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. Somehow I never hear those who don't want to treat these people out of fairness to other recipients alarmed about the fairness of making them pay but not allowing them to collect.Then there's the whole issue of politically correct high-risk populations. Those who want to shut the gates on smokers, drinkers, fatties, and bungee jumpers never seem to want to do the same to active homosexuals, a population willingly engaging in a behavior that leads to a higher risk of an illness that’s VERY expensive to treat. Now read carefully, I’m not taking the opposite inconsistent position, that it WOULD be fair to allow homosexuals to pay in and then be denied treatment. I’m just pointing out that the proponents of restrictions are inconsistent PC hypocrites.
But really, all this paradoxical situation does is show that government shouldn't have a high degree of involvement in our lives. Every time they do, these hard choices arise. The government intrudes in our life in one area without invitation, then uses that involvement to justify further intrusion.
‘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!