4 ms·
Subsidising other people's unhealthy choices is clearly going to be a controversial topic, but I've come to the conclusion that the only sensible approach is to
by gns24 10y ago
Subsidising other people's unhealthy choices is clearly going to be a controversial topic, but I've come to the conclusion that the only sensible approach is to ignore the choices and threat the condition.
Firstly, it's pretty hard to measure the choices people have made. Any attempt at measurement is going to add extra costs for little or no benefit.
Secondly, we're judging people on things where we don't know the complete story. If a single parent is eating unhealthily and not exercising because they are short on both money and time, that's hardly something to make them pay for. If someone's been addicted to cigarettes for 20 years, they have probably tried and failed to give them up. To me treating wealthy people's skiing injuries should be at least as controversial as treating poor people's smoking-related problems. Personally I like to run to keep fit, but I view that as good fortune - I'm lucky that I'm healthy enough to run and that I enjoy it, and that I have time to do it.
Finally if someone gets diabetes after drinking 20 cokes a day, they're definitely paying for that decision even without a financial penalty.
In summary I guess that I feel that good health is a very fortunate thing to have, and I certainly don't feel entitled to extra cash for my good luck.
The question here is as to whether this $1000 bonus/penalty changes behaviour or just rewards those who are naturally healthy/enjoy sport/like healthy food.
- glogla 10y agoI think lot of people see being overweight is a moral failure and want to punish people for it. That's all there is to it, no matter how cleverly worded it can be about "being healthy" and "subsidizing" and "choices".
- an_d_rew 10y agoSeconded! Being "healthy" is the realization of two interacting random processes: things that are in your control and things that are not. The tricky part is that the division between these categories is really fuzzy and markedly different for everyone. The link between cause and effect is also likely less simple than wellness models predict. Started running? You might feel good now but not realize that you're exacerbating the arthritis your genetics predisposes you to in 20 years. Stopped smoking? Awesome! But why did your employer put you in a state of constant chronic stress for 10 years resulting in elevated cortisol that resulted in a stroke? The path between cause and effect is very difficult if not practically impossible to trace out for populations. So although wellness programs are not as sinister as some believe, they definitely are not as nice or positive as they present themselves, either.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoThe reason such programs are becoming more common is because they are becoming cheaper. Given that, how can you be certain that the cost is exceeding the benefits (as you claim)? How low would the costs/how high the benefits before you changed your position on this? To me treating wealthy people's skiing injuries should be at least as controversial as treating poor people's smoking-related problems. The former is paid for by the wealthy person, the latter by society. The poor person is directly harming me by smoking. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the poor person in this case. Similarly, one might criticize a polluter (who harms us all), but not criticize people who have gay sex in the privacy of their own home (harming no one). Think of it as shared responsibility - the rich are responsible for paying, the poor can reasonably be held responsible for other things.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago> The former is paid for by the wealthy person, the latter by society. How so? Both are paid for by an insurance pool. Unless the skier is paying a higher insurance premium for the extra risk that they are incurring by skiing, they are not paying for their skiing injuries.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoMost poor people have insurance which is paid for by the rich. If insurance companies start to charge skiiers their actuarial cost, I have no problem with this. If they don't I suspect it's simply because there aren't very many.