Irrespective of whether others would make the same choices, we should be free to live our lives as we choose provided we do not harm anyone else.
But the people making bad lifestyle choices e.g. eating and drinking unhealthily, that lead to lifestyle diseases burden the health system and compromise the quality of care to those that are no…
Irrespective of whether others would make the same choices, we should be free to live our lives as we choose provided we do not harm anyone else.
But the people making bad lifestyle choices e.g. eating and drinking unhealthily, that lead to lifestyle diseases burden the health system and compromise the quality of care to those that are not making bad choices. If people want to benefit from the care of others via the State then why should not the Nanny State try and limit/prevent those bad choices. Is this dilemma analogous to a family imposing controls on Children and other members whose actions will have impacts on other family members?
Irrespective of whether others would make the same choices, we should be free to live our lives as we choose provided we do not harm anyone else.
But the people making bad lifestyle choices e.g. eating and drinking unhealthily, that lead to lifestyle diseases burden the health system and compromise the quality of care to those that are not making bad choices. If people want to benefit from the care of others via the State then why should not the Nanny State try and limit/prevent those bad choices. Is this dilemma analogous to a family imposing controls on Children and other members whose actions will have impacts on other family members?
This is a common response - if your choices cost me money due to socialised health care, why can't I exercise control over those choices?
The answer is to either modify or abolish socialised health care, so we each pay for our own choices.