Baby steps

[alan1]

When your activities harm Americans they are allowed to make laws to protect themselves

Me choosing to not have a medical procedure harms no one else.

Here are two counterexamples:

1) You have a bacterial infection that is contagious. You choose not to treat the disease with antibiotics. You infect others.

2) You are diagnosed with a form of cancer that is easily operable. You choose not to have the operation. Your cancer metastasizes and becomes inoperable. Your employer loses an employee, and your family loses a loved one.

As has been pointed out already, the states currently have the authority to require medical treatment. The federal government does not, and it remains uncertain whether it has the authority to require you to buy health insurance, but state governments are not governments of enumerated powers; states can do anything not explicitly forbidden by either the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution.

You listed a number of areas where restrictions on personal behavior have become more stringent, but did not mention other areas where they have become less so, for example the striking down of sodomy laws, the legalization of abortion, the end of Jim Crow, and relaxation of laws against indecent exposure. What we have is a shift in consensus moral values followed by a shift in where the law focuses. It is not an overall tightening of public controls.

1) Even if I treat the disease that is no guarantee that others will not be infected.
The same rule applies whether I have insurance or not.

2) It is my freedom of choice what to do with my body.

 

[alan1]

So the government pays for their computer maintenance, even though they have no computer? Wow. Who woulda thought?

I'm still not sure why you think the government should be involved.

Jesus H Christ! Do you have a head injury which renders it impossible for you to think or learn? THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY INVOLVED!~

Just because the government is already involved doesn't make it right.

 

[Katzndogz]

When your activities harm Americans they are allowed to make laws to protect themselves

Me choosing to not have a medical procedure harms no one else.

Here are two counterexamples:

1) You have a bacterial infection that is contagious. You choose not to treat the disease with antibiotics. You infect others.

2) You are diagnosed with a form of cancer that is easily operable. You choose not to have the operation. Your cancer metastasizes and becomes inoperable. Your employer loses an employee, and your family loses a loved one.

As has been pointed out already, the states currently have the authority to require medical treatment. The federal government does not, and it remains uncertain whether it has the authority to require you to buy health insurance, but state governments are not governments of enumerated powers; states can do anything not explicitly forbidden by either the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution.

You listed a number of areas where restrictions on personal behavior have become more stringent, but did not mention other areas where they have become less so, for example the striking down of sodomy laws, the legalization of abortion, the end of Jim Crow, and relaxation of laws against indecent exposure. What we have is a shift in consensus moral values followed by a shift in where the law focuses. It is not an overall tightening of public controls.

That's just not true. If you have an infectious disease, the government cannot require you to get treatment. They can order medical confinement for the protection of others but cannot order anyone to be treated.

Steve Jobs was diagnosed with cancer treatable with surgery. He elected not to be treated. No one ordered him to be treated, he was allowed to die and he did.

Degeneracy is generally protected but that's a consequence of our degenerative culture. As the support for Jerry Sandusky shows.

 

[Sunshine]

I'm still not sure why you think the government should be involved.

Jesus H Christ! Do you have a head injury which renders it impossible for you to think or learn? THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY INVOLVED!~

Just because the government is already involved doesn't make it right.

So the government should not require people to be personally responsible by buying their own health insurance. WE, the taxpayers, should just continue to foot their bills at the doctor's office and hospital. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT it!

Christ on a cracker. Obama acts like a conservative, and the right has a melt down!

 

[alan1]

Jesus H Christ! Do you have a head injury which renders it impossible for you to think or learn? THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY INVOLVED!~

Just because the government is already involved doesn't make it right.

So the government should not require people to be personally responsible by buying their own health insurance. WE, the taxpayers, should just continue to foot their bills at the doctor's office and hospital. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT it!

Christ on a cracker. Obama acts like a conservative, and the right has a melt down!

Nope, that's not exactly what I said. You are twisting my words.
Let me explain.
The government has no business forcing a person to engage in commerce (purchasing health insurance). Nor do they have any right to force a person to have medical treatment (the point of the OP).
The government and the taxpayer have no responsibility to pay for the medical care of another person. If said person wants medical care they can either pay for it themselves, or choose to carry health insurance on their own.

Does that clear things up for you?