The Nanny State Strikes Again

Fox News ^ | 12/26/03 | William A. Niskanen

[Peach]

It is legislated that automobile drivers shall carry automobile insurance. Why aren't you opposed to that? What's the difference between that legislation and the legislation mandating seat belts?

[Orangedog]

No true conservative would vote for anything other than the GOP.

Great, yet another of defining down conservatism.

GOP...we're not quite as bad as the Democrats!"

[Peach]

See #58.

[FairOpinion]

Let me spell it out for you.

We hope and will be fortunate that Bush will beat the Dem nominee.

Some random Republican running against Bush not only has zero chance at beating Bush, but anyone more "conservative" than Bush would also have a zero chance at beating the Dem nominee.

So, anyone supporting a "Republican alternative" to Bush or a third party candidate is effectively supporting Dean.

How do you think Clinton got elected? Bushanan was attacking and weakened Bush I, then all the "principled" conservatives decided to punish Bush and stayed home or voted for Perot. RESULT: 8 years of Clinton.

This is appart from the "minute" detail, that nobody, but nobody could be as effective in the most important issues the country is facing: terrorism and the economy.

It is really worse than pathetic to see that some "so-called conservatives" would sell our best President down the river and have the country end up with Dean, because they whine about some insignificant item.

After the terrorists will nuke us, you won't have to worry about wearing your seatbelt.

[Orangedog]

Hospitals will not generally kick them out, and so pass the costs along to - guess who? All of us!

So a bad business decision on the part of hospitals is a reason for the government to pass laws and hand out $400 of tax money to the states so they can write more tickets? Sorry, I disagree.

[Free2Be49]

Okay, I give up. What is a CINO?

[JOHANNES801]

If you cant afford it work harder or walk.

[politicalwit]

"No true conservative would vote for anything other than the GOP."

Spoken like a true party man.....sounds just like the democrat party hacks.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And the Bush administration has proposed a $400 million incentive to reward state governments that pass such laws.

Sure looks like Bush is behind this to me.

Just for the record, I have NEVER said nor believed that Bush was a conservative.

[Peach]

Huh? People skimp on all kinds of things and don't all work harder, although I agree with you = they should.

It's a given that people do not carry insurance if they feel they can get away with it. It is, however, the law. Why do you feel auto insurance legislation is acceptable but seat belt laws are not?

BTW, I am in favor of both.

[ovrtaxt]

Conservative In Name Only. See also, 'compassionate conservative'.

[Triple Word Score]

The fundamental question is not "are seatbelt laws good?" but rather, "are seatbelt laws a federal matter?"

One may strongly assent the first and not to the second.

[Peach]

A bad business decision on the part of hospitals? Man, you are cold.

We have excellent insurance and an extremely comfortable retirement, but I do NOT want to see citizens who are less fortunate, sometimes through no fault of their own, suffer medically because they are without insurance.

So you think that poor people should NOT be cared for in the hospital if they don't have $$? Good night - have to run. It's been interesting.

[Congressman Billybob]

Anyone who has spent time in Shock Trauma Units, as I have, has SEEN the cases of people who suffered permanent brain damage, and though their bodies live on, their lives as human beings are over. And anyone who has ever paid the bill for merely a day in such units, knows how quickly the costs of treatment in such facilities can mount up.

In quarreling either of these points, you demonstrate your ignorance. Please do some reading on the Internet. You might even find out about a particular injury to unbelted drivers or especially front seat passengers. The knees get caught on the dash. The head goes through the windshield, and then slides down on the jagged glass. The person may live, but with his/her face shaved off.

Do you really want to pay, through your taxes, for the "victims" of such accidents? Or does it make sense to use the law to tell these people not to make themselves "victims," because they do not have a right to your money?

John / Billybob

[FairOpinion]

"Bush administration " is NOT the same as Bush.

Bush is busy doing important things, like keep us from being nuked by terrorists. He can't micromanage everything.

Bush has to make choices -- focus on keeping us alive, or worry about every stupid thing his administration is doing. He is obviously making the right choice.

I have no problem with the article in general -- I totally oppose government intrusion, such as telling us that by law we MUST wear seatbelts. BUT to blame everything on Bush, makes the so-called conservatives sound just like the whiny Dems, who blame Bush for the great flood and the earthquake in Iran.

[Sandy]

It is legislated that automobile drivers shall carry automobile insurance. Why aren't you opposed to that? What's the difference between that legislation and the legislation mandating seat belts?

Oh brother, you're missing the point. We wouldn't need such laws were it not for the pre-existing socialism.

[Peach]

I notice you've yet to answer the question, which tells me quite a lot.

Will look for an answer (if you are able) later; must run.

[Sandy]

And besides, it sure as hell ain't a federal matter, regardless.

[Sandy]

I notice you've yet to answer the question, which tells me quite a lot.

Gee, and you're still missing the point, which tells me quite a lot.

[zeugma]

There sure seem to be a lot of kool-aid drinkers defending pubbies on this thread. Thanks for t epost. It's just another reason not to choose socialist party B.