5 ms·

This seems related to the political question of how much healthcare costs should be socialized, i.e. spread across a group rather than shouldered by individuals

This seems related to the political question of how much healthcare costs should be socialized, i.e. spread across a group rather than shouldered by individuals. As someone who doesn't smoke, barely drinks alcohol, doesn't take illegal drugs, and (I hope) is in a lifelong-monogamous relationship, I hate having to cover healthcare costs specific to those problems. On the other hand, as someone with chronic mild obesity, I'm grateful for government-funded research for treatments of hypertension, stroke, idiopathic cancer, etc. And to some extent I could, if motivated enough, keep my bodyweight down. I guess there are two issues then. The politics of shared costs/benefits, and attending my personal struggles with only being empathetic to problems that I myself experience.

tripzilch 7y ago
> As someone who doesn't smoke, barely drinks alcohol, doesn't take illegal drugs, and (I hope) is in a lifelong-monogamous relationship, I hate having to cover healthcare costs specific to those problems. You should try some compassion--they say it's also a healthy life choice. And, that must be pretty convenient, how the legality of drugs just happens to line up exactly with how you judge people on whether they're worthy and deserve health or not.
sorokod 7y ago
"This seems related to the political question of how much healthcare costs should be socialized, i.e. spread across a group rather than shouldered by individuals" It's a moral question, not a political one. Food for thought: "Rough sleeper gives birth to twins outside wealthiest Cambridge college" - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/26/rough-sleeper-gives-birth-to-twins-outside-cambridge-university https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/26/rough-sleepe...
- timthorn 7y ago
  But that story isn't about costs of healthcare - the NHS will treat her for free precisely because the costs are socialised. The social care system will also ramp up rapidly given she's a vulnerable new mother who has now been admitted to the local maternity hospital.
vsef 7y ago
High prevalence of hcv isn't just due to lifestyle factors. Baby boomer age group for example have a very high prevalence primarily due to spread by unsafe medical practices before the medical community knew about hcv: https://www.healthline.com/health/hepatitis-c/why-do-baby-boomers#connection https://www.healthline.com/health/hepatitis-c/why-do-baby-bo... Detection/treatment/control of infectious diseases has an additional intrinsically social dimension beyond the individual.
somewhereoutth 7y ago
On the subject of shared costs/benefits: The wealth that allows us modern healthcare is not so much the wealth we are producing today, but overwhelmingly more the wealth that the countless generations before us have created. That one person should benefit disproportionately from this wealth, just because by some narrow financial measure their small contribution is slightly less small than another's, is surely against natural justice. Healthcare is our birthright, part of the Universal Basic Stake that we each inherit simply by being born.
tapland 7y ago
And the moral one. You could have gotten any conceivable illness while having had optimal healthy habits forever. The US pays around 2x the cost compared to any other country, and just as much as the others from taxes, presumably just to be able to say 'F YOU' to those who can't afford care.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  This is a gross mischaracterization of the position I and mamy others hold. Fundamentally, I will pay twice as much to avoid the state dipping its slimy fingers into another aspect of my life. More practically, our screwed-up healthcare system resulted from state involvement (FDA bureaucracy, wage & price controls, etc.), so I don't think more state involvement will fix a thing.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    You know what really screwed things up? The ability for people to pay (two times, ten times, whatever) to get whatever they want and not give a f about how this affects society, and in particular the people without the ability to pay $$$ to get their will. What on earth are you dreaming that could give you the right to pay for the ability to deny health care to the rest of society?? Because without that society, you too, are nothing.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      I am not paying to deny any one any thing; rather I am simply not paying for them to receive it. What is wrong with paying to get what I want? How does my purchase of medical treatment harm another? > Because without that society, you too, are nothing. This reflects a profound ideological difference between you and me. I believe the individual's value is a unique, personal thing that exists independent of society; you seem to think individuals are without value on their own. You are evidently a much more collectivist person. That's fine, go form your collective, but don't force others to enter at gunpoint.
      - 7y ago
heavyset_go 7y ago
> As someone who doesn't smoke, barely drinks alcohol, doesn't take illegal drugs, and (I hope) is in a lifelong-monogamous relationship, I hate having to cover healthcare costs specific to those problems. Then you'll be happy to know the morbid truth: smokers and alcoholics have lower healthcare costs over their lifetimes because they tend to die earlier. If everyone smoke and drank to excess, your insurance costs would be lower. However, this truth ignores another morbid truth: some people you love, maybe one of your kids, a relative or even perhaps even yourself, are statistically likely to smoke, drink or do drugs to excess. > I guess there are two issues then. The politics of shared costs/benefits, and attending my personal struggles with only being empathetic to problems that I myself experience. I mean, at least you recognize the irony. Empathy is learned, and perhaps you could learn to be empathetic towards others.

tripzilch 7y ago

> As someone who doesn't smoke, barely drinks alcohol, doesn't take illegal drugs, and (I hope) is in a lifelong-monogamous relationship, I hate having to cover healthcare costs specific to those problems. You should try some compassion--they say it's also a healthy life choice. And, that must be pretty convenient, how the legality of drugs just happens to line up exactly with how you judge people on whether they're worthy and deserve health or not.

sorokod 7y ago

"This seems related to the political question of how much healthcare costs should be socialized, i.e. spread across a group rather than shouldered by individuals" It's a moral question, not a political one. Food for thought: "Rough sleeper gives birth to twins outside wealthiest Cambridge college" - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/26/rough-sleeper-gives-birth-to-twins-outside-cambridge-university https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/26/rough-sleepe...

timthorn 7y ago
But that story isn't about costs of healthcare - the NHS will treat her for free precisely because the costs are socialised. The social care system will also ramp up rapidly given she's a vulnerable new mother who has now been admitted to the local maternity hospital.

vsef 7y ago

High prevalence of hcv isn't just due to lifestyle factors. Baby boomer age group for example have a very high prevalence primarily due to spread by unsafe medical practices before the medical community knew about hcv: https://www.healthline.com/health/hepatitis-c/why-do-baby-boomers#connection https://www.healthline.com/health/hepatitis-c/why-do-baby-bo... Detection/treatment/control of infectious diseases has an additional intrinsically social dimension beyond the individual.

somewhereoutth 7y ago

On the subject of shared costs/benefits: The wealth that allows us modern healthcare is not so much the wealth we are producing today, but overwhelmingly more the wealth that the countless generations before us have created. That one person should benefit disproportionately from this wealth, just because by some narrow financial measure their small contribution is slightly less small than another's, is surely against natural justice. Healthcare is our birthright, part of the Universal Basic Stake that we each inherit simply by being born.

tapland 7y ago

And the moral one. You could have gotten any conceivable illness while having had optimal healthy habits forever. The US pays around 2x the cost compared to any other country, and just as much as the others from taxes, presumably just to be able to say 'F YOU' to those who can't afford care.

big_chungus 7y ago
This is a gross mischaracterization of the position I and mamy others hold. Fundamentally, I will pay twice as much to avoid the state dipping its slimy fingers into another aspect of my life. More practically, our screwed-up healthcare system resulted from state involvement (FDA bureaucracy, wage & price controls, etc.), so I don't think more state involvement will fix a thing.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  You know what really screwed things up? The ability for people to pay (two times, ten times, whatever) to get whatever they want and not give a f about how this affects society, and in particular the people without the ability to pay $$$ to get their will. What on earth are you dreaming that could give you the right to pay for the ability to deny health care to the rest of society?? Because without that society, you too, are nothing.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    I am not paying to deny any one any thing; rather I am simply not paying for them to receive it. What is wrong with paying to get what I want? How does my purchase of medical treatment harm another? > Because without that society, you too, are nothing. This reflects a profound ideological difference between you and me. I believe the individual's value is a unique, personal thing that exists independent of society; you seem to think individuals are without value on their own. You are evidently a much more collectivist person. That's fine, go form your collective, but don't force others to enter at gunpoint.
    - 7y ago

heavyset_go 7y ago

> As someone who doesn't smoke, barely drinks alcohol, doesn't take illegal drugs, and (I hope) is in a lifelong-monogamous relationship, I hate having to cover healthcare costs specific to those problems. Then you'll be happy to know the morbid truth: smokers and alcoholics have lower healthcare costs over their lifetimes because they tend to die earlier. If everyone smoke and drank to excess, your insurance costs would be lower. However, this truth ignores another morbid truth: some people you love, maybe one of your kids, a relative or even perhaps even yourself, are statistically likely to smoke, drink or do drugs to excess. > I guess there are two issues then. The politics of shared costs/benefits, and attending my personal struggles with only being empathetic to problems that I myself experience. I mean, at least you recognize the irony. Empathy is learned, and perhaps you could learn to be empathetic towards others.