Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9066)	9/3/2009 11:10:54 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Adding to the power of government is a very foolish idea. That is the most important argument against the takeover. It's shocking, imo, that it is such a small part of the debate -- and that so few politicians mention this. Looks like both sides of the isle are pretty Statist these days. Obviously, power corrupts... and more power corrupts more.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9066)	9/4/2009 9:24:31 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

If martial law is required for a short term medical emergency then let it be declared. Adding to the power of government is a very foolish idea. So, I infer that you would accept an order to be quarantined if it stemmed from martial law but would refuse it if it came from some new quarantine authority given by congress to the power-sucking president to handle public health emergencies. Perhaps you think that the president would sign the martial law order to quarantine you with his right hand and the public-health-emergency order to quarantine you with his left hand and somehow that makes one acceptable and the other horrific enough that you would doom humanity to extinction from ebola rather than accede to it. Yep, we must at all costs keep the president, who has martial-law power to implement whatever he wants, including quarantines, from getting the explicit power to quarantine for public health purposes. Peter, I fully appreciate your reluctance to give the federal government more and more power. I understand and subscribe to the principle of a limited federal government. And I think that we have way too many federal laws and powers already. But this example illustrates how bizarre things can get when hostility takes a perfectly good principle to senseless extremes.