Why does it have to be universal healthcare?

Question

Would it be so wrong to exclude smokers and the obese from receiving health care fro the government?
Why should the rest of the population have to pay more to support other people's bad habits?

Answer 1

Why not add to the list:
Thrill Seekers.
Genetic Disease Carriers (Cystic Fibrosis, etc.)
People who live by chemical plants.
People in high stress jobs.
you could go on and on

Answer 2

I would have more sympathy with this point of view if the government hadn't sponsored, and continues to sponsor both of these problems.

There is still a huge amount of money generated for the government by big tobacco, and the government would like to keep it that way. The cigarette taxes are just the tip of the iceberg. As a grower of tobacco, you pay the government for the right to do so. As part of the tobacco lobby, you pay individual legislators for their support. A huge amount of money goes into the campaign funds of various officials which comes from big tobacco.

As for the obese, have you looked at the food pyramid lately?
Anyone who eats as much food as our government recommends on a daily basis, has no alternative but to get fat.
The junk that is fed to our children in school is guaranteed to make them fat, and to provide very little nutrition, so they are hungry again when they go home and then they eat more junk, in the guise of "healthy snacks". Kellogg's and Post also have big money invested in the legislators who oversee the FDA, so they can get away with saying that they are healthy for us. Then there is the milk lobby which is allowed to say that we need milk every day in order to have healthy bones. Never mind that we cannot digest milk after we are 2, and there is some question about whether we can digest cow's milk at all, but it can make us fat.

Answer 3

Health care is a business. Would you want the government taking over your business? Competition is a good thing, it drives prices down, and also gives you the opportunity to find the best health care you are able to. I know this answer will be unpopular, but it is the truth. When you get into socialistic health care quality becomes less than desired. Then only the wealthy will have access to quality health care.

The only people who should have health care paid for by us would be out veterans who have been in wars, disadvantaged children, the disabled, and low income elderly. I don't believe I should have to pay for anyone else.

I would go along with health care reforms. People with pre-existing conditions should have access to health care that is not beyond reach. This country has far too many programs that scream socialism.

But this is just my opinion.

.

Answer 4

If you start working on preventative measures then you have less cost in the long run. Obese health care already costs us... it's the second largest health cost to the nation behind cancer already .... which is brought about by smoking.. the other thing you mentioned...


So when these people hit up an ER because they don't have insurance... we pay that bill anyway... why not make it easier on ourselves by having fewer people make it to that point?

Answer 5

That is discrimination. If you discriminate against those who are obese and smokers, you will also have to refuse to treat those who have STDs, mental illnesses, attention disorders, etc,etc...
You don't want your money helping those with bad habits. OK I don't want my money helping those who are too lazy to work, etc, etc.
Universal healthcare is a bad BAD idea. It is just another way to control the people
PS lets also not treat those who use drugs and are alcoholics

Answer 6

Sin taxes would offset some of those costs. You put the former private insurance actuaries to work in the new National Single-Payer Plan to calculate the consumption and the likely cost to the health insurance system of cigarettes, alcohol, doughnuts- anything with long-term health consequences. As new scientific evidence appears for either the diminution or increase of those risks, taxes would adjust accordingly.

Answer 7

The entire concept is unAmerican
We are a nation that holds the moniker "Land of Opportunity"

Not "land of the handouts"
Not "land of the lazy"
Not "land of 1984"

You're proposing a very dangerous step in the direction of Orwellian society. After all... in order for them to 'exclude' these people, they have to monitor everyone to be able to identify those people. Before you know it, your toilet is sending a urine-test-result electronically to the government to monitor your possible alcohol or drug use... and you're either dropped from coverage or see an increase in your taxes due to your bachelor party you went to last night.
And you claim to value FREEDOM? ...think again.

NO Socialized healthcare in America. LESS government intervention in our lives. Hillarycare will eventually kill Hillary's campaign.

Answer 8

My only problem is that with a pre-existing condition, the insurance companies won't touch me at any price. It's not that I'm not willing and able to pay, they just won't have me. I'm not opposed to any idea that works for the people, but the current system leaves me and millions like me out and that is unacceptable in my view.

Answer 9

I agree, especially since I'm not obese (never been fat) and I don't smoke. The obesity problem seems to be lifestyle related. Freedom. That word gets twisted around more and more it seems. Freedom means more responsibility.

Answer 10

That is the price for doing business with the Premiere Socialist Hillary. Everyone who opposes her will pay and all of her toadies will get to spend their days imposing her socialist agenda. Addicts are victims and should be coddled and taken care of .