Originally posted by neformore
Interesting story this. Do we force people who refuse to look after themselves to do so?
Is it a requirement of society to stay healthy and fit?
Should people have the freedom of choice to eat and drink and abuse their bodies as they see fit - ignoring the advice of health care professionals
without fear of reprisals from the health system?
Is this an opportunistic tax - and what are the implications of this thing going further, across the whole of the states?
Also - whats next? Extra tax on smokers? Drinkers? People with a sweet tooth? Where does it end?
www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
Of course it isn't, any more than it's a requirement of the State to provide health care, or any more than a requirement to have the State be involved
in "end-of-life" care, otherwise known as "death panels". See it all makes sense now, whether it's welfare recipients being fined or death panels
telling you when to die. That is the power of the State that this admin is pushing and that has been growing for several decades.
People ridiculed Sarah Palin over the "death panels" comment and O supporters vehemently deny this aspect of the health plan.
Yah Romneycare in Mass preceded the Obamacare in the Fed govt.
The real point here is that the State is all powerful. You see the people who want money and programs from the State don't want that other bad stuff.
But not to worry, it's a trend in the private sector as well, so you see, it eventually won't matter. That is one thing I was horrified about in a
class one day, we were discussing the role of a business in supplying health care for people who are overweight or who smoke. One of the issues is the
health liability to a business on people who are unhealthy. People may lose work days due to health issues, and the business has to cover itself, and
then also pay out for higher premiums. We all know that insurance co make you pay higher premiums for at risk health(you know, like getting OLDER).
The State views people as "useless eaters" who work for the Supreme State, as Marx taught. As such, the State must take care of these uesless eaters.
The State views parents as unnecessary and stupid, unable to take care of their own children. This is really where the "Rights of the Child"
originated, and it's not true compassion, it's the State wanting more power.
edit on 22-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason
given)