Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (410749)	5/31/2003 7:54:59 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<< My question, however, was based on an interest in how those who are contemptuous of welfare recipients feel about welfare for their own overweight family members, specifically. Do you think your fat old family members and friends shouldn't get welfare, eg medicare? Should they, ideally, refuse it?>> Well let me say this, one of the coffee shop guys, a die hard union guy who has blossomed up to about 270 pounds over his healthful weight, now sits around and is a real pain in the ass. He makes demands on those who drive him around, can't hear and can't see. He gets a pension, medicare, SS. He paid into them so yep he should get them even as obnoxious as he is. And as for other risky behaviors, smokers tend to die early and not eat up benefits. Same way with winos like me.

To: E who wrote (410749)	5/31/2003 10:15:47 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 769670

People are on welfare because of self destructive behavior. Can't imagine why any one would want to chose just one these self destructive behaviors to discriminate against. Where'd your obsession with fat come from?

To: E who wrote (410749)	6/3/2003 9:58:33 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

yes indeed.... high time people were held accountable for their own behavior. if a person eats, drinks, drugs, or smokes themselves into chronic, expensive, debilitating illness, should they not shoulder most of the expense of treatment? who knows? perhaps if the people who were unwilling to subordinate their appetites, were concerned about paying for the outcome, they would make more intelligent choices. then they would be healthier, happier, and financially more prosperous.... but no... my guess is that we will continue to hold harmless and continue to subsidize the bad, persistent choices of those who know that ultimately they will only pay the price with their lives...and live off the hard labor and industry of others until then. we have a word for that... it's called "enablement"