Wait, I think I may have misread your post. Are you saying that it is illegal for people smoking weed to have any healthcare or government healthcare?

 

I would have no problem disbarring marijuana smokers from government-run healthcare, but I don't think those who smoke bud should not be allowed to have healthcare from private firms.

 

For sure NO on government run healthcare. The other question would be should private healthcare be an option. The libertarian view would probably be no on that as well because the much higher risk smokers pose compared to non-smokers would cause overall premiums for the entire pool of insured to be higher (therefore the actions of the smokers effect the pocketbooks of the non-smokers). Since we are speaking hypotheticals, I suppose as long as smokers premiums were significantly higher than non-smokers to justify the added cost that smokers would add to the overall pool of insured I would be fine with that.

 

Again, this is all hypothetical, as I am on record stating I voted NO on the entire issue.

For sure NO on government run healthcare. The other question would be should private healthcare be an option. The libertarian view would be no on that as well because the much higher risk smokers pose compared to non-smokers would cause overall premiums for the entire pool of insured to be higher (therefore the actions of the smokers effect the pocketbooks of the non-smokers). Since we are speaking hypotheticals, I suppose as long as smokers premiums were significantly higher than non-smokers to justify the added cost that smokers would add to the overall pool of insured I would be fine with that.

 

Again, this is all hypothetical, as I am on record stating I voted NO on the entire issue.

Agreed on all counts. I am sure fky would support the ability for healthcare companies to discriminate on basically any grounds (race, sexual preference, etc.).

For sure NO on government run healthcare. The other question would be should private healthcare be an option. The libertarian view would be no on that as well because the much higher risk smokers pose compared to non-smokers would cause overall premiums for the entire pool of insured to be higher (therefore the actions of the smokers effect the pocketbooks of the non-smokers). Since we are speaking hypotheticals, I suppose as long as smokers premiums were significantly higher than non-smokers to justify the added cost that smokers would add to the overall pool of insured I would be fine with that.

 

Again, this is all hypothetical, as I am on record stating I voted NO on the entire issue.

 

Why would a libertarian view require private healthcare to not provide service to marijuana smokers?

Why would a libertarian view require private healthcare to not provide service to marijuana smokers?

Gunner went on to say that they would have higher premiums. I assume that cigarette smokers have higher premiums than non-smokers, as they should and as marijuana smokers should have equally.

Why would a libertarian view require private healthcare to not provide service to marijuana smokers?

 

Not necessarily saying that it would require, but I thought one of the main tenets of libertarianism is as long as personal decisions do not infringe on others rights, then no harm no foul. When those personal decisions start to infringe on others rights, then most libertarians are not happy about it.

Not necessarily saying that it would require, but I thought one of the main tenets of libertarianism is as long as personal decisions do not effect others, then no harm no foul. When those personal decisions start to effect others, then most libertarians are not happy about it.

 

Libertarians hold that you can do whatever you like so long as it doesn't infringe on any right of another, not affect another. If that were the case then their advocacy of the free market would be in complete disagreement to their principles.

Libertarians hold that you can do whatever you like so long as it doesn't infringe on any right of another, not affect another. If that were the case then their advocacy of the free market would be in complete disagreement to their principles.

 

You are correct, It will not allow me to update my previous post, but I agree. The second statement of the post is a better qualifier.

It is always good for a society to sell their soul out for monetary reasons. Worked well for us with allowing slavery to stay legal at the onset of this country.

 

You know our country could probably get money out of all the carcasses of aborted babies, let's do that too.

 

Are you seriously comparing slavery and abortion to smoking marijuana?

 

You do realize that marijuana is relatively harmless don't you?

 

Wow. :ohbrother:

Are you seriously comparing slavery and abortion to smoking marijuana?

 

You do realize that marijuana is relatively harmless don't you?

 

Wow. :ohbrother:

 

Stating that pot is "relatively harmless" is silly as well... But we have been down this road once already...

I know you are a Ron Paul supporter. Are you in agreement with that as long as those who are using pot, if we legalize it, are responsible for themselves when they get sick (i.e. no government aid/healthcare, they would forego medical insurance, that way in the true libertarian sense they are not effecting the rest of us only themselves)?

I'm against most forms of government healthcare so that is a moot issue.

 

As far as private healthcare...it's up to the business to choose how they want to deal with it. And I don't see any problem with charging someone a higher premium that smokes anything.

It is always good for a society to sell their soul out for monetary reasons. Worked well for us with allowing slavery to stay legal at the onset of this country.

 

You know our country could probably get money out of all the carcasses of aborted babies, let's do that too.

This is my favorite post of the year. Are you really relating marijuana to slavery?

Yes he is.

 

(Since I'm speaking for fky, I grant him permission to talk for me for the next 40 days about anything politically-related).

I already planned on it.

 

:sssh:

This is my favorite post of the year. Are you really relating marijuana to slavery?

 

I have been told on here that our wonderful and apparently perfect Founding Fathers left slavery in tact because it was financially beneficial to the building of our country.

 

Now, I am hearing it is financially beneficial for our country to legalizing marijuana.

 

It seems this country is ready to sell out if the price is right.

Are you seriously comparing slavery and abortion to smoking marijuana?

You do realize that marijuana is relatively harmless don't you?

 

Wow. :ohbrother:

 

I will tell that to the families where I have seen it ruin their child's lives.

I have been told on here that our wonderful and apparently perfect Founding Fathers left slavery in tact because it was financially beneficial to the building of our country.

 

Now, I am hearing it is financially beneficial for our country to legalizing marijuana.

 

It seems this country is ready to sell out if the price is right.

 

Whoever told you that was wrong, or was giving you a gross oversimplification. There were those who felt it might affect themselves in a negative economic fashion and as such they would not have joined the Union otherwise. It was either slavery or no Union. That is a considerable difference in the details.