5 ms·
> The fact insulin isn't a few dollars or free is beyond disheartening 90-95% of type diabetics have type 2 diabetes. Of those, around 95% can completely elimi
by wyager 5y ago
> The fact insulin isn't a few dollars or free is beyond disheartening
90-95% of type diabetics have type 2 diabetes. Of those, around 95% can completely eliminate insulin dependency by straightforward dietary modifications. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104272/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104272/
Under what moral framework should these people (around 90% of diabetics) receive insulin at others’ expense? I can see at least a first-order argument for having everyone else pay for obligate insulin dependents’ medication, but I struggle to see an argument for foisting the cost of an entirely preventable dependency on everyone else.
- war1025 5y agoGreat. Restrict the handouts to Type-1 diabetics. They certainly didn't get the disease by choice.
- thatguy0900 5y agoI think society has largely given up on the concept of a not awful diet being a reasonable thing to ask of people.
- munk-a 5y agoSociety continues to push back on any regulations on addictive junk food and loading down budget food with excessive amounts of added salt and sugar - so yea, the company's freedom to make a buck exploiting addiction trumps your freedom to live a healthy and happy life.
- thatguy0900 5y agoWe're not talking about being fat, but eating suger to the point you neet to start taking medication to keep the suger in your blood from ripping your veins apart. At some point there's some personal responsibility. It takes more than a little suger added to your food to do that.
- schemescape 5y agoCan you clarify where that 95% figure came from? From your link: > Forty percent (31/78) of CCI participants who began the study with insulin prescriptions … eliminated the medication
- dnautics 5y agoNot op, but it's not unreasonable. There was a nejm study where 800 calorie diet reversed t2d in 11/12? Patients?
- dnautics 5y agoMore recent studies by nhs show ~25% success rate but I bet it's due to compliance. The nejm study (iirc) had strict monitoring, which is impossible at the ~300 patient level
- greedo 5y agoWhy should I have to contribute to Social Security for people who didn't bother to save for retirement? /s
- dahfizz 5y agoWhat is sarcastic about that? Why should I pay for the retirement of people who neglected to save for it?
- Kye 5y agoSocial security is a savings plan. You don't get social security if you don't work, and it's in proportion to how much you earn. This is, in fact, the point of social security. It came about as a response to old people dying in the streets. It exists for people who either through bad luck or lack of financial education couldn't save enough. The idea is that if you worked through your life, then shit hits the fan, you shouldn't be knocked down below your contribution to society as measured by your level of success under capitalism.
- katbyte 5y agoBecause not everyone is able to or can?
- dahfizz 5y agoLots of couples are infertile. Should they be able to conscript anyone off the street to have a baby for them?
- golergka 5y agoYou really shouldn't, that's the entire point.
- mcguire 5y agoLet them eat cake!
- 5y ago
- aqme28 5y agoI can only see a first-order argument in saying "I will not pay for anyone else." There's a second-order argument of the form "We will all be better off if we invest in healthcare. Society is not zero-sum."
- golergka 5y agoThere's difference between investing out of your own volition and being forced to by threat of violence.
- kwhitefoot 5y agoThat's fine as long as you are willing to forgo the benefits of the things that other people have collectively paid for. If you want to opt out of taxation you should surely also be morally obliged to opt out of using roads, internet, mobile telephones, clean water, sewerage, police, fire brigades, etc. I know that it is possible to opt out of fire services in rural US but most of the rest might put a bit of a crimp in your lifestyle.
- munk-a 5y agoNot just police, but general societal protection - the fact that you can exploit people for your own profit and not get beaten up when they come back for vengeance is one of the benefits of being in a society. I personally didn't find the depiction of Caeser's Legion in fallout to be the most desirable and free society to live in, but to each their own - maybe you image you'll end up as Caeser (but you won't).
- golergka 5y agoI'm more than okay with paying for these things; in fact, I already pay for majority of them.
- wyager 5y ago> We will all be better off if we invest in healthcare. Enabling unhealthy diets is not “investing in healthcare”.
- joshmarlow 5y agoI feel like that's the same thing as arguing that your taxes shouldn't go towards public schooling since any one of those parents could have chosen not to have a child. If that argument strikes you as problematic, it might be because society is better when it's generally well educated and healthy.
- sroussey 5y agoI should get a $100k rebate at retirement for not having kids.
- mrguyorama 5y agoThat "rebate" is called those other well educated and well functioning kids working to keep the world running when you retire.
- wyager 5y agoThe median HN user having kids is a net positive social externality. You shouldn’t be rewarded for not gifting that externality.
- wyager 5y agoEducating children has a positive externality. Eating diabetes-inducing food does not.