According to WorldNetDaily:

A "pandemic response bill" currently making its way through the Massachusetts state legislature would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings and destruction of citizen property and impose fines on citizens for noncompliance.

If citizens refuse to comply with isolation or quarantine orders in the event of a health emergency, they may be imprisoned for up to 30 days and fined $1,000 per day that the violation continues.

I'm not too keen on that, but if I were a Massachewsettian, I suppose I'd do so. whatever ...

Those damn fascists. If I want to walk the streets spreading a deadly infectious disease, I should be free to do so!

What is Spunky's take on this?

Blessed are the murderous.

Howry the Duck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to WorldNetDaily:
>
> A "pandemic response bill" currently making its
> way through the Massachusetts state legislature
> would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine
> citizens in the event of a health emergency,
> compel health providers to vaccinate citizens,
> authorize forceful entry into private dwellings
> and destruction of citizen property and impose
> fines on citizens for noncompliance.
>
> If citizens refuse to comply with isolation or
> quarantine orders in the event of a health
> emergency, they may be imprisoned for up to 30
> days and fined $1,000 per day that the violation
> continues.
>
> I'm not too keen on that, but if I were a
> Massachewsettian, I suppose I'd do so. whatever
> ...


As the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the birthplace of the proposed universal health care plan, I guess as long as it's free and doesn't add to the Commonwealth deficit, they will all welcome it with open arms, and may even call it the Teddy Pandemic Response Bill.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those damn fascists. If I want to walk the
> streets spreading a deadly infectious disease, I
> should be free to do so!

Neither alternative is attractive. Conservatives/libertarians would have people spreading deadly diseases with impunity, liberals would have government types running around doing all the stuff mentioned in the original post.

Property can be recompensed. Lives cannot. In this case, the former is the greater evil, IMO.

A bit off-topic, but the subject brings to mind this famous remark by Oliver
Wendell Holmes, writing to uphold the Virginia law that authorized the forced
sterilization of "feeble-minded" persons:

"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover
cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Further background info and discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

Let it spread and thin the herd. Maybe if it kills enough people, we won't need nationalized health care.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

RestonLass Wrote:
> As the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the
> birthplace of the proposed universal health care
> plan, I guess as long as it's free and doesn't add
> to the Commonwealth deficit, they will all welcome
> it with open arms

Having lived in MA for the last 30 years (until last year),
let me inform you that the universal coverage bill there
has essentially bankrupted the state, and has driven off
most of the small businesses, and along with their other
liberal tax increases, most of the big businesses as well.
Massachusetts is the only state in the union with a net
loss of citizens each year, as most anyone who can, flees.

Spacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RestonLass Wrote:
> Massachusetts is the only state in the union with
> a net
> loss of citizens each year, as most anyone who
> can, flees.


So, THAT's why we have all those RED SOX fans here.