3 ms·

I think the fundamental personal issue in this country is that nobody wants to be told exactly what their government-mandated health regimen should be, or have

I think the fundamental personal issue in this country is that nobody wants to be told exactly what their government-mandated health regimen should be, or have the government decide which procedures they'll be allowed to have for their condition. That ultimately means that they're locked into what their insurance company mandated health regimen should be. But at least they can sort of choose their insurer, or no insurer (which is usually 10-100 times cheaper on the total medical bill).

vorpalhex 8y ago
When the government is responsible for your healthcare, and also has a fiduciary duty to it's taxpayers, then the government has a further responsibility to restrict what you can eat, drink and do (not just safe or unsafe, but to penalize snack foods and restrict sports that have a higher risk of injury.) All of a sudden, my choice to say, engage in martial arts or boxing, goes from a personal decision (Do I want to do this? Do I have the money for the gear? Is this in my risk comfort zone?) to a decision involving the government (is this behavior too risky for the general pool of insured people?) Healthcare is not free. Healthcare research and technology is in fact, extremely expensive. Somebody is paying - whether that's the individual via an insurance pool or the government through taxpayers. Does the person paying your bill have your same prerogatives in mind?
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  Please provide an example of a country with socialized/universal healthcare that prevents one from performing martial arts.
- tom_ 8y ago
  You can tell, based on what we are badgered about in the UK at least, what stuff is presumably expensive to treat: drinking-related stuff (health effects, violence, general misadventure), smoking (esp. tobacco), eating shit food and not doing any exercise, driving too fast or carelessly and getting into an accident (see also: drinking). I've never seen anything about martial arts, or indeed about sports in general. I'm sure it costs more than £0/year to treat the resulting injuries, just not enough more to make it worth worrying about by comparison.

vorpalhex 8y ago

When the government is responsible for your healthcare, and also has a fiduciary duty to it's taxpayers, then the government has a further responsibility to restrict what you can eat, drink and do (not just safe or unsafe, but to penalize snack foods and restrict sports that have a higher risk of injury.) All of a sudden, my choice to say, engage in martial arts or boxing, goes from a personal decision (Do I want to do this? Do I have the money for the gear? Is this in my risk comfort zone?) to a decision involving the government (is this behavior too risky for the general pool of insured people?) Healthcare is not free. Healthcare research and technology is in fact, extremely expensive. Somebody is paying - whether that's the individual via an insurance pool or the government through taxpayers. Does the person paying your bill have your same prerogatives in mind?

24gttghh 8y ago
Please provide an example of a country with socialized/universal healthcare that prevents one from performing martial arts.
tom_ 8y ago
You can tell, based on what we are badgered about in the UK at least, what stuff is presumably expensive to treat: drinking-related stuff (health effects, violence, general misadventure), smoking (esp. tobacco), eating shit food and not doing any exercise, driving too fast or carelessly and getting into an accident (see also: drinking). I've never seen anything about martial arts, or indeed about sports in general. I'm sure it costs more than £0/year to treat the resulting injuries, just not enough more to make it worth worrying about by comparison.