Posted on 08/18/2009 5:02:55 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
I'll attempt to explain the attitude for you.
My general attitude is "You can do what you want PROVIDED you don't ask me to pay for it. If you demand that I pay for it, then you should expect that I WILL oversee your activities, and I WILL give you opinions and orders to go along with my financial support."
(PapaBear, father of a very independent adult daughter.)
“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me...tax the guy behind the tree.”
And I don't want to pay for AIDS treatment for perverts,junkies and hookers...or for cervical cancer treatment for hookers.
Note: this topic is from 8/18/2009.Thanks HorowitzianConservative.
...Discussing the issue of a greater need for an emphasis on promoting wellness instead of just treating sickness, Kutcher expressed a view on socialized medicine that hasn't been discussed as much as it should:"Frankly, I don't want to pay for the guy who's getting a triple-bypass because he's eating fast food all day and deep-fried snickers bars. I don't want to pay for him! Whether he's wealthy or he's not!"He's right. Should the taxpayer have to pay for other people's unhealthiness? Should the taxpayer pay for the guy who smokes four packs of cigarettes a day and then gets emphysema?
That pic is funnier than anything he’ll ever do on his TV show.
If you have health insurance, you’re paying for somebody else. Might as well get that out of the way, it’s a misperception that you aren’t. It’s a risk pool, a group plan. Cost is calculated via actuarial tables and cost goes up based upon factors relating to likely expenditure. Age, gender, all manner of qualifiers. I’m sure you’re familiar with the usual questionnaire accompanying an application for health insurance.
What is wrong about nationalized, forced participation, government-run healthcare is that it is not a voluntary association. There is no way to associate with healthier, less risk-prone individuals to avoid the associated higher costs that come with being in a risk pool with them. Moreover, this same government actually encourages some unhealthy behaviors due to their being associated with legally protected classes of individuals.
It’s just another wealth transfer scheme that removes the consequences of irresponsible, immoral actions from people who should and would experience those consequences in a less upside down world. So, it does come full circle back to paying for it, but still, you already are. You’re just not forced to do so. The force is the problem as well as the interference with freedom of association.
Ashton is better than I thought he would be, but still off kilter a bit. If you are a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, you still want liberal social programs and they have to be paid for somehow. Him being a fiscal conservative means he doesn’t want to be the payer. So who does he expect will pay?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.