4 ms·
Yes, I understand the future-you aspect. You handle the most immediate costs first. But I don't think that qualifies "adequate dental care" or "maintaining a h
by ip26 5y ago
Yes, I understand the future-you aspect. You handle the most immediate costs first.
But I don't think that qualifies "adequate dental care" or "maintaining a healthy weight" (two problems frequently prioritized below this month's rent) as luxuries. Not only are they something everyone should have, deferring attention to those things is a net cost for everyone in the end (sufferers are miserable, society pays). This is why health insurance has started subsidizing preventative care. Climate change is a similar can of worms.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoI mean... I agree that fixing your tooth now for 100eur (price of a filling here) will save you from an artificial tooth (1000+eur) in the long run,... but this doesn't help you a lot if you don't have 100eur now. If you have enough money, you can insulate your house, build geothermal heating, solar heating+power, and all that stuff. At that "richness level", a power bill increase is a negligable cost. If you're really poor, power bill increases mean choosing between freezing at home or eating. I pay ~45eur monthly for power (i get heat from elsewhere), and doubling that to 90eur would mean one less aliexpress toy for me. It would also mean around 10 days of cheap food for someone poor. Basically, rich can afford to be green, but forcing green policies impacts poor the most. Ban non-eco cars? Sure... someone rich already has a car with low exhausts to pass the bar, and they will replace the car for a new one, even cleaner in a few years... poor people have an old beater with a shitty engine, burning oil, and a new eco policy means, that they have no way to drive to work anymore.