4 ms·

You're getting dangerously close to the whole "social credit" style of cost burden. Slippery slope, bud. Now what? Your healthcare costs should go up because y

You're getting dangerously close to the whole "social credit" style of cost burden. Slippery slope, bud. Now what? Your healthcare costs should go up because you like your eggs fried and with salt instead of hard boiled?

atlasunshrugged 5y ago
I mean things probably will go that way as tracking of individual behaviors gets easier right? For example, I believe some healthcare providers will give free fitbits to users (I think the State of Nevada does) to get them to exercise more, so not a direct fee but they are incentivizing a certain behavior. Then you've got all the car insurers now that are looking at more details of your driving above and beyond the standard 1) how old are you 2) have you been in any accidents
- nicoburns 5y ago
  I seriously hope not. It completely defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread risk.
jedberg 5y ago
No, but it would make sense to put a health tax on salt. Make people bear their external costs. Like a carbon tax. Just make sure you have a dividend that goes back to the poor to make up for the regressiveness of such taxes.
- rcoveson 5y ago
  The idea that my own health is an external cost is crazy. How do you tax a free solo rock climber like Alex Honnold? A 1000% tax on chalk dust?
  - awillen 5y ago
    This actually reminds me of https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-teens-doomed-record-attempt-is-found-drifting-off-australia https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-t... I think that in situations like that, you ought to cover the cost of a potential rescue up front, either by paying for an insurance policy or putting down a deposit. People search until your deposit/insurance runs out, then they stop. If you don't survive, that's on you. There's just absolutely no reason that anyone's tax dollars should be spent to help someone who performs a totally needless and incredibly dangerous activity of their own volition.
    - rcoveson 5y ago
      The issue is that, when you get down to it, it’s just going out into the wilderness and climbing a rock. If you regulate that, you’ve made a wrong turn. Same goes for surfing, or having consensual, unprotected sex. Both dangerous, or at least much more dangerous than the average human activity, but both too basic and natural to consider regulating. In my opinion.
kube-system 5y ago
Sin taxes have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. These concepts aren’t slippery slopes, they’re just taxes like any other taxes.

atlasunshrugged 5y ago

I mean things probably will go that way as tracking of individual behaviors gets easier right? For example, I believe some healthcare providers will give free fitbits to users (I think the State of Nevada does) to get them to exercise more, so not a direct fee but they are incentivizing a certain behavior. Then you've got all the car insurers now that are looking at more details of your driving above and beyond the standard 1) how old are you 2) have you been in any accidents

nicoburns 5y ago
I seriously hope not. It completely defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread risk.

jedberg 5y ago

No, but it would make sense to put a health tax on salt. Make people bear their external costs. Like a carbon tax. Just make sure you have a dividend that goes back to the poor to make up for the regressiveness of such taxes.

rcoveson 5y ago
The idea that my own health is an external cost is crazy. How do you tax a free solo rock climber like Alex Honnold? A 1000% tax on chalk dust?
- awillen 5y ago
  This actually reminds me of https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-teens-doomed-record-attempt-is-found-drifting-off-australia https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-t... I think that in situations like that, you ought to cover the cost of a potential rescue up front, either by paying for an insurance policy or putting down a deposit. People search until your deposit/insurance runs out, then they stop. If you don't survive, that's on you. There's just absolutely no reason that anyone's tax dollars should be spent to help someone who performs a totally needless and incredibly dangerous activity of their own volition.
  - rcoveson 5y ago
    The issue is that, when you get down to it, it’s just going out into the wilderness and climbing a rock. If you regulate that, you’ve made a wrong turn. Same goes for surfing, or having consensual, unprotected sex. Both dangerous, or at least much more dangerous than the average human activity, but both too basic and natural to consider regulating. In my opinion.

kube-system 5y ago

Sin taxes have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. These concepts aren’t slippery slopes, they’re just taxes like any other taxes.