Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Options
Replies
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.
A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.
Fortunately for you (and society) I have no children for which you have to worry leeching the system, upon my demise. This is a conscious decision that I have made, and one that most...breeders should give more consideration.
And when you're very old and need someone to wipe your backside for you and spoon feed you your meals and remind you to take your meds and ambulate you to prevent bedsores, one of the "breeder's" children will be the one helping you out. Huh.
Funny how society needs new people (read - the crotch fruit of breeders) to keep going...
This is already planned and accounted for. Don't worry about that.
I am a staunch advocate against people outliving their usefulness, and I'm not so hypocritical as to not follow my own beliefs.
ETA: for clairifcation sake, no male in my genetic line has lived beyond the age of 63, at least, not since family tree record keeping became a thing.
With all due respect, you really can't predict the future. IIRC, you mentioned being in your 20s? (Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone else). It's really easy to pretend that you won't ever be old when you are in your 20s. And just because you don't know of any male living past 63 in your family doesn't necessarily mean you won't. Unless you are planning suicide upon retirement, you are being delusional.
Not to mention that young people wake up feeling fine and go to bed with cancer. Happens all the time. They have car wrecks, fall down in the shower and get randomly shot too.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.
We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.
And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo.
but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????
I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).
To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.
I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?
1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)
Reagrding 1. a.) Who "owns" the water in rivers? b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it?
So far as I am concerned, natural free-flowing water is not the property of anyone, until it is collected.
Aquafers are not necessarily flowing, they can be contained. It's why I asked part (b)
if the well is on my property then I own what is in the well.
The well is in fact on your property, but it taps into a body of water underground that is present under your neighbor's house, as well. You're both tapping into the same body of water underground.
why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.0 -
lessismore130 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.
We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.
And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo.
but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????
I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).
I never understood the rational that says health care is a human right...Liberty, Life, and property yes, but health care, sorry that one does not fly with me and never will.
You pay taxes to fund many, many public services. We all do. Schools. Emergency services. Roads. Public libraries. It goes on and on. A healthy society benefits everyone, including you.
Btw- emergency care costs would go way down if every person had access to preventative care.
again, just because the government has usurped their taxing authority and now takes more and more to fund more and more does not make it right or constitutional. The sad part is that many have just become used to it and assume that it is right and lawful. The federalist and anti-federalist papers should be required reading for all elementary school students.
Seems that society did fine when we did not have a government behemoth that demands more and more of our money to fund more and more thing that those that don't pay any taxes want and need. I would much rater trust local communities with their own money then some government bureaucrat in DC that is only concerned with protecting their own budget and their own fiefdom, and could care less about the problems in small town america.
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This plan looks like it still includes enrollment for people in a state exchange, but you can opt out of it afterwards in writing. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies of the ACA, everyone gets a flat tax credit. And it's largely funded by eliminating tax credits for employers. What do you see as other major differences between this and the ACA?lemurcat12 wrote: »This was part of the McCain proposal I posted (which honestly is worth discussion).
Here's the link again in case anyone else is reading, since it's quite far back now.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
One main way I see it as different is it attacks employer-based. ACA does not, and is in large part built around employer-based (people who pushed the public option had hopes of changing this, but in a different way than McCain and it failed, of course).
A big part of ACA is maintaining the special tax treatment of employer-based insurance and forcing even more businesses to have it/provide it to all employees (with some unintended consequences), as well as micromanaging (sorry, a bit biased here, although I understand the purpose) what employer-based insurance must include. McCain took away the tax benefits from employers connected with employer-based which would mean that very quickly it would go away, to be replaced entirely by the exchanges. (This is also why McCain's plan would not have passed.)
You mentioned the difference between a for-need subsidy and a tax credit.
Beyond that, another big part of ACA is federal regulation of what an insurance plan must require and not permitting discrimination based on such things as preexisting conditions. McCain's plan doesn't mess with the market on this. It also allows more room for the states to experiment.
There are some good things in both approaches (although I'd like to just ditch the insurance approach). It's an interesting problem for wonks and made for a much more interesting discussion before it got politicized to the extent it is now, IMO.
why do we trust the same clowns that blow money on "star wars" and "shrimp on treadmills" to regulate healthcare??
Excellent point, but we keep on doing it. The scam goes like this.
Step 1- Government goons break the healthcare market.
Step 2 - People complain. Another crop of government goons demonize private enterprise and private charity, and suggest government fixes.
Step 3- Government goons then break the healthcare market further.
Step 4 - Repeat steps 2, and 3 ad nauseam.
true, the government keeps breaking the system and then the same clowns try to fix what they have already broken. It is kind of like humpty dumpty syndrome...1 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
So I can poison the shared aquafer via my well, and you have no recourse?0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
So I can poison the shared aquafer via my well, and you have no recourse?
nwo you are moving the goalposts..you said who owns the water in the well if there is an aquifer present...0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
So I can poison the shared aquafer via my well, and you have no recourse?
nwo you are moving the goalposts..you said who owns the water in the well if there is an aquifer present...
Huh? Here's the questions I asked, if you review my posts:
"b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it (the aquafer)?"
"My question is who owns the aquafer?"
I never said anything about who owns your well.0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.0 -
Not getting involved . . .0
-
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
So I can poison the shared aquafer via my well, and you have no recourse?
nwo you are moving the goalposts..you said who owns the water in the well if there is an aquifer present...
Huh? Here's the questions I asked, if you review my posts:
"b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it (the aquafer)?"
"My question is who owns the aquafer?"
I never said anything about who owns your well.
why is this such a hard thing for you to understand? If something is on my property then I own it, if it is not on my property then I do not own it. So the water in your hypothetical aquifer is not owned by me, until it is pumped into my well, on my property.
0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
I am not sure how it works. It has something to do with state and town zoning laws. Our water comes from the same source as people who are on the town water system. When the state enacts water bans (no watering lawns and stuff like that) we have to comply also.
I know that our house could not get an occupancy permit without running water. Does that imply a "right" to the water?0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
So I can poison the shared aquafer via my well, and you have no recourse?
nwo you are moving the goalposts..you said who owns the water in the well if there is an aquifer present...
Huh? Here's the questions I asked, if you review my posts:
"b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it (the aquafer)?"
"My question is who owns the aquafer?"
I never said anything about who owns your well.
why is this such a hard thing for you to understand? If something is on my property then I own it, if it is not on my property then I do not own it. So the water in your hypothetical aquifer is not owned by me, until it is pumped into my well, on my property.
So if you don't own the aquafer under your land, then you have no recourse if I your neighbor poisons it and makes it unusable in the future?0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
I am not sure how it works. It has something to do with state and town zoning laws. Our water comes from the same source as people who are on the town water system. When the state enacts water bans (no watering lawns and stuff like that) we have to comply also.
I know that our house could not get an occupancy permit without running water. Does that imply a "right" to the water?
No, that just proves that government at all levels has gotten out of hand with the nanny state garbage.1 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
I am not sure how it works. It has something to do with state and town zoning laws. Our water comes from the same source as people who are on the town water system. When the state enacts water bans (no watering lawns and stuff like that) we have to comply also.
I know that our house could not get an occupancy permit without running water. Does that imply a "right" to the water?
It sounds like you do (which is how it usually works). Again, this is just in response to u/Gallowmere1984's definition of "right." I wonder if he feels you have a "right" to the water, though.0 -
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
I am not sure how it works. It has something to do with state and town zoning laws. Our water comes from the same source as people who are on the town water system. When the state enacts water bans (no watering lawns and stuff like that) we have to comply also.
I know that our house could not get an occupancy permit without running water. Does that imply a "right" to the water?
It sounds like you do (which is how it usually works). Again, this is just in response to u/Gallowmere1984's definition of "right." I wonder if he feels you have a "right" to the water, though.
It depends upon the specifics. If the city is under a contractual obligation to provide that water, since they demand it be linked, then yes, there is a contractual right to it, assuming that the person fulfills their end of the deal by paying their bill. If not, then no.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
I am not sure how it works. It has something to do with state and town zoning laws. Our water comes from the same source as people who are on the town water system. When the state enacts water bans (no watering lawns and stuff like that) we have to comply also.
I know that our house could not get an occupancy permit without running water. Does that imply a "right" to the water?
It sounds like you do (which is how it usually works). Again, this is just in response to u/Gallowmere1984's definition of "right." I wonder if he feels you have a "right" to the water, though.
It depends upon the specifics. If the city is under a contractual obligation to provide that water, since they demand it be linked, then yes, there is a contractual right to it, assuming that the person fulfills their end of the deal by paying their bill. If not, then no.
I feel like we're getting way off course here with trying to understand "right" by your definition. u/100df has a well, it isn't the city water supply. It just happens to be the same aquafer/underground source the city taps. Therefore they've some kind of public domain thing that defines how everyone tapping the aquafer uses it.
It's taken a long route, and I feel like we're never going to get there. Suffice it to say I'm suggesting you as a land owner have a "use" right to public resources like the water in the aquafer. And I was going to draw a parallel between public health and public use of shared resources, but even the notion of shared use of public resources is in doubt here on this thread. So it makes my analogy tough to lay out logically if one already rejects the notion that you and your neighbor share the responsibility somehow to protect the shared resource.0 -
I knew exactly where you were going with it, so I made it a point to show that I completely disagree with implied contracts, but fully support voluntary ones. I never signed a social contract. Your woes should not be mine, unless I choose to make them my own.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions