posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:01 PM
For me the issue is not abouth UHC versus big pharma/insurance. It's about the government making a choice for it's citizens. If the government
wants to offer a health program that I can voluntarily participate in instead of working with my insurance provider that's fine. What I don't need
is the government deciding it knows what's best for me and will therefore force me into a health care solution.
The best way I can relate it is by referencing seat belt laws. Why does the government have any hand in forcing me to wear a seat belt (I always do,
always will, and will always require anyone riding in my car to do the same, btw). The point is, if I choose to not wear a seat belt, get in a wreck
and die because of it, that's my problem. The government has no business protecting me from my own stupidity.
I'm also a smoker. I understand it's illogical and very well may cause whatever it is I'm gonna die of. I don't want any one of you paying for
it because we have universal health care. My ill advised decisions and their consequences are mine to deal with not anyone elses. If I sign up for a
health care plan that's not going to cover smoking related illnesses is that indicitive of a corrupt and broken health care system. No. That
indicates an ill adivsed decision for health care on my part.
The government already has it's hands in my house (can't build an addition unless I have permission from the government), my land (any development I
may want to do has to be cleared with the government), my car (gotta pass those emissions tests), my job(I did the work but the gov't gets the
money), and the list goes on and on. I don't need the government sticking it's clumsy, unqualified hands in the way I manage my health.