4 ms·
> No user of this product has ever harmed anyone else as a result of using it. That is a ridiculous statement. Anything can harm you, including water. Everythi
by driverdan 8y ago
> No user of this product has ever harmed anyone else as a result of using it.
That is a ridiculous statement. Anything can harm you, including water. Everything has negative side effects given a large enough dose.
- black-tea 8y agoHe didn't say anything about it harming the user. People should be allowed to harm themselves if they want to and most methods of self-harm are legal including using alcohol and cutting oneself.
- waynecochran 8y ago> People should be allowed to harm themselves if they want to As long as they pay for their own medical insurance.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoThis attitude is the one thing that keeps me from embracing universal government-provided health insurance. People are so quick to use it as a justification for legal restrictions on behavior.
- RankingMember 8y agoI wouldn't let someone's knucklehead comment dissuade you from supporting something that would do a huge amount of good for people here in America.
- waynecochran 8y agoHey, local knucklehead here. I don't want to live in a place where folks don't get the healthcare they need just because they can't afford it. OTOH, the idea that our individual choices don't affect those around us is naive. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoFreedom and responsibility going hand in hand doesn't mean that hobbies with negative health consequences should be illegal.
- waynecochran 8y agoNever said illegal. If I willingly place myself in a high risk category I should pay for that myself. I may buy a wing suit someday, but I won't ask you to pay for my wheelchair.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoShould coal miners get health insurance? What about first responders?
- waynecochran 8y agoYes. And their employers should bear much of the risk. The actuarial tables should dictate the cost.
- RankingMember 8y agoWhat is this fear of paying for higher risk individuals based on? That more people will start bungee-jumping and skydiving or becoming firefighters and police officers? Part of the point of a nationalized system is that the costs offset- the healthier people use less services than they're paying for, but in exchange, you get to live in a society where everyone can get care regardless of employment, hobbies, or pre-existing condition. The young pay for the old. The idea of adding a bureaucracy on top of that to try to parcel out individual risk and surcharge people sounds like it'd be an amazingly complex waste of money in itself. It also sort of reminds me of China's social credit system, but with your healthcare-cost related activities instead. Would you have to start reporting that you play a game of touch football on Thanksgiving, or that you ride your bike instead of driving a car to get to work? Maybe I walk through a neighborhood where I could be mugged and end up in the ER. Now I have a "walks through bad neighborhoods" surcharge? Where does it end?
- daveFNbuck 8y agoMy concern is that this is a popular enough sentiment that universal health care would lead to real reductions in freedom for Americans. I think it's reasonable to be concerned about anything that could contribute to current trends toward totalitarianism.
- black-tea 8y agoWhat freedoms does USA have that European countries with universal healthcare do not? Bear in mind Portugal has healthcare and legalised all drugs.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoI don't know the answer to your question. In the US we already have people trying to use welfare as an excuse to mandate drug testing and control what people are allowed to eat. Maybe this sort of thing never happens elsewhere, but the US is often an outlier in how shitty we can be to people. It's also my understanding that healthcare was a big part of what convinced people in the UK to vote for Brexit.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]