3 ms·

> if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line? Agreed. I hate using these terms, but the "progressive liberal

> if you accept that health benefits can outweigh personal freedom, where do you draw the line? Agreed. I hate using these terms, but the "progressive liberal agenda" that wants to make "HealthCare Free For All" will make your health choices everyone's business. I'm not paying for your triple bypass surgery, therefor red meat is going to be taxed higher. Etc...etc... Carry it all out to it's logical conclusion and you'll see that soon enough personal freedom won't mean much in a collectivist society and there will be no line to draw.

logfromblammo 11y ago
This is when you line up an army on one side of the field that believes heart disease is exacerbated by the saturated fats, cholesterol, and sodium in red meat, and you line up the army on the other side of the field that believes that heart disease is exacerbated by sugars, simple carbohydrates, and insufficient magnesium, vitamin D, and vitamin K. Then they converge in the middle, and methodically slaughter any chance at rationally examining the science, with their sharp blades made from laminated dollar bills. Politics and science do not mix well. Some may not like that other people eat beef steaks. Others may not like enriched white flour or high fructose corn syrup. Some people might not like genetically modified whatevers, or artificial hormone treated this-and-thats. But I don't want my diet to be constrained on all sides by FUD and scaremongering. Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate.
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  > Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate. Exactly this. Cigarettes aren't being taxed out of any semblance of altruistic care for public health--that altruistic care is arguably borne out in anti-smoking laws in public places. The taxes, however, are simply a shakedown, like every other type of "sin tax" levied to collect money from people who enjoy a thing that cannot or will not be universally defended as something that is "okay" to enjoy.
abawany 11y ago
I would say the line has always been drawn. Crack is prohibited, for example. Abortion used to be prohibited and is still controversial. Pot is still significantly restricted with the loudest protests against legalization coming from the alcohol industry [1]. It is lobbying by the alcohol and tobacco industry that has kept these respective products as socially acceptable, in spite of the harm caused by smoking, drunk driving, and alcoholism, etc. My view on this matter is pragmatic and impure: society lead by its influencers decides the evil du jour. Sometimes they make good choices and sometimes poor. The world didn't collapse when cigarette taxes started to increase, the tobacco makers didn't die as a result of the lawsuits, and everyone moved on to e-cigarettes. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/wasserman-schultz-fueled-by-booze-pacs-blasts-legal-pot/ https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/wasserman-schultz-fueled...
BrainInAJar 11y ago
If you replace "government" with "insurance industry" then everything is still true, except that the insurance industry has one motivator and that's profit, whereas the government's motivator is public health. The insurance industry wants to not have to pay for your care. The government wants you to not be sick.
bobwaycott 11y ago
Are the limits of what best possible society we can imagine obtaining really so bounded? There is no inherent reason why anyone's health choices need to be anyone else's business if we were to suddenly awake and find ourselves delighted by the existence of universal public healthcare. We decide as a society what is up for discussion. We can actually agree to respect everyone's personal freedom to make their own choices, and reject allowing John's choice to eat a steak now and again to be any of Mary's business. After all, we're going to do the same when we tell John he has to shut the fuck up about Mary's choice to consult with her physician about an abortion. And, of course, we'll agree that neither John nor Mary gets to say anything about Phil's third visit to rehab this year. Instead, we steer the national discussion away from finger-pointing, privacy-invading, witch-hunting bullshit, and focus it toward elevating a national ideal of living healthy, responsible, active lives. Sure, there are going to be choices made that don't fit the ideal, but we prize personal freedom. We equally protect everyone. We equally care for everyone. Why? Because there are people who eat red meat who never have triple-bypass surgery; people who smoke who never die of smoking complications; people who drink who never have alcohol-related health issues; people who never eat meat who wind up with some other health issue. We can take care of each other because we want to create and inhabit a great society. Sure, it may be a pipe dream we never see realized in our own lifetimes. But it ought not be so difficult to imagine alternatives, recognize some valuable principles, and advocate for realizing those principles because they inherently respect and value people as co-citizens in a shared society.

logfromblammo 11y ago

This is when you line up an army on one side of the field that believes heart disease is exacerbated by the saturated fats, cholesterol, and sodium in red meat, and you line up the army on the other side of the field that believes that heart disease is exacerbated by sugars, simple carbohydrates, and insufficient magnesium, vitamin D, and vitamin K. Then they converge in the middle, and methodically slaughter any chance at rationally examining the science, with their sharp blades made from laminated dollar bills. Politics and science do not mix well. Some may not like that other people eat beef steaks. Others may not like enriched white flour or high fructose corn syrup. Some people might not like genetically modified whatevers, or artificial hormone treated this-and-thats. But I don't want my diet to be constrained on all sides by FUD and scaremongering. Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate.

bobwaycott 11y ago
> Besides that, I don't believe that cigarettes are taxed heavily as a means to benefit the public health. I believe that they are taxed heavily because nicotine addicts will just pay that much for a fix. The supposed health benefit just makes it easier for other people to ignore that a consumer product is being selectively taxed at a scandalously high rate. Exactly this. Cigarettes aren't being taxed out of any semblance of altruistic care for public health--that altruistic care is arguably borne out in anti-smoking laws in public places. The taxes, however, are simply a shakedown, like every other type of "sin tax" levied to collect money from people who enjoy a thing that cannot or will not be universally defended as something that is "okay" to enjoy.

abawany 11y ago

I would say the line has always been drawn. Crack is prohibited, for example. Abortion used to be prohibited and is still controversial. Pot is still significantly restricted with the loudest protests against legalization coming from the alcohol industry [1]. It is lobbying by the alcohol and tobacco industry that has kept these respective products as socially acceptable, in spite of the harm caused by smoking, drunk driving, and alcoholism, etc. My view on this matter is pragmatic and impure: society lead by its influencers decides the evil du jour. Sometimes they make good choices and sometimes poor. The world didn't collapse when cigarette taxes started to increase, the tobacco makers didn't die as a result of the lawsuits, and everyone moved on to e-cigarettes. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/wasserman-schultz-fueled-by-booze-pacs-blasts-legal-pot/ https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/wasserman-schultz-fueled...

BrainInAJar 11y ago

If you replace "government" with "insurance industry" then everything is still true, except that the insurance industry has one motivator and that's profit, whereas the government's motivator is public health. The insurance industry wants to not have to pay for your care. The government wants you to not be sick.

bobwaycott 11y ago

Are the limits of what best possible society we can imagine obtaining really so bounded? There is no inherent reason why anyone's health choices need to be anyone else's business if we were to suddenly awake and find ourselves delighted by the existence of universal public healthcare. We decide as a society what is up for discussion. We can actually agree to respect everyone's personal freedom to make their own choices, and reject allowing John's choice to eat a steak now and again to be any of Mary's business. After all, we're going to do the same when we tell John he has to shut the fuck up about Mary's choice to consult with her physician about an abortion. And, of course, we'll agree that neither John nor Mary gets to say anything about Phil's third visit to rehab this year. Instead, we steer the national discussion away from finger-pointing, privacy-invading, witch-hunting bullshit, and focus it toward elevating a national ideal of living healthy, responsible, active lives. Sure, there are going to be choices made that don't fit the ideal, but we prize personal freedom. We equally protect everyone. We equally care for everyone. Why? Because there are people who eat red meat who never have triple-bypass surgery; people who smoke who never die of smoking complications; people who drink who never have alcohol-related health issues; people who never eat meat who wind up with some other health issue. We can take care of each other because we want to create and inhabit a great society. Sure, it may be a pipe dream we never see realized in our own lifetimes. But it ought not be so difficult to imagine alternatives, recognize some valuable principles, and advocate for realizing those principles because they inherently respect and value people as co-citizens in a shared society.