4 ms·

That’s the problem with socialized medicine. Once you institute it now your body belongs to the state. You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your bo

That’s the problem with socialized medicine. Once you institute it now your body belongs to the state. You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Prohibition is wrong. It’s not just unethical but impractical. And congrats, now cops aren’t just going to claim they smell weed in my car, they’re going to claim they smell menthol too. — Also your “waive your right to gov funded healthcare” argument doesn’t make sense. Because I still have to pay for the other guy’s healthcare too.

jolux 5y ago
>You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Has any country with socialized medicine actually banned tobacco fully? Genuinely curious. If they haven't then I don't understand why regulation isn't continuous with the current regime, where smokers have to pay a lot more for health insurance. These problems do not go away in a free market system, insurance companies will always try to incentivize you to take on less risk.
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  Being incentivized by paying for your increased risk via decentralized market dynamics is fine. Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Unaware what countries have fully banned tobacco. Without looking it up at all...maybe singapore? They seem like the type.
  - jolux 5y ago
    >Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Sure but that's not really what's being discussed here right now, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that this has happened. From another perspective, governments are trying to do their best to protect their citizens from the malign interests of private entities who sell dangerous products. I agree that banning tobacco entirely would be too coercive, though. Apparently Bhutan is the only country where tobacco is illegal. I understand your concerns with regards to prohibition but I think this is a slippery slope argument without a better example or a more compelling explanation.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Perhaps there should be a way to opt out of taxpayer subsidized healthcare if you smoke, eat excess sugar/carbs, drink alcohol, smoke crack, etc.
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  Once you go down this road you end up with social credit scores. First it’s the obvious stuff like tobacco, then not exercising enough, then not sleeping enough, and eventually you reach the paradox that free will is a lie anyway and there’s no functional difference between insomnia and “choosing” to eat a donut
nicoburns 5y ago
What makes sense is to socialise medicine, and then have the body responsible for running that: 1. Run public health awareness campaigns to make sure that people (especially children / young people) are aware of the health risks. You can do similar things around healthy eating. 2. Treat drug usage and addiction as medical rather than criminal issue (so the police might confiscate your weed if they catch you with it, but they won't charge you with anything). Both of these minimise healthcare costs without actually banning anything.
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  Socialized medicine by definition increases healthcare costs because it divorces the person creating the cost from bearing the results. This applies in basically every socialist system not just socialized medicine. It’s also worth mentioning that public health awareness campaigns frequently stretch the science in the quest to moralize more effectively. Case in point: saturated fats, pretending everyone is equally vulnerable to AIDS, etc
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > Socialized medicine by definition increases healthcare costs because it divorces the person creating the cost from bearing the results Then why are healthcare costs in the UK (socialised) and Europe (typically private, but highly regulated with a social option) dramatically lower than US (private) healthcare costs despite similar levels of care? Unless you have evidence that it increases costs, I would suggest that you viewpoint is just ideology, and you may wish to consider revising it. > It’s also worth mentioning that public health awareness campaigns frequently stretch the science in the quest to moralize more effectively They also often do a lot of good despite this. There is a very successful public health campaign promoting the eating of 5 fruits and vegetables a day. It's not quite accurate. The science suggested we should be eating 9. But it's lead to people eating a lot more fruit and veg than they would otherwise have done, which is a good thing all round.
    - __blockcipher__ 5y ago

jolux 5y ago

>You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Has any country with socialized medicine actually banned tobacco fully? Genuinely curious. If they haven't then I don't understand why regulation isn't continuous with the current regime, where smokers have to pay a lot more for health insurance. These problems do not go away in a free market system, insurance companies will always try to incentivize you to take on less risk.

__blockcipher__ 5y ago
Being incentivized by paying for your increased risk via decentralized market dynamics is fine. Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Unaware what countries have fully banned tobacco. Without looking it up at all...maybe singapore? They seem like the type.
- jolux 5y ago
  >Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Sure but that's not really what's being discussed here right now, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that this has happened. From another perspective, governments are trying to do their best to protect their citizens from the malign interests of private entities who sell dangerous products. I agree that banning tobacco entirely would be too coercive, though. Apparently Bhutan is the only country where tobacco is illegal. I understand your concerns with regards to prohibition but I think this is a slippery slope argument without a better example or a more compelling explanation.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Perhaps there should be a way to opt out of taxpayer subsidized healthcare if you smoke, eat excess sugar/carbs, drink alcohol, smoke crack, etc.

__blockcipher__ 5y ago
Once you go down this road you end up with social credit scores. First it’s the obvious stuff like tobacco, then not exercising enough, then not sleeping enough, and eventually you reach the paradox that free will is a lie anyway and there’s no functional difference between insomnia and “choosing” to eat a donut

nicoburns 5y ago

What makes sense is to socialise medicine, and then have the body responsible for running that: 1. Run public health awareness campaigns to make sure that people (especially children / young people) are aware of the health risks. You can do similar things around healthy eating. 2. Treat drug usage and addiction as medical rather than criminal issue (so the police might confiscate your weed if they catch you with it, but they won't charge you with anything). Both of these minimise healthcare costs without actually banning anything.

__blockcipher__ 5y ago
Socialized medicine by definition increases healthcare costs because it divorces the person creating the cost from bearing the results. This applies in basically every socialist system not just socialized medicine. It’s also worth mentioning that public health awareness campaigns frequently stretch the science in the quest to moralize more effectively. Case in point: saturated fats, pretending everyone is equally vulnerable to AIDS, etc
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > Socialized medicine by definition increases healthcare costs because it divorces the person creating the cost from bearing the results Then why are healthcare costs in the UK (socialised) and Europe (typically private, but highly regulated with a social option) dramatically lower than US (private) healthcare costs despite similar levels of care? Unless you have evidence that it increases costs, I would suggest that you viewpoint is just ideology, and you may wish to consider revising it. > It’s also worth mentioning that public health awareness campaigns frequently stretch the science in the quest to moralize more effectively They also often do a lot of good despite this. There is a very successful public health campaign promoting the eating of 5 fruits and vegetables a day. It's not quite accurate. The science suggested we should be eating 9. But it's lead to people eating a lot more fruit and veg than they would otherwise have done, which is a good thing all round.
  - __blockcipher__ 5y ago