>If you think the government should provide free health care,
>Shouldn't the government then also get to decide what you eat,
>And shouldn't the government also get to force you to exercise daily.
>
>What percentage of healthcare issues are caused by an individual's choices? 75%? 90%?
>
>If you want the freedom to smoke and eat like shit and never exercise why should tax payers pick up the healthcare tab for your choices?
>
>At the same time, what happens to those people who have health-related problems that are not a result of their choices? Shouldn't they be able to get help? Where do you draw the line?
>
>Why does American healthcare continue to treat the symptoms rather than the source of the problem? How many obese people are on countless medications (high blood pressure, high this, high that) when the root of all their health issues is weight, diet, and exercise? Why aren't they prescribed a gym membership and fresh veggies. Why should taxpayers have to pay for their medicines while they spend their money on crappy food and $150/month cable T.V. packages and $100/month iPhone plans?
>
>If you smoke your whole life and get lung cancer why should taxpayers pay your very, very expensive treatment?
>
>If we're not going to force everyone to buy health insurance then don't we have to accept that people will die because they can't afford the treatment that will save them, no matter the cost (cheap or not)? Are we willing to go there? Doesn't that seem draconian?
>
>This is an open-ended diatribe. I have no answers. I am curious of others' opinions though.

Health problems and associated costs due to poor lifestyle choices are, morally, difficult to justify. The trouble, of course, is politicians.

Suppose a visionary politician (call him John F. Luther Lincoln, or JFLL for short) appears on the scene and promises to tie a significant chunk of health care premiums (or personal taxes) to lifestyle choices and history. Some young, healthy voters will applaud that move. Some other young, healthy voters have Granny Fanny living with them, who's been sucking on cancer sticks for 50 years; they're not so sure. Bear in mind Granny Fanny herself is still an enthusiastic voter, and she's not keen on the idea at all.

JFLL's opponent in the primary is lawyer Nannette Meant (maiden name Tytel, she prefers to be called N. Tytel-Meant or NTM). She promises equal health care for all, for one low, low price. Sure, there are some fuddy-duddies called "actuaries" who say her price is too low, but they're just guessing. Besides, even if they're right, price increases are years away.

NTM scores the most lopsided victory ever seen in that state's primary. Voters vote in their perceived best interests, and, as always, get exactly the leadership they deserve.

So really, it's not just politicians to blame, it's also the short-sighted and self-interested people who vote for them. But we blame the politicians, because they're supposed to show leadership. In a perfect world leaders would present ideas that will sustainably benefit everyone. Too often, we get populist flim-flammery designed to give voters a sugar rush.

**************

On an unrelated note, it's worth pointing out a large percentage of health care costs are incurred in the last years of a person's life. So, you could say they're caused by old age. Unhappily, the alternatives to old age are not very palatable :-/