English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If passed, will I still have the right to drink, smoke, and eat as much as I want?

My idea of rights is that you should be able to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.

That said, it is obvious that taxpayers would be picking up the tab for peoples' unhealthy lifestyles in a UHC based system.

How would an individual's right to eat/drink/smoke whatever they want balance out against the rights of people who make the decision to live healthy? Should the responsible be forced to subsidize the irresponsible?

2007-04-18 04:51:55 · 8 answers · asked by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 in Politics & Government Politics

I realize that some unhealthy people are already subsidized in the form of increased insurance premiums, but full government mandated coverage would exacerbate the issue.

2007-04-18 04:54:23 · update #1

8 answers

I'm not all aboard the universal healthcare bandwagon either. I've studied a bit of the systems in Japan, Netherlands, France, and Germany and must say I'm not impressed. Healthcare facilities can't afford to make necessary updates on medical equipment, nor can they afford to make necessary additions to the hospitals in order to take in the ill which causes a major crowding problem. You also do not have your choice of doctors, and if hospitalized your PCP can't come in to treat you. Furthermore, waiting times to see physicians are insanely high...you could wait months before getting in because they don't run on an appointment system like we have in the U.S. While their may be a few advantages of it, overall it's not ideal.

2007-04-18 05:09:22 · answer #1 · answered by suzyq 3 · 1 0

There are countries where universal health care works and the people have rights that continue to be protected under the law. I know I'll get crap about this, but France and Canada both have universal health coverage and the people in those countries have at least as much freedom as we have in this country.

The problem you're pointing out arises when you allow commercial entities to dictate the laws of the country. Insurance companies are already infringing on the rights of individuals in this country (not just with higher premiums) with anti-smoking legislation, anti-trans fat legislation, what's next?

If we can get the corporate entities back out of our government and have a government focused on maintaining the principles of freedom and democracy, questions of this sort will become irrelevant.

Of course we should have the freedoms to eat, drink, and smoke what we please. That is one of the principles that this country was founded upon, and unless we remember that our freedoms are more important than our economy, we may end up being the Corporate States of America.

2007-04-18 05:07:01 · answer #2 · answered by Tunsa 6 · 0 0

That is a good point. Individuals unhealthily lifestyles are part of the reason why heath care cost are so high. How is it fair that I work out everyday to stay in shape and my reward for being healthy is that I have to pay for unhealthily peoples heath care.

I think it is silly if the government thinks they can lower the cost of health care by taking it over. It could only go up. The program will cost everyone the same amount, whether they see a doctor once a year, one a week, or once a day. That just does not seem fair to me (being that I am of the once a year crowd).

2007-04-18 05:01:20 · answer #3 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 1 0

You have a valid point, and it's just as valid under our current system as it is under a nationalized system. As it is now, people who do have health insurance pay higher premiums because of those other people who have poor health. It's no more fair now than it would be under a nationalized system.
At least under a nationalized system, the costs would be spread out to all people instead of being born by the few that actually have coverage.

2007-04-18 04:56:14 · answer #4 · answered by Louis G 6 · 0 1

You will have those rights at first, but those will slowly be eroded away by lawmakers. Soon we'll have a nationalized exercise program too. If you read "1984", you'll remember the part where the main character is forced to exercise.

2007-04-18 04:56:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Good point, and one I have been making for a long time. If you force me to pay for your health care, does that give me the right to force you to wash your hands, ban all junk food, ban all sports, ban unsafe sex, ban all activities in which you can become sick or injured?

If you want to live an unhealthy lifestyle, that's cool. Just don't force me to pay for it. Otherwise I might find that it is more cost efficient to end your life than to pay for your choices.

2007-04-18 05:01:42 · answer #6 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1 1

currently no insurance punishes people for drinking (moderatly or otherwise), over eating/under eating (EDs are covered), or smoking.
some have proposed this. but since these things are legal its hard to try and tell people they must have some sort of price for doing so.

I think that its better to treat the sick- non-self enduced- despite the risks of treating those who are sick of their own choices/volition/judgement

2007-04-18 05:17:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i dont know why people want free healthcare so bad, my girlfreind and her baby dont pay nothing

2007-04-18 05:04:15 · answer #8 · answered by Cubby V 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers