One has to wonder about some people.
I have noticed there are many progressive-thinking hacks, who think they are entitled to take every possible step to force you to think as they do. Many of those dictator wannabes have defacatory substances in the places where their “central nervous system headquarters” are supposed to be located. Many of them have bought into a faulty moral authority, an entity that is made up of people who think we are all too stupid to think for ourselves.
Many times these are the people who cannot think of possible unintended consequences, nor can they see the blatant hypocrisy that is built into their value systems. Take for instance the rationales they give, when they are criticized for wanting to dictate lifestyle choices like meal selection.
Mayor Bloomberg of New York thinks he has the right to tell businesses they cannot sell what consumers want, the right to not supply something that has a demand. Not all people want “Extra Large” sized drinks. But those who do are now being told what they want should be banned, because we care about people’s health– that is, we need to compel them by force to make choices that will help them live healthier, longer lives. By doing this, we can all drive down the cost of healthcare.
They claim they have out best interests at heart, the entire time they lecture us. They need to save us from ourselves, they need to save the system for generations to come.
All of this is bad enough. But after all of this is said and done, they do a far dirtier thing that is much more despicable than curbing a small measure of our liberty (under the guise of a delusion).
Many of these same people are also proponents for a basic philosophy which is not favorable to the elderly, by embracing an ideology that is rooted and based on a passive form of eugenics. It may be based on costs and/or overall lack of respect for life. Either way, they believe that wasting medical care on an older person is a drain on an already overtaxed system. The system they advocate for is not unlike the ones in Canada and Britain. Supply of care favors the productive and shorts the ones who are deemed to not be so. They ignore the contributions of those who preceded them; they are content to allow their parents and grandparents to die, when the medical supply cannot meet the demand of everyone.
So in essence we can see how they set the dilemma.
One one hand, this school of thought wants people to live healthier and longer–which is why they dictate policies that they believe will achieve that objective. But when the time comes to take care of the people who have complied and are living longer, the system (who wanted to control choices for people’s own good) does not want to take care of those who obeyed its earlier edicts.
—We decree that people should not be allowed to buy large sodas, but when you get older we will allow you to die from something else that we will not fix…because we cannot afford it.—
We are government. We just want you to submit. And when you are no longer of any use to us, we will dispose of you.
But even simpler than this, it says:
We are government. We do not want to pay your medical bills, when you are young or old. And we want to destroy the medical profession (as we all have come to know it) in the process.