4 ms·

In countries that provide publicly-funded healthcare you are arguably directly effecting other people's lives by the cost of the medical treatments you'll end u

• Zak 10y ago
  This is also true with privately-funded health care based on insurance with shared risk pools that don't take behavioral risk factors in to account. It's the very definition of a moral hazard. But if you accept that argument, where is the line? What personal decisions, if any shouldn't be subject to regulation?
  • vosper 10y ago
    True, but I was arguing that poor personal health choices are not only an indirect negative effect on other people, which is what you said. And I neglected obvious direct negative effects it can have on people close to you, such as children who now have to care for a parent who loses their leg due to diabetes, or who don't get to experience play because of a parent who's so obese and unfit that they can barely walk around without wheezing. Edit: I can't give you a list of personal decisions that I think should be subject to regulation, because it's not as simple as that, and there's a debate to be had for each one, and that will depend on circumstances and ideology. But I do think that in this case it's reasonable, since the cost of treating diabetes patients is crippling a small, poor country.
• forrestthewoods 10y ago
  By that definition there is literally nothing the government can't, and arguably shouldn't, regulate. That won't end badly I'm sure!
  • khedoros1 10y ago
    That seems like the logical conclusion. Where's the dividing line between what the government should and shouldn't regulate, if they judge it to be in the best interests of the people (and the government's will being theoretically derived from the collective will of the governed)?
    • forrestthewoods 10y ago
      The government's will being theoretically derived from the collective will of the governed should not be used as a blanket appeal to authority. The people probably do not like all of their private communication being spied on by the NSA. That we've not yet elected officials and given them the power to stop such spying doesn't mean it's acceptable. Moving on, the people should by default be free to make decisions that are not in their best interests. Just because you can't control yourself from eating candy doesn't mean my Right to Candy should be taken away as well. Taking away liberty must be very, very carefully considered. What is the harm being prevented? What price is being paid to remove it? Seatbelts are a low cost to implement, a low cost to wear, and offer a high return of value in lives and health saved. Banning imported food at tourist established is a much less obvious win. If I can't indulge in a sugary treat on vacation then when can I? That sounds like something the local agriculture industry is lobbying for more than anything. Who benefits the most from this change? Follow the money and I bet (heh) you'll find the big winners aren't the obese population.
      • vosper 10y ago
        > Taking away liberty must be very, very carefully considered I agree, and it's possible that this move has been very carefully considered. The obesity levels are catastrophic, and the trend has been clear for years (maybe decades), so it's quite possible that this move has been considered for some time before finally being implemented. There's no reason not to give the benefit of the doubt here. I'd also add that any move to take away liberty needs to be reviewed at some point. Otherwise the tendency is for more and more regulation. Then typically the only way things get changed is by major lobbying efforts, which can takes years or decades, or when a negative effect on society has become such a problem that it's no longer possible to ignore it. In the meantime, a lot of people have had their lives impacted. > Banning imported food at tourist established is a much less obvious win Yeah, though maybe that part is related to the "effort to promote local agriculture" that's also mentioned in the article. It still seems like something that would have little actual impact - it's hard to believe that tourists are coming and only eating junk food, and not any food that's locally grown. No-one goes on holiday and eats only Pringles. Or maybe it's about perceived fairness - staff at tourist resorts have access to foods that the rest of the population can't buy, so they remove that access to put everyone on the same level.
  • concinds 10y ago
    That could be said about anything.
• baddox 10y ago
  Likewise, if an individual makes a choice that causes his or her taxable income to decrease, he or she has arguably (by the same argument) directly effected other people's lives by reducing the tax revenue of the country. Ought governments impose some incentive for individuals to earn as much taxable income as possible?
  • mrob 10y ago
    They already provide such an incentive by enforcing private property laws.
    • baddox 10y ago
      I was referring to a legal punishment for failing to maximize one's taxable income.
      • ZeroGravitas 10y ago
        So was the parent comment. They could just help themselves to whatever they needed if the law didn't stop them. Poverty is legally enforced on people that don't earn enough.
        • baddox 10y ago
          We could certainly have arguments about the allocation of natural resources and the merits of propertarian vs. antipropertarian societies, and I've done and enjoyed a lot of that, but it's out of the scope of this particular argument. In this context, the fact that government will punish a person for taking what is considered the property of another person is not in the same class as a fine or imprisonment for choosing to reduce one's taxable income.