Ordering pizza the hard way

brodski said:
are there currently any regulations on how private companies in the US can process, hold and share personal information which they collect? perhaps an equivalent to the UK's data protection act? Liberty have at times been quite vocal on any proposed changes to the DPA, and so i could see an analogous situation here.
Click to expand...
I am sure there are but information can still be sold to other companies.

People go to the mall see a "Win this car!" and submit the form not reading the back that says they are basically giving their personal info away. Why are people so dumb? How many laws do we need to protect them from such stupidity?
Either way, I still found the video funny, if not incredibly realistic.
Click to expand...
Funny yes, realistic I don't know.

I pay cash for the Pizza that I order online.
 
Grammatron said:
They used the term "provide for the common defense" but only "promote the general welfare." And even then, it looks to me like they are reffering to the welfare of the Union and not the people.
Click to expand...
Well, the preamble is simply an introduction and doesn't contain the more precise wording used through out the rest of the constitution. They may have simply used synonyms to avoid monotonous repetition. I wouldn't take the different choice of words as proof positive that they did or didn't want the general welfare provided for.

That being said, I don't think any argument based solely on the preamble is going to get very far if it isn't actually backed up with something more meaty from the body of the constitution itself (or its amendments).

eta: Still, I find the interpretation interesting. I hadn't thought of it in those terms before.
 
Grammatron said:
I am sure there are but information can still be sold to other companies.

People go to the mall see a "Win this car!" and submit the form not reading the back that says they are basically giving their personal info away. Why are people so dumb? How many laws do we need to protect them from such stupidity?
.
Click to expand...

well as long as you still have the right to opt out of your information being sold, the theri is no problem.
And as much as I am a "big government loving, interventionist, liberal commie euro drone" TM, :p I believe that there are some people so uninformed that no level of government regulation will protect them. Give people the right to opt out of their information being sold, give people the right to see what information is being held on them- and thats it.

Grammatron said:
Funny yes, realistic I don't know.
Click to expand...
unless people loose the ability not opt out of "the database" then it's not particularly realistic.

Grammatron said:
I pay cash for the Pizza that I order online.
Click to expand...

funny, i order on line only when I don't have the cash on me, and I am feeling too lazy to go to the ATM. When i phone my order through the pizza place always responds more quickly than if I order on line.
 
Upchurch said:
Well, the preamble is simply an introduction and doesn't contain the more precise wording used through out the rest of the constitution. They may have simply used synonyms to avoid monotonous repetition. I wouldn't take the different choice of words as proof positive that they did or didn't want the general welfare provided for.

That being said, I don't think any argument based solely on the preamble is going to get very far if it isn't actually backed up with something more meaty from the body of the constitution itself (or its amendments).

eta: Still, I find the interpretation interesting. I hadn't thought of it in those terms before.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my intention to say the Founding Fathers would support socialized medical care (many of thecertainly wouldn't have), but the common welfare was a goal stipulated. There's no list of services that the government shall provide. The structure of the government outlines is pretty bare bones. It doesn't even provide the basis for a professional army (I'm not saying that a professional army is unconstitutional, it's just not mentioned), there was a professional army/militia debate going at the time.

What the Preamble does give us is a very broad brush picture of what the government is supposed to be about, and that picture includes common welfare.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
National healthcare doesn't have to invade a person's privacy. The purpose of national health care is to, guess what, heal the sick.
Click to expand...

By telling me I must join the government's health care plan, or go to jail, they are invading my privacy just as much as if listening in on my conversations, if not more.

Anybody believing in the right to choose will tell you, correctly, that privacy is about a lot more than words and information.
 
Beerina said:
By telling me I must join the government's health care plan, or go to jail, they are invading my privacy just as much as if listening in on my conversations, if not more.

Anybody believing in the right to choose will tell you, correctly, that privacy is about a lot more than words and information.
Click to expand...

so is saying that you have to sign up for the governments "security" packages or face the consequences just another protection racket?

I can see arguments either way for government funded health-care, I'm glad I have it, but I can see why some nations would choose not to implement it. I just don't buy this particular argument.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I forgot to add this paragraph.

As it is, private insurance companies, and private medical insitutions get to make choices about our healthcare. I would rather the government be in that position, because I have a constitutional right to seek redress from my government and it is, usually, answerable to me. Insurance companies are answerable to their stock holders, not the people they serve.
Click to expand...

You have this bass-ackwards. You can go to another insurance company. The insurance company cannot point a gun (a literal gun, an actual threat of violence) at you and demand you not leave.

A government health care system can do this (wrongly).

The Detoit auto companies have been taking it on the chin for 30 years because they cannot easily keep up with the competition. Should the government nationalize auto-making? Presumably they'd, for practical reasons, turn it all over to Ford and GM for daily operation. However, you would not be allowed to buy any car but what they built, and your only redress would be complaining to your congressman, for both style and cost.

Sound like a good plan that'll get you quality cars at a quality price?

Let's do it! To hell with your desire to pick your own car from one of dozens of companies out there. You have no right to that.
 
drkitten said:
Why is this worse than government-funded universities?

If you're at a state-funded school, lots of people pay taxes and therefore have an "interest" in your education. To the best of my knowledge, this has never extended to people -- the state at large -- starting to dictate to individual students what they may and may not take.
Click to expand...

...yet.

Part of Hillary's health care plan was to dictate what medical courses students could take to limit specialization. This was a bone thrown to the doctor's organizations to appease them with nationalization of prices -- the government would limit the number of new specialists, thus allowing the existing doctor specialists to gain larger amounts of work, and thus money.

And if anyone suggests course choices were not limited -- just entry into specific specialties -- you're gonna get hit. :jaw-dropp
 
ImaginalDisc said:
You mean, when we're paying for it ourselves, through the government.

That is an opinion
Click to expand...

Yes, and so is your view that it would be bad.
Click to expand...

The whole nature, and purpose, of a free society is that it's irrelevant if it's good or bad. You seek out your life and interactions with other free people, and if you, or who you freely deal with, f***s up, only you are dragged down, not the entire nation, many of whom had no choice because of someone pointing a gun at them.

If 98% of Canadians are happy with national health care -- hooray! Now why should the other 2% join, or be placed in jail? Why shouldn't free doctors and that free 2% be able to get together without government involvement? It's no skin off your ass if someone else, with their money, seeks to go to a doctor at prices and for services they negotiate between themselves.

We all know the actual, real, political answer: socialized care cannot keep up with that in quality or speed, so it must be forbidden so as to not make the politicians look bad.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
...yet.

Part of Hillary's health care plan was to dictate what medical courses students could take to limit specialization. This was a bone thrown to the doctor's organizations to appease them with nationalization of prices -- the government would limit the number of new specialists, thus allowing the existing doctor specialists to gain larger amounts of work, and thus money.

And if anyone suggests course choices were not limited -- just entry into specific specialties -- you're gonna get hit. :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

so that particular aspect of a proposed implementation of national healthcare is flawed, but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Beerina said:
If 98% of Canadians are happy with national health care -- hooray! Now why should the other 2% join, or be placed in jail? Why shouldn't free doctors and that free 2% be able to get together without government involvement? It's no skin off your ass if someone else, with their money, seeks to go to a doctor at prices and for services they negotiate between themselves.
Click to expand...

absolutely, but they still need to contribute to the other 98%, just like those using private schools pay for state schools, because society as a whole benefits from greater provision of certain goods than the market will provide. Also hypothication is generally a pretty inefficant policy, so it would actual cost more, and involve greater government intrusion into private affairs than a non hypothicated system.

Should a well armed individual adequately able to defend himself and his property refuse to be forced into paying for a SOCIALIZED POLICE FORCE- by sticking a gun to his head!

(BTW your bolding doesn't actually add to your argument you know, it just makes you come across as a little unhinged)
 
Beerina, I never said people should be forced to join a national healthcare system. Where did you get that idea from? I said it should be avilable, not compulsory.

Edit: Oh, sorry. My sarcasm detector wasn't working. Now I get what you meant. Silly me.
 
Last edited:
I find it a slight intellectual curiousity that the US Constitution very explicitly grants the Federal Government the power to run a socialized postal service, which at the time was probably one of the few socialized systems which even occured to people.
 
UserGoogol said:
I find it a slight intellectual curiousity that the US Constitution very explicitly grants the Federal Government the power to run a socialized postal service, which at the time was probably one of the few socialized systems which even occured to people.
Click to expand...
Would the federal military count as a socialized system?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
It might if the federal military were outlined in the Constitution, but it's not. The Second Ammendment refers to a militia, but that's it.
Click to expand...
Does it have to be outlined in the constitution for it to be considered socialized, then? Simply being run by the government is insufficient?
 
I was using the word socialized to refer to things that would "otherwise" be provided by the free market. Military is by definition a government thing.
 
brodski said:
How are medical record held by a health proivided funded by teh state any different from record kept by a health provider funded by insurance?

The invasion of privacy issue, is only an issue once those records are released to people not directly connected with health provision, regardless of who has payed for that helthcare.
Click to expand...


The US government is pretty good at compartmentalization. For example, you can get an FHA, VA or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack backed mortgage, and the IRS never sees the financial records these other agencies see.
 
Upchurch said:
Does it have to be outlined in the constitution for it to be considered socialized, then? Simply being run by the government is insufficient?
Click to expand...

Usergoogol's orginal post was:
I find it a slight intellectual curiousity that the US Constitution very explicitly grants the Federal Government the power to run a socialized postal service, which at the time was probably one of the few socialized systems which even occured to people
Click to expand...

So, I thought you were speaking in terms of Constitutional programs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom