If we get something like universal health care, should we be given stipulations...?

[ecstatic]

Like no smoking and/or mandatory exercise of some kind (to reduce costs)?

[robinlynne]

1. If you determine that I can't smoke, then you better make sure nobody eats sugar or fat

which cause diabetes and heart attacks....

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. It should be universal healthcare not nanny-care.

[ecstatic]

4. I know but our collective health is declining

every year. Should we just ignore that or try to get the nation as a whole more healthy? :shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. True, but having requirements is a slippery slope. I don't want to be fitted with

a microchip under my skin that will zap me if I don't walk enough a steps a day. :P

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Even asking something like this is a surefire way to get the bill killed. (nt)

[kiva]

13. Agreed. If we want this to fail,

the best way is to help is to include these sort of provisions. Other countries encourage changes in behavior, often through sin taxs and the like, but they do NOT link the availability of health care to personal behavior, and we shouldn't even consider it.

edit for spelling

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. They should emphasize preventive care.

And encouraging smokers to quit and drinkers to quit.

[ToolTex]

10. .. and the use of contraception.

[Dumak]

7. I said "Maybe"

I'd have to hear more than just knee-jerk responses to make up my mind, and "stipulations" sounds like a pretty general/generic description.

[cynatnite]

8. nope. n/t

[Cerridwen]

9. I'll take HR 676 as written. Thanks. n/t

[leftstreet]

11. We need a national push to fortify beer with vitamins and iron!

:bounce:

[ToolTex]

12. .. indeed!

[ToolTex]

14. .. and fiber for good bowel function.

[guitar man]

15. No

I mean, how far would we eventually take it. No bungee jumping, no snowboarding, no motorcycle riding, rock climbing etc. etc.? There must be thousands of activities that could be construed as hazardous to your health. I don't think we should even start down that path.

[bluethruandthru]

16. Absolutely not!

Watch Sicko. Doctors in the UK (I think it's the UK) are given monetary incentives to get and keep their patients healthy. They get bonuses when a patient's cholesterol is lowered..if the patient gets to a healthy weight, stops smoking, etc. With universal, single payer everyone would be able to get preventive care which would greatly reduce some of the problems with American's health that we see today.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. If it stays private you will get them

It already costs more to insure smokers. Has been proposed in South Carolina Legislature and perhaps elsewhere to charge more ofr overweight/obese.

[baldguy]

18. "Universal" means "universal".

[damntexdem]

21. Uh oh, then -- here come those illegal aliens in their UFOs.

"Take as to your healer."

;-)

[baldguy]

22. If they're working here, paying taxes, contributing to OUR economy - yes.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Bloody hell no, and don't give the British government ideas!

Universal means universal, not 'just for the deserving'. Preventive health behaviour should be encouraged, but threats should not be used. Also in many cases, there will be so many exceptional cases (e.g. those who cannot exercise due to pre-existing physical illnesses or disabilities) that either the rules would become meaningless, or result in great harshness and injustice. It's also not clear that living healthily (though desirable in itself) would reduce costs in the long run: the biggest cost to a national health care system is the care of the elderly, and healthy living increases your chance of becoming elderly!

[damntexdem]

20. No, but we should be given health advisories and education.

About good nutrition as well as physical activity and not smoking.