3 ms·

We could solve it overnight simply by acknowledging that people are free to live their lives as they choose. If we allow people to snow ski, to sky dive, to rid

We could solve it overnight simply by acknowledging that people are free to live their lives as they choose. If we allow people to snow ski, to sky dive, to ride motor cycles without helmets, then we should allow them to eat nothing but table sugar if they so choose. Some might say that these people are driving up health care costs for the government, and my answer to that is that the government should not be paying for people's health care. It enables bad behaviors and it forces people who make good choices to subsidize people who make bad choices. Which is legitimately bullshit.

normalhuman 7y ago
> my answer to that is that the government should not be paying for people's health care. It enables bad behaviors and it forces people who make good choices to subsidize people who make bad choices. Which is legitimately bullshit. Bullshit. The government is not "paying for people's health care". In most of the civilized world, you pay a percentage of your income to the national health care system, and then the national health care system takes care of you if you need something. Why? Because you can be suddenly diagnosed with all sorts of diseases that could not be prevented by having "good behavior". That is puritanical bullshit to blame those who need help and compassion the most. People have life-threatening diseases because of genetic factors, environmental factors that are out of their control, receiving a cosmic radiation at the wrong moment, etc etc. Also: people get old. The older you get, the more shit starts to happen. Not having a national health care system leads to a nasty and cruel society.
- diveandfight 7y ago
  > That is puritanical bullshit to blame those who need help and compassion the most. People have life-threatening diseases because of genetic factors, environmental factors that are out of their control, receiving a cosmic radiation at the wrong moment, etc etc. I don't see where OP is implying that individuals suffering from unfortunate accidents outside of their control are driving up health care costs. This whole discussion seems to be centered on lifestyle choices, eating large quantities of sugar, that have a significant effect on the health care costs of the population as a whole. Those are the types of decisions that have the ability to drive up health care costs. Childhood cancer or other unfortunate illnesses are statistically too infrequent to be driving up health care costs alone. As a parallel example: A family might have their house burn down due to no fault of their own, and yet the monthly premium that families pay for home insurance to cover such an event is within their means. Note: The US market actually forces this by default as no lender will underwrite your mortgage without casualty insurance.
  - normalhuman 7y ago
    > I don't see where OP is implying that individuals suffering from unfortunate accidents outside of their control are driving up health care costs No, OP is just proposing that help is denied to everyone who needs it and can't afford it, because it is deemed more important to prevent free-riders than to be humane. It's a nasty ideology, that is only embraced by the US among all developed countries. It means that your life is only valuable to society if you have (or had) some economic value. It doesn't matter, by the way, if this economic value comes from actually contributing, or by inheritance, or by winning big at a casino. The important thing is that you have money, otherwise go (literally) die in a corner. > This whole discussion seems to be centered on lifestyle choices, eating large quantities of sugar, that have a significant effect on the health care costs of the population as a whole. So why not tax the big corps that make all of this junk for the costs to society that they externalize? Sure, it would be great if people had the level of education necessary to make the right choices. It is pretty hard to get that level of education in the US if you are born into an unprivileged situation, because the education system for the poor is shit, because said companies avoid paying taxes as much as possible, and the more well-off are selfish and shortsighted, and vote for politicians that do not spend public money on what can improve society as a whole. > Childhood cancer or other unfortunate illnesses are statistically too infrequent to be driving up health care costs alone. You are very young, I imagine. Perhaps you haven't yet started to understand that things go to shit as you age, and it is not "infrequent", it is part of the human condition. A part that is hidden out of the public eye because it is inconvenient to talk about it. All Americans are immortal and about to be millionaires!
randlet 7y ago
> the government should not be paying for people's health care. It enables bad behaviors and it forces people who make good choices to subsidize people who make bad choices What bad choice did a 5 year old with leukemia make? Do you want to live in a country where parents have to simply accept the death of their child because they can't afford a treatment? What about when your friend, lover, spouse can't afford treatment for a curable condition that they weren't responsible for causing? You may be happy with that situation, but I'm not. I'm happy to contribute and benefit from a government funded healthcare system and I accept the trade off that that this means that sometimes we're collectively going to pay for people who have made bad choices in their lives.
- wang_li 7y ago
  >Do you want to live in a country where parents have to simply accept the death of their child because they can't afford a treatment? I want to live in a country where people are responsible. The argument presented basically holds children hostage so the parents can live their lives free of trade offs between lifestyle and health, education, and etc. I fail to see why I should care more about my neighbor's child than my neighbors do.
  - randlet 7y ago
    I'm sorry but I don't understand the argument you're making, or why you think contributing to universal health care would mean you care about your neighbours child more than they do. Bad things can and do happen to people no matter how "responsibly" (according to who?) they live. Maybe you are suggesting only the wealthy should have children?
    - wang_li 7y ago
      I'll be happy to continue when you acknowledge that there are more than the choices of universal health care and paying for everything out of pocket. It's very strange how insurance works for homes, for cars, for libel, and many other things, yet somehow no one here is willing to entertain the fact that health insurance also works to pay for health care.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
I see you've never had your appendix spontaneously decide time was up.

normalhuman 7y ago

> my answer to that is that the government should not be paying for people's health care. It enables bad behaviors and it forces people who make good choices to subsidize people who make bad choices. Which is legitimately bullshit. Bullshit. The government is not "paying for people's health care". In most of the civilized world, you pay a percentage of your income to the national health care system, and then the national health care system takes care of you if you need something. Why? Because you can be suddenly diagnosed with all sorts of diseases that could not be prevented by having "good behavior". That is puritanical bullshit to blame those who need help and compassion the most. People have life-threatening diseases because of genetic factors, environmental factors that are out of their control, receiving a cosmic radiation at the wrong moment, etc etc. Also: people get old. The older you get, the more shit starts to happen. Not having a national health care system leads to a nasty and cruel society.

diveandfight 7y ago
> That is puritanical bullshit to blame those who need help and compassion the most. People have life-threatening diseases because of genetic factors, environmental factors that are out of their control, receiving a cosmic radiation at the wrong moment, etc etc. I don't see where OP is implying that individuals suffering from unfortunate accidents outside of their control are driving up health care costs. This whole discussion seems to be centered on lifestyle choices, eating large quantities of sugar, that have a significant effect on the health care costs of the population as a whole. Those are the types of decisions that have the ability to drive up health care costs. Childhood cancer or other unfortunate illnesses are statistically too infrequent to be driving up health care costs alone. As a parallel example: A family might have their house burn down due to no fault of their own, and yet the monthly premium that families pay for home insurance to cover such an event is within their means. Note: The US market actually forces this by default as no lender will underwrite your mortgage without casualty insurance.
- normalhuman 7y ago
  > I don't see where OP is implying that individuals suffering from unfortunate accidents outside of their control are driving up health care costs No, OP is just proposing that help is denied to everyone who needs it and can't afford it, because it is deemed more important to prevent free-riders than to be humane. It's a nasty ideology, that is only embraced by the US among all developed countries. It means that your life is only valuable to society if you have (or had) some economic value. It doesn't matter, by the way, if this economic value comes from actually contributing, or by inheritance, or by winning big at a casino. The important thing is that you have money, otherwise go (literally) die in a corner. > This whole discussion seems to be centered on lifestyle choices, eating large quantities of sugar, that have a significant effect on the health care costs of the population as a whole. So why not tax the big corps that make all of this junk for the costs to society that they externalize? Sure, it would be great if people had the level of education necessary to make the right choices. It is pretty hard to get that level of education in the US if you are born into an unprivileged situation, because the education system for the poor is shit, because said companies avoid paying taxes as much as possible, and the more well-off are selfish and shortsighted, and vote for politicians that do not spend public money on what can improve society as a whole. > Childhood cancer or other unfortunate illnesses are statistically too infrequent to be driving up health care costs alone. You are very young, I imagine. Perhaps you haven't yet started to understand that things go to shit as you age, and it is not "infrequent", it is part of the human condition. A part that is hidden out of the public eye because it is inconvenient to talk about it. All Americans are immortal and about to be millionaires!

randlet 7y ago

> the government should not be paying for people's health care. It enables bad behaviors and it forces people who make good choices to subsidize people who make bad choices What bad choice did a 5 year old with leukemia make? Do you want to live in a country where parents have to simply accept the death of their child because they can't afford a treatment? What about when your friend, lover, spouse can't afford treatment for a curable condition that they weren't responsible for causing? You may be happy with that situation, but I'm not. I'm happy to contribute and benefit from a government funded healthcare system and I accept the trade off that that this means that sometimes we're collectively going to pay for people who have made bad choices in their lives.

wang_li 7y ago
>Do you want to live in a country where parents have to simply accept the death of their child because they can't afford a treatment? I want to live in a country where people are responsible. The argument presented basically holds children hostage so the parents can live their lives free of trade offs between lifestyle and health, education, and etc. I fail to see why I should care more about my neighbor's child than my neighbors do.
- randlet 7y ago
  I'm sorry but I don't understand the argument you're making, or why you think contributing to universal health care would mean you care about your neighbours child more than they do. Bad things can and do happen to people no matter how "responsibly" (according to who?) they live. Maybe you are suggesting only the wealthy should have children?
  - wang_li 7y ago
    I'll be happy to continue when you acknowledge that there are more than the choices of universal health care and paying for everything out of pocket. It's very strange how insurance works for homes, for cars, for libel, and many other things, yet somehow no one here is willing to entertain the fact that health insurance also works to pay for health care.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

I see you've never had your appendix spontaneously decide time was up.