Topic: Government regulation: Lemonade Day done wrong

[LadyVirginia]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-martin-regulations-20110501,0,4664641.story

I eventually found an official who cheerfully told me that, except on Lemonade Day, no child can legally operate a lemonade stand in our city. Nowhere. No time. As far as she is concerned, Lemonade Day itself is just food poisoning waiting to happen.

A practical woman as well as a killjoy, she said that near her home, she wouldn't prevent a kid from operating a stand: "The neighbors would hate me." But if her department got a complaint about a kid in another neighborhood, the enforcement team would be dispatched. The kid would be instructed to shut down his stand. If he refused to obey, the police would be called to cite the child for violating the health code, which applies to children no less than to adults.

Most likely, no official would brave public ridicule for lowering the boom on a kid with a lemonade stand. But a parent might be a less controversial target for enforcement penalties, which could include fines and even jail time.

<snip>

What the Lemonade Day organizers should teach the children, said the health official, is about the importance of learning and obeying the government regulations that prohibit lemonade stands.

 

[IronDioPriest]

Someone like this should be severely punished by ordinary citizens. The law will not do it, therefore justice cannot be served unless citizens do it of their own volition.

[Pandora]

Someone like this should be severely punished by ordinary citizens. The law will not do it, therefore justice cannot be served unless citizens do it of their own volition.

The law cannot do it because the someones like her have the law on their sides.  She, nevertheless, needs a lesson in judicious application of the law until the citizens can severely punish those who pass such laws and get them off the books.

And they all need a lesson in just who is the boss of whom.

[Pandora]

Something I just noticed is that the little would-be lemonade stand operator's father, who wrote this piece, is Nicolas S. Martin is executive director of the Consumer Health Education Council in Indianapolis.

A search for, specifically, Consumer Health Education Council Indianapolis, turned up little, but this is a government agency, folks, whose purpose, generally, is to "educate" people on the benefits of "having" health insurance.

What did I write just yesterday about government intrusion into people's personal bubbles?

[IronDioPriest]

Someone like this should be severely punished by ordinary citizens. The law will not do it, therefore justice cannot be served unless citizens do it of their own volition.

The law cannot do it because the someones like her have the law on their sides.  She, nevertheless, needs a lesson in judicious application of the law until the citizens can severely punish those who pass such laws and get them off the books.

And they all need a lesson in just who is the boss of whom.

I was thinking along the lines of a good ol' fashioned ass whoopin'.

[Pandora]

As was I.  Great minds think alike .......

[LadyVirginia]

Something I just noticed is that the little would-be lemonade stand operator's father, who wrote this piece, is Nicolas S. Martin is executive director of the Consumer Health Education Council in Indianapolis.

A search for, specifically, Consumer Health Education Council Indianapolis, turned up little, but this is a government agency, folks, whose purpose, generally, is to "educate" people on the benefits of "having" health insurance.

What did I write just yesterday about government intrusion into people's personal bubbles?

 

[RickZ]

Someone like this should be severely punished by ordinary citizens. The law will not do it, therefore justice cannot be served unless citizens do it of their own volition.

The law cannot do it because the someones like her have the law on their sides.  She, nevertheless, needs a lesson in judicious application of the law until the citizens can severely punish those who pass such laws and get them off the books.

And they all need a lesson in just who is the boss of whom.

I was thinking along the lines of a good ol' fashioned ass whoopin'.

In such cases, I really believe the stocks should make a comeback.  A city can then make money on the rotten vegetable concessions.

[Sectionhand]

The lesson being that children should be indoctrinated with the belief in unquestioning compliance and that government knows best .

OH CRAP ! I JUST LEARNED OF A CHOLERA OUTBREAK TWO STREETS OVER WHICH HAS BEEN LINKED TO A KID'S LEMONADE STAND !   

[ToddF]

Fortunately, our property backs onto one of the busiest paved urban trails in America, bustling on weekends with cyclists, rollerbladers and pedestrians. Visions of dollars danced in our heads.

Heh.  Those kids do a great business.  On the bike, sweating like a pig, no lemonaid tastes better.  I've see that exact situation in Minnesota. 

[IronDioPriest]

A practical woman as well as a killjoy, she said that near her home, she wouldn't prevent a kid from operating a stand: "The neighbors would hate me." But if her department got a complaint about a kid in another neighborhood, the enforcement team would be dispatched. The kid would be instructed to shut down his stand. If he refused to obey, the police would be called to cite the child for violating the health code, which applies to children no less than to adults.

The woman provides the answer. The "neighbors" - the people - are standing by and allowing this to happen. The people have the power to stop this ridiculousness, and so long as it continues, we are responsible. We are responsible for its continuance, and we are responsible for stopping it.

What would happen if say, 15 strong men from the neighborhood stood by this lemonade stand, a few armed with video cameras, protecting the child and her mother? What if they turned the "health officials" away, refusing to allow them to interfere? What if they shot clear video of each "health official", asking the person's name for the purposes of lodging an official complaint and for the local media? And then what if they demanded that the "health officials" evacuate the premises immediately?

We can shame and bully them into capitulation to the will of the people. We have the obligation.

We need to have showdowns like this, over and over and over again, if we're ever going to force government intrusion out of our lives. It's completely out of hand.

[ToddF]

Fact slapped by the author himself.  We're getting somewhere!   

[IronDioPriest]

Something I just noticed is that the little would-be lemonade stand operator's father, who wrote this piece, is Nicolas S. Martin is executive director of the Consumer Health Education Council in Indianapolis.

A search for, specifically, Consumer Health Education Council Indianapolis, turned up little, but this is a government agency, folks, whose purpose, generally, is to "educate" people on the benefits of "having" health insurance.

What did I write just yesterday about government intrusion into people's personal bubbles?

You are mistaken. I am the author of the L.A. Times piece and the director of the Consumer Health Education Council. The council is not now and never has been a government agency, it is a private organization, and we have never received money from government or industry.

There was an organization dealing with the insurance industry who took the same name for a short time, but when they discovered that we existed they changed their name.

Accuracy is good. Thanks for the correction.

Looking HERE backs what you say.

However, I have to say that it seems to me that your "CHEC" organization is most definitely in the business of promoting  and working closely with those entities within our government that seek to destroy and replace the health care industry with a government-run system, and I would be very interested to know exactly what the ties are to elements within the Leftist support structure, both organizationally and financially.

In reading the link, it seems clear that your organization believes that the major obstacle to the public's acceptance of the Left's position on health care is a lack of "education". In other words, we're too stupid to understand what's good for us, and we need an organization like yours to explain all the ways in which universal health insurance coverage will benefit us.

[blockquote]...CHEC's mission is to build a diverse coalition of private- and public-sector organizations committed to raising public awareness and knowledge of the importance of health insurance coverage to health care access, quality, and personal health....[/blockquote]

And I found this... interesting...

[blockquote]...CHEC, drawing on the expertise of its partners, and in coordination with the U.S. Department of Labor's Health Benefit Education Campaign, has begun to identify and develop educational tools in media and formats most appropriate to increased coverage acquisition and understanding by consumers and employers.

"Health coverage today is much more than insurance against high medical costs for both employers and individuals," said Ray Werntz, newly appointed CHEC president. "It's the gateway to quality care and better health..."[/blockquote]

That last statement is false, Utopian bullspit. It is a recitation of the Leftist propagandized underpinnings of the ObamaCare takeover.

The country is full of organizations claiming to be non-profit and bi-partisan, whose agendas, alliances, and funding structures indicate the opposite. You may be correct on a technicality Nick, but insofar as your organization works toward the end goal of universal "health insurance that is not really health insurance", you are part of the Leftist ObamaCare infrastructure as far as I'm concerned.

[LadyVirginia]

You are mistaken. I am the author of the L.A. Times piece and the director of the Consumer Health Education Council.

Awesome, Nick. How 'd you find us?  I hope you stick around and answer our questions.  We like a spirited debate.

I am troubled by the belief that health insurance is somehow "...much more than insurance against high medical costs for both employers and individuals," said Ray Werntz, newly appointed CHEC president. "It's the gateway to quality care and better health..."

From what I've noticed it's a gateway to higher costs in services, the amount of coverage and plans provided.

The use of health insurance seems to me to guarantee that costs will be even higher for those who are not purchasing insurance.  For example, when I received my statement from the insurance company there were 3 columns.  One was the "charge" by the hospital, the next column was the discounted price (because I had insurance) and then the amount covered by insurance.  My concern is the difference between the first two columns.  If I didn't have insurance I'd pay say $2000 for a hospital room but because I had insurance I get charged less --let's say $500 for arguments sake.  So is the room worth $2000 or $500?  I'd argue it's worth $500.  If everyone who came to that hospital had insurance then everyone would be charged $500.  So the price should be the same for everyone and how one pays should be left up to the individual--purchased insurance or self-insured.

Once when the doctor's office forgot to put my insurance through they billed me $200 for an office visit and when I pointed out their error my corrected bill arrived a few weeks later showing I owed only $40. Because I hadn't met the deductible I had to pay it otherwise the insurance would have paid it. The insurance discounted it down to $40 before determining if they had to pay it. Without insurance I'd have to pay $200 but with insurance it was $40. 

I also know that health care professionals know how to code their services so they can bill more.  This increases health care costs.  Doctors and others also order more tests not just to protect their malpractice concerns but because they know what an insurance company will cover.  A doctor won't order x-rays that really aren't needed if he has concerns the patient won't pay.  With an insured patient that's not a concern.  I had x-rays once during a visit to the ER and when the x-ray didn't help with a diagnosis i had other tests.  Later, after some research I discovered that for my particular issue that x-ray are useless. And this doctor already knew what my trouble was--he was simply looking for confirmation.  But doctors continue to order x-rays first for this condition.  Why is that? Yes, they have malpractice concerns but those concerns are being paid for by insurance. 

Insurance was supposed to spread the risk of a major event. It was not a guarantee you'd get something from it. Insurance plans now work more like a cooperative.  We all put in and then we all take out. Only for it to work like that we need more people putting in and preferably people putting in who don't need it as much such as young folks or people who opt out because they have the means to self-insure (pay it themselves) or are willing to accept the risk of large medical bills. (I know people who don't buy insurance because they'd rather spend their money on consumer goods).

Insurance is a form of payment covering so much more.  And it probably has lead to wider prescription use because it's easy for a doctor to write a scrip for something he knows is covered. I've turned down prescriptions after asking the doctor do I really need it and he said no, I could do without it.

It seems to me that for "quality care and better health" it would be wiser to work towards open access regarding the costs of services -- we know the costs of all other services we purchase so why accept not knowing how much health care services are? Also, it seems to me that costs would be lower without insurance covering everything.

[Pandora]

Something I just noticed is that the little would-be lemonade stand operator's father, who wrote this piece, is Nicolas S. Martin is executive director of the Consumer Health Education Council in Indianapolis.

A search for, specifically, Consumer Health Education Council Indianapolis, turned up little, but this is a government agency, folks, whose purpose, generally, is to "educate" people on the benefits of "having" health insurance.

What did I write just yesterday about government intrusion into people's personal bubbles?

You are mistaken. I am the author of the L.A. Times piece and the director of the Consumer Health Education Council. The council is not now and never has been a government agency, it is a private organization, and we have never received money from government or industry.

There was an organization dealing with the insurance industry who took the same name for a short time, but when they discovered that we existed they changed their name.

How interesting that you found our little corner of teh intarwebs!

As a private organization, 5013C I believe it was written, perhaps you'd share from whom your donations come then?

I appreciate the additional information, however, it doesn't change my original point. 

Some folks got together and decided that lemonade stands such as your daughter planned are a danger to the publickkkkk (hear Ron White?) and must be strictly controlled.  There is a line of dots connecting this particular piece of government intrusion to the idea that medical care is best controlled and doled by the same sort of bureaucratic dolts as are in charge of your local young would-be fruit-drink entrepreneurs.

[LadyVirginia]

There is a line of dots connecting this particular piece of government intrusion to the idea that medical care is best controlled and doled by the same sort of bureaucratic dolts as are in charge of your local young would-be fruit-drink entrepreneurs.

Typical know-it-all attitude.  If we, the uneducated, just understood we'd see how everyone should have insurance! But we the uneducated understand that insurance controls our medical care accessibilty.

I'm tired of arguing points from the POV that the premise is correct.

The way health insurance is used today is wrong.  But it's now accepted that every thing remotely medical should be covered.  And so we're left arguing how should that be done.

Don't assume I'm against health insurance.  We have it.  I've had it since I was single.  We were thankful to have it when I "lived" at the hospital for 2 months and my daughter was there for 6 weeks. But I know too many people who view it as an annual pass to the doctor and hospital.

[Pandora]

There is a line of dots connecting this particular piece of government intrusion to the idea that medical care is best controlled and doled by the same sort of bureaucratic dolts as are in charge of your local young would-be fruit-drink entrepreneurs.

Typical know-it-all attitude.  If we, the uneducated, just understood we'd see how everyone should have insurance! But we the uneducated understand that insurance controls our medical care accessibilty.

I'm tired of arguing points from the POV that the premise is correct.

The way health insurance is used today is wrong.  But it's now accepted that every thing remotely medical should be covered.  And so we're left arguing how should that be done.

Don't assume I'm against health insurance.  We have it.  I've had it since I was single.  We were thankful to have it when I "lived" at the hospital for 2 months and my daughter was there for 6 weeks. But I know too many people who view it as an annual pass to the doctor and hospital.

I don't assume such a thing; I believe we agree the basic premise is wrong and needs correcting. 

Easy access to policies that cover catastrophic events in conjunction with HSAs would be the answer as far as I'm concerned.  And by easy access, I mean "not employer controlled" either.  Any State insisting medical insurance companies either cover a long list of "benefits" or are barred from selling are in violation of the Commerce Clause as I read it, and are the reason why our premiums are so high.  We're contributing via premium payments to helping supply somebody else with maternity benefits and birth control -- something we don't need nor want.

Furthermore, I'm now on the list of those with a "pre-existing condition", so there's no telling what will happen come the day our employer-sponsored medical insurance disappears.

I've previously stated that our primary care folks do not accept insurance and there is a flat-fee schedule posted in the waiting room.  Office visits are $49.  I could -- if I could find an acceptable one -- deal with a practice such that an office visit would "cost" me "only" $15, but I prefer this arrangement, even as our insurance company views it as "out of network", so the reimbursement is marginal for submitted claims.

I don't care (and we're fortunate that we don't have to); I'd rather know up-front just what I'm paying for.

[Glock32]

To me, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of mandated health coverage is immaterial. If I don't want to buy health insurance, then so be it. It's my prerogative as a free citizen. The motivations behind my decision do not fall under the purview of a bunch of overbearing busybodies.

To be "The Land of the Free" we sure do have a lot of coercion in our daily lives.

[Alphabet Soup]

Greetings nicmart ,

I wonder how many other ways this thread can go sideways 

As to the original op-ed piece, I thought it well done and engaging. It illustrates the intrinsic nonsensical nature of nanny-statism. I thought it equally interesting the reaction of commenters at the latimes - assumptions of your motives and missing entirely the focus of the article - mindless government intrusion into areas where they clearly don't belong.

I suppose it is a sign of the times that the organization that you represent would be the subject of wary scrutiny on this site. Honestly, I don't know what it is about but will share my strong distaste of anything government-flavored these days.

It does look like several of the posters here did recognize the clarification you supplied.

[charlesoakwood]

I'm practicing "polite".