6 ms·

COVID risk also would drop to the degree people become fit and healthy, among a million other potential benefits. I’m not generally a socialist, but I would no

by gfodor 5y ago

COVID risk also would drop to the degree people become fit and healthy, among a million other potential benefits. I’m not generally a socialist, but I would not be opposed to a monthly government payout to people who provide proof-of-workout. Edit: the downvotes are confusing. I’ve noticed my comments are downvoted more these days on HN. Not sure if I’ve changed or HN has. Edit2: oh perhaps some people are reacting to my use of the term socialist. Weird. I’m using the term fairly loosely here in the liberal not Internationalist tradition.

laurent92 5y ago
We’ve spent billions in all Western countries telling people to do exercise against obesity and cancer. But they chose complete lockdowns then turning lockdowns, day on/day off. They supposedly cared for my immediate health (Covid) by sacrificing my long-term health (obesity, asthma due to lockdowns), but also loss of friends (bad for health) and social isolation (demonstrably increases the chances of suicide and cancer, but hey, not immediately). Bad for immediate health, ie suicide attempt in April last year. If they were true Socialists, they would never ever EVER lock us down or socially-isolate us. This was the biggest terrorist attack of all times.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > If they were true Socialists I'm amused by that statement. I've never known a Socialist who did not know what was best for everyone else, and consequently thought it should be forced on them. Of course, I also know what is best for others. But I'm not willing to force it on them. People have a right to be stupid.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bserge 5y ago
  Yeah, welcome to modern health care. "We don't care as long as you're alive". And if you die, oops, what a tragedy. We'll do nothing to prevent it from happening again. Pay your taxes, though, or else!
  - trevcanhuman 5y ago
    wow, what a great way to put it (not meaning it sarcastically)
tomjen3 5y ago
That would amount to a payout to people who already exercise (in one of the ways that you would accept as proof of exercise), but how much would it move on the margin? Obesity is a much bigger health concern than COVID in the long term, but I don't think a payout like the one you proposed would do much, if anything, to actually deal with obesity, especially because the issue is that people eat too damn much (I know that is why I am fat).
- gfodor 5y ago
  I think payout is just one idea. The point I’m making is that I support the government incentivizing fitness through the levers it typically uses to incentivize behavior, like tax benefits, regulatory burden reduction, access to entitlement programs, etc. within reason of course.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
> I’m not generally a socialist, but I would not be opposed to a monthly government payout to people who provide proof-of-workout. Why do you think this is socialist?
- gfodor 5y ago
  Because it would be redistributive.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    You seem to be suffering from a misconception. Redistributive policies are not inherently socialist. If you believe they are, then the US has had socialist policies for over 100 years, because progressive taxation is redistributive.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      I assumed lower case socialist is the proper term to describe policies which trade individual agency for collective benefits, like publicly funded roads or fire stations. What is a better term?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I see. Programs that provide collective benefit, as long as you're a part of the group that benefits, generally aren't considered redistributive, either. As far as the things you named, I would refer to those things generally as "social programs." Some of them might fall under the term "welfare programs," such as food stamps. Fire departments and roads, I wouldn't even classify as redistributive, for the simple fact that, although you pay for them, you also benefit from them. Side note: I hate how the word "socialist" is a thought terminating cliche in the US. People should be more open minded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

by gfodor 5y ago

laurent92 5y ago

We’ve spent billions in all Western countries telling people to do exercise against obesity and cancer. But they chose complete lockdowns then turning lockdowns, day on/day off. They supposedly cared for my immediate health (Covid) by sacrificing my long-term health (obesity, asthma due to lockdowns), but also loss of friends (bad for health) and social isolation (demonstrably increases the chances of suicide and cancer, but hey, not immediately). Bad for immediate health, ie suicide attempt in April last year. If they were true Socialists, they would never ever EVER lock us down or socially-isolate us. This was the biggest terrorist attack of all times.

WalterBright 5y ago
> If they were true Socialists I'm amused by that statement. I've never known a Socialist who did not know what was best for everyone else, and consequently thought it should be forced on them. Of course, I also know what is best for others. But I'm not willing to force it on them. People have a right to be stupid.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bserge 5y ago
Yeah, welcome to modern health care. "We don't care as long as you're alive". And if you die, oops, what a tragedy. We'll do nothing to prevent it from happening again. Pay your taxes, though, or else!
- trevcanhuman 5y ago
  wow, what a great way to put it (not meaning it sarcastically)

tomjen3 5y ago

That would amount to a payout to people who already exercise (in one of the ways that you would accept as proof of exercise), but how much would it move on the margin? Obesity is a much bigger health concern than COVID in the long term, but I don't think a payout like the one you proposed would do much, if anything, to actually deal with obesity, especially because the issue is that people eat too damn much (I know that is why I am fat).

gfodor 5y ago
I think payout is just one idea. The point I’m making is that I support the government incentivizing fitness through the levers it typically uses to incentivize behavior, like tax benefits, regulatory burden reduction, access to entitlement programs, etc. within reason of course.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

> I’m not generally a socialist, but I would not be opposed to a monthly government payout to people who provide proof-of-workout. Why do you think this is socialist?

gfodor 5y ago
Because it would be redistributive.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  You seem to be suffering from a misconception. Redistributive policies are not inherently socialist. If you believe they are, then the US has had socialist policies for over 100 years, because progressive taxation is redistributive.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    I assumed lower case socialist is the proper term to describe policies which trade individual agency for collective benefits, like publicly funded roads or fire stations. What is a better term?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      I see. Programs that provide collective benefit, as long as you're a part of the group that benefits, generally aren't considered redistributive, either. As far as the things you named, I would refer to those things generally as "social programs." Some of them might fall under the term "welfare programs," such as food stamps. Fire departments and roads, I wouldn't even classify as redistributive, for the simple fact that, although you pay for them, you also benefit from them. Side note: I hate how the word "socialist" is a thought terminating cliche in the US. People should be more open minded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...