posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:18 PM
Bravo! Just one of the many problems with assigning your health to Big Government. Not the least of it, if the Government has to pay for your health,
they naturally have a vested interest in it-which means they're justified in running yet another aspect of your life.
to paraphrase Mr. Franklin :"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security"...is applied not only to physical
security and protection, but also to financial security and healh security. If you want to make it the Government's job to handle your retirement,
your health care, etc-then it becomes their responsibility to manage it, and reduce risks, by controlling you.
Government, in America was not designed to be anyone's safety net. not for retirement, not for welfare, not for health. To insist on having
government secure these, means giving up the freedom to choose anything that may affect them. You want socialized, taxpayer funded, government run
medicien, then be ready to have your eating contriolled, smoking banned, unsafe activities curtailed, and "alternative" lifestyle risks made
Just like living with your parents. Whoever foots the bill gets the decisions. The Founding Fathers knew the danger of the Nanny Government path, but
their foresight is lost. Look only at the perpetually bankrupt state of California for proof.
Originally posted by mwm1331
And people wonder what I have against socialsed healthcare.