budget deficit of nearly $1.5 billion.



A fee for Medicaid patients also would need federal authorization, and federal rules could prevent Arizona from enforcing the fee.



Coury says the $50 fee is a way of showing the federal government Arizona is serious about getting people healthy while stretching and managing dollars better.



"Part of that requires that we engage the consumer in active, healthy behaviors."







leighredf is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 1st, 2011, 04:41 PM   #2
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,374
Some people are obese because they are sick and disabled. Do that have to pay $50 as well? Some things are genetic, and aren't necessarily changeable. This Brewer woman is an idiot. Is this smaller government? More involvement in the personal lives of citizens by the government?
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 1st, 2011, 06:58 PM   #3
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
If Arizona is going to start a program on getting people healthy, then they need to have the owner of the Heart Attack Grill in Tempe redo his restaurant. Get rid of the fatty cooking oil, known as lard. If any of you have not seen or heard of that place, look it up on Google. And don't go there to eat. 350 lbs. people eat there free.
highway80west is offline  
Old April 4th, 2011, 04:26 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
scrjnki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by H80W View Post
If Arizona is going to start a program on getting people healthy, then they need to have the owner of the Heart Attack Grill in Tempe redo his restaurant. Get rid of the fatty cooking oil, known as lard. If any of you have not seen or heard of that place, look it up on Google. And don't go there to eat. 350 lbs. people eat there free.


Without getting into a debate about which is worse between meat and sugar, the idea that the government needs to attempt to modify behavior due to the health conditions of its citizens is the best example of how government health care starts out benevolent and caring, and then suffers from "mission creep."



When I pay for your health care, suddenly everything you do to yourself is my business. Literally every behavior can be viewed through the lens of affecting health care costs. From eating cookies to snowboarding to watching too much TV, your disapproved behavior is costing the government and society money. Time to legislate the solution.



It's what legislators do. Otherwise, what are they there for, eh?
scrjnki is offline  
Old April 4th, 2011, 04:40 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
knowuryder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki View Post
Without getting into a debate about which is worse between meat and sugar, the idea that the government needs to attempt to modify behavior due to the health conditions of its citizens is the best example of how government health care starts out benevolent and caring, and then suffers from "mission creep."



When I pay for your health care, suddenly everything you do to yourself is my business. Literally every behavior can be viewed through the lens of affecting health care costs. From eating cookies to snowboarding to watching too much TV, your disapproved behavior is costing the government and society money. Time to legislate the solution.



It's what legislators do. Otherwise, what are they there for, eh?


When are Americans every going to accept and realize that some of us will be sickly, some of us will engage in unhealthy behavior, some of us are going to be reckless, some of us will be poor, some will make more money than they will ever need in one lifetime, some will be born at a disadvantage, and some will come into this world highly advantaged...some are stupid and some are smart, and some disabled and unable to care for themselves....and many, many, many of us will make a bad decision in our lives that will cost us money and health and whatever it may be. We share this with each other.....and if we want to belong to this free society, we pay a price for each other and ourselves. Freedom is not easy, but I for one don't mind paying for other people's bad habits if I know that if I needed help from the "nanny" state everyone complains about, it would be there for me.



We are just selfish and greedy, and THAT my friends will be our undoing......not having to pay for my neighbor's oxygen tank because of his emphysema caused by his bad behavior.





knowuryder is offline  
Old April 5th, 2011, 05:20 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
scrjnki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowuryder View Post
When are Americans every going to accept and realize that some of us will be sickly, some of us will engage in unhealthy behavior, some of us are going to be reckless, some of us will be poor, some will make more money than they will ever need in one lifetime, some will be born at a disadvantage, and some will come into this world highly advantaged...some are stupid and some are smart, and some disabled and unable to care for themselves....and many, many, many of us will make a bad decision in our lives that will cost us money and health and whatever it may be. We share this with each other.....and if we want to belong to this free society, we pay a price for each other and ourselves. Freedom is not easy, but I for one don't mind paying for other people's bad habits if I know that if I needed help from the "nanny" state everyone complains about, it would be there for me.



We are just selfish and greedy, and THAT my friends will be our undoing......not having to pay for my neighbor's oxygen tank because of his emphysema caused by his bad behavior.







Maybe not so greedy as judgmental and self centered. I will pay for your oxygen tank if you have lived a life to the standards I have set for myself. Otherwise, there is something flawed with you and you must pay for your sin. The sin of exercising free will and bad judgement.
scrjnki is offline  
Old April 5th, 2011, 06:17 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowuryder View Post
When are Americans every going to accept and realize that some of us will be sickly, some of us will engage in unhealthy behavior, some of us are going to be reckless, some of us will be poor, some will make more money than they will ever need in one lifetime, some will be born at a disadvantage, and some will come into this world highly advantaged...some are stupid and some are smart, and some disabled and unable to care for themselves....and many, many, many of us will make a bad decision in our lives that will cost us money and health and whatever it may be. We share this with each other.....and if we want to belong to this free society, we pay a price for each other and ourselves. Freedom is not easy, but I for one don't mind paying for other people's bad habits if I know that if I needed help from the "nanny" state everyone complains about, it would be there for me.



We are just selfish and greedy, and THAT my friends will be our undoing......not having to pay for my neighbor's oxygen tank because of his emphysema caused by his bad behavior.







We don't have a nanny state because it wants to help, we have a nanny state because it wants to force us not to engage in certain behaviors that it decides are improper.



Your post was right on.



leighredf is offline  
Old April 5th, 2011, 06:23 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki View Post
Maybe not so greedy as judgmental and self centered. I will pay for your oxygen tank if you have lived a life to the standards I have set for myself. Otherwise, there is something flawed with you and you must pay for your sin. The sin of exercising free will and bad judgement.


In Louisiana, a bunch of ministers got together and decided we needed a $1.50 tax on cigarettes "to help smokers." Yes, that's the quote. They had a picture, and two of them were fat with big guts. In my usual tactful and diplomatic way, I emailed the fattest one and said "If I was overweight with a big fat gut, I don't think I would be lecturing anyone on healthy habits."



I like this quote (from a letter - not mine - sent to the Methodist Bishop of Louisiana regarding the proposed tax):



Also, what I see here is scapegoating. I make this point until I am blue in the

face, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Heart disease is still our leading

killer. This, like lung cancer, is also preventable. Healthy diet, exercise,

and the usual will prevent this. Yet people do not follow this simple advice.

Should we then tax them? Should we start singling unhealthy eaters out? Christ

advised against hypocrisy, so let's go all the way with this. Are you prepared

to do this? If not, I implore you to rethink what you are doing right now,

because there is negligible difference between the two.



I could go on, but I want to get down to what really bothers me. I am a firm

believer in separation of church and state, for the church's sake rather than

the state's. Politics is an ugly and divisive thing, and has no place in

church. Think about the evil that can be perpetrated by government, any

government. Wars, one of the gravest sins against Christ's own teaching come

immediately to mind. Are our citizens not taxed, both financially and

spiritually, enough by the government? How can you stand before a people

overburdened and demand more? The church's proper place is out of government,

and vice versa. I imagine you would say you agree with me on this point, but do

you really? How could you say it when you are using the government for

yourself?



If you want to end smoking, there are ways within the church you can do this.

You can give all the anti-smoking information you have to people within your

church, you can tell it to kids in Sunday School. Programs, skits, plays; all

this is within your power and instead you take a route that frankly, I find

deplorable. Harsh words, perhaps, but I have a few more before I am finished.

This move will punish the poor, this move ignores larger problems, and this move

puts a fine institution in cahoots with one that is far less so. Look at the

current state of the world. Look at the moral character of some of our

leaders. Is this who you want to associate with? I, for one, will have no part

of it. I used to feel church was the one place I was safe from the rest of the

world, the one place where anyone could belong, and that is gone now.
leighredf is offline  
Old April 5th, 2011, 08:21 AM   #9
man
 
onthefence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: laying on the fence
Posts: 5,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by H80W View Post
If Arizona is going to start a program on getting people healthy, then they need to have the owner of the Heart Attack Grill in Tempe redo his restaurant. Get rid of the fatty cooking oil, known as lard. If any of you have not seen or heard of that place, look it up on Google. And don't go there to eat. 350 lbs. people eat there free.


a hospital themed Hooters.



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqf_SIQ3JAk[/media]

onthefence is offline  
Old April 5th, 2011, 10:13 AM   #10
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by onthefence View Post
a hospital themed Hooters.



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqf_SIQ3JAk[/media]


If you're going to go, mine as well go doing what you love and apparently what the entire country loves lol.
Fayt is online now  
Old April 5th, 2011, 01:00 PM   #11
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by onthefence View Post
a hospital themed Hooters.



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqf_SIQ3JAk[/media]


That reminds me of the "What did you eat for lunch today?" thread
garysher is offline  
Old April 5th, 2011, 01:03 PM   #12
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki View Post
When I pay for your health care, suddenly everything you do to yourself is my business. Literally every behavior can be viewed through the lens of affecting health care costs. From eating cookies to snowboarding to watching too much TV, your disapproved behavior is costing the government and society money. Time to legislate the solution.




That situation already exists with the current system based on private health insurance.



I am paying for your insurance you are paying for mine and we all pay for people who don't have any insurance.



I know you are self-employed like me but 85%+ of Americans are subsidised by their employers who pass on insurance costs via price increases. So in that sense we are all paying for each others insurance.



The main reason for wanting Universal health care is that it's far cheaper. Most industrialised countries spend less than half what the US spends. They have better outcomes and everyone is covered
garysher is offline  
Old April 5th, 2011, 06:20 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
scrjnki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post


That situation already exists with the current system based on private health insurance.



I am paying for your insurance you are paying for mine and we all pay for people who don't have any insurance.



I know you are self-employed like me but 85%+ of Americans are subsidised by their employers who pass on insurance costs via price increases. So in that sense we are all paying for each others insurance.



The main reason for wanting Universal health care is that it's far cheaper. Most industrialised countries spend less than half what the US spends. They have better outcomes and everyone is covered


I get the whole communal pie of family style health care administration that many are so in love with. I don't get the whole using the communal health care pie as an excuse for scapegoating certain behaviors and lifestyles and instituting behavior modification policies cooked up by bitter, power-hungry busybodies who need to get a life. Communal health care cost sharing must not come at the expense of liberty. If it does, then in my opinion, the price is too high.
scrjnki is offline  
Old April 5th, 2011, 10:02 PM   #14
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,817
The OP pointing out an example of Republican nanny statism is correct. Yet, government involvement in healthcare is nanny statism, period.



While it's wrong for the government to attempt to force anyone to be healthy, government forcing others to support the bad habits of others, and government taking care of those who willingly do practice bad habits is equally wrong.



Would you buy heroin for a junkie who's a little strapped for cash, or pay for drinks at a bar for an alcoholic? Buy a carton of cigarettes for a friend constantly hacking from smoker's cough?



Food addiction is a choice. The biochemical pathways which provide a "high" from over-eating are established. Except for a small minority of people who have some genetic disorder, obesity is preventable, and the cost to society in general from obesity-related illnesses is not a fictional concept.



Government forcing people to be healthy is the other side of the coin of government forcing people to care for people who won't care for themselves. If government is going to force people to care for others, if you are comfortable with that idea, then you'd best get comfortable with government forcing people to "be healthy," because, it's going to happen.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 06:03 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
scrjnki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
The OP pointing out an example of Republican nanny statism is correct. Yet, government involvement in healthcare is nanny statism, period.



While it's wrong for the government to attempt to force anyone to be healthy, government forcing others to support the bad habits of others, and government taking care of those who willingly do practice bad habits is equally wrong.



Would you buy heroin for a junkie who's a little strapped for cash, or pay for drinks at a bar for an alcoholic? Buy a carton of cigarettes for a friend constantly hacking from smoker's cough?



Food addiction is a choice. The biochemical pathways which provide a "high" from over-eating are established. Except for a small minority of people who have some genetic disorder, obesity is preventable, and the cost to society in general from obesity-related illnesses is not a fictional concept.



Government forcing people to be healthy is the other side of the coin of government forcing people to care for people who won't care for themselves. If government is going to force people to care for others, if you are comfortable with that idea, then you'd best get comfortable with government forcing people to "be healthy," because, it's going to happen.


You correctly point out the ways in which government involvement in health care is the pathway to legitimizing government control over almost anything it desires to control. That is why many oppose it, even though their opposition is often characterized as indifference to the suffering of the unhealthy. Food addiction is a choice. Many things are choices in a free society. Freedom is often disorderly and uncontrolled. That's why it is called freedom. Having one too many children is a choice. Deciding not to have any is a choice. Yet, some governments have demonstrated that these choices may also be regulated for the collective good.



Nanny statism is a bipartisan vice. The "high" from exercising self-aggrandizing power over other people's lives is also well established. Open any history book. Open any newspaper. In the end, the basic disincentive for unhealthy habits is an early and often lingering, inglorious death. To the extent that government can avail themselves of the kind of savvy Madison Avenue genius that sells most everything else, in order to dissuade the citizenry from smoking, overeating, etc., I am fine with it. Degrading, onerous and punitive behavior modification by our government using health care as the pretext... not so much.
scrjnki is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 06:27 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki View Post
Nanny statism is a bipartisan vice. The "high" from exercising self-aggrandizing power over other people's lives is also well established. Open any history book. Open any newspaper. In the end, the basic disincentive for unhealthy habits is an early and often lingering, inglorious death. To the extent that government can avail themselves of the kind of savvy Madison Avenue genius that sells most everything else, in order to dissuade the citizenry from smoking, overeating, etc., I am fine with it. Degrading, onerous and punitive behavior modification by our government using health care as the pretext... not so much.




Our "nanny state" is exacerbated by our "I'm a victim, let's sue" mentality. Here are some things that drive me crazy:



We send 18 year olds off to fight our wars. But, when they get home, they cannot buy a drink at a bar. A 21 year old unemployed transient alcoholic can get a drink, but an 19 year old airman just back from Iraq cannot.



A man goes to a bar, gets drunk, and injures himself in a one-car accident on the way home. He sues the bar and wins. Bull. Louisiana has a great law, an anti-dram shop law. You cannot sue a bar, period. Your intoxicated status is your fault (as it should be).



The war on smoking (with the curious lack of a war on alcohol) and the "I didn't know smoking was dangerous" lawsuits both drive me nuts. Everyone knew smoking was bad for you, and has known that for a long time.



The obese are now claiming "victim" status. I don't think so.



The American With Disabilities Act overkill - why are there 20 handicapped parking spaces (with 19 empty on Saturday afternoon) at some places? Why did the little antique store here have to spend $100 on braille bathroom signs? In the unlikely event that someone blind came in, they had people who could show that person where the restroom is located.



No texting in the car (but I can spackle my makeup on while driving). Some people can drive and talk on the phone. Some people cannot. Inattentive driving is already a traffic offense. Why do we always dumb down our laws to accommodate the inept?



I will acknowledge that I am somewhat harsh on my approach. You want to use drugs, fine. But, don't ask me or the government to pay for your rehab. You play, you pay.
leighredf is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 06:41 AM   #17
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki View Post
You correctly point out the ways in which government involvement in health care is the pathway to legitimizing government control over almost anything it desires to control. That is why many oppose it, even though their opposition is often characterized as indifference to the suffering of the unhealthy. Food addiction is a choice. Many things are choices in a free society. Freedom is often disorderly and uncontrolled. That's why it is called freedom. Having one too many children is a choice. Deciding not to have any is a choice. Yet, some governments have demonstrated that these choices may also be regulated for the collective good.



Nanny statism is a bipartisan vice. The "high" from exercising self-aggrandizing power over other people's lives is also well established. Open any history book. Open any newspaper. In the end, the basic disincentive for unhealthy habits is an early and often lingering, inglorious death. To the extent that government can avail themselves of the kind of savvy Madison Avenue genius that sells most everything else, in order to dissuade the citizenry from smoking, overeating, etc., I am fine with it. Degrading, onerous and punitive behavior modification by our government using health care as the pretext... not so much.


The idea that people who opposed nationalized healthcare are greedy or heartless plays right into the hands of those looking to exercise self-aggrandizing power over their constituents. I oppose mandated government healthcare for a number of reasons, but greed or heartlessness isn't one of them.



I'm a community volunteer, have been for 20 years. As one, I see the same people volunteering over and over. Those willing to volunteer often volunteer for more than one activity. We are the group of volunteers, and we joke about it.The roles played by volunteers are many, and vital. I imagine those outside of the group don't know how many ways their daily lives are affected by the roles volunteers play. I didn't until I began volunteering.



I don't feel like the majority who never volunteer are "greedy," or "heartless." I figure that they are too busy earning a living, supporting their families, raising their children, or perhaps, like me, don't know how many volunteer jobs are out there, in need of fresh faces.



Regarding government-provided healthcare, I believe that those supporting it do so in part because they honestly want to help those who cannot afford insurance. Iow, they are motivated by love for their fellow human. That motive will be used by power-hungry politicians to support their campaign contributors, and will result in increasing governmental control over individuals, a trend underway healthcare aside.



American healtthcare is seriously broken, no doubt. Simply funding it without reforming it is akin to finding a better way to put air in a leaking tire without repairing the hole in it.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 06:47 AM   #18
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,374
Texting in the car is completely idiotic and if it were to only risk the life of the idiot driving and texting, no one would care. You can't text and drive. And getting other people killed because you are too stupid to realize that, isn't okay.







I support a universal payer system. At the very least, a public option. And I don't think that it is a way for government to exert more control over individual lives.



waitingtables is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 07:05 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Texting in the car is completely idiotic and if it were to only risk the life of the idiot driving and texting, no one would care. You can't text and drive. And getting other people killed because you are too stupid to realize that, isn't okay.



I support a universal payer system. At the very least, a public option. And I don't think that it is a way for government to exert more control over individual lives.


I know people (I'm not one of them, I don't multitask well) who can text and drive without any problem. A better example would have been the seatbelt law. I wear them, but I don't think the government needs to compel them.
leighredf is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 07:07 AM   #20
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leighredf View Post
Our "nanny state" is exacerbated by our "I'm a victim, let's sue" mentality. Here are some things that drive me crazy:



We send 18 year olds off to fight our wars. But, when they get home, they cannot buy a drink at a bar. A 21 year old unemployed transient alcoholic can get a drink, but an 19 year old airman just back from Iraq cannot.



A man goes to a bar, gets drunk, and injures himself in a one-car accident on the way home. He sues the bar and wins. Bull. Louisiana has a great law, an anti-dram shop law. You cannot sue a bar, period. Your intoxicated status is your fault (as it should be).



The war on smoking (with the curious lack of a war on alcohol) and the "I didn't know smoking was dangerous" lawsuits both drive me nuts. Everyone knew smoking was bad for you, and has known that for a long time.



The obese are now claiming "victim" status. I don't think so.



The American With Disabilities Act overkill - why are there 20 handicapped parking spaces (with 19 empty on Saturday afternoon) at some places? Why did the little antique store here have to spend $100 on braille bathroom signs? In the unlikely event that someone blind came in, they had people who could show that person where the restroom is located.



No texting in the car (but I can spackle my makeup on while driving). Some people can drive and talk on the phone. Some people cannot. Inattentive driving is already a traffic offense. Why do we always dumb down our laws to accommodate the inept?



I will acknowledge that I am somewhat harsh on my approach. You want to use drugs, fine. But, don't ask me or the government to pay for your rehab. You play, you pay.


If you are suggesting overkill, it probably is in some cases, Leigh.



Locally, there is a wheelchair-bound woman who is very much an activist for the ADA. Before Petco Park was built, the Padres and Chargers shared Qualcomm Stadium, the football stadium. This lady would find even the tiniest infractions and report that to the ADA. The city would have to comply. She sued, and won a case. What was her reward or award? Season tickets for the Padres and Chargers. Effing greedy.



Petco Park is ADA-blessed. So it seems that we have nothing to worry about. At least for now anyway.



We can also eat in our car while driving. We can drink our coffees, sodas, or milkshakes in our car.



When I was in Alabama in 1989, my friends and I were coming back from Tennessee towards Northern Alabama via Decatur. We went to the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville the night before. While driving the van, the driver was drinking beer. I looked back at his wife and said, "what's he doing drinking beer while driving?" Isn't drinking alcohol while driving in Alabama illegal?
highway80west is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Conservatism

Tags
nanny, republican, statism


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
La Nanny Government Trying To Force Condoms On Porn Stars tadpole256 Current Events 21 February 9th, 2012 01:42 PM
'Nanny governments' seek playpen full of laws CNN Current Events 2 March 21st, 2007 05:53 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.