Posted on 10/18/2017 6:48:02 AM PDT by C19fan
The NHS will ban patients from surgery indefinitely unless they lose weight or quit smoking, under controversial plans drawn up in Hertfordshire.
The restrictions - thought to be the most extreme yet to be introduced by health services - immediately came under attack from the Royal College of Surgeons.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I guess we can say that the media will always stamp anything that Sarah Palin says as NULL AND VOID!
:)
*sigh* yeah
In the great campy movie Demolition Man Denis Leary goes off on the leader Dr. Cocteau, who makes similar changes to society (the banning of everything that he deems bad for you like salt, alcohol, high sodium foods, contact sports and sex that actually requires human contact as examples), with the great rif: I’ve seen the future, it’s a 47-year old virgin sitting around in his pajamas (an early Pajama boy reference, LOL) eating a banana-broccoli shake and singing I’m an Oscar Meyer Weiner . . . you live up there you live Cocteau’s way . . . Well, once again, life starts to imitate art . . .
That’s the clip
As Active Duty military, I enjoy socialized medicine. Healthcare for myself, my pregnant wife and our three children costs me not a penny more than the gas money I spend going to the appointments.
The military can afford to provide this "free" healthcare because the risk pool is low. Most of us are under 50 and healthy and chances are good the same can be said for our spouses and children.
However, this "free" healthcare comes with the requirement that I remain fit for duty. I have to remain healthy enough to pass a physical fitness test twice year that includes a height/weight/body fat assessment. If I get fat or out of shape, I get kicked out of the Navy and there goes my and my family's free health care. So while there are no specific prohibitions on what I can eat or if I choose to smoke, it is up to me to keep in shape if I want to enjoy the healthcare that is provided to me.
I’ll tell you ultimately where this leads. At birth, every child will be required to have a chip implanted in them in order to get health care under the government run system, which by the way will be the ONLY health care system available. This chip will be contain all of the citizens health related information. It will even be able to record what the person has consumed over some period of time. Eventually the government will determine what lifestyle a person must adhere to in order to get access to healthcare, such as is happening in the UK right now. From there it will be a short jump to denying health care due to other factors such as political beliefs, race, religious beliefs, etc. Mark my words.
And who decides what is reckless and irresponsible, you? I guess you are OK with death panels, I am not.
If you are a "health professional" you must resign your position immediately.
Just curious, what about your family members? Would you say "tough" to them too?
If the patient doesn't give a crap about their own health, why should medical professionals jump through hoops to save their lives?
So if a motorcyclist has a wreck without a helmet, should they be treated for a head injury?
Slippery slope, meet socialist.
Notice that before things got this extreme in the NHS, they took all the guns away. Another opportunity for the genocide of your choice.
Yep. We all know this is about population control.
Socialists = murderers.
It’s acceptable to hack on smokers and the obese.
So if the government decided that people who do manual labor can’t get health care for their bodies wearing out, or that corporate execs don’t get health care because of their high stress levels (both examples of things that will kill you), you’d take the same position? People over retirement age? They’re no longer contributing, why would we want to subsidize the cost of their medical care? They’re going to die anyway.
You can have NO GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED HEALTHCARE, or you can have government controlled healthcare that robs you to pay for other peoples problems... There are no third choices.
Under UCMJ the military can do that to you -- so you think the UCMJ or a UCMJ-like draconian system should be imposed on everyone with medical conditions, age issues, family history issues, genetic predispositions, -- that preclude or disqualify them from military service? Where do you draw the line?
Do you not see the folly of your reasoning? Never mind, the answer is a resounding NO.
And I can say that, being a vet who served honorably.
"The military can afford to provide this "free" healthcare because the risk pool is low.
My mom smoked and ate hear way to an early death(actually got a few extra years than most of us expected). It wasn't the doctors fault they were unwilling to work miracles. We had been begging mom to take care of herself for years to no avail.
Slippery slope, meet socialist.
Meets "anything goes" non-judmentalism.
Actually, the idea that smokers, fatties, and people who partake in dangerous activities like riding motorcycles without helmets are entitled to the same level of healthcare as those who take an active responsibility in maintaining their health negates the concept of consequences for poor decisions and benefits for good decisions.
How about a ban for being a practicing homosexual since that’s one of the most diseased producing activities one can engage in?
It also follows that the fascists who want to deny benefits based on the assumption that all medical conditions are “choices” made by irresponsible persons will also impose forced abortions to those with hereditary conditions, or use “counseling” covered under healthcare policies to take fatal elixirs to alleviate case loads on public health systems (oh wait - they already do that in Oregon and California).
Amazing how many here are attacking me from the POV that the government SHOULD be paying medical bills.
You wanna put smoke in your lungs daily and haul around an extra 150 lbs 24/7/365, go right ahead - so long as YOU pay for the consequences, directly or thru a private arrangement of an insurer (who will bill you according to your risk category). Go right ahead; but don’t make funding it _compulsory_ for others.
My problem, expressed earlier, is with people doing clearly dangerous things to their own body (_nobody_ is going to contend that smoking or obesity is good or harmless) and then DEMANDING the taxpayers fund the consequences ... and YOU 5 seem to think it’s somehow wrong for taxpayers (thru representatives) say “NO.”
I’m exercising and eating sensibly. Yes I consume meat & alcohol - moderate amounts not showing any signs of negative consequences, and which are generally considered a sensible part of a proper diet.
You gonna do bad stuff to your body, and pay for the consequences thru private arrangements yourself, have a great time.
You gonna do bad stuff to your body, and pay for the consequences by demanding taxpayers foot the bill, and get pissed off when the money isn’t there and you’re told “we don’t pay for stupid”, FOAD.
Oh, sorry, I thought this was Free Republic. I must have stumbled into Democratic Underground.
Thanks for your honorable service, and for helping me pay for Drew68’s free healthcare.
Not if their rates are higher -- something else the socialist system you advocate for everyone doesn't account for.
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.