Do you Support Government Intervention Regarding Health Issues?

[Dr Gregg]

NOpe, not at all. I should be able to do to myself whatever I want to do. Only rule of anything should be if what I do infringes on other people's right to freedom, property, life, not be harmed physically, etc.

With all the healthcare talk I am disgusted as to how many people think that they should be able to tell people what to do with their lives. The people that say "I don't want to have to pay for a smoker's healthcare" which is such bullshit, as many people do thing that may increase their need for healthcare, weather it be eating bad food, not exercising, playing sports or performing high risk things, etc. These people have no clue what being and AMerican is and what freedoms being a citizen of this country entail

 

[Big Black Dog]

The government can do anything it wants to do. Just ask Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

they started doing that here (colorado) for the dumbasses that try to climb a 14-er with no food, water, cold weather clothing,etc. Or those that start a 12 hour round trip hike in the middle of the afternoon and get stuck on the mountain during PM T storms and then stuck at night when the temp dips.

 

[slackjawed]

I want the government to stay the fuck out of my life. Further, I wantthe federal government to do the things they are charged with doing before thinking about moving on to bigger things.
Those things would include;
defend our borders(provide for the common defense)
Regulate our currency supply
deliver the mail

I say until our govt can accomplish these things, it should not be given any further responsibilities.
so far...........

 

[JenT]

NOpe, not at all. I should be able to do to myself whatever I want to do. Only rule of anything should be if what I do infringes on other people's right to freedom, property, life, not be harmed physically, etc.

With all the healthcare talk I am disgusted as to how many people think that they should be able to tell people what to do with their lives. The people that say "I don't want to have to pay for a smoker's healthcare" which is such bullshit, as many people do thing that may increase their need for healthcare, weather it be eating bad food, not exercising, playing sports or performing high risk things, etc. These people have no clue what being and AMerican is and what freedoms being a citizen of this country entail

Yeah but that's the crux of it. With the health care bill, everything we do could be considered harming all of us because all of us will have to pay for the consequences of it.

With private insurance, they're competitive, they won't force anyone's behavior because nobody would buy their insurance. In Obamanation, however...

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

I agree. People engaged in high risk activities should accept responsibility for all consequences and expense of those activities. Also, people who choose to live near earthquake faults, avalanche or landslide zones, forested/heavy brush areas, damaging wind, hail, hurricane country, on flood plains, etc. should be required to buy insurance against the risks they are assuming or be willing to suffer the consequences of the loss of their property if they don't have insurance. The taxpayer should not be required to assume that risk for them.

Exactly...so why implement policy where they would?
That should be up to the insurance companies and the free market to determine.
And by the way....just curious...per your meterological and geological "high risk zones"........what's left? Ohio?

Some of the nation's most devastating tornadoes have occurred in Ohio. I still remember the front page newspaper photos of this one that plowed through Xenia OH in 1974:

I live in a pretty stable area where violent storms, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc. are uncommon. Nevertheless, my home is insured against fire, wind, hail, falling objects, and other usual perils. If I was on low ground, I would also expect to buy flood insurance, but there is so little risk where I am, we have elected to take our chances there. You should not be required to pay to replace my house or possessions if they should be destroyed by something that is part of the normal risk we all assume just living our lives.

Nor should you be required to assume the consequences of the risk I take in my lifestyle, eating habits, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Oldandtired]

Mountain Climbing?...

I'd like to see what some here have to say on this.

I'd like to see mountain climbers pay for their own recovery. No reason taxpayers should foot the bill for their stupidity

they started doing that here (colorado) for the dumbasses that try to climb a 14-er with no food, water, cold weather clothing,etc. Or those that start a 12 hour round trip hike in the middle of the afternoon and get stuck on the mountain during PM T storms and then stuck at night when the temp dips.

Cost to rescue is a entirely different issue.

But who is to say that a man that Snow Ski's is at a higher health risk than one that prefers to watch TV and eat hot dogs?

 

[Oldandtired]

I agree. People engaged in high risk activities should accept responsibility for all consequences and expense of those activities. Also, people who choose to live near earthquake faults, avalanche or landslide zones, forested/heavy brush areas, damaging wind, hail, hurricane country, on flood plains, etc. should be required to buy insurance against the risks they are assuming or be willing to suffer the consequences of the loss of their property if they don't have insurance. The taxpayer should not be required to assume that risk for them.

Exactly...so why implement policy where they would?
That should be up to the insurance companies and the free market to determine.
And by the way....just curious...per your meterological and geological "high risk zones"........what's left? Ohio?

Some of the nation's most devastating tornadoes have occurred in Ohio. I still remember the front page newspaper photos of this one that plowed through Xenia OH in 1974:

I live in a pretty stable area where violent storms, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc. are uncommon. Nevertheless, my home is insured against fire, wind, hail, falling objects, and other usual perils. If I was on low ground, I would also expect to buy flood insurance, but there is so little risk where I am, we have elected to take our chances there. You should not be required to pay to replace my house or possessions if they should be destroyed by something that is part of the normal risk we all assume just living our lives.

Nor should you be required to assume the consequences of the risk I take in my lifestyle, eating habits, etc. etc. etc.

I have never even thought of the idea of someone else taking on the financial burden of my loss...I choose to live where I choose to live and I insure against disasters that are likely in my area.To date, I have spent no less than 20K on flood insurance (*over 20 years) as I am minutes from the ocean, yet have never had the reaon for a claim...and that is my choice...and if I dropped the plan and we had a flood...again, it was my choice.

 

[rightwinger]

So tell me...

What is a higher risk:

a 50 year old man that runs 20 miles a week
Or
a 50 year old man that is overweight and sits on the couch and eats chips all day?

Neither

However, if one of those 50 yearolds decides to get on national TV by setting a record for climbling a mountain blindfolded and wearing a thong...the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for his rescue

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly...so why implement policy where they would?
That should be up to the insurance companies and the free market to determine.
And by the way....just curious...per your meterological and geological "high risk zones"........what's left? Ohio?

Some of the nation's most devastating tornadoes have occurred in Ohio. I still remember the front page newspaper photos of this one that plowed through Xenia OH in 1974:

I live in a pretty stable area where violent storms, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc. are uncommon. Nevertheless, my home is insured against fire, wind, hail, falling objects, and other usual perils. If I was on low ground, I would also expect to buy flood insurance, but there is so little risk where I am, we have elected to take our chances there. You should not be required to pay to replace my house or possessions if they should be destroyed by something that is part of the normal risk we all assume just living our lives.

Nor should you be required to assume the consequences of the risk I take in my lifestyle, eating habits, etc. etc. etc.

I have never even thought of the idea of someone else taking on the financial burden of my loss...I choose to live where I choose to live and I insure against disasters that are likely in my area.To date, I have spent no less than 20K on flood insurance (*over 20 years) as I am minutes from the ocean, yet have never had the reaon for a claim...and that is my choice...and if I dropped the plan and we had a flood...again, it was my choice.

Exactly. I choose to carry only liability insurance on my car, a car that is absolutely essential for my work. Why? I am willing to accept the consequences if the car is totaled or stolen or severely damaged. As the car has some age on it, for me the risk does not outweigh the cost of the insurance. But the choice to assume that risk is mine and mine alone. If I incur a loss, it will come out my pocket and nobody else's. It would be absurd for you or my neighbors or anybody else be required to pay for my repairs or a new car if something happens to it.

And if I want to eat at McDonald's three times a day and be a couch potato or be a stuntperson for high risk stunts and smoke like a chimney, that also is my choice and nobody but me should be required to be responsible for any consequences resulting from it. If my health insuror rates me up as a result of it, that is my problem and my choice to accept or do something about it.

The government can provide for the general welfare by advising the people of the risks. It should not, however, be assuming those risks for the people.