4 ms·

He 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

He 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 ago
  This 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Hey, 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 ago
        Freedom and responsibility going hand in hand doesn't mean that hobbies with negative health consequences should be illegal.
        waynecochran 8y ago
        Never 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 ago
        Should coal miners get health insurance? What about first responders?
        waynecochran 8y ago
        Yes. And their employers should bear much of the risk. The actuarial tables should dictate the cost.
        RankingMember 8y ago
        What 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?
        waynecochran 8y ago
        It is a matter of fairness. The way insurance traditionally worked is that your cost was proportional to your risk; This is what actuaries do for a living. Insurance companies live and die on actuarial tables. I was asked whether I smoked for my life insurance -- that was a fair question. Of course this will always be a crude estimate, but drug use voluntarily puts one in a higher risk category and actuaries can give you the numbers. Now this should not be the end of the story. I understand there are folks who need medical treatment that can not afford it. There should always be a mechanism to make sure folks get the necessary help. I would hope the church or some other private entity would step up -- and often do. If not, then the final catch is the government. The government taking over the whole health insurance industry is a naive solution that will result in crappy coverage for everyone. I don't claim to have a complete solution -- it is a difficult problem. I don't like extremes in either direction : completely privatized and completely government run are both bad solutions.
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      My 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 ago
        What freedoms does USA have that European countries with universal healthcare do not? Bear in mind Portugal has healthcare and legalised all drugs.
        daveFNbuck 8y ago
        I 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]

He 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 ago
This 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Hey, 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 ago
      Freedom and responsibility going hand in hand doesn't mean that hobbies with negative health consequences should be illegal.
      - waynecochran 8y ago
        Never 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 ago
        Should coal miners get health insurance? What about first responders?
        waynecochran 8y ago
        Yes. And their employers should bear much of the risk. The actuarial tables should dictate the cost.
        RankingMember 8y ago
        What 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?
        waynecochran 8y ago
        It is a matter of fairness. The way insurance traditionally worked is that your cost was proportional to your risk; This is what actuaries do for a living. Insurance companies live and die on actuarial tables. I was asked whether I smoked for my life insurance -- that was a fair question. Of course this will always be a crude estimate, but drug use voluntarily puts one in a higher risk category and actuaries can give you the numbers. Now this should not be the end of the story. I understand there are folks who need medical treatment that can not afford it. There should always be a mechanism to make sure folks get the necessary help. I would hope the church or some other private entity would step up -- and often do. If not, then the final catch is the government. The government taking over the whole health insurance industry is a naive solution that will result in crappy coverage for everyone. I don't claim to have a complete solution -- it is a difficult problem. I don't like extremes in either direction : completely privatized and completely government run are both bad solutions.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    My 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 ago
      What freedoms does USA have that European countries with universal healthcare do not? Bear in mind Portugal has healthcare and legalised all drugs.
      - daveFNbuck 8y ago
        I 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]