Obviously, that's not what happened in this case, but just the fact that the government had to be consulted brings up some interesting questions...Btw, my take is that I completely agree with everyone who says the government shouldn't have any say in end-of-life care, and therefore it bothers me that this guy even needed the government's approval (or that the hospital needed the government's approval) before he was granted the right to no longer nourish himself.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

From the other stuff I know about that looks like it could stand alone, as best I can tell the list includes government funded abortions, healthcare for illegal immigrants and taxpayer subsidization of union healthcare plans.

My coworker and I frequently debate the question of:Is government action necessary to monitor big business, so that the business does not get too powerful and monopolized?

Thank Heaven our government can print money or we might reallllly be headed for trouble.....

When the government monetizes debt at 5%+ that is free money in real terms in my book.

No, just another government employee with a vision for tyranny and an acceptance level among socialist which was almost unanimous.

What's that called again when the government tells you what you can and cannot do and has consequences for not following their orders?

In my area, landlords are currently involved in aggressive legal proceedings against the government over this issue.

(2) Increasing government regulation on how much profit I can make from each property I lease or rent (3) Increasing taxes of some sort or reduced deductions or depreciation limits, which futher hit the bottom line.