Would you also support the government denying that healthcare to people who do not take preventative care of their health?

No government supported healthcare if you are either overweight, do not eat a certain way, smoke, drink in excess, do not exercise a minimum amount, maybe a few other qulifying stipulations.

Why should I have my money taken from me to fund the healthcare for an individual who won't take the basic, cheap or free steps necessary to take care of themselves on a fundamental level?

I find it very odd that folks whine about thier money being spent on healthcare yet they might only moderately complain about big business and big oil and corporate bailouts or subsidies war, and needless goverment spending (like spending millions to send paper out telling folks they'll get some stimulus cash).

I'll say this with an exclamation, "I'd rather my and your money go towards health care to insure all americans!"

Of all the things to whine about as far as what the government does with your and my money, healthcare is a pretty good way of spending it.

Provide for the general welfare in the preamble to the constitution means the general condition. You all can move to China or wherever if you don't like Americans so much that you're willing to let them die.

Please stop wasting bandwith on complaining about a few extra bucks going towards providing for the general welfare of our nation.

If you're going to pick a cause to champion, try something just.

Unless you haven't noticed, I complain about all that other stuff you mentioned as well.

And "wellfare" as it appears in the Constitution means something completely different than the social programs it's come to represent today.

Welfare in the contitution doesn't mean social programs at all.

Didn't mean to lash out. Sorry

Even as a smoker, I think you are on the right track.

Though there'd have to be some sort of middle ground. If it's being paid through taxes, then I'm still paying for it, so I should receive at least some form of healthcare.

I agree with that. You should definately get out at least what you put in.

It just seems to me that it would be a good way to get people proactive on their own health. I heard on Boortz's show today that the average life expectancy of a woman in the southeast is over a year shorter than that of a woman from other parts of the countre. And it was due to the high obesity rates in the southest.

Since it's looking more and more like we will have some form of government sponsored health care, it seems like there needs to be a way to promote an actual healthy lifestyle. I'm betting that whatever it cost to get people healthy would more than be offset by the saving in healthcare. This is certainly true on an individual basis, so I don't see why it wouldn't be on a national scale as well.

And as an offset to my position, why should I pay for couples or women having children? I don't have any, don't plan on it, and think we should be working to lessen our population.

Why should I pay for people who were born with an illness? I wasn't.

Why should I pay for people who get in car wrecks because they are careless drivers?

Why should I pay for people injured playing extreme sports, which I don't engage in?


There are so many of these situations that it seems you get into an unwinnable situation. Like the "eating healthy" clause would probably be seen as an anti-big business movement, since it would make the fast food giants the enemy.

I absolutely agree with this, I just think we have to be very careful in the wording and execution of a plan like that. Encouraging health is very important. Denying healthcare to a LARGE portion of the population for living like they were raised (the American Way) could backfire.

I don't want/need any government sponsored healthcare, at least until I retire, and maybe if Medicaid is still around by then, it will suffice (probably NOT).

What I would like to see them do, is help control costs. But they won't. Not anymore that they will control gas prices. They (the govt) is in bed w/too many industries, healthcare being one of them. I don't mind working and paying for my own insurance. In fact, I prefer doing that so I can select my own doctors, and get an appointment when I say I need one - not "first available". But I would like to see some controls over things like cost of drugs, hospital stays, surgical procedures, cancer care and the like. I've read stuff before that proves that some doctors/hospitals can and will gouge you in the pockets if you let them. Why should a cancer patient fighting for his/her life, for example, have to fight his treatment institution over a bill?

Shit, the more I think about this stuff, the more I think they should just stay out of it altogether. Nearly every time the govt. gets involved in "administrating" programs, the red tape gets longer and the whole damn process is way over complicated.



BTW - Brock & Al, don't private insurance companies kind of have some of this stuff already in hand? i.e. "pre-existing" conditions clauses? You get cancer, you get chemo, it goes in remission, but you change jobs, get new insurance, and now you may not be covered for some treatments because it was a "pre-existing" condition? That's just fucked up. But I've heard those stories too...

I do not see how you could prohibit health care from the very people that actually need it. Obesity is a serious health problem in this country. Trying to deny the obese medical attention because of their obesity would be like denying cancer victims medical attention for having cancer. :huh:

ANARCHY!!!!

lol

Anarchy and democracy aren't that compatible right now in the US, and I doubt it ever will be.

That is the system we have now, my wife is diabetic and we can't get personal coverage at ANY cost.

from Obama's website.

I'm sorry to hear that, but there ya go. And that is the kind of fucked up shit they need to FIX w/our current healthcare system. I'm just not sure that government is up to the task. I want them to intervene, I just don't want them to run the whole shebang.