Thursday, January 26, 2006

Their hate of freedom is getting more obvious

The pointy-headed elites at the Star & Sickle have fired the latest salvo in the Government-should-regulate-every-aspect-of-your-life-except-abortion-battle and they are looking to Blue Cross to lead the way.

I’m going to take this one part by freedom-threatening part:

Editorial: Better lifestyles can reduce health costs
Blue Cross launches "Prevention Minnesota."


I love the “no shit Sherlock” headline. State the obvious, but ignore their conclusion: …And government should force us to live “better lifestyles”

Mark Banks has made Minnesota an offer it shouldn't refuse: lower future health care costs in exchange for committing to a healthier lifestyle. Less smoking, more exercise, better community design, better diet -- that's the deal.


More “no shit” from the elites with a bit of foreshadowing of how involved government should be – “better community design” – but it won’t stop there.

Banks, the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, announced Monday that his company would invest its remaining share of the historic 1994 tobacco settlement -- $241 million -- in preventing diseases caused largely by lifestyle choices. If Minnesotans could just cut their smoking by half, double their exercise, build walkable communities and substitute fruits and vegetables for half of the junk food they eat, then health care costs would decline by $1.5 billion a year, Banks said.

Isn’t that the same $214 million that BC/BS said their policy holders overpaid because of “big tobacco?” The same $214 million they refused to give back to the policy holders who overpaid? Now this charlatan is telling me that he has a way to reduce health care costs by $1.5 billion annually? What he’s not saying is that we will never realize that savings, that it will go directly to the bottom line of his non-profit company.

What sounds so reasonable, however, will require huge doses of personal responsibility and public policy changes.

There it is. Personal responsibility and, because we can’t trust you yahoos to live properly, we need the force of government to make sure you show up at the town square every morning for calisthenics and a 5K run.

People must begin to see their behavior as damaging not only to themselves but to the wider society.

The great rationale for all things increasing government control – your actions, you selfish pigs, damage yourself and “wider society.”

Everyone ends up paying for obesity and the diseases it spawns.

So charge the lard-asses what they owe and leave me out of it.

Everyone ends up paying for the smoking habits of a few.

Again, send them an invoice and leave me alone.

The "right" to indulge in unhealthy behavior is not absolute.

Eat me (that would be unhealthy)! Show me where government has a “right” to regulate how much unhealthy behavior I indulge in. Take a look at the Constitution and show me where what I eat is covered.

Public policy should, at the very least, find ways to reward healthy behavior.

I’ve already figured that out: LEAVE ME ALONE.

A statewide smoking ban in most bars and restaurants would be a good start.

Only a good start? What’s next, smoking bans in our homes, rationing of alcohol so people don’t drink too much. Why don’t we just prohibit the sale, possession and use of tobacco and alcohol? Let’s also ban deep fried foods while we’re at it.

Far higher investments in public transit would help wean people from excessive dependence on driving for every trip.

What? If I’m in the car, on the bus, or riding the train I’m sitting on my ass. So what the hell does public transit have to do with anything? Let’s just ban cars from the roads. We can turn all the roads into walking and bike trails. Will that satisfy your desire to run my life?

Land-use incentives would help communities design walking into people's daily lives.
Communities without sidewalks, parks, neighborhood stores or transit options are not healthy communities.

What a crock of shit this one is. Who makes this crap up? This group of elitist snobs actually advocates that government “design walking into people’s daily lives?” How do we do that? Let’s start by confiscating all the drivers’ licenses.

Schools that promote soft drinks and high-fat, high-sugar menus in their lunch programs are not healthy schools. Governments that tolerate and perpetuate poverty and hopelessness are not healthy governments.

Holy hell. What kind of illegal drugs are these brain-dead morons ingesting? If these assholes want to see an unhealthy government they need look no farther than their friend and comrade Fidel Castro’s Cuba.

Indeed, as the New York Times made so clear in its recent series on Type 2 Diabetes, poverty is a huge driver of disease, caused both by poor people's self-destructive lifestyles and by the market economy's eagerness to provide unhealthy products.

Remember way back at the beginning, when we started wading into this bucket of moonbat vomit, they mentioned – in passing – personal responsibility. Since that one mention all they’ve done is ask government to step in solve the problem.

In a wider sense, the biggest enemy may be people's perceptions -- regardless of income -- that they lack the time in daily life for exercise and a proper diet.

Finally, a shot at the way people choose to live their lives. Maybe I misjudged the pointy-headed ones.

The fast food and tobacco industries play off people’s busy lifestyles. And politicians – increasingly so in Minnesota – emphasize the individual’s right to unhealthy behavior over the wider costs to society.

So much for misjudging. Let’s blame tobacco and fast food. Neither of which people are forced to consume. And damn the politicians who put the rights of the individual first. Screw the unhealthy behavior qualification; these jerks want government to play a much bigger role in regulating every aspect of our lives (except abortion). Let’s rewrite the sentence this way and see how it plays: “And politicians emphasize the individual’s right to engage in offensive speech over wider society’s right to not be offended.” This is where hate speech ordinances come from.
Smugness is another enemy. We Minnesotans love to congratulate ourselves for our middling-to-high ranking on many health indicators. But Banks asks the relevant question: “What if Minnesotans were healthier?”

What if we were healthier? That would be great, but it aint the job of government to force it on us!!

We still have rights! And, God willing, freedom-hating jackasses like you will not change that.

Isn't there just one Lefty out there who feels more than a bit concerned by this? Surely one of you must be uncomfortable by what the S&S PHE's are recommending.

If you are out there, please show yourself. I promise we will take you in and protect you from the vile hatred that will be thrown at you.

No comments: