Yes, but, this is the exact sort of thing that we could be forced into under the umbrella of national health care. Under the auspices of “cost control”, the government could say that they have a vested interest in their “patients” not getting the flu. So, line up indeed. This is what scares me about national health care, this loss of personal freedom w/r/t our own health choices.
And don’t try to pretend that this scenario can’t play out. Once the government has a vested cost interest in our health, well, at that point, are we not cattle? moooooooo…
Oh stop. You are being an alarmist. The government will not have you line up to take the flu shot, especially the new, somewhat untested (over time, I mean) vaccines against the swine flu.
I think that “extreme in my example” would be more fitting. I don’t think I’m being alarmist to point out that the feds would have a vested financial interest in the individual health of it’s citizens, and that they would need to control cost.
All of this of course, would be done in the name of the “greater good”. As was stated previously, they won’t line us up at gun point per se, but simply tie any non compliance with all sorts of nasty consequences.
Taxes and fines come to mind rather quickly as a means to achieve that end. Taxes, after all, seem to be all the rage these days when it comes to punishing the bad habits of the masses. Tobacco taxes, alchohol taxes, the proposed sugar/soda tax, etc.
When we abdicate our health care to the government, we absolutely give away a large portion of our personal freedom w/r/t the choices in that care. Some seem fine with that idea. Myself, I’d rather retain those freedoms for my family and I.