6 ms·

> A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it Exactly this kind of statement is what worries some about universal healthcare. I highly support single

> A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it Exactly this kind of statement is what worries some about universal healthcare. I highly support single payer, universal healthcare. But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions.

jlarocco 9y ago
Like it or not, it's already done with cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, gasoline, and a ton of other stuff. These type of taxes are the only way I'm in favor of government healthcare programs. Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs.
- wtbob 9y ago
  > Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs. They also, of course, decrease other costs due to the deaths of the beneficiaries. Is that a net win or a net loss, financially speaking? And are you so sure of your analysis that you would use violence to take your fellow citizens' money?
  - Zungaron 9y ago
    Are you really trotting out the tired old taxation equals violence argument?
  - threeseed 9y ago
    The scientists and public policy professionals who formulate these policies aren't doing this for a laugh. There are significant benefits to taxing things that make people sick. And these policies have been pioneered in other countries e.g. Australia first where they have been wildly successful in reducing overall health care cost.
    - wtbob 9y ago
      I'm not arguing that they don't reduce health costs: I'm arguing that a) they increase other costs (e.g. old-age pensions, since people would live longer) and b) they are an unjust imposition of force in order to change private behaviour.
  - sctb 9y ago
    We've asked you countless times not to post these ideological talking points here. We ban accounts that continue, so please stop.
    - wtbob 9y ago
      sctb, I honestly don't understand why you are threatening to ban me. It's not an ideological talking point that people who die earlier due to health problems don't cost extra in pension funds. It's just a fact: if someone dies at 55, he won't cost a pension system which starts paying out at 65 a penny. fpgaminer posted much the same thing. Nor, I think, was my aside about taxes being enforced with violence an ideological talking point: it's a fact that any law is ultimately enforced with violence. I honestly don't see how mentioning a social cost in the context of cost-benefit analyses could be considered a violation of any of the HN guidelines. I'm not trying to derail or be argumentative; I'm honestly trying to understand how a fair moderator could threaten me with a ban for my comment.
      - sctb 9y ago
        The issue is the same as before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13911550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13911550. I appreciate that it's not your intention to derail, but the effect of these comments is predictable and we need commenters to be mindful of that so that we can have the kinds of discussions—thoughtful, informative—that we're after here.
        wtbob 9y ago
        Would you please be so kind as to update https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html to indicate 'ideological talking points' the staff believe prevent thoughtful & informative discussion? Otherwise I feel that there's a loaded gun pointed at my head and any random statement is likely to set it off.
- fpgaminer 9y ago
  > Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs Actually, all those things you listed _decrease_ lifetime medical costs. From a purely economic sense, people who drink, smoke, and eat junk food are _ideal_. They're reasonably healthy during their most productive years, and then mortality rate spikes just before retirement (a time when most people are least productive). So if the logic is that we tax things based solely on economic externalities, then we should encourage drinking, smoking, and obesity. We should subsidize all those activities. Check Google for numbers that back this up; usually the analysis is done against the U.K. health care system/NHS.
  - jlarocco 9y ago
    > Actually, all those things you listed _decrease_ lifetime medical costs. From a purely economic sense, people who drink, smoke, and eat junk food are _ideal_. They're reasonably healthy during their most productive years, and then mortality rate spikes just before retirement (a time when most people are least productive). Actually, the numbers don't back that up. A person doesn't get diabetes and die the next day with no medical costs. A smoker doesn't get lung cancer and die tomorrow. They might not live as long, but their medical costs are higher the entire time, and the older they get, the higher the costs become. Eating poorly is especially costly because it doesn't kill people quickly, but causes significant health problems. > So if the logic is that we tax things based solely on economic externalities, then we should encourage drinking, smoking, and obesity. We should subsidize all those activities. No, the logic is that we provide healthcare to everybody so that they can have longer, healthier lives. Makes no sense to waste money on the people actively working against that goal, so if smokers/drinkers/fatties want to take part then they need to cover the extra costs they've created for themselves.
flukus 9y ago
> But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions. Is that worse than corporate intrusion? Does your health insurance not factor these things in already?
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "Is that worse than corporate intrusion?" Yes. You sometimes have a choice about which corporation you deal with. You don't get a choice when it comes to the government.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > You don't get a choice when it comes to the government. But you do get a vote, you don't get that with a corporation.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      Sure you do. You can vote to not give them your money. Try that with taxes.
threeseed 9y ago
> inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them. (1) Everyone pays for the public health care system e.g. hospitals. So if you're increased risk of serious disease results in increased visits or treatments then that's my problem as well. (2) Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too.
- tuxracer 9y ago
  > People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them. Yes it's perfectly logical under a single payer, universal healthcare system. So the reaction by some is: this is exactly why we should not have universal healthcare. > Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too. It muddies the water quite a bit by having a marketplace of different private insurance companies. If you see me doing something risky you have no clue whether or not I'm even covered under the same insurance company as you. So maybe I am, maybe I'm not affecting your premiums. Single payer universal healthcare removes all doubt.

jlarocco 9y ago

Like it or not, it's already done with cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, gasoline, and a ton of other stuff. These type of taxes are the only way I'm in favor of government healthcare programs. Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs.

wtbob 9y ago
> Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs. They also, of course, decrease other costs due to the deaths of the beneficiaries. Is that a net win or a net loss, financially speaking? And are you so sure of your analysis that you would use violence to take your fellow citizens' money?
- Zungaron 9y ago
  Are you really trotting out the tired old taxation equals violence argument?
- threeseed 9y ago
  The scientists and public policy professionals who formulate these policies aren't doing this for a laugh. There are significant benefits to taxing things that make people sick. And these policies have been pioneered in other countries e.g. Australia first where they have been wildly successful in reducing overall health care cost.
  - wtbob 9y ago
    I'm not arguing that they don't reduce health costs: I'm arguing that a) they increase other costs (e.g. old-age pensions, since people would live longer) and b) they are an unjust imposition of force in order to change private behaviour.
- sctb 9y ago
  We've asked you countless times not to post these ideological talking points here. We ban accounts that continue, so please stop.
  - wtbob 9y ago
    sctb, I honestly don't understand why you are threatening to ban me. It's not an ideological talking point that people who die earlier due to health problems don't cost extra in pension funds. It's just a fact: if someone dies at 55, he won't cost a pension system which starts paying out at 65 a penny. fpgaminer posted much the same thing. Nor, I think, was my aside about taxes being enforced with violence an ideological talking point: it's a fact that any law is ultimately enforced with violence. I honestly don't see how mentioning a social cost in the context of cost-benefit analyses could be considered a violation of any of the HN guidelines. I'm not trying to derail or be argumentative; I'm honestly trying to understand how a fair moderator could threaten me with a ban for my comment.
    - sctb 9y ago
      The issue is the same as before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13911550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13911550. I appreciate that it's not your intention to derail, but the effect of these comments is predictable and we need commenters to be mindful of that so that we can have the kinds of discussions—thoughtful, informative—that we're after here.
      - wtbob 9y ago
        Would you please be so kind as to update https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html to indicate 'ideological talking points' the staff believe prevent thoughtful & informative discussion? Otherwise I feel that there's a loaded gun pointed at my head and any random statement is likely to set it off.
fpgaminer 9y ago
> Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs Actually, all those things you listed _decrease_ lifetime medical costs. From a purely economic sense, people who drink, smoke, and eat junk food are _ideal_. They're reasonably healthy during their most productive years, and then mortality rate spikes just before retirement (a time when most people are least productive). So if the logic is that we tax things based solely on economic externalities, then we should encourage drinking, smoking, and obesity. We should subsidize all those activities. Check Google for numbers that back this up; usually the analysis is done against the U.K. health care system/NHS.
- jlarocco 9y ago
  > Actually, all those things you listed _decrease_ lifetime medical costs. From a purely economic sense, people who drink, smoke, and eat junk food are _ideal_. They're reasonably healthy during their most productive years, and then mortality rate spikes just before retirement (a time when most people are least productive). Actually, the numbers don't back that up. A person doesn't get diabetes and die the next day with no medical costs. A smoker doesn't get lung cancer and die tomorrow. They might not live as long, but their medical costs are higher the entire time, and the older they get, the higher the costs become. Eating poorly is especially costly because it doesn't kill people quickly, but causes significant health problems. > So if the logic is that we tax things based solely on economic externalities, then we should encourage drinking, smoking, and obesity. We should subsidize all those activities. No, the logic is that we provide healthcare to everybody so that they can have longer, healthier lives. Makes no sense to waste money on the people actively working against that goal, so if smokers/drinkers/fatties want to take part then they need to cover the extra costs they've created for themselves.

flukus 9y ago

> But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions. Is that worse than corporate intrusion? Does your health insurance not factor these things in already?

Turing_Machine 9y ago
"Is that worse than corporate intrusion?" Yes. You sometimes have a choice about which corporation you deal with. You don't get a choice when it comes to the government.
- flukus 9y ago
  > You don't get a choice when it comes to the government. But you do get a vote, you don't get that with a corporation.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    Sure you do. You can vote to not give them your money. Try that with taxes.

threeseed 9y ago

> inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them. (1) Everyone pays for the public health care system e.g. hospitals. So if you're increased risk of serious disease results in increased visits or treatments then that's my problem as well. (2) Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too.

tuxracer 9y ago
> People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them. Yes it's perfectly logical under a single payer, universal healthcare system. So the reaction by some is: this is exactly why we should not have universal healthcare. > Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too. It muddies the water quite a bit by having a marketplace of different private insurance companies. If you see me doing something risky you have no clue whether or not I'm even covered under the same insurance company as you. So maybe I am, maybe I'm not affecting your premiums. Single payer universal healthcare removes all doubt.