Posted on 10/18/2017 6:48:02 AM PDT by C19fan
Won’t happen here, thanks to the millions of obese people who still smoke in the US, a large percentage from “protected groups.”
I’m actually impressed by the decision.
I would have thought the government would give first priority to the smokers and fatsos.
After all, why should the health-privileged get any attention whatsoever?
So much for socialists telling us this would never happen: Rationing of care and the banning of care.
You’re still way off the mark.
We “Lardass chainsmokers” don’t get to opt out!
We’re going to be forced to subsidize your choices, no matter what they are. You go out for a jog and shatter your tibia? We’re on the hook for that. You choose sodomy and reap the consequences of that choice? I’m paying.
Smokers, and the obese can FOAD...
This sickening, judgemental, holier-than-thou, bullshit is what belongs on DU.
No government “healthcare” for anybody. I’m willing to pay my way in a competitive market.
First, do no harm.
Seems some here are forgetting that.
Also..
There are only 2 ways.
You either have done something to cause your condition
Or you have dumb luck/Aging.
Seems some here are ok with only treating those who have dumb luck.
Pretty soon they’ll go Monty Python....
“Fractured Tibia, Sargeant....Fractured Tibia, Sargeant....Ooooh, proper little mummy’s boy, aren’t we?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52EEzBNn48g
If I’m off the mark, you are too - because your last line is exactly what I’m saying.
Don't underestimate the power of fascist socialist systems, they'll find a way. Does Venezuela have a problem with overweight voters (no, the food shortages are eliminating those issues)? Does the government have a problem with the way anyone there votes?
It's not that cut-and-dry anyway. If you study actuarial tables, the costs imposed on society by obese smokers who die young (and therefore never reach the peak age for health care dependency) have to be balanced against the cost of "subsidizing" unproductive (not working due to age) retirees who have chronic age-related issues and live decades longer.
Exactly, but the socialist advocates are hypocrites for not saying the same thing about people with other negative lifestyle choices -- like homosexuality. I'm sure the hepatitis epidemic in CA can easily be correlated to that protected set of behaviors. Not to mention the AIDS epidemic.
Actually, maybe we need to be more judgmental.
"Hey fatty! Lose some weight and you wouldn't be in such rotten shape!"
"Maybe if you weren't having unprotected buttsex with a bunch of different dudes, you wouldn't have AIDS!"
"No wonder you're poor! You have eight kids by six different men and never married any of them!"
"You'd have an easier time finding a job if you didn't get that stupid tattoo on your neck!"
"No, you're not a woman. You're a dude in a dress wearing a wig."
I AGREE!
We’ve, as a nation, lost the ability to use our own discernment.
When forced to work within the framework of an already corrupt theft and redistribution system, it’s prudent to be aware that your ox may be the next one gored...
But as free individuals, we need more honesty and a bit more “real” in our communications.
"Aw, c'mon, whassa matter wid a little chip?" -- Marco D'Beast
I just wanted to make sure that you also advocated the same for socially-acceptable vices.
I don't know if you responded to the question about treatment for riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I think that, if the injury sustained could have been prevented or alleviated by the wearing of a helmet (or any other safety gear, such as boots, long pants, sleeves), then that too should be the responsibility of the rider. I rode for a number of years and always practiced what I preach.
So just to clarify: I am supporting your stance. If a person has a peanut or shellfish allergy, it is up to that person to ensure their own safety. If proper precautions are taken and it is the fault of a third party, then that third party is responsible.
Well, “You’re still way off the mark” is a strange way to start agreeing.
Go ahead...
Smoke.
Consume far more calories than you burn.
Ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
Eat peanut butter without an Epi-Pen handy.*
Just make sure you’re not compelling others to pay for extensive bodily repairs.
(* - I recall a story of some kid, seriously allergic to peanut butter, who desperately wanted to know what a Reeses’ Peanut Butter Cup tasted like. He told a friend to call 911, jabbed himself with an Epi-Pen, and ate the treat.)
Quite.
Suprised they didn’t add people that drink alcohol to the list.
If the rumors about alcohol consumption in U.K. are true, most of the population wouldn’t qualify for care.
I never said “You’re way off the mark” ... that was someone else.
Pardons if I mixed up responses.
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.