Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="W. Mark Hellinger" data-source="post: 55484" data-attributes="member: 692">Re: critical thoughtI&#039;m of the impression that the general public (or some portion of the general public) doesn&#039;t particularly want entitlement to health care (socialized health insurance), what they really want is entitlement to health assurance regardless of their lifestyle, genetics, etc... (If I break it or have a run of bad luck, somebody else will pay for my misfortune.)Putting this burden on the public, I believe, is a slippery slope resulting in lifestyle being regulated... similar to seat belt or helmet laws. I&#039;m of the understanding that seat belt laws, or helmet laws... while the practice (of wearing a seatbelt) may arguably be a good idea, do we really need a laws to save ourselves from ourselves? Well yes, we need laws to save ourselves from ourselves if we&#039;re all paying for anyone person&#039;s reckless activities where the result of that reckless activity could cost society big bucks for the resulting aftermath care of said reckless activity... and there-in the door opens wide for passage of any and all laws (by the nanny state) to save ourselves from ourselves... unless of-course that activity could likely considerably shorten lifespan with minimal health assurance costs for society to bear (like skydiving without a parachute, for example).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="W. Mark Hellinger, post: 55484, member: 692"] Re: critical thought [COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana]I'm of the impression that the general public (or some portion of the general public) doesn't particularly want entitlement to health care (socialized health insurance), what they really want is entitlement to health assurance regardless of their lifestyle, genetics, etc... (If I break it or have a run of bad luck, somebody else will pay for my misfortune.) Putting this burden on the public, I believe, is a slippery slope resulting in lifestyle being regulated... similar to seat belt or helmet laws. I'm of the understanding that seat belt laws, or helmet laws... while the practice (of wearing a seatbelt) may arguably be a good idea, do we really need a laws to save ourselves from ourselves? Well yes, we need laws to save ourselves from ourselves if we're all paying for anyone person's reckless activities where the result of that reckless activity could cost society big bucks for the resulting aftermath care of said reckless activity... and there-in the door opens wide for passage of any and all laws (by the nanny state) to save ourselves from ourselves... unless of-course that activity could likely considerably shorten lifespan with minimal health assurance costs for society to bear (like skydiving without a parachute, for example).[/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification