5 ms·

Forcing poor people to choose between their health and some other need seems extremely cynical to me. Often the poor just can't make that choice, they need food

by ajnin 7y ago

Forcing poor people to choose between their health and some other need seems extremely cynical to me. Often the poor just can't make that choice, they need food, shelter, clothes first. It's not a real choice when your immediate basic needs are at stake.

umvi 7y ago
And even more cynically, many poor people will prioritize cigarettes and alcohol above food and shelter
- ramzyo 7y ago
  Do you have a source to back up this assertion - in particular “many poor people?”
  - posixplz 7y ago
    The streets of San Francisco and Seattle.
  - turk73 7y ago
    Yes, far too many experiences with these types of people than I wish to even re-count. Every deadbeat has money for booze but not for feeding their kids or paying the bills.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  You don't even need to be a cynic -- when you're addicted, the addiction comes first. First, before food, sleep, shelter, family and health. The idea of giving cash is, frankly, asinine. The objective is not to increase the recipients spending power, but to reduce health problems population wide, reducing expensive medical interventions and productivity-draining disability.
LyndsySimon 7y ago
Absolutely no offense intended, but it sounds to me like you want to make that decision for them. That line of thought can be used to justify a huge amount of intrusion into people’s lives.
eru 7y ago
Hence my suggestion to give poor people money. Giving them a specific good is equivalent to giving them money, but forcing them to only spend it on something you approve of.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Even people with money don't go for regular medical checkups until their health forces them to. So while I agree with what you say in most cases, in this case I think giving poor the money would predictably result in zero of them going for preventive tests. Some amount of "paternalism" is good for society. Someone likened health to car maintenance, but I can tell you that of the drivers I know, zero of them would get their car the yearly technical check unless it was explicitly illegal to drive that car otherwise. I'm starting to believe we should have something similar in places with public healthcare - there should be a set of free, mandatory, noninvasive checkups to screen for diseases that don't have symptoms noticeable by patients, and there should be a way to compel everyone to take those tests. It would be better for everyone's well-being, would save public healthcare a lot of money, and the doctors could stop attaching unrelated tests to getting prescriptions for glasses or birth control.
  - agent008t 7y ago
    The way to do it that respects freedoms would be through incentives. E.g. if preventative checks would save public healthcare a lot of money, then give people that do it tax credits or literally pay them money to do it! With cars, there are greater third-party effects (i.e. your car failing and crashing into someone else), so it makes sense to require a certificate before one is allowed to use public roads.
    - eru 7y ago
      Agreed. And even with cars, you could internalize those externalities with big taxes. (But I guess, if the externalities are big enough, that big tax amounts to a fine or even jail.)
- Cougher 7y ago

by ajnin 7y ago

umvi 7y ago

And even more cynically, many poor people will prioritize cigarettes and alcohol above food and shelter

ramzyo 7y ago
Do you have a source to back up this assertion - in particular “many poor people?”
- posixplz 7y ago
  The streets of San Francisco and Seattle.
- turk73 7y ago
  Yes, far too many experiences with these types of people than I wish to even re-count. Every deadbeat has money for booze but not for feeding their kids or paying the bills.
angry_octet 7y ago
You don't even need to be a cynic -- when you're addicted, the addiction comes first. First, before food, sleep, shelter, family and health. The idea of giving cash is, frankly, asinine. The objective is not to increase the recipients spending power, but to reduce health problems population wide, reducing expensive medical interventions and productivity-draining disability.

LyndsySimon 7y ago

Absolutely no offense intended, but it sounds to me like you want to make that decision for them. That line of thought can be used to justify a huge amount of intrusion into people’s lives.

eru 7y ago

Hence my suggestion to give poor people money. Giving them a specific good is equivalent to giving them money, but forcing them to only spend it on something you approve of.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Even people with money don't go for regular medical checkups until their health forces them to. So while I agree with what you say in most cases, in this case I think giving poor the money would predictably result in zero of them going for preventive tests. Some amount of "paternalism" is good for society. Someone likened health to car maintenance, but I can tell you that of the drivers I know, zero of them would get their car the yearly technical check unless it was explicitly illegal to drive that car otherwise. I'm starting to believe we should have something similar in places with public healthcare - there should be a set of free, mandatory, noninvasive checkups to screen for diseases that don't have symptoms noticeable by patients, and there should be a way to compel everyone to take those tests. It would be better for everyone's well-being, would save public healthcare a lot of money, and the doctors could stop attaching unrelated tests to getting prescriptions for glasses or birth control.
- agent008t 7y ago
  The way to do it that respects freedoms would be through incentives. E.g. if preventative checks would save public healthcare a lot of money, then give people that do it tax credits or literally pay them money to do it! With cars, there are greater third-party effects (i.e. your car failing and crashing into someone else), so it makes sense to require a certificate before one is allowed to use public roads.
  - eru 7y ago
    Agreed. And even with cars, you could internalize those externalities with big taxes. (But I guess, if the externalities are big enough, that big tax amounts to a fine or even jail.)
Cougher 7y ago