It's not all boner pills and Botox. Google Maurice Hilleman of Merck for just one example.
Hey, let's not go there.
David Thomas,
The setting of regulations and law relative to health cannot be divorced from the payment vehicle. "Follow the money" applies here. As long as the bulk of funds for medical services are passed through from taxpayers to the federal government, back to the states, and to the lower levels of government (counties, cities, non-profits), the feds will place a very heavy thumb on the scale.
Conservative states tend to prefer block grants to spend in ways which fit the specific needs as they see them. Other states appear to prefer more universal governance. How NY and CA approach healthcare is very different than how TX and UT, for example, go about it.
Unfortunately, setting policy and regulation without corresponding enforcement presents serious problems. In my opinion, if government is paying for healthcare, education, housing, food, etc., it has a responsibility and a right to demand specific performance from its wards. For example, why should the taxpayer incur the high healthcare costs of morbidly obese citizens without requiring lifestyle changes? Or permit a Type II diabetic on numerous prescriptions to go through gallons of ice cream every month?
If a person is one of 25 million government employees, would it be unreasonable to have monthly weigh-ins and review of blood chemistry periodically with the progress tied to compensation and benefits? How about a private sector worker being required through his employer or the state directly to undergo annual physical examinations and have follow-ups in accordance with his physical condition? As the statists keep telling us correctly, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A software salesman showing signs of alcoholism or drug abuse might be commanded to rehab as a condition of continued employment (I can already hear the howls).
As one who lost his freedom completely in my formative years, I am much more willing to forsake security for liberty. I understand that others value security over not having to be responsible for the inherent risks of living. I am suggesting that there is a large economic, psychological and spiritual cost involved, and that in the long run, you can't have both, security and liberty, as many may wish in an appreciable manner.