Why Universal Health-care Should Be Opposed by Fat Activists

I’ve been thinking about this for a while, ever since a my short post on why universal healthcare is not automatically fat-friendly.

I’ve often been confused by what I see as hypocrisy in those who are proponents of both sovereignty of body (i.e. – our bodies, our choices) and universal healthcare, which places the care of, and ultimately the control of, our bodies  into the hands of the state.

Many of the proponents argue that they’d rather have the state, an objective third-party with no profit motive, have control over their healthcare than the profit-motivated private sector.

However, I must take issue with that sentiment. The state is not an objective third party with no profit motive.

First off, the state’s decisions are not objective – they are made by regulators, who are often appointed by politicians, or hired by a committee headed by politicians. The main goal of all politicians, regardless of what they might say to get elected, is power. This is a good and bad thing, of course. We want the good politicians with our interests at heart to have more power than the bad politicians who oppose our interests.

Politicians are not specialized or disinterested third parties. They are not hired based on merit, with respect to the issues they espouse: they are elected by a body of non-specialists. And, as we know, even specialists can be biased and motivated to skew truth to attain personal or institutional goals, so even electing specialists wouldn’t guarantee us diddly squat.

As such, the individuals appointed to regulate healthcare and hence our bodies will be appointed ultimately by politicians. More likely politicians will “contract out” appointments to whatever healthcare organization lobbies the hardest, or has the most friends amongst the Washington elite.

When it comes down to it, the people who have the power to control your body, and by extension your behavior, will be those who crave the greatest power they can get, and will appeal to the electoral body and the misconceptions and fears of that electoral body for healthcare decisions about your body.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not very keen on the electoral body telling me what I can/cannot eat, how much and in what way I should exercise, what medications I should take, and how I should govern the health and safety of my children.

The electoral majority currently believes that I am fat because I eat too much and exercise too little. They believe that diabetes and even certain cancers can be prevented or cured by weight loss surgery such as gastric bypass or a lap-band implant.

They believe there are “good” and “bad” foods imbued with the magical power of health or illness. They believe that processed foods make you fat, and organic, locally-grown foods would keep you generally thinner.

They believe that shunning, chastising, or mocking fat people because of their weight is for our own good. They believe that hanging around fatter people can make you fat, too.

The electoral majority believes that fat adults are stupid, lazy, and lack the power of will. They believe that naturally thinner people are lucky, and that unnaturally thinner people are heroic. “Have you lost weight?” is considered one of the highest forms of praise.

The electoral majority believes that fat children are being mistreated by their stupid, lazy, ignorant parents, especially if those parents are themselves fat (and many parents of fat parents are fat, though of course not all). The electoral majority believes there is a childhood obesity “epidemic,” and that children will begin to have the heart attacks and strokes traditionally enjoyed by 50-somethings with a family history of heart disease.

The electoral majority believes that if you feed children the “right” foods, these days a low-fat, low-calorie, low-carb diet usually only prescribed to people with heart-disease — it will make the children not only permanently thin, but it will prevent heart-disease, strokes, diabetes, and certain cancers, without reference to variable family histories.

The electoral majority believes that the greatest risk factors for heart disease, strokes, certain cancers, and diabetes is fat, and that fatness is the greatest predictor of future or current ill-health. It very clearly isn’t, and even the biggest crackpot medical doctor will admit, when pressed, that fatness is a lesser risk factor than several other factors, with family history at the top of that list.

The electoral majority fears and loathes fat so much, that they refuse to use their common sense, even in the face of overwhelming counterexamples to their misconceptions, like given in the above paragraph.

The electoral majority doesn’t know what certain BMIs look like, or even what “obese” looks like. Their mental images are usually supplied by nightly news scare-footage of individuals who nearly always have the highest BMIs, who are in fact a small percentage of those who are actually technically “obese.”

I don’t know about you, but I do not want decisions made about my body, my behavior, and the bodies and behavior of my family being made by these people.

The idea that there will be some objective institution — some university or government institution perhaps that magically doesn’t have conflict-of-interest funding and their own political interests at heart — which will make objective, rigorously scientific decisions about care guidelines is a myth. I challenge you to give me an example, from any of the world’s universal healthcare governments, of a guideline-issuing body that is scientifically objective and not controlled/funded/influenced by other interests with their own agendas (whether profit or power).

Some people say that healthcare is or should be a right. Well, you can’t successfully institute a right that trounces other rights. The “right” to healthcare is the right of the government to healthcontrol.

That trounces on my personal liberty, the most important part of which is the right of body privacy. You cannot enter, not even with a warrant. The body is off-limits.

Universal healthcare is healthcontrol. It is not, especially in this current climate, a friend to fat people. It will only serve the interests of the electoral majority, who at this time fear and loathe fat, blame fat people for everything from rising fuel costs, to rising healthcare costs, to global warming.

Do you want these people to have control over your body and your health decisions? Do you want these people to have control over what premiums you pay, and what care you are allowed to receive? Do you want these people to have control over the body-monitoring of children in schools and doctor’s offices? Do you, do you really?

I am specifically not talking about relative costs in this article. There are many more eloquent than I who have made the argument that free-market healthcare is vastly more affordable, efficient, and equitable than universal healthcare. And if you think what America currently enjoys is free-market healthcare, you are sadly mistaken. My personal premium in Massachusetts is four times the amount it is in some other states, though I’m receiving the same care. Healthcare premiums are directly proportional to the amount of regulations on healthcare from state to state. (see WSJ.com — it’s in the archives for this week).

For those who believe that universal healthcare will ensure everyone is safe and healthy while under our current system some people are left out in the cold, let me ask you this: why would the complete regulation of healthcare make it more affordable person-to-person, while the evidence shows that regulation only makes premiums more expensive?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to pare down regulations on healthcare so that people in states like mine who can’t afford a $300/mo individual premium, but who can afford a $100/mo premium, would gain the ability to purchase healthcare? How many people would are currently uninsured, would then choose to be on the rolls?

Additionally, without having to pay abnormally high premiums on every individual insured under universal healthcare, the government would have more money in its coffers to offer an affordable plan to the impoverished citizens of our country. Our taxes would remain low, and fewer and fewer people would remain uninsured. We’d never get 100% of citizens insured, which is as it should be — individuals should have the option to opt out of insurance for whatever reason they choose, even if they can afford it.

But even disregarding the economic argument above — even assuming that somehow universal healthcare is the boon many make it out to be — we again face the problems of the electoral majority and healthcontrol.

Taxes will necessarily be raised in order to pay for universal healthcare. All the people who currently do not have policies will need to be subsidized. People who currently own more expensive policies and use more medical resources than others will need to be subsidized by those who use fewer resources. Institutions will have to be created to regulate healthcare, state hospitals will be built, employees and maintenance and so forth will be hired.

Given also that greater regulation means more paperwork which means hiring more people and building buildings to house those people and so forth, individual premiums will certainly be more expensive, on average, than they are now, under universal healthcare.

In short, there is no way that the current average individual premium could possibly go down under universal healthcare. It will only go up.

How is this efficient? Same quality of care for more money? Who’s paying? The taxpayers. Who will get angry when their taxes go up, and look for someone to blame, some group of people who are “more expensive” members of the healthcare community, those who have, unlike older people (who are always going to be more expensive), brought their ill health “upon themselves”?

This argument is already being rehearsed.

Nearly everywhere you hear — even in America — people claiming that fat people are making the country’s healthcare premiums go way up. People are angry that they are being made to pay for weight loss surgery (I agree with them. I do not want to pay for someone else’s weight loss surgery). They blame heart disease, certain cancers, strokes, and diabetes largely on fat, so when they hear about how expensive it is to treat these conditions, who do you think they’re going to blame?

Taxpayers—the electoral majority—who hold all the misconceptions I listed above (obviously there are some exceptions, like those in the FA community), are going to believe that fat people are costing them money, through their irresponsible, ignorant, lazy behavior. Do you see where this is going? Do we see how it has gone in some other countries, even states in our own union, who want to make fat people pay more for healthcare, or be denied health services with no option to turn anywhere else, just because they are fat?

We are very lucky to currently be able to state, “My fat is none of your business,” when encountering fat hatred, or “My fat has nothing to do with you. I’m not hurting anyone.”

Under universal healthcare, we will no longer have that freedom.

Under universal healthcare, they will believe that our fat is indeed their business, because it is costing them money. They will believe it has everything to do with them, and that it does indeed hurt them and their desired lifestyle. They will believe that they couldn’t afford to send their kids to private school because of fat people. They will believe that the government couldn’t afford to send the proper equipment to the troops because of fat people. And so on, and so forth.

Do you understand? Do you get what I’m trying so desperately to convey?

The only way we can fight our fight and win is to retain our sovereignty over our own body. Once our body becomes common property, the misconceptions about fat will turn fat people into easy scapegoats, and will institutionalize fat hatred. We will no longer be able to say, “Hands off!” We shall be immensely less free, and will become institutionalized second-class citizens. And brother, whatever you say about our practical second-class citizenship currently, it is peanuts compared to what we’d suffer as institutionalized second-class citizens.

Universal healthcare should be opposed by fat activists.

Fat Americans, universal healthcare is not your friend. Regardless of how you believe the current heavily regulated market economy healthcare is broken, at the end of the day, we still have sovereignty over our own bodies. We can opt out of discriminating plans, we can choose to pay more, some plans still do not discriminate against fat, and, above all, nobody else can honestly claim the right to dictate our health or our choices to us.

Human rights cannot contradict each other. Beware of anything people claim to be a right which does.

By adopting universal healthcare so we can redistribute income in the direction of the poor, we will put the currently uninsured 15% on the rolls, but we will lose something much, much more important: The fundamental right to govern our own bodies.

About these ads

13 comments on “Why Universal Health-care Should Be Opposed by Fat Activists

  1. limor477 says:

    Your analysis and arguments are, of course, completely accurate and correct. However, I feel like arguing this topic is beating a dead horse. People who want universal health care (i.e. socialized medicine in a pretty package) are so deep in the BS of it, that they can’t even see what they’ve stepped in.

  2. vesta44 says:

    AMEN!!! And one of the things that scares the hell out of me about universal health care is what will happen to me when all of their fucking interventions fail and don’t make me thin? I’ve already had WLS that failed spectacularly. Are they going to totally cut out my digestive system and make me be on IV feedings for the rest of my life so they can be assured that I’m not lying and sitting on my ass stuffing my face 24/7? Because I can see that happening under their managed health care/disease prevention, and I’m sorry, that’s a quality of life I don’t want or need. I’m perfectly happy the way I am, thank you very much (and the government and anyone who thinks this is a good idea because OMGTEHFATZ is so deadly, well, they can all kiss my fat ass).

  3. Tiana says:

    I can see now that I only had trouble understanding this because I live in a different country. Our system is definitely not perfect by any means (and it’s not strictly universal healthcare either, it’s complicated), but so far they’re just not doing any of that over here. I fear that it won’t be long until they start, however …

  4. anniemcphee says:

    Excellent, excellent post.

    “I’ve often been confused by what I see as hypocrisy in those who are proponents of both sovereignty of body (i.e. – our bodies, our choices) and universal healthcare, which places the care of, and ultimately the control of, our bodies into the hands of the state.”

    I think sometimes it’s hypocrisy and sometimes it’s more like cognitive dissonance. Some people just do not understand.

    “The idea that there will be some objective institution — some university or government institution perhaps that magically doesn’t have conflict-of-interest funding and their own political interests at heart — which will make objective, rigorously scientific decisions about care guidelines is a myth.”

    The myth of an objective institution is a hard one to fight. People often think because something is “non-profit, non-partisan” that eliminates bias, biased motivations, stupidity and falsehood. It doesn’t. Not in journalism, not in entitlements, not in nothing. (They generally reject the alternative media and rely on the MSM as being unbiased, which is really quite a joke.)

    Hmm – and where last time you posted I was feeling there was no hope, no hope at all – I’m feeling a little more hopeful. Not 100% but a little. Enough to stir my blood just a bit :)

  5. BigLiberty says:

    Limor,

    I understand where you’re coming from completely. I mostly wanted to get this all down, rally a few folks, and then have a great resource to link to. ;)

    Vesta,

    And one of the things that scares the hell out of me about universal health care is what will happen to me when all of their fucking interventions fail and don’t make me thin?

    And that’s the thing. The politicians and institutions in charge of the health “guidelines” you would be required to adhere to don’t answer to objective science, they answer to votes, which ensure they get funding for the next year. Which means they’re all about power, muscle, and capitalizing on the fear and loathing of the body politic. Not something that seems very appealing to me.

    Tiana,

    Yes, I understand the mixed economy thing. We’re not completely free-market — far from it. I think it’s understood in any system that there needs to be *some* competition in order to keep prices reasonable and quality fair, but then you get people who want to have their cake and eat it, too — those who want the high revenue and high quality aspects of the free-market while keeping their hands heavy on the wheel at the same time. You can’t have both: eventually, the car and driver will part company and things will go kablam. ;)

    Annie,

    Glad you liked the post! I’m sorry you were losing hope…before Palin spoke, I was seriously bitter, convinced I was just going to write in the late Harry Browne and be done. But I like her. I like her a lot. ;)

  6. The current system is not fat friendly, the proposed UHC system [in your opinion] is not fat friendly – so what system would be?

    As far as I can tell it always comes down to the doctors one sees. If the doctor you see believes the lies and inaccuracies portrayed in the media he is going to be a poor doctor for a fat person [or anyone else frankly!] regardless of who pays him.

    Personally, my experience in the UK under the UHC of the NHS has been wonderful. I fell ill with my autoimmune condition at roughly the same time as my sister was diagnosed with two autoimmune conditions and two torn discs in her back in the US. She has to pay for all of her specialised care out of pocket because her insurance doesn’t cover the treatment. She has access to one pain clinic for her disease and the doctor there refused to give her enough medication because he decided she must be a drug addict because she has a few tattoos.

    In the NHS if a doctor did that to me, I could follow the chain of command and lodge a complaint. All of this would be free and I would get a response. When my sister has a complaint she had no one to go to, best she could do would be to sue, but since she has spent all of her money on her health care she doesn’t have any left over for a lawyer.

    I think we disagree fundamentally on a few political issues, but I would like to try and understand the points you’re making. I honestly cannot see a UHC system being a bad thing – especially for all those people who earn enough money to not qualify for aid but not enough to actually pay for the care they need.

  7. welshwmn3 says:

    “Do you want these people to have control over your body and your health decisions? ”

    They already do have control over every body and every one’s health decisions.

    I used to work for the ‘evil health insurance company’, and I can tell you horror stories that will enrage you about what the insurance company allowed and didn’t allow, and how that effected the subscribers. One afternoon in specific still makes me bleed for the woman. She had WLS, covered by the insurance for ‘medical reasons’ and had lost a lot of weight. However, her skin never did shrink up, and the insurance was denying coverage of the surgery needed to take off the extra skin, because it was ‘cosmetic’.

    “They” are also controlling what health care a person can have if a person is too poor to get insurance, or in a part time job and isn’t offered insurance. Many people are faced with going to a hospital as their only option. That “option” gives us emergency rooms that are cluttered up with people who have the flu and just need some relief, or worse yet, a doctor’s note stating that they are sick and can’t go to work for x amount of days.

    That “option” also lacks when you have a serious problem that cannot be handled as an emergency. If you bang up your knee, for example, so badly you can’t walk, all going to the emergency room will do for you is get you a brace, some narcotic pain meds, and a list of names to go see a surgeon. If you have no insurance, no orthopeadic surgeon will even see you. Not that you could afford to walk in their waiting room, either.

    No, socialized medicine isn’t the best way to go. But with millions of people uninsured due to the way the country is right now, something has to happen.

    Yes, I was one of those millions of people for a long time. Even after I married my husband (who had *his* insurance paid for by the city he was working for at that time) we could not afford to put me on his insurance with a premium of $300 per month. I didn’t go to the doctor. If I was dying, I went to the emergency room. And when I banged up my knee so bad, I knew what the procedure was going to be, so I suffered for years, in pain, and not able to do anything about it. Not until we moved and he got a different job that gave affordable premiums (although the actual coverage wasn’t very good).

    There’s a solution that doesn’t include what you are predicting, yet helps the people who can’t afford insurance as well. Unfortunately, I don’t think the people who *can* think of a good solution and impliment it are going to.

  8. I’ve been thinking about this more and I thought of one more point: you’re healthy.

    If one is healthy the current system is acceptable, if you’re not healthy a UHC system becomes very attractive.

    At my peak, I had three doctor’s appointments each week. If I lived in the US I would have had to pay $20 co-pay per visit or $240 per month on top of the $200-$500 per month I would have been paying to have insurance in the first place.

    I should say that these were not typical GP visits, but specialists so they probably would have been more than $20.

    My illness [Wegener's Granulomatosis] caused me to lose my hearing as well. So now I have hearing aids and I’m disabled. I got all my hearing tests, my hearing aids and a lot of support thanks to the NHS – all for free.

    I would give anything for my sister to have access to these same terms. She is suffering in her lower-middle class level because her husband earns just enough to keep them from qualifying for help.

    Being ill is expensive. I think that if people were angry about increased taxes they would go after cancer patients, AIDS patients, anyone with chronic conditions long before they’d go after fat people.

  9. BigLiberty says:

    ezekiel,

    I’m sorry for your illness, and I’m glad you are getting the care you need. :)

    All health plans in America are not equal. My plan has 100% preventative care reimbursements, so no co-pays to the Dr’s. I also have a $1000 deductible, which means that after $1000 per year, pretty much everything else on top of preventative care is taken care of at either a 100% or 90% rate, depending. This is one of the cheapest private plans — lots of plans have a $500 deductible, and many have no deductible at all.

    Since I’m healthy, in fact, my plan is not that great for me. Any blood tests I get I have to pay for myself, because I will have no reason to max out that deductible. But if I were ill, I’d be paying basically $1000 a year for the management of my illness, which isn’t so bad, considering out-of-pocket could be tens- or even hundreds- of thousands of dollars.

    There are also individuals who have sadly not had a great experience under universal healthcare. Both patients and doctors.

    But again, i stress that the current US healthcare model is *not* free market in the technical sense. It is heavily regulated, so much so that I’d call it about halfway between deregulated care and public care. And we’re going in the direction of more public care.

    welshwmn, I respectfully ask you to re-read my original post. In it, I observe that we do not have a totally deregulated health care system in the states, and I did not say that private healthcare companies cover everyone, or that they cover low-income individuals at a cost to themselves. However, I did say that people had a choice between changing plans or, at the very least, opting out of health insurance. Low-income individuals also have federally- and state-funded care options. Many companies have pared-down options for people who aren’t employed, but can’t afford a full-out plan.

    Healthcare companies can not force an individual to buy their plan. Your assertion that they can is false. Healthcare companies do not own individuals through their health any more than the banks own an individual through their mortgages on their homes.

    The idea that corporations are mini totalitarian governments is false and alarmist. Just ask anyone who’s actually lived under a totalitarian regime.

    When it comes to low-income or lower middle-income individuals having access to healthcare in the United States, I made the observation that it was largely government regulation that was keeping many people off the rolls. If, for instance, Massachusetts did not regulate healthcare as heavily as, say, Tennessee, I would be able to switch from a plan I consider to be too-expensive to a private plan that is more affordable. I’m paying for a $75/mo plan with a $1000 deductible on everything that isn’t a twice-yearly checkup. That means, if I were ill, I’d be paying about $150/mo. And this is THROUGH my employer. In some states, there are private plans for individuals that cost less than that per month!

    But in Massachusetts, it’s illegal for me to even OPT OUT of insurance if I want to. I’m being “taxed” an extra $75/mo for basically nothing. I’d rather have no health insurance at all until I get married. But no, I do not have that option.

    And no, “But what if you got sick?” isn’t going to trump my belief that someone should be able to opt out of insurance if they want to. I’m an adult, I don’t need a nanny to tell me that it might be expensive if I get sick. I’m fully aware of that, and I’m still willing to take my chances. If I do get sick, then I will pay the price.

  10. welshwmn3 says:

    BigLiberty: “All health plans in America are not equal. My plan has 100% preventative care reimbursements, so no co-pays to the Dr’s. I also have a $1000 deductible, which means that after $1000 per year, pretty much everything else on top of preventative care is taken care of at either a 100% or 90% rate, depending. This is one of the cheapest private plans — lots of plans have a $500 deductible, and many have no deductible at all.”

    And then there’s my husband’s most recent insurance: $1000 deductible, and the the insurance only paid 60% of anything, in network. Out of network was only 50%. Oh, and psychiatric visits were 12 LIFETIME visits. Sure, the insurance was ‘cheep’ (for us, free, for his company, cheep), but I can tell you, after having had surgery this past year, 60% isn’t a whole lot.

    Of course, that’s 60% of the in network billable amount (which is different than what doctors charge patients without insurance). If I’d had no insurance, I’d be in a wheelchair right now because if I couldn’t afford insurance, I couldn’t afford the expenses of the surgery on my own, and gee, my husband makes too much for us to go on Medicaid or any other government support like that.

    “However, I did say that people had a choice between changing plans or, at the very least, opting out of health insurance. Low-income individuals also have federally- and state-funded care options. Many companies have pared-down options for people who aren’t employed, but can’t afford a full-out plan. ”

    The INSURANCE companies might not be able to stop a person from opting out of a health insurance plan, but the employer sure CAN stop a person from opting out. For every employer I’ve ever worked for who offered insurance, I had to provide proof of other insurance to be able to opt out of the insurance coverage the employer provided. And switching to a private insurance company isn’t as easy as you make it sound. Once you opt out of your company’s insurance coverage, you become an individual, and have to proove you are insurable. Any pre-existing conditions (including being fat) can and will preclude you from being able to get insurance. Or you might be able to get insurance on your own, but with riders proscribing whatever your pre-existing conditions are AND at an exoribant rate for premiums.

    “Healthcare companies can not force an individual to buy their plan. Your assertion that they can is false. ”

    I in no place in my comment asserted that healthcare companies can force an individual to buy their plan. As you said to me, I respectfully ask that you re-read what I wrote.

    However, as you noted later in your response to me (and this I WILL state), while health insurance companies cannot force you to buy their plans, state law may be able to force you into it. Or, as I noted earlier in this response, your employer may require it.

    And yes, low income people do have a ‘fall back’ via state and federal government programs when they cannot afford healthcare. However, there are a LOT of people who make *just* above that level, who cannot afford insurance (and/or are not offered it from their company), and who cannot get onto the federal and state funded programs. There are way too many people out there who fall into that catagory. And for them, the only “option” available is the one I’ve already explained, going to the ER for things that would best be taken care of at a doctor’s office (but which they can’t afford), or worse, not getting any treatment at all because they know the ER won’t/can’t do anything for them, and they can’t do for themselves.

    That, in my opinion, having been in that situation for too long, is NO option.

    Like I said, there has to be a workable solution. I believe if enough people demand it, one can be found. But then, I’m an optimist like that.

    “The idea that corporations are mini totalitarian governments is false and alarmist.”

    Until you work for a company that makes opting out of their healthcare impossible. It’s not alarmist when it happens, and has been happening. Then, it’s life and you have to deal with it. Honestly, if I’d been given the chance by employers to opt out of insurance (for the employers who offered insurance), I’d never have taken that option. Like I said, I’ve been without insurance. And, healthy as a person may be, there are things that can happen. Like UTIs when it’s your first ever and you don’t know what the symptoms are to try and treat it yourself. Or accidents while hiking that bust your knee up and leave you in chronic pain that becomes more and more debilitating for 7 years until you get insurance and can finally afford to have it taken care of. Where if you had the insurance in the first place, you would have had it taken care of immediately and not had those 7 years of constant pain. But, then that’s just me.

    “But in Massachusetts, it’s illegal for me to even OPT OUT of insurance if I want to. I’m being “taxed” an extra $75/mo for basically nothing. I’d rather have no health insurance at all until I get married. But no, I do not have that option. ”

    But then, you understand about having to take insurance whether you want to or not due to living where you do, and the laws of your state as you relayed them here. Or, was implying your state was acting like a totalitarian institution alarmist?

  11. BigLiberty says:

    welshwmn,

    It’s obvious we’re cross-talking at each other. I still don’t see how what I brought up in my original post is false. I made the point up there that we do NOT have a deregulated system as it stands, and there are horror stories on both sides — but that, when it comes down to it, government-provided healthcare is not the answer for the reasons I stated above.

    So you don’t like that you can’t opt out of insurance through your employer (many employers have different requirements of being employed, and it’s not clear to me if this a requirement imposed upon them from the state or their own policy — regardless, you’re the one applying for the job at the end of the day, and you have the freedom to apply elsewhere)? How would it feel if the federal government were forcing you to provide proof of care, and you were going to be heavily fined or worse if you couldn’t provide it?

    As for me, you’re right, I could always just move out of MA. Which proves my point about the stupidity and inequality of these plans — that you see this kind of brain drain from smart, able citizens, the ones with mobility, as a result, and the ones who don’t have mobility become financially dependent on the state and then a burden.

    Massachusetts is already seeing a whopping bill for their HC plan, the plan they argued would “pay for itself” — and this plan mostly just requires you provide proof of insurance! I’d just love to see to see them go bankrupt over a plan that isn’t even “true” universal healthcare.

    UniHC is unsustainable, raises costs, and lowers freedoms. Whatever we have now is preferable.

  12. [...] 6. Why Universal Healthcare Should Be Opposed by Fat Activists [...]

  13. [...] Why Universal Healthcare Should Be Opposed By Fat Activists [...]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s