In countries with Socialized Medicine, should Government legislate what people eat?

So firefighters, safety inspectors, quarantine personnel, etc. are all burdens?

Bully for them, I don't agree with Obama's measures since they were too little too late.

The inflated defense budget is NOT essential, point of fact.

Pardon?

 

It does, but mathematically, lifestyle would have a greater effect overall when expanding the statistics to cover all people.

You would have to have a lot of people dying at a young age for life expectancy to be heavily affected by the homicide rate. While it is true that we have a lot more murder than many of our peers, it isn't that much.

Now, if you're talking about South Africa, that might be the case there.

 

Of course your key word was 'excessive'. That's quite a subjective adjective.

 

Why can we afford nationalized and socialized wars on abstractions such as our War on Drugs that has not worked in over thirty years, but not socialized medicine that could promote and provide for the general welfare and common defense of the United States?

If we can't afford to find cures to any disease that comes our way, why should we simply say no to drugs which may palliate such conditions?

 

Denmark is a rational country

 

It seems that the underlying point of this thread has been lost on some.

What is the logical basis for "socialized" medicine? Is it the idea that we as a society have a responsibility to our fellow man to ensure they have health care?

If you answer yes, you must then follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. That we have a responsibility to our fellow man to ensure that they are healthy. That would logically include regulating what they eat and do. If you subscribe to this ideology of "socialized" health care but are not willing to accept its logical conclusion please explain why.

 

Collectivism in a nutshell. I'm very surprised you don't support it.

 

Start calling it a Health Service and it changes the whole discussion. When talking with madmen there is no need to talk mad.

 

If people are willing to accept socialized healthcare, they should be more than willing to be told what to eat as well.

 

There are very few absolutes, and extremes are very seldom beneficial. To argue that if a society collectively provides some things which are essential to continued and viable existence, and which may not be easily obtained by means of private abilities and finances; it must similarly provide all other needs, irrespective of whether such needs are easily obtainable, is not entirely logical.

The forms of socialism which have, in the past, attempted to do this at the expense of personal freedoms, have failed, both economically and sociologically. The balance of free enterprise and forms of socialism, which are a characteristic of the most successful societies on earth, does not usually dictate every aspect of private life. It regulates the natural excesses of the corporate world for the benefit of the majority, and allows incentives to exist, but it neither prescribes nor proscribes every detail of private life.

This is as it should be, and to suggest that because society provides certain essential services not easily obtainable privately, it should communally provide every human need, simply does not make sense. It is an extreme position, and all extremes are undesirable.

 

Absolutely not.

But the government should charge a hefty premium for smokers, drinkers etc. just like private sector insurance companies.

Life the life you want, but you will pay for it

 

Because one is offering someone help, and the other one is forcing something on them.

 

Is it not also forcing someone to offer another help?

 

Not really. You mean because taxpayer money would be spent on socialized medicine?

 

I would think it's more like doctors being forced to submit to indentured servitude. If healthcare becomes a "right" then doctors services become common property and doctors lose their rights.

 

Yes, that is certainly part of it.

You are forcing healthcare on people as well. Socialized medicine at its core is the idea that you can force things upon people, why then do you stop at food or activity? Does not someones food choices and what activities they choose to do harm society as a whole? Is not the idea of socialized medicine to help society as a whole?

 

We don't seem to worry that much about soldiers, cops or firefighters. I'm sure doctors will be fine as long as they continue to be paid for their services, and as long as they can choose to stop being doctors, or go work for someone else. You're not forcing anyone to submit to anything -- in fact, in the practical reality, you're freeing a lot of people from submission.

 

Making something which is beneficial, accessable to everyone who wishes to avail themselves of it, is so far removed from forcing it upon people, as to make that concept risible. Nobody is forced to avail themselves of universal health care in any of the societies in which it operates. There are private options available, and there are those who choose that.

 

It may have been lost in our War on Drugs where the federal government is one of the largest purchasers of drugs; but where public policy decisions have been handed down in a manner similar to what you claim about health and food.

Denying and disparaging individual liberty is the same regardless.

 

In my opinion, we may be better off with a federal research hospital system with a campus in every State of the Union and the federal districts, with its own supercomputing array and redundant fiber optic network. It could be tasked with finding cures to any form of dis-ease that may afflict us. It could be complimentary with means tested welfare and ease that burden on the private sector.

 

In any kind of civilized society, we have a responsibility to each other. Yes.

What we can reasonably do is ensure that if they become ill or meet with an accident, they will receive treatment, and not be forced into bankruptcy or go without treatment because of their inability to raise what could be a large sum of money.

Government could penalise the consumption of unhealthy food by by taxing it, but education seems to be working well enough. Almost everyone seems to be aware of what they should be doing to maintain their health these days, even if they don't always succeed. We're only human, after all.

So, while it might seem that the logical conclusion would be to ban certain foods, or mandate certain lifestyles, it would not be practical to enforce these things.

Or perhaps you can see a future where armed police would invade your grandma’s kitchen to arrest her for making illicit cream cakes?

 

Er... no. Healthcare isn't a "slippery slope". No "socialised medicine" at it's core is not the idea that you can "force" things upon people. Unless you're talking about vaccinations? Anti-vaccination has got to be the most thoroughly stupid political movement ever.

For starters, Social health care isn't "forced" on anyone. No more than roads, law enforcement, education, etc, is "forced" on people. Many people have private health insurance and go to private hospitals. However every citizen has their healthcare subsidised by the govt. Private health care is also subsidized. Works kinda like the school system if you can follow that. You can also just not go to the doctor, pretty simple.

The govt gives people information, advice and options. That is why packaged food has the ingredients, energy, calories, etc listed on it. Also there are food handling and preparation standards and stuff like that.

Schools encourage exercise and good eating habits. School canteens tend to have healthy food, at least my high school did. Had some junk food too of course, but there's nothing really wrong with that. However there is a problem if it's only got junkfood.

I know that some schools grow their own vegetables and stuff with help from the kids and have lessons where they cook food with stuff they've grown. And they sell eggs and vegies left over to the parents on the cheap. Brilliant.

Govt gives guidelines on healthy eating and stuff like that. I'm sure if I could be bothered looking for it I would find govt webpage with diet advice and stuff. And certainly the govt gives advice about alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking.

In the case of cigarettes, our govt at least has a pretty clear stance that people should not smoke. But cigarettes will never be banned. But nothing like cigarettes will ever be legal again.

The taxation/theft argument is pretty stupid.

Since in the USA no hospital can refuse to treat anyone who turns up at an emergency ward. How do you not have socialised healthcare exactly?

 

Sure. Why not?

If people indulge in hazardous past-times that result in them being a burden on the health system, why not introduce controls?

Just not a ban. Taxes are the way to go. Alcohol and tobacco are already heavily taxed - several times over. In some countries, fruit and vegetables are exempt from consumption taxes in order to encourage healthy behaviour.

Add a health tax to dangerous foods. That way the freedom of the obese to get ever fatter is respected and they wind up paying for the health complications.

 

How can offering help be forcing somebody? They have the choice to accept or reject your help.

There is no law in any UHC country that I have ever heard of that insists that people must receive treatment that they do not want.

In this country, I have always had the choice to either use the Health Service or pay a private insurer. If I had chosen to go private, I would have received a tax rebate, effectively subsidising my premiums.

How have I been forced?

 

How can offering help be forcing somebody? They have the choice to accept or reject your help.

There is no law in any UHC country that I have ever heard of that insists that people must receive treatment that they do not want.

In this country, I have always had the choice to either use the Health Service or pay a private insurer. If I had chosen to go private, I would have received a tax rebate, effectively subsidising my premiums.

How have I been forced?