• Ashy@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    By that logic you should also get a lower priroty if you injure yourself during any risky recrational activity.

    Like, if you’re injury yourself doing something stupid for “fun” … like, I don’t know, playing rugby?

    Apprently in your world healthcare is only for people that get sick by totally random chance.

      • Ashy@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        No, it was very much you that suggested that healthcare priority should be based on the evaluation of someone’s lifestyle choices.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Good. It’s not the governments place to ban people from making unhealty decisions when they don’t affect others.

          If they weren’t put last in priority, then their lifestyle choice wouldn’t only be affecting them, would it?

          • Ashy@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Logically obsese people need also go to the back of the line then. Very unhealthy lifestyle, very expensive for the healthcare system. In fact, everyone that perticipates in any non-government sactioned activity, to the back of the line. We need that healthcare for our superior people!

            Ok Adolf.

      • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m just taking the logical next steps.

        Giving smokers refunds on their NHS taxes because they die before the really expensive geriatric care kicks in, unlike greedy non-smokers?