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
Of course. I knew what you were doing.
It’s a good thread topic. Thanks for posting it.
Of course they do. The libs continually bitch that healthcare is a human right. If it’s a RIGHT, there’s no exception for what kind of human you are. That’s how the libs have argued for INCLUSION of the rest of us paying for illegal immigrant ER care, homosexuals’ expensive drug therapies, everyone’s abortions, and STD treatments via all sorts of federal funding dollars through a myriad of government agencies and programs.
THis is nothing short of the libs being skewered by their own hypocritical sword.
It is yet another example of selling US citizens on a system they tout will be “for all” and then the libs (ie the “intolerant tolerants”) start excluding groups they NEVER HAD INTENDED TO HELP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This is no surprise to those who have studied the left. Deflect, divide and conquer.
Fat people are the last of the society allowed picked on class.
Let me guess, the same folks who hold thier nose up to ‘fatties’ will be crying and whining about how “we” need to pay for junkies to be sent to rehab (for the 10th time) and careless homosexuals who got AIDS from reckless behavior should have AIDS cocktails paid for by “us”.
But God forbid you are predisposed to being large or have medical condition that either requires medicine that increases weight or whatever, and NOOOO, no medicine for you fatty!
We all are paying for Medicare and Medicaid now.
Nothing will change.
Deprive any of my loved ones treatment, for any reason whatsoever, and you will have me to deal with.
I suspect that there is a dark side within every man, even us law abiding nice guys. These libs should not want to meet my dark side.
I doubt that I am alone on this.
Seems like the Obama bunch believes we all belong to the government, rather than ourselves.
If the government DID own us, it could make decisions about who gets treatment for what. But the state does not own us. We are independent individuals with free wheel, we can decide what works for us.
I guess that last was true until 2008.
That is true. The eternal struggle is where to draw the line. It makes little sense to me to bemoan the loss of a restaurant’s right to sell foods with trans fats to the public (and it’s NOT illegal for anyone to consume trans fats produced by himself) while ignoring the prohibition of a person’s right to grow a particular plant in his own yard and harvest and consume it. But I’ve never heard of Rush getting behind a movement to legalize drugs.
yea.amen to that. and who the hell do these other people think they are that they can dictate who gets what???
Well, the conscience is a brake so our free wheel isn’t used injudiciously.
Excellent point. I love seeing liberals hoist by their own petard.
Yup. Have a life-style that is not “STATE” approved of and you get nothing. “das ist die ORDNUNG!”
So basically people who have jobs and can afford to pay for healthcare will be denied healthcare if the government decides the person doesn’t meet government standards which say this person is deserving of healthcare. Hmm, sounds uncompassionate, uncaring, judgemental, domineering, and ripe for corruption to me.
Exactly government ownership. Which means every citizen would be stamped with a grade, like beef, only this grade would tell which level of healthcare each citizen deserves. What a nightmare!
Here’s another paradox in the lefty’s thinking that you just pointed out in your post.
There is talk of excluding or taxing elective surgery...like cosmetic and such.
Well hell! isn’t abortion elective? isn’t pregnancy elective?
Cant have it both ways you lefty assclowns.
Nobody “deserves” or is “entitled” to health care.
Healthcare is not a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution.
However, when a war is funded .. it should include medical care as part of the package. Anyone who is willing to defend this country with their life should be afforded that kind of treatment.
We know that certain illogical criterion are used by liberals according to income, formal education, skin color, sexual preferences, etc. Will the smokers, drinkers, and obese of all these categories be denied, or only the obese within specific groupings?
Perhaps that’s another “complexity” wherein the “nuances” will have to be pondered.
They only THINK they are God. They are not. We will not stand for this.
No. You don’t get it.
I’m not paying for your health care. I’m not paying for your dental care. I’m not paying for your car, your house, your hair appointments.
We’re all not in this together. You posted some statements from Rush Limbaugh which don’t pertain to this thread. Rush is saying we are all free to eat and drink what you want. People are free to listen to him or not.
You seem to be saying that we should all pay for everyone else’s health care. I disagree. We are in particular groups. My group is my family. We have decided to be healthy and thus have lower health care bills. Some others have decided to be unhealthy so they have higher bills. Some others have diseases that will fall on the state to pay. But NOT until after the individual has exhausted their ability to pay.
The point is that we do not place people into groups in this country. We are all Americans. When it comes to health care, we’re paying for each other already — Medicare and Medicaid.
We’re paying for Medicare and Medicaid therefore National Health Care is OK?
What nonsense. By your logic, because we pay for public schools, we should also pay for colleges free for everyone. Because we pay for meals for some school kids, everyone should get free food. And on and on until nobody has anything, which is what happens in a socialist country.
Also, what makes you think we don’t put people into groups in this country? Nonsense. What’s wrong with that anyway?
“There was a time in this country where almost — in fact, it was slightly over 50% of adults smoked cigarettes, over 50% lit up. They puffed, they inhaled, they exhaled smoked cigarettes, let’s not even count the cigar and pipe smokers. Today less than 25% of the population are smoking cigarettes. We’ve gone from 50% to 25%. Smoking has been cut in half, and obviously secondhand smoking has been cut even more. There’s less secondhand smoke out there because there’s less firsthand smoke, right? Now, what were we promised? We were promised better health and what else were we promised? If we could cut smoking and get people to stop smoking, get it banned in public, what were we promised? We were promised lower health care costs. What do we have? After half the people who smoked have quit, we’ve gone from 50% to 25%, promised better health and lower health care costs, what do we have? We have higher health care costs. In fact, we have much higher health care costs.”
Now, substitue smoking for obesity (or anything else). That is the point that myself and others have made on this thread.
‘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.’
This is the “loophole” I’ve been waiting for. We motorcycle riders will have to step aside, especially when we don’t want to wear helmets.
So sorry, I can’t participate. Neener neener neener!
If the “motorcycle loophole” doesn’t work, I can come up with others, probably enough for EVERYBODY!
“Deprive any of my loved ones treatment, for any reason whatsoever, and you will have me to deal with.
I suspect that there is a dark side within every man, even us law abiding nice guys. These libs should not want to meet my dark side.
I doubt that I am alone on this.”
I’m with you. If I pay for something, you don’t want to deal with what will happen if you don’t deliver, or tell me you will not deliver.
But the “IF” in ‘If I pay for public health care...” won’t happen, because I will go to jail after I run out of ammo fighting off the revenuers.
I doubt that I am alone on THIS.
Rush said the government has not followed through with its promise of lower health care costs.
This has nothing to do with your previous insinuations that National Health Care is ok because we’re already paying for Medicare and Medicaid.
Are you for National Health Care or not? you don’t have to cut and past someone’s comments to answer that.
Numerous people on this thread have stated that they do not want to pay for someone else’s health care. I responded that we already are — Medicare and Medicaid. That’s all I said, not nationalized health care is okay.
As far as the cost and the topic of this article, people look for scapegoats as to the increase in premiums — smoking, obesity. What’s next?
Now, can you see the correlation of the two Rush quotes that I posted?
“Numerous people on this thread have stated that they do not want to pay for someone elses health care.”
...someone else’s health care vs. EVERYONE else’s health care vs. anyone else’s health care...
Is there a distinction here you are trying to make?
I am part of EVERYONE, and have never been aided in paying my medical expenses except for the portions paid by the insurance companies I paid premiums into. Medicare and Medicaid are supported by taxes I pay, but are a choice benefit for only certain select “groups” in our society.
I am either misunderstanding your statements, or you are grossly misinformed.
Do you understand why I posted Rush’s two quotes?
No, not if you are using them to clarify your comment #3.
I guess I’m too simple to connect your dots.
I’m sorry that I’m not very good and detailed with words. :-)
So...what? Socialized medicine already exists in a free market system? Woman please.
I would like to see a system where EVERYONE pays something for healthcare.
I would like to see a system where people can tailor-make an insurance policy that is right for them (just like car insurance).
I would like to see a system where litigation is a little more under control.
I didn’t say I was for socialized medicine.
All I said was that we are all paying the price for the ENTIRE (EVERYONE) health care system.
1. More people needing health care (baby boomers, which will only increase); and
2. The cost of the advances in medical technology, which is a good thing and which will only increase as well).
If I can make you pay for it, maybe I won't give a d*mn about taking care of it.
If I have to pay for my own health care I am more likely to take care of my health.
Why shouldn't I be required to pay more if I don't take of my health? Why shouldn't I get to pay less if I do take care of my health?
I concur on three out of four of those points.
Re: your point #2—How about the folks (I deal with greatly with people who are chronically homeless: welfare single moms with children from multiple unions out of wedlock, drug/alcohol addicts, mentally ill wondering loose, and even drifters that just want to stay off the grid) who have no taxable income? They’re part of EVERYONE. Should we discontinue treating them, their kids? Or here in Flagstaff, AZ, should we let the drunk Indians freeze in the gutter when they pass out?
Where to draw the line is much simpler NOW, than if we group everybody together and force everyone with a taxable income to pay into one big pot, which the insurance companies would surely align themselves into if EVERYONE is forced to buy insurance.
We must resist this move to implement social medicine.
I’m not sure the effort is worth it here. Jeesh.
On another note, once everyone is covered by health insurance or anything else, “people” become a burden. In socialism, that’s the result. In free enterprise, more people are better. That’s one of the big dangers of socializing anything. Then, the socialists try and eliminate people (by rationing etc) because they are too expensive and the distribution decisions get made by bureaucrats and not by pricing.
And apparently smoking is A-OK....at least if you are among the ruling elite...
It’s amazing how slick that slippery slope is, isn’t it? Damn thing didn’t even pass yet and people are already thinking of eugenic-like tactics.
And how many times do people around here have to say it before everyone around here understands?
Nah turn them into Soylent Green and give the health dollars and tax money they paid to illegal aliens. And give the illegals the Soylent Green Parfait to enjoy while waiting at the mail box for their next check.
But the issue that has brought this topic to the forefront of the citizens of this country is that even middle class folks can’t afford to pay for the insurance policies they would prefer. i.e. unlimited benefits in the cases of extensive cancer treatments, AIDS treatment, etc.
The “It takes a village” idiot FELT that universal health coverage was a necessity for you and me, and somehow got the whole freaking Dem party to see how that could be a perfect opportunity to seize power from the populace. With the aid of the MSM they convince enough people to win some elections based on the promise of what appeared to them to be the health insurance policy they could not previously afford. An old trick, promise something for nothing. This along with teaching the public that virtually unlimited health care is a right. We don’t deserve to suffer and die just because we can’t come up with the millions of dollars it will cost to stay alive and well.
Now this thread. The big slice of reality pie that the promisers had hoped no one would notice: Some people are a higher risk than others, so should we refuse to give them the treatment required to keep them alive and well, or charge them more than others for the free gift we had offered to win their votes.
I can’t find it acceptable to be forced to buy what will probably be a crappier policy so that EVERYONE can have as good (or bad) of a policy as I have.
The truth is: if I can’t afford to have the same treatment a gozillionaire can afford, I’m going to die. We all do eventually. Big deal. Make your peace with everyone you deal with every day, get right with God and stay ‘fessed up.