Denial of Medical Treatment due to Lifestyle Choices?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Dec 8, 2005.

  1. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000


    Jul 4, 2004
    Isn't the denial of personal rights what people used to hold against the government?

    At least here, it seemed to be the argument that was made.

    Why is it more acceptable that private entities should be able to come together to limit what people do with their lives. Healthy or not.

    Government can be changed via the popular vote, apparently the choice is lost when private entities are able to make the decision.

    Is that a loss of power voters are willing to accept?

    It probably won't stop at smoking. There are plenty of other high risk activities people like to participate in. Flying light aircraft may be an appropriate example for this group.

    Maybe even risky sports like Racquetball, knee injuries and all.

    Kinda makes me feel like my purpose in life is to provide for my employer, when they can start telling me how I should live it.

    When last I considered, I chose my profession based upon how it would be able to support my lifestyle (primary) and not on how it would be able to support the companies needs (secondary).

    Which is it to be? you live to work, or you work to live?

    I consider my enjoyment of my very limited life to be much more important.

    Is that wrong? what benefit is there to having a life when I have to give it to something other than what demands the majority of the little I am giving to enjoy during my time here.

    And to what end? to sell more of what that is so necessary for me to be able to enjoy what?

    I don't think that the balance point is very clearly defined anymore.

    Is there a balance point anymore?

    To what end are we doing what we are doing, and what really has to be done to achieve that end. The current model aside.

Share This Page