Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
one thing i do not understand is this idea that seems to be shared amongst more conservative folk that others only respond to coercion or pressure from outside--so that people will all smoke or all drink or all be overweight unless there is some outside Penalty that kicks in to punish them for doing it. you see it all the time---this nonsense about "lifestyle choices" above works on that assumption. so you'd think that folk with this condescending christian notion of other people--not themselves of course--oppose universal health care because it removes some fictive "moral hazard"
so how does that work exactly?
|
That was not my point. My point was that if someone makes a poor lifestyle choice, why is it my responsibility to cover the expenses due to their actions? If I decide that dinner every night is going to be a super-size McDonalds meal, why should you be responsible for paying for my bypass operation 10 years later? If I decide that using crack is fun, why should you be responsible for paying for my trip to the ER when I OD? If I decide that smoking Marlboros makes me look cool, why should you pay for my chemotherapy when I get lung cancer?
If, on the other hand I know the risks, and realize that doing any of the above is quite likely to end up with me dead sooner rather than later, that of itself is sufficient motivation for me to not do any of the above.
Why do I need the nanny state to save me from myself? Why should the nanny state make you pay for my mistakes?