|
actually, dogzilla, all i did was restate the point i took you as making, which you then restated again in a slightly different way. you are in fact arguing that the absence of access to health care introduces an element of "moral hazard" into these lifestyle choices (smoking is an addiction btw. trust me i know). the implication is, like i said, that were universal health care in place everyone would eat super-sized meals at macdo, drink a whole lot every night and smoke like a chimney.
all you changed in the end was you substituted for "moral hazard"---one conservative fiction---some notion of "the nanny state"---another conservative fiction.
across that, your argument is that you don't want to pay.
to which the counter is that you can then pretend your tax money is going into programs that you like. whether you want to pay or not changes nothing. but this applies more to a universal health care system, which this bill does not institute. single-payer, uk/canadian style seems to be the only alternative on the table--again the french system is better, more effective and would be a far more likely and simple model to consider instituting from the position this bill will bring the united states to. but anyway, that's another matter
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|