Maniac, if you ride a horse or skateboard into me, you're liable for damages if you hurt me. Cigarettes are not very poisonous in small amounts (at least smoked - if you eat them it's different). Allergies are different than diseases. If you make an individual choice knowing it will harm me, then you should be held liable. This isn't like eating peanuts in public; it's like drunk driving into a crowd or shooting a gun into a group of people. There should be liability for those kinds of behavior.

krellin, lots of people have medical problems which make it difficult or impossible to be successfully immunized, and immunizations can only be done at certain ages. Plus, sometimes vaccines don't take or wear off.

Jamie, I am most certainly here to help.

Measles parties, by the way, is the stupid-asshole way of giving your kids the measles vaccine through pain and suffering. People that do that should be criminally liable...

"krellin, lots of people have medical problems which make it difficult or impossible to be successfully immunized, and immunizations can only be done at certain ages. Plus, sometimes vaccines don't take or wear off. "

Bullshit....A *tiny tiny tiny* minority. Just like the fucking fake-ass epidemic of kids with peanut allergies. Give me a fucking break. If you *can't* take a vaccine, don't.

and by the way...if you are stupid enough to not give your kid a vaccine, I really don't give a shit. I don't think it is right for people to be held liable for their stupidity...I and my family are safe from dumb-asses like you, so go ahead and kill yourself off...rid the gene pool of the morons...

krellin, out in your day-to-day life, sure, it is a minority. But, say, at a hospital, it is a much more sizable proportion of the population. Do you remember the hullaboo a few months or years ago when doctors started refusing to treat children whose parents were anti-vaxxers? It puts lives at risk. If your behavior injures me when you are doing something reckless, you should pay for it.

@ Emac "Greysoni, you seem to forget that we had higher premiums before the ACA in a "growing" economy. The ACA drove up premiums during a recession and an anemic recovery which renders the premise of your statement invalid."

This is pure conjecture. There is no collective body of evidence that suggests that the ACA has caused an increase in premiums. The fact is that it is unknown, at this time, what effect the ACA has had....period. This is especially true when you consider that most of the provisions, that are likely to effect on costs (one way or the other), have not even kicked in yet. Also premium increases have yet to reach the level they were at prior to the passage of the ACA. I personally don't think the ACA caused this decrease but I still don't see how a decrease in the inflation of health insurance premiums is evidence of how the ACA is increasing premiums........unless you assume that health insurance would have dropped more without the ACA....but that is purely speculative. There is no way of knowing that and plenty of ways to conjure up data to support any argument ......in other words, a waste of time. Why the rush to judgement? Oh that's right...it's going to DESTROY AMERICA!!!!!.....I almost forgot. (not attributing this to you, but merely pointing out the hysterics over this law, very bizarre)

ckroberts....great, let us ban *all* behavior that represents a risk to others.

We'll start with the automobile. Second...maybe first, actually...is alcohol. Down the line we will get rid of backyard BBQ's and fire pits, and, again, I insist we must tackle the food issue...you say it doesn't affect others, but you are *sadly* mistaken. When the health care system is being overburdened by unhealthy people....such as obese people that use more than their fair share of treatment...then that affects *me* and my ability to get treatment.

So...let's go for it...lets' clamp the fuck down on everyone everywhere doing everything.

And here is where you will sputter and cough and say I"m not playing fair, becuase YOU want to focus on government controlling a single issue...to which I will say you are a retard. (And, as such, being retarded...probably represent a greater danger to self and others...and I suggest your *immediate* euthanization...)

@ Greysoni, There is empirical, theoretical, and anecdotal vidence that the ACA has driven up health care costs. The facts are well known at this time, and ignoring the factual evidence does not make it disappear. You seem unable to accept the irrefutable fact that premiums increased a minimum of 28% since the ACA began in 2010 by mandating coverage, emliminating co-pays, and dictating individuals companies had to accept. These provisions came into being three years ago, and you ignore this and disingenuously state that "provision "that are likely to effect on costs have not even kicked in yet." Covering people with preexisting conditions definitltely drives up costs, it has already kicked, and this fact renders your post intellectually dishonest.The ACA demands health insurance companies across the country must submit justification for rate hikes to state boards and in this rate increase notices the regualtions of the ACA constitute to reasons for the increase.
The most damning evidence of your intellectual dishonesty is the fact that in your last two posts you attempt to characterize anyone criticizing the ACA as "rushing to judgement, being hysterical, and savoring any sign of potential catastrophe." You cap this hollow rhetoric off with a claim that people critizing the ACA can only claim something unreaonsable like "it's going to destory America."

Your posts ignore the facts and take the position of a blind ideologue supporting the ACA irrationally because of your refusal to accept any fact based criticism of it.

You should open a thread on the ACA greysoni.

This thread intends to deal with the debate in the California legislature to make individuals who refuse immunization liable for the negligent spread of infectious disease.

@Jamiet ... no worries, I'm not. That line was more for krellin; Sbyvl just decided to jump in.

Our government can't require immunizations if it infringes upon religious beliefs. That's pretty much all that needs to be said in this thread.

I don't dispute that premiums have risen but they were rising in the absence of the ACA. More so prior to the passage of the ACA. But now all these rate hikes are being caused by the ACA? That is, and has been, my question. Most of the provisions that are likely to effect costs have not yet kicked in. This is true far greater changes are coming in 2014. "There is empirical, theoretical, and anecdotal vidence that the ACA has driven up health care costs." There is evidence on all sides, so no definitive conclusion. How am I a blind ideologue or intellectually dishonest by point out how no definitive conclusions (both for or against) can be made at this time? I am certainly willing to accept the fact that it may not work. But I know that I won't know until it is actually given a chance to work. You have already made up your mind......why? You say you have facts the definitively prove your point......sorry, you don't.....no one has the definitive answer. But people don't want to accept the simple fact that they don't know! Why?
As for creating a separate thread....you brought it up. But I'll stop with one last thing. I would like to see the law work as intended....who wouldn't? Health care costs go down, more people covered.....Is it flawed? Maybe, we will see....but i will wait till i see ACTUAL conclusive evidence before I make that decision.

krellin, I'm not sure how you can ban not getting something; I think you're looking for "require" as the word. Or maybe you mean banning people from going in public? It's difficult to tell with you.

Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily ban it. I mean, I'm not 100% sure I would ban drunk driving; I am mostly a libertarian, and I am hesitant to ban anything that does not directly harm people. But if you do something dangerous that hurts others, there's no reason to expect to get away with that scot free. You should face criminal and civil liability.

So you expect people to drive responsibly drunk? And if they happen to get in a deadly wreck or injure someone then you can pile on the charges? That's a shitty idea if that's what you want.

"if they happen to get in a deadly wreck or injure someone then you can pile on the charges?"

Actually, that is *exactfly* what I want. Kill a kid driving drunk, give up every freedom you ever had. It's pretty fucking simple. Then when somebody goes out drinking, maybe they'll think ad say "maybe I should have a designated driver". Yeah. That's what I want. For real. Not sarcastic. I want asshole mother fucking drunk drivers who seriously hurt or kill someone to spend the rest f their natural life in jail.

The best defense is a strong offense and the best deterrent to crime is a strong penalty that is well known.

Hear! Hear! Draugnar!

Why not just keep drunk driving illegal? It clearly distorts perception and ability to make decisions; that's all old news. Changing the sentences is one thing; changing the law to make it okay to drive drunk as long as you don't run someone over is another, and that's what I read here.

bo, I can't say for 100% what I would do; it's something I'm not sure about. I don't think the current system works very well. Partly my disagreement stems from the enforcement mechanism. I do think harsher penalties, as Draug describes, are a good idea (even though he is factually mistaken about strong penalties as the best criminal deterrent).

Actually the law presently allows families to opt out for religious reasons so no one is talking about changing the law. They are talking about finding a way to protect the public when they can't male a law Tom force the inoculations. Plus, these penalties could apply to stupid fucks who go into places like nursing he's and nurseries while they have the flu and put people who are less capable of fighting off those diseases at risk.

And I was responding to your specific drunk driver comment where drink drivers presently aren't punished harshly enough.

We are much to lenient on people caught driving drunk. I say you get caught once and you get your license taken away for life.

I say you seriously injure or kill somebody and you get your body put away for life.

I wouldn't be against that either.

@Draug ... A second offense of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated gets you put away for life. It sounds a bit dumb when talking about a dead body, but I'm all for second chances. Typically not thirds. I've got no problem with CF's suggestion though.

When someone dies or is seriously injured, fuck second chances. The asswipe should of thought about that before they left to go drinking. They aren't drunk their entire fucking life, so they can't say there was no point where they were sober and didn't expect to need a cab or a designated driver.

And even getting cuaght and taking away a license... What good does that do? There was some stupid fuck down in KY won the lottery, bought a Corvette, totaled it while drunk, lost his license, and wrent and bought another to toal even without a license. The license only matters to people who give a fuck about the law and clearly drunk drivers don't give a fuck.

I guess once you send someone to prison for 10 years you might as well book them for life anyway since they'll never have another job, they'll never have good credit, they'll never get a loan, they'll never get support from society, and they'll live off of our money for the rest of their lives. We could fix that through rehabilitation but we're too lazy and too heartless to think that people that make a mistake can actually be good people.

That's why people take a bunch of shoelaces and fishing wire with them to prison I guess :)

Are you claiming that they'll never get support from society in the non-physical sense, because "living off of our money" seems like support to me. Personally, I am conflicted on the prison system, torn between a want for strong, harsh justice and a the practical need to make these people a part of society. What do you think about a balance of the two, strong justice for some of the "worse" crimes and rehabilitation for lesser crimes?

Go away. We can talk during lunch.

Am I not allowed to make a post of reasonable quality and perhaps some intellectual value in a public forum now?

All right, fine. I'll play along.

Where's the line? What is a "lesser" crime and what is the "worse" crime? Where do you stand, Mr. Blackberry?

As I mentioned to you, please do not post personal details of another person in a public forum, even if it is something as little as phone ownership. It is tempting to draw the line at violent crimes, with crimes such as rape and murder being considered "worse" and nonviolent crimes as "lesser". However that is tough. Cases such as Bernie Madoff did more harm than an individual murder though were nonviolent. So it is a tough line to draw.