I believe, then, it falls under the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That being said, I share the same reservations about our government, the government of Katrina, Fema, Waco, etc., being in charge of my health care. However, if I had some assurance that our gov't would behave better than the current HMOs in terms of speed, approval, and flexibility of care, then I admit it does appeal. I think I'd want to see a government INSURANCE program, rather than handing the whole system over to them lock, stock and barrel. Sort of like providing the required minimum (like they do for Medicare), only they're simply going to HAVE to cut back on the paperwork, because it's driving doctors out of business.
As far as the obesity thing goes, I'm torn on that. On one hand I'm outraged, but then I acknowledge that they do charge smokers more. But like LSPE points out, it's not entirely behavioral, and the ability to control the behavior is also affected by genetics, so it's sort of like charging the cancer-prone more. Also, smokers do have a choice of whether to smoke or not. Alcoholics have a choice of whether to drink or not. But say you told an alcoholic that they had to drink exactly half a shot every single day of their life in order to live - would you REALLY be surprised if they couldn't stick to that?
I'm frankly sick of the "moral outrage" that people not afflicted with obesity-relate problems feel they have a right to.
__________________
http://bash.org/?top
"It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
Last edited by Morrigoon : 09-02-2008 at 10:34 PM.
|