I'm interested in knowing more about your opinion on this. Can you tell me why you believe this?
Fwiw, I feel the same about: smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, extreme sports, etc.
Does moderate alcohol factor in? Being obese? What’s your line where a personal choice that has some risk disqualifies you?
why not? when you file for unemployment, you need to prove that you're looking for a job. if you want weight lose drugs that cost $1k+/month, you should show proof you aren't being a glutton. we have the technology, just not the political will.
This makes as much sense as "if you want anti-depressants, you have to prove you aren't being sad".
Folks desperately need to understand the dignity of risk before we can talk about health policy. You're advocating for diet eugenics. There is very little moral hazard to justify your rules because having serious medical problems is awful even without the bill.
I'm hate to be the one to inform you, but the court system is part of the government. Indeed courts pertaining to federal laws are part of the federal government.
Again, unless you are literally the federal government of the United States, the constitution doesn't constrain your actions.
In the context of this thread, I was replying to a comment saying that it was "unconstitutional" to "control" public healthcare funded elective procedures, as a form of "eugenics" ... quite ridiculous.
It's a common tactic to make an egregious error and the dial it back until with hedges and constraints until the other person concedes. It's embarrassing.
There are plenty of valid ways to make your point. Choose one of those instead.
Cosmetic procedures — no, wouldn't be covered.
Locking you out of public healthcare as described by the parent if you have ever engaged in behavior deemed too risky, absolutely not. That is the part that is controlling.
While I appreciate your effort to avoid constitutional violations related to health care, we already walk all over (and have historically simply ignored) the constitution with regards to zoning, taxation, bank loans, voting, protests, free speech, etc, that this seems like a silly hill to die on, especially given the upsides to single-payer healthcare.
And to be clear, all those constitutional violations are abhorrent and should be actively legislatively and judicially worked against (not executive-ly because that branch almost by definition works against the constitution). But given our history of red-lining, voter suppression, un-banking, rich tax exceptions, NIMBY zoning, etc, I'm okay with single-payer, so long as there are private options if you think surgically modified eye color can make you more employable or improve your quality of life.