TO DENY PRIORITY CARE: THE MEANS AND ENDS OF "HEALTHCARE FOR ALL"

In Britain, Tony Blair's Cabinet is considering denying "priority treatment" to smokers, the obese, and people with drinking problems:

Experts warned this month that obesity, which costs the NHS £7bn a year, could bankrupt it if left unchecked and predicted that the proportion of obese adults would rise from one in five to one in three by 2010.







Smoking-related diseases cost an estimated £1.7bn a year, with the same amount spent on alcohol-related problems. The treatment of alcohol-related harm, such as violent crime and traffic accidents, costs an estimated £20bn.

That's the compassion of the left at work. This may sound reasonable to some, but the question is, where does such policy end?

If it is unreasonable to expect the state to provide "priority" care to those who smoke or drink then is it also unreasonable to provide priority care to those who take physical risks by playing sports?

After all, I'm sure statistics can be brought forth that such people account for a disproportionate amount of surgeries and other procedures for broken bones, torn ligaments, and concussions. And don't even get me started on all the rehab required. And, of course, there are all those who aren't fat, but who do eat a rich diet. And, what of those who insist upon having children despite having genetic predispositions towards certain diseases?

And, how long will these deficient people have to wait for their care? Until the problems get even worse, so that major invasive treatment is needed? Does that make sense? Or, do you think, perhaps, the compassionate Left intends to wait until the problems go away by themselves? You know, naturally, through the intervention of Grim Reaper himself?

Now that's what I call a Health Care Plan.

Reliapundit adds: REMEMBER: The Left designed the Social Security system here in the USA in 1930 to only begin pay out AFTER a person had EXCEEDED the average age of mortality. THAT'S NOT HUMANE LET ALONE GENEROUS. If people had their own personally controlled pension then they could retire when they see fit.

ALSO - as I wrote in the comments - because smoking and being "over-weight": are un-PC smokers and over-woeght people are "fair game" to the Left. Hence the Left has no reticence about freezing them out of benefits. Despite the FACT that there is a genetic component to tobacco addiction and obesity. In addition, the Left woud NEVER even think of proposing that those who get deadly STD's (like AIDS) be denied priority treatment even though these diseases are the result of VOLUNTARY behavior undertaken IRRESPONSIBLY (unprotected sex high risk).

BOTTOM LINE: this proves that those on the Left are NOT pragmantic intellectuals who know better how to solve social problems, but are in fact parochial elitists who want to pick winners and losers according to their own narrow values.

KEY QUESTION FOR SENIORS: Do YOU REALLY want the State to have final say over who gets what kind of care in life-or-death (and/or end-of-life) situations when you KNOW that the State has a basic CONFLICT OF INTEREST in these matters - as they save money TWO WAYS by denying seniors care: first by saving the medical expenses; second by saving the pension payout seniors would've gotten had they received the care and lived?!?! I sure don't.