How will gov't handle those who don't live optimally healthy lifestyles &

A

Abby Normal REPRISE

New member
have 'opted in'? how will the govt handle those who don't live optimally healthy, or even moderately healthy, lifestyles & have 'opted in' to nat ionalized hea lth care?
if gov't creativity decides that the way a people live their life has resulted in that group being a drain on 'the system', does gov't have the right to single this group out to be regulated/taxed/or otherwise adversely affected? or should government apply these restrictions to us all, regardless if we are covered under private or gov't run insurance, to avoid targeting any specific group?
quirk: the difference is that it would be our gov't who sees the bills and says: 'wow, these [smokers/ meat eaters/ promiscuous/ non-exercisers/ non-vitamin takes/ or WHATEVER are costing us WAY TOO MUCH! but we can't single just the [insert a people here]'s! we will have to pass these rules across the board!"
lipstick swine: see above response ^
.
am i to assume you are 'okay' will gov't singling people out? it's one thing for the guy down the street to not like me for who i am, i could care less what my coworkers think - its's the people who decide they have the power to tell you what to do... you can always find another provider if yours charges too much for smoking - but gov't option will tell those who can't afford other options what they can and can't do... which would be targeting and singling out a specific class of people, which is wrong... but you sound like you are okay with it, so - good luck with that
MY GOSH! somebody PLEASE help me with what i am trying to get across! these 'that's the way healh care already is' answers - i don't know how to make them see the difference! HELP
 
Your optimally lived lifestyle has no bearing. Your odds might better be predicted by genetics other wise that car crash wouldn''t have paralyzed you.
 
Great question.

Sadly, the government will hand out the cash, no questions asked, to insure votes from that growing segment of society.

Think of welfare. There are many people who receive help from the government that are driving expensive cars and wearing a lot of jewelry. It is wrong.

How do you fix it? Eliminate help for all and hurt those who really need it? Or put out a task force to judge the way money is spent?
 
That is the way healthcare already is. If you smoke you have to pay higher amounts on your healthcare insurance, why should it be any different for government health care. If you smoke, then you are knowingly increasing your chances of harming your health, why shouldn't you pay more. I think it is harder to classify healthy lifestyles, what really counts in this behavior, it is subjective. There will always be people who have more health issues and are a drag on society. I still think everyone should have access to healthcare.
 
Obama and his hypocritical OBAMATRONS will drag out these individual thinkers, these believers in the Constitution and have them stood in front of a firing squad...
 
The military is forcing people to stop smoking~or face the consequences
sooner or latter it will get to the Universal Health Program if you smoke or are obese or a drinker~~then you will not be eligible for health coverage.
 
people who are overweight or have other health issues already pay much higher rates for insurance... so what exactly would be different?

As others have said, employers are doing the same thing right now. At least in government the people have a voice to override this sort of act. In the corporate world, unless you have money, you really can't change a policy like this
 
Many employers who provide health care are already doing exactly that. Punishing employees who insist on indulging in behavior they deem undesirable.

Of course they present it such that they're doing the opposite - rewarding good little "healthy" employees. But the effect is the same.

So...what's changed?

Update:

So...you're saying that the government would somehow force non-smokers to not smoke? And the not overweight to be not overweight, etc.? How devious of the feds! And this would somehow also affect those with private health care? The sneaky bastards!

In any event, I don't see how you're making the leap that the government wouldn't single out the more costly. Are they that afraid of loosing the lazy, fat chain-smoking meat-eater voter segment?

Update 2:

Y/A! isn't the best forumn for back-and-forth bantering. If you want to continue the discussion offline, I'm willing.
 
You just PROVED exactly why Government run health care is a really really bad idea. This will in affect, take away anyone a free choice of how to live.

I am a good example.
#1. I own a a Bakery (oh sugar is bad so lets close that down)
#2 I am overweight, not because I over eat but because I do not have a thyroid gland and pills do not work near as well as your own bodies thyroid. However this puts me in the class of Obese and therefore a drain on the system — Obama's solution, Oh well, let them die we cannot afford them.

This is in essence what he said of people who had really bad cancer that could not be cured. But with expensive medication life could be prolonged for years. His response, we cannot afford the medication so keep them comfortable and let them die, we cannot afford to help these people.

A very slippery slope. The Government decides who lives and who dies based on some bureaucrats bean counting.

NO THANK YOU.
 
Smokers and past drug users should be safe since Obama is both but as for those of us who have not done either--we are stuck paying for his and all the other Illegals activities--while we wait for a MRI and die--some plan there Barry Hussein
 
Back
Top