In countries with Socialized Medicine, should Government legislate what people eat?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13536479

They have also banned marmite...

What else could this be but a plot to discourage immigration form the UK and Antipodia?

 

They all do!
They are all funded by tax payers, which naturally gives them a direct monetary interest in your lifestyle, and a moral imperative for forcing you to live a lifestyle you may not choose to live; and it gives them the perfect excuse to enter your personal life at the deepest levels.

Do they act on that interest or take advantage of that excuse? Maybe not ... yet.

 

well actually ... I think the substance they want to ban is now licensed to kraft.

 

So one country which legislates what people eat? and forces them to exercise?

 

just as a matter of interest ... are there any stats on the number of people choosing to move to America because they disapprove of the health care they are receiving in these societies, and the restrictions on their lifestyle?

and why is it, BTW that cigarettes are often cheaper in european countries that have "socialised medicine" than they are in the US?

 

"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."

-- Margaret Thatcher

Socialism is great if you are willing to accept a much reduced standard of living and an oppressive central government who is always telling you what to do and how to live your life to the benefit of the state!

Cuba, North Korea and the old Soviet Union are three perfect examples!

 

Amazing how deeply Orwellian doublethink and newspeak have metastasized.

 

so where are these people desperate to leave these countries and get to th eUS?

is it these countries that all your immigrants are coming from?

 

You type this with not the first effort of erasing the ignorance you claim to see. What is incorrect in the OP? Should the gov't pick up the tab for every risky behavior a person decides to try, without consequence? I thought it's the government's job to protect the populace from themselves.

 

You don't read very thoroughly. No one said the legislation exists yet, only that the obligation and justification to legislate does.

 

Wow, what an interesting question !!!

I am against socialized medicine and banning of any foods. Having said that, when govt can control more and more of your life, it inevitably tells you more of what you can an can't do.

Question is, do you want a govt. that bans foods? That's nuts.

nuts......yum
I love pistachios, cashews, and pecans
yum yum

 

I don't have an answer to either of those questions. If one is looking for a free country, they'll have to look to a different continent than North America at the moment. The social engineers have gained a stranglehold on the US and are quickly choking the liberty out of it.

 

I would think they would have to in order for the taxpayers to be able to afford to continue to support the system. Which once again proves that socialized medicine is not compatible with a free society.

 

Exactly. Hell the Japanese of all people have a draconian "Fat Tax", and thier socialized care is more asian in flavor where the family comes in and takes care of the patient. It's strange over there. But ya know, Asian societies are naturally collective by nature.

Euros don't seem to understand that the culture in America is way different. In fact, I would say that American culture in many ways, is corrupt by nature. We're trained from an early age to consume consume consume, and not just consume waht we can afford, but anything we can get the government to give us as well.

UHC in America would be a disaster simply because everyone would, true to American nature, consume consume consume driving up costs so high.. we'd all be broke in short order.

I have a strict limit. No man should ever have to give more than 1/4th of his yearly income to the Government for any reason no matter what his wealth and a truly free, non-oppressive government that maximizes liberty and opportunity would be able to function on 25% of a nations accumulated labor value.

America is a nation that lacks discipline. The Greatest Generation failed to beat some discipline into the baby boomers and the boomers passed it on the Gen X and now it's to the point that the millenials are just useless wastes IMO

I dont' know which dystopia America is headed for, Ayn Rand or George Orwell, but I know it's headed somewhere none of us are going to like.

 

Actually,, was Australian. The Yanks now own Kraft

Nothing quite like a fresh Vientiane bagette, cheddar cheese and Vegemite!!

 

Of course it would be nuts. The whole idea would be nuts. It's never likely to happen in any democracy, though - any government that tried to restrict the poplation like that wouldn't survive the electoral process.

 

HA! You might want to jot that down sometime on a piece of toast, so you can eat your words later.

BTW, where is there a national democracy on this planet?

 

The UK has had its NHS for over 60 years, and in all that time no government has seen the need to restrict the freedom of the population by banning all unhealthy foods, or enforcing exercise, or anything of that sort, and there's nothing to suggest that is likely to change at all (or that the people would accept it instead of simply voting out any government that decides to do it in favour of another government that will remove any such legislation that they have managed to get through parliament (in the highly unlikely event of them getting such measures through parliament)).

It's never happened, it' never been suggested, and nobody living with a UHC in a democratic system (even a somewhat flawed representative democratic system, as some of them are) has any concerns whatsoever of it ever happening. The suggestion that UHC comes with a danger of some kind of draconian banning of all unhealthy foods by government is simply nonsense.

 

Governments ban foods all the time in the interest of public health and safety, what's the big deal?

 

Is that even true?

http://www.cigaretteprices.net/

France - 7.90
UK - 9.60
Denmark - 6.70
Ireland - 12.10
Belgium - 6.5

US AVG - 5.61

Australia - 14.90
Canada - 10.30
(I know you said European but I figured I'd include AUS and CAN for comparison)

 

Isn't health care costs one of the reasons that set belt laws were enacted?

So, there you go, even in the U.S.

Maybe in future shadowy figures on the corner will be offering candy - to adults - in exchange for money!

 

The moral imperative is already assumed the moment a government implements any welfare statist program. It's a case of adding new steps in the process towards the total state or 'totalitarianism'. The moral imperative is simply this: Man's life, EVERY man's life, belongs to the collective or state and may be sacraficed in any way the state deems necessary to achieve any objective.

 

That is certainly the reason used every time cigarette taxes are raised.

I had to laugh the last time cigarette taxes were raised in TN. They went with a double barrel approach. Their two reasons were 1) A rise in taxes would cut back on cigarette usage thereby improving the health of citizens, and 2) The state needed the added revenue.

Is it just me or are those two reasons contradictory? If #1 is successful then #2 just isn't going to happen.

 

No, I don't think so. Socialized medicine is a resource, which does not automatically mean that it becomes a source of moral authority. I think it would behoove the government to maybe fund some social awareness programs, but that's as far as I would allow the government to go.

The government as a resource and the government as an authority do not necessarily equate.

For example, the government provides protection against husbands beating their wives, in that if you're a wife being beaten by her husband the government will provide you with resources including cops beating down your door if you call them in. The government does not, however, have the authority to put a cop (or any sort of monitoring device) in your house to make sure husbands aren't beating their wives, even though that would probably save, in the long run, a lot of government costs that we all contribute to paying.

So, no. I don't think that socialized medicine will lead to the government bossing people around. If that's why you're afraid of socialized medicine, I think you're being a little paranoid. Socialized medicine will give people more freedom by not chaining them to medical debt.

And that's the goal, right? More freedom?

 

Do ANY modern Industrialized nations with socialized Medicine regulate what people eat?