People should be responsible for their health, and should not put undue pressure on the society in which they live.
The question I asked was how would this match with the desire to provide healthcare to everyone, and that no person should die because they could not afford the care that would save their life and provide good quality of life? A broad examination based on your example suggests that there would need to be a network of social services and care for the individual. In other words there shouldn't be enough panhandlers for this to become a burdern in the first place. So let's turn instead to the gainfully employed individual who drinks themselves to liver failure and can't afford the health care. Or who eats themselves to heart disease. If you fail some standardised, annual test you should effectively have Opted Out of the global health provisions. So sure, have your right to be fat. But society shouldn't have to pay for your illnesses if you just decide to say f*** it I like to eat McDonalds and I hate exercise. On 12 January 2012 15:23, GMoney <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't get what you are saying here.....do you want people to be > responsible for hteir health, and any charges associated with it, or don't > you? If a person without a dime to their name panhandles for just enough to > support his alcoholism, then gets cirrhosis....do you want us paying for > his liver transplant or not...lest he serve as an "indictment" on our > society and it's structures? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:345276 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
