A built-in false assumption with the health-care debate is that sickness is always no-fault sickness. It’s never socially acceptable to assign blame for people’s medical problems — especially blame on the patient.

But I’m not afraid to confess that I’m a judgmental person. And I’m pretty confident that most Americans who oppose socialized medicine share this same judgment: that some people are partly or entirely to blame for their unwellness.

I’m perfectly willing to provide subsidized health care to people who are suffering due to no fault of their own. But in those cases — which, unfortunately, constitute perhaps a majority of all cases — where the unwellness is a consequence of the patient’s own misdeeds, bad habits, or stupid choices, I feel a deep-seated resentment that the rest of us should pick up the tab to fix medical problems that never should have happened in the first place.

I’m speaking specifically of medical problems caused by:

• Obesity
• Cigarette smoking
• Alcohol abuse
• Reckless behavior
• Criminal activity
• Unprotected promiscuous sex
• Use of illicit drugs
• Cultural traditions
• Bad diets

Now, I really don’t care if you overeat, smoke like a chimney, hump like a bunny or forget to lock the safety mechanism on your pistol as you jam it in your waistband. Fine by me. And as a laissez-faire social-libertarian live-and-let-live kind of person, I would never under normal circumstances condemn anyone for any of the behaviors listed above. That is: Until the bill for your stupidity shows up in my mailbox. Then suddenly, I’m forced to care about what you do, because I’m being forced to pay for the consequences.

What I don’t like about the very concept of universal health care is that it compels me to become my brother’s keeper and insert myself into the moral decisions of his life. I’d rather grant each person maximum freedom. I’d prefer to let people make whatever choices they want, however stupid or dangerous I may deem those choices to be. Just so long as you take responsibility for your actions, and you reap the consequences and pay for them yourself — hey, be as foolish or hedonistic or selfish or thoughtless as you like. Not my business.

One of the main reasons I'm against the government being involved in health care is that it will inevitably lead to the government interfering in our person lives. No longer will we be able to say "What I do with my own body is my own business," as others will be able to respond "but it is other peoples' business because they pay for your medical care." Next thing you know the government will be trying to regulate our lifestyles to make them more "healthy."

Of course, it doesn't help that the government has an absolutely terrible record when it comes to determining what is healthy and what isn't (to the point that it's usually the opposite).

FLASH: Senate Republicans found a provision in the new House health care bill that likely makes it ineligible for expedited 'reconciliation' procedures in the Senate. Dems refused to meet with GOP and Parliamentarian.... Developing....

The White House and anti-abortion Democrats have reached an agreement to defusethe controversy over abortion in the health reform bill – planning a series of steps that will secure the support of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other Democrats to give party leaders the votes they need to pass reform, sources tell POLITICO.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z0iqLAI51O

Democrats have reached a deal on an executive order on abortion that could hand them a victory on healthcare.

"Eight or nine" Democrats, including Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), will announce the deal at a 4 p.m. press conference, according to an anti-abortion Democrat.

"We've changed [our votes]," said Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio).

Driehaus said he's seen the executive order and can now vote for the healthcare bill. He said Stupak has signed off, as well.

Driehaus made his remarks just a few moments ago in the Speaker's Lobby. He said the group of "eight or nine" Democrats -- including Stupak -- who had been withholding their votes plans to announce the deal at 4 p.m. in the House Radio/TV gallery.

And I don't know if they were liberal plants or not, used to manufacture a useful image, but assuming they weren't I hate it when the real racists and bigots jump out and mingle with those of us whom actually oppose policy. I hate it because it compells me to defend people who's level of corruption and incompetence as social law makers I rail against daily on what are hopefully more intellectual grounds. I found myself defending Barney Frank today, and it nearly made me ill.

Someone who hated him because he was gay, and attributed everything he has done in congress to "the gay agenda". Loud guy sitting two bar stools down from me at a local higher end place where we discuss politics all the time.

I'll just content myself with the knowledge that you didn't use the IPA to sow him the error of his ways.

I'm not sure how you would use India Pale Ale as a seed spreader, and would you want to reap something from that seed anyway? Fertilizer perhaps, but not as seed stock.

I've never seen anyone be convinced of the wrongness of someone's opinion via beatdown. It really wasn't for the benefit of the moron, it was for the benefit of those within earshot, who, in New England, might otherwise assume that he was delivering a standard conservative argument. Far better to leave him looking like the fool he is, while taking the opportunity to demonstrate the merit and superiority of intellectual conservatism.