Re: OT: We're From The Government...

If the police/health care person makes an argument to a judge that someone needs to be placed on "house arrest" for the public good, it will happen.

If a ER tech gets spooked and calls the police that YOU need to be placed on "house arrest" for the public good, should this happen ??

The emotional response this and the rest of the health care "debate" has raised seems like "Chicken Little".

And so the sky has fallen.

don

John Fields wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

IMO,that "most diseases can be cured" is incorrect in itself.

then there's the trade-off of liberty vs security. Just where does the gov't stop it's intrusion?

You're marching out of step, get back in rhythm or face the consequences.

PeterD wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Odd,that was patriotic when Bush was President,according to the "progressives".

would that be a "gooseSTEP"?

I see you are in need of a little "re-education", comrade Yanik.

Frog-march.

Right Don. "We're from the government and we are here to "help" you!" Hey if you can't trust the judgment of the health police, who can you trust? This is all so much right wing emotional scare tactics like the left would never use.

Look, the facts are simple. A disease can be deadly to the general pubic. Courts have decided that police only have a duty to protect society. They have no duty to protect any given individual.

Thus, the new law clearly aims at protecting society. If quarantine or arrest of individuals becomes necessary, why not do it? It's for the children. We allow police to kill dangerous armed criminals to protect themselves and society, so why not give them all the "judge Dredd" power to kill anyone they deem to have a dangerous disease? You are right, Don, it's exactly the same thing. And totally sensible.

People who are saying this is going to far just think the sky is falling. They simply don't understand how dangerous some of the new diseases developed at fort Detrick are.

And just or educational purposes, Don, once this new policy is law I'll send some friends around to your house with a couple dire diseases for you and your family. No problem. Your deaths will be saving the world. And we will all honor your sacrifice! Bless you!

You think you need a "new" outbreak. How about we use some of the concentration camps already built and staffed to get all HIV + people out of the general population? Even better a few "showers" with those "special" heads can finally solve the problem for future generations to come.

So how well do you understand the principles of the law? Shall we lock up all men because they are all "potential" rapists? Or shall we only lock up those who actually commit the crime? The idea is that if you ARE causing or HAVE caused someone damage (gave them a dire disease even if you are only a carrier) then you have to make restitution for the damage. If you have created no damage then there is no crime. If one takes the road of punishing people for crimes they MIGHT commit and damage they MIGHT do (like say the idea that if they own a gun they might shoot someone with it or if they own a dick and might rape someone with it) then really there is no law anymore. One might as well declare Obama our king and bend our knees and swear allegiance to his Royal Majesty. And then his WORD will be LAW. Nothing more will need to be said.

Note that Mary's case is a bit fuzzy in that she insisted on working as a cook if she was turned loose. The idea of reckless endangerment comes to mind, sort of like HIV+ persons having promiscuous sex with the public.

I don't quite understand your inclusion of the Obama king reference, but to your other points:

I think Mary was forced to say she wouldn't cook again (as a profession) in order to obtain her release. Of course, cooking was all she knew -- and within a couple years, was back in that profession. So in her case, having advanced knowledge and having sworn against the activity, I think one could reasonably conclude she was a fault. Even though, the bacteria that causes the condition does not discriminate, nor is her biology (carrier without symptom) her direct responsibilty either.

The point I was trying to make was basically an update on Mary's situation, placed in the 21st century. Even with all our science, there's still plenty we don't know.

Taking your HIV example: In the early days, nobody knew what the root cause was. Would it have been appropriate to round up all the gays on Fire Island and quarrantine them? Keep in mind that not all of them were infected with the virus.

And even today, you can be HIV-positive and still pass an HIV test - (particularly in the days immediately after infection.)

As for your "special" shower head comment, it assumes the virus goes extinct if you kill every human host it has infected. But there may remain whatever underlying mechanism cause the first human host to become infected, so you really haven't solved the problem.

Eerily, that's a bit like Mary's situation if you think about it. Taking her out of the kitchen, without giving her skills to do something else, really didn't "solve" the problem. Nor was she the only person involved.

About 400 people still die of Yellow Fever in the US every year. As far as I can tell, Typhoid Mary is long dead and gone.

how dou you feel about people who drive without insurance or means to pay damages in the event of an accident?

What is your problem with these people?

"Andrew" wrote in news:h85ftt$2lm$ snipped-for-privacy@news.netins.net:

driving a motor vehicle is a PRIVELEGE,not a right.

They often cause property damage without the ability to compensate the ones they harmed.

Thus EVERYBODY who has insurance pays for their crime.

Just like Obama's health plan ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

THAT (plan) certainly is a crime.

besides being a communist plot(one of several planned by Obama) to grab power.

Since Obamacare would only begin in 2013,why the big rush to pass this lunacy?

Easy;it would begin well AFTER the 2012 election,and people would not begin to see it's negative effects for years after that.

you

And don't you dare forget your jackboots.