Skip to comments.Do obese people deserve medical treatment? (smokers, drinkers, hang gliders, homosexuals)
Posted on 12/05/2009 9:34:32 AM PST by Still Thinking
click here to read article
What about soldiers that volunteer to go into a war zone?
YES, they are human.
And my father who needed a quadruple bypass and with my sister who has MS deserve treatment as well.
WE ALL DESERVE TREATMENT. GET IT?
They deserve anything they can pay for.
Boom! There it is! I’ve been saying it since before Obama was elected - socialized medicine is the end of your freedom. If healthcare is as critical a resources as its proponents say, why would you put it under government, which can DENY you that care, even if you have the money for it? Or should I say, deny you care, UNLESS YOU DO WHAT THEY SAY.
If you vote democrat, should we pay for your neurological care? (You obviously need it.)
Send this guy for free psychiatric care and reeducation.
Do Liberals deserve medical treatment beyond abortion? They asked first.
This way of thinking is disgusting. Maybe the people who THINK this way should be denied care because they obviously are lacking a heart and have no soul at all.
The government run “healthcare” will obviously decide which lifestyle it likes, and which lifestyle it hates.
Druggies, the anal sex crowd, aids patients from other countries, women having abortions, elderly being forced out of life, will all get favored treatment in government run “healthcare.”
Obese, elderly cancer patients will get nothing.
The National Socialist believed in the very same BS.
Amazing how someone spouts this *rap and then wonders why people wonder if they are suffering from a mental problem.
Deserve it in the sense that they can buy or I can buy it for them?
Exactly. If you don't want to treat a certain segment of our population for the results of willingly , then those segments should be defined and exempted from paying INTO the system. Somehow I never hear those who don't want to treat these people out of fairness to other recipients alarmed about the fairness of making them pay but not allowing them to collect.
Then there's the whole issue of politically correct high-risk populations. Those who want to shut the gates on smokers, drinkers, fatties, and bungee jumpers never seem to want to do the same to active homosexuals, a population willingly engaging in a behavior that leads to a higher risk of an illness thats VERY expensive to treat. Now read carefully, Im not taking the opposite inconsistent position, that it WOULD be fair to allow homosexuals to pay in and then be denied treatment. Im just pointing out that the proponents of restrictions are inconsistent PC hypocrites.
But really, all this paradoxical situation does is show that government shouldn't have a high degree of involvement in our lives. Every time they do, these hard choices arise. The government intrudes in our life in one area without invitation, then uses that involvement to justify further intrusion.
The Democrats, not being human beings, will deny health care to anyone that isn’t one of their species. This, unfortunately, excludes fat people, hang glider dudes and Repubican oldsters.
Dude, I’m on your side on this one. Really.
It is with extreme sadness that anyone who considers themselves to be free men would even contemplate this issue.
Exactly. Health care is not a right.
90% of congress is obese... so no, they do not
“...there is no rational way to allocate property taken by force...”
People are still going to look out for their own interests first, but introducing government into the equation will change whose interests are at stake. What socialized medicine does is substitute an economic decision made by the people directly involved into a political decision made by outsiders.
How it is that someone could think that — drawing from the same pool of ‘selfish’ people — having it so there is a monopoly that is enforced by the coercive power of government is somehow going to be more compassionate or efficient baffles me.
Do people “deserve” food? Since we are talking health, and since food is indispensable to health, how long until they reach the logical conclusion that “we” as a society surely have a right to food at taxpayers expense.
Do (obese) people deserve sunshine?
Unfortunately, we are already here. If not in practice, it is in mindset by a near majority of citizens in one degree or another.
Already we have Zeke Emanual, the man who wants to scrap the Hippocratic oath, advising the Kenyan warlord. We're all supposed to line up for this in the name of reduced costs, which won't happen. What about ethics? We've seen how government ethics work with the IRS. If you can't pay your taxes, SCREW YOU! We'll take your home and everything else. We're heading for the day when it will be, "Oh you're too fat SCREW YOU!!! No more blood pressure meds!".
Yup. The only moral way to ration health care is through good old Supply and Demand. This is true for everything. It's always been true. You can have anything you can pay for.
The problem (of course) is that as we move further and further from a market-based health care system, the government-imposed mandates become a bigger disturbance in the chain of supply.
If virtually everyone's current healthcare provider covers mammograms for women in their 40's, then that's great. But as soon as the government determines that mammogras are not needed by this group, you can bet that virtually everyone's healthcare provider will stop providing such coverage.
At that point, we've left Supply and Demand behind, and we are left to deal with the fallout of what our masters feel we deserve to have.
There is no freedom down that road.
That is exactly why it is so important to force every citizen to pay at least some federal income tax. Half the population thinks the federal coffers grow on trees, since they pay no income tax.
We're all in the same boat together -- we're not in particular groups.
||"I simply turn on the Golden EIB Microphone and share my honest passions and beliefs with people.
And they're free to go elsewhere.
They're free to ignore; they're free to believe; they're free to be entertained, I don't care.
They're free to do whatever they want.
But a lot of people aren't free to smoke cigarettes where they want;
they're not free to drink where they want;
they're not free to eat the kind of food they want to eat;
they're not free to eat trans fats;
they're not free to drive certain places.
Pretty soon we're going to be told what kind of cars we have to drive.
I can't cause that.
I can't restrict anybody's freedom.
We've elected a guy who can, does, and wants to, all under the guise of saving us.
So I appreciate the effort, and I appreciate somewhat losing my temper here.
But don't compare me ever to an authoritarian who thinks so little of people that without him they can barely breathe on their own.
Don't ever do that."
LEARN IT, LOVE IT, LIVE IT!
If one cannot understand Rush's words above, then one does not truly understand FREEDOM!
Will they be allowed to pay for it under Obamacare?
They are just ASKING to catch something nasty.
Let's not forget to put them on the list.
BY THIS IDIOTS THINKING no THEY chose TO ENDANGER THEIR WELL BEING SOOOOOOO, NO HEALTH CARE FOR THEM.
This is the type of thinking you get when the inmates start running the asylum.
They are more likely to pay for it than drug addicts, ghetto fathers who impregnate multiple women, illegal aliens, young adults, etc...
Yes, but the “pursuit” of life liberty and happiness is a right. That could be interpreted as including the attempt to acquire medical care when desired.
If a government pre-judges a class or type of individual as undeserving of public health care, is the government not violating rights?
Who deserves to pay for it?
Well then you had better pursue obtaining the means to pay for your health care.
That’s what has yet to be decided.
EVERYONE should PAY SOMETHING for healthcare — EVERYONE.
Rush forgot to say that people aren’t free to use recreational drugs, to sell recreational drugs, to sell sexual services, to buy sexual services or to procure lethal drugs to commit suicide. A lot more people would like to have those freedoms than the freedom to eat trans fats.
I do so! It's a metabolic disorder, I tell ya'.
IMHO anyone who needs anything beyond basic care will find that they get no care or care will come too late. There is a reason30% more people die of cancer in countries with this sort of healthcare system. The wait weeds them out. I’m personally petrified since I am a type 1 diabetic and am at the 39 year mark but still in relatively good health. What happens in 15 years when something major could happen and I’m 64 yo? Right now my private insurace would take care of me at 80%.
They’ll cover AIDS drugs but not anything obesity related.
But once government takes over all health care...that changes the whole argument.
Well when that happens it’s all over for this country.
He also has said in the past:
once everything is illegal, then nothing is illegal.
I do....for me and my family. I do not want the state to confiscate more of my wages to pay for "everyone" else at my expense and that of my dependents. I gladly pay for emergency first responder care....fire, paramedic, police....for my community. Apart from that, the rest is up to each individual.
What I’m trying to point out is a paradox in the lefty’s thinking.
They are arguing that health care is a right and that is why government should provide free health care to all...and in doing so, they will destroy free market health care.
But they also say that to make it cost effective they will limit or deny care to certain individuals in certain circumstances to eliminate waste that pervades the current free market health care system.
Is that not a paradox?
If the government takes over health care and in the process destroys free market health care for the purpose of providing free health care to all, but to balance the books and cut “waste” must deny care to some...see where I’m going with this?
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? They just destroyed their own purpose for starting this whole mess in the first place.
But worse than that, they will be violating our rights (pursuit of happiness) for the purpose of guaranteeing a right that doesn’t exist (free health care to all), and they can’t even make good on that promise either!
We lose everything and gain nothing.
I don’t understand why people cant see this.
The only people who should be denied treatment are journalists and politicians.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. When I said “you obviously need it” I was speaking to “those who vote democrat”, not to you. Poor wording on my part.
Oh, OK. Gotcha. There were several post from Freepers who seemed to think I agreed with the idea, and I was just pointing out the perils of allowing government into our lives.
Do killers(Hasan) shot by police deserve health care after they assasinate 13 people and wound 30 more?
How about pregnant women; afterall, it is a choice isn’t it?
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.