5 ms·

Yeah, that's why I think everyone should pay, not based on their age, but on their ressources.

thatguy0900 5y ago
Do you think there should be differences based on lifestyle? For instance, should someone that works out everyday pay the same as someone who is 400 pounds?
- elcomet 5y ago
  I think they should both pay based on their income, not their lifestyle.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    That seems really unfair to me. I would definitely be against that system. If someone chooses to smoke or heavily drink or eat too much it shouldn't be my responsibility to subsidize them.
    - AlotOfReading 5y ago
      Just to explore the idea further, are you also against care for people who get snake bites while hiking, have a beer once a week, or choose to live in an area with environmental toxins?
      - thatguy0900 5y ago
        I mean, it's about the statistical consequences of your lifestyle. I would expect hiking overall to have a positive impact on your health and health expenses statistically even with the risk of a snakebite, and a beer a week to have no impact at all. I'm talking about the people who come home and drink whiskey every night. And I'm not against my insurance paying for peoples care, I'm against paying the same insurance rate as them. Health insurance should be higher if you live in a area with high environmental toxins, as well, sure. Should everyone in the country carry flood insurance so that people in flood planes can pay less? It seems to me a lot of this is about responsibility to society, but that only goes one way. If it's my responsibility to pay into social Healthcare, why is it not their responsibility to not be a heavy smoker, or morbidly obese, or a heavy drinker? It seems to me that the moral tables are turned around in this argument, where I'm a bad person for not wanting to pay, but they arnt bad people for doing things that virtually garuntee they will need payouts.
        snakeboy 5y ago
        I suspect the people who are "virtually guaranteed" to need payouts are a small population compared to the majority of people that live somewhere in the gray zone between the two extremes. Then, to quantify the people in that gray zone, it becomes a question of which variables to we include? Sure, alcohol is bad, and junk food is bad. But what is junk food precisely? And if you run ultra-marathons, it surely doesn't matter as much. If you live in a city with higher pollution, if you drive a cheaper older car with a worse safety rating, if you work two jobs and thus have higher stress levels, on and on. And if we're talking about social healthcare, do you really want a faceless bureaucracy to be tasked with calculating those risks and putting a price on all your life choices?
    - elcomet 5y ago
      What if someone's work makes them subject to more diseases, like a factory worker ? Should they pay more ? What about people that are not as well educated as you are, and thus don't know that too much sugar is bad for them ? Should they pay more ? What about overweight people that are from a genetic pool of people that are more subject to this issue ? Sometimes it's hard to know if a disease comes from lifestyle or other factors.

Do you think there should be differences based on lifestyle? For instance, should someone that works out everyday pay the same as someone who is 400 pounds?

elcomet 5y ago
I think they should both pay based on their income, not their lifestyle.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  That seems really unfair to me. I would definitely be against that system. If someone chooses to smoke or heavily drink or eat too much it shouldn't be my responsibility to subsidize them.
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    Just to explore the idea further, are you also against care for people who get snake bites while hiking, have a beer once a week, or choose to live in an area with environmental toxins?
    - thatguy0900 5y ago
      I mean, it's about the statistical consequences of your lifestyle. I would expect hiking overall to have a positive impact on your health and health expenses statistically even with the risk of a snakebite, and a beer a week to have no impact at all. I'm talking about the people who come home and drink whiskey every night. And I'm not against my insurance paying for peoples care, I'm against paying the same insurance rate as them. Health insurance should be higher if you live in a area with high environmental toxins, as well, sure. Should everyone in the country carry flood insurance so that people in flood planes can pay less? It seems to me a lot of this is about responsibility to society, but that only goes one way. If it's my responsibility to pay into social Healthcare, why is it not their responsibility to not be a heavy smoker, or morbidly obese, or a heavy drinker? It seems to me that the moral tables are turned around in this argument, where I'm a bad person for not wanting to pay, but they arnt bad people for doing things that virtually garuntee they will need payouts.
      - snakeboy 5y ago
        I suspect the people who are "virtually guaranteed" to need payouts are a small population compared to the majority of people that live somewhere in the gray zone between the two extremes. Then, to quantify the people in that gray zone, it becomes a question of which variables to we include? Sure, alcohol is bad, and junk food is bad. But what is junk food precisely? And if you run ultra-marathons, it surely doesn't matter as much. If you live in a city with higher pollution, if you drive a cheaper older car with a worse safety rating, if you work two jobs and thus have higher stress levels, on and on. And if we're talking about social healthcare, do you really want a faceless bureaucracy to be tasked with calculating those risks and putting a price on all your life choices?
  - elcomet 5y ago
    What if someone's work makes them subject to more diseases, like a factory worker ? Should they pay more ? What about people that are not as well educated as you are, and thus don't know that too much sugar is bad for them ? Should they pay more ? What about overweight people that are from a genetic pool of people that are more subject to this issue ? Sometimes it's hard to know if a disease comes from lifestyle or other factors.