There were a bunch of people in another post saying the Government has too much authority as it is... but what say you about this?

Personally I think this would be a step too far.

I can see the thinking behind it, and at some level it makes sense, but a healthcare policy should be unconditional.

By using the term mandatory it implies that there would be some form of penalty or punishment for failing to meet the conditions laid out - for example refusing to treat a woman in her forties for breast cancer because she skipped a couple of mammograms in her twenties. Or has been implied in the UK on more than one occasion, refusing treatment for unrelated conditions because a patient is overweight or smokes.

The danger there is that if you begin to discriminate then your stance very quickly becomes immoral - accepted, smoking does damage health and may mean a greater need for healthcare, but the same could be said of rock-climbing; there is a risk that as a direct result of either action, medical care would be required. It would be immoral by any definition of the word to refuse that health care to one party but provide it for the other.

This also fails to take into account people who place their faith in medical treatments not embraced by the mainstream. Whether you think they are fools or enlightened, it's a path they should have the right to follow.

You are under arrest for Drug Evasion!

I, for one, welcome our....
ah, f**k it