Quote:
Originally posted by NetRodent
Sounds good until you have to pay for it. Can you think of any other "rights" that come with a price tag? Rights are limitations placed on government, NOT requirements of government action.
Once you make the government responsible for paying for health care, you open your personal life up to all sorts of meddling. Why should society subsidize risky behavior such as smoking? On average smokers require much more medical care than non-smokers. So lets ban smoking so conserve tax revenue. Its not so bad, smoking is unhealthy anyways. But why stop there, lets ban alcohol as well. Alcohol does a real number on the liver and leads to impaired judgement which is the cause of many injuries (particularly around automobiles). Obese people are more at risk of diabetes and heart disease. Better put those people on the treadmill. In fact lets make being overweight illegal, after all obese people use more than their share of medical care. While we're at it, we better limit what they eat as well. We eat so much unhealthy food in our society. Better off just banning all that bad food. The more sexual partners someone has, the greater the odds of them having an STD. STD treatments cost money you know. Lets not go spending more of the public's tax money than we need to. I guess we better ban sex outside of marriage. People don't need multiple partners, its just too risky. A lot of people also get injured rock climbing, riding motorcycles, skiing, etc. Lets ban those for recreation, and only allow those activities for professional reasons under a special permit. The government will take care of us. The government has our best interests at heart.
|
complete nonsense. Most countries provide health care and none of them have banned smoking or alcohol (most have more relaxed drug laws), or forced people onto treadmills, or told them not to rock climb. And the worst offender at trying to control it's citizens sex life is the USA.
If you don't want to 'pay for other people' because you are gambling on winning the health lottery then fine, that's an arguement (selfish, but valid). However know that you are paying far more in premiums than you would pay in additional taxes, just to line the pockets of insurance companies, who in turn lobby politicans for further financial gain.
But I bet if you were farced with the same choice the thread-starter is, you'd change you opinion about the issue.