3 ms·
Yes. It's still true. Arguing otherwise requires applying that same logic universally. Any life decision that could result in worse health outcomes "takes a hos
by pattrn 5y ago
Yes. It's still true. Arguing otherwise requires applying that same logic universally. Any life decision that could result in worse health outcomes "takes a hospital bed away from someone else." Once you go down that road, you now need a way to define what is "healthy," so that you can legislate what to do with people who made poor health choices. If we delegate the definition of "healthy" to the FDA, then trying out something as benign as a novel diet could end up in medical discrimination. That's not a world I want to live in.
- mdp2021 5y agoI noted this mentally only a few hours ago. I commented on HN, using as a metaphor "Universal health care provided by the State: [you cannot abuse it, as a common good - ] if you drink soda, you lose entitlement for your diabetes to be treated at the same cost". Then I added, "stretched example". Then, thinking it more properly, it is not that stretched... Those under the FDA do not have that social constraint (free healthcare), to others it is a reality (with responsibilities etc.). And in a way, like in the context of insurance, different personal histories are relevant. Job related health consequences? Unforeseeable consequences? Jamesdean consequences? Not the same.