5 ms·

Thank you for highlighting why I will never support government healthcare. I do not wish to live in a world where the government is monitoring and regulating w

by syshum 5y ago

Thank you for highlighting why I will never support government healthcare. I do not wish to live in a world where the government is monitoring and regulating what I have for breakfast, "for my own good" No thank you, I will pass on that kind of dystopia

Sharlin 5y ago
I would reply to this, but my government is monitoring my blood pressure and taking me to an intervention camp if it gets too high. (Apologies for the sarcasm.)
b112 5y ago
The is a false equivalency. Having the government acting as insurer, has nothing to do with your breakfast.
- syshum 5y ago
  Did you read the comment I replied to, Their exact statement was that the government has a compelling interest in curbing obesity because they pay for health care.. jeez, context matter.... Further it is completely logical conclusion that if the US government became in insurer, the next step in that would be to attempt mandate health food choices in order to curb runways costs that would result from such a program
  - b112 5y ago
    Your last sentence indicates my statement was relevant. Secondly, the entire West, outside of the US, has state run health care, and in every case: * no one is doing what you suggest * society gets better health care * costs are reduced via so many other means An example? Governments negotiate as large-blocks of purchasers for medication. If corporations do not play ball, then laws can be changed to allow for a reduction in IP rights, length of patents, and so on. Note that this is not some silly "Stop companies from making profit", but instead, "Stop companies from making insane, over the top, crazy profit at the expensive of poor people dying". National governments also counter the above, with a restriction on development costs. For example, state run Universities being used to assist in clinical trials, grants for developing certain types of medication, the goal being to reduce risk/profit cost for drug manufacturers, which cite such high profits as necessary due to development costs. There are so many ways to win/win, without letting people die because they lost their job. There is also a societal balance, and much like stopping companies from dumping toxic waste, or clear cutting forests (instead of selective cuts), the needs of society must be balanced with the needs for free enterprise. This is not anti-profit, any more than not having the lot next to your house, become a dumping ground for nuclear waste. I know all of this seems horrifying, yet bizarrely, the rest of the West seems to handle it quite well. You might also want to ask yourself, who benefits from scare mongering over such things? You benefits from making you think and absurd idea, that your bacon will disappear because the government pays for health care? Who? Oh wait, the for-profit, out of control, massive lobbying health-care providers in the US? Yes, they want you to feel fear.
soperj 5y ago
Every Western country on earth aside from the US has public healthcare, none of them monitor or regulate what you have for breakfast.
mywittyname 5y ago
The government already regulates what you have for breakfast. Think about how many federal organizations are out there regulating every aspect of food production. The fact that you don't realize this is indicative of how unfounded your fears are about government over-reach. Additionally, the Free Market provides health insurance companies with the power to charge extra who smoke, don't exercise, or otherwise practice unhealthy habits. I have to upload fitness data, get annual physicals, and do a bunch of other little things not required of people on Medicaid. Anti-government people forget that they have a lot more influence over government organizations than they do private ones. If people are pissed at the government, they have elected reps with the power to solve the issue. If they get pissed at a private org, there's not much that can be done unless what they are doing is illegal (even then, it will take years to remedy).
- syshum 5y ago
  >> The fact that you don't realize this is indicative of how unfounded your fears are about government over-reach. This is very amusing... maybe I do realize it, maybe I believe the government is already over reaching, and maybe, just maybe I oppose many of the things you are talking about. Maybe I do not want to see government expanded even more. >>Additionally, the Free Market provides health insurance companies with the power to charge extra who smoke, don't exercise, or otherwise practice unhealthy habits. Ok, and... You seem to think I would be opposed to this, I am not. I am opposed to government not voluntary exchange. To the extent the government requires insurance or the concept of insurance for healthcare to take place in the US is the core of the problem, not Freed markets. Nothing really in healthcare is free market though, it is ironic that you claim I do not understand the number of regulations on food production,but them proclaim Healthcare and/or Health Insurance are a free market. That is laughable.... >>Anti-government people forget that they have a lot more influence over government organizations than they do private ones. Martin Gilens and Benjamin Paige would disagree with you. Their analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. [1] [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
inglor_cz 5y ago
Perhaps the governments of the world should stop subsidizing sugar production... It is not as if we suffer from a lack of cheap sugar, and elimination of such subsidy would not infringe on anyone's privacy or civil rights.

by syshum 5y ago

Sharlin 5y ago

I would reply to this, but my government is monitoring my blood pressure and taking me to an intervention camp if it gets too high. (Apologies for the sarcasm.)

b112 5y ago

The is a false equivalency. Having the government acting as insurer, has nothing to do with your breakfast.

syshum 5y ago
Did you read the comment I replied to, Their exact statement was that the government has a compelling interest in curbing obesity because they pay for health care.. jeez, context matter.... Further it is completely logical conclusion that if the US government became in insurer, the next step in that would be to attempt mandate health food choices in order to curb runways costs that would result from such a program
- b112 5y ago
  Your last sentence indicates my statement was relevant. Secondly, the entire West, outside of the US, has state run health care, and in every case: * no one is doing what you suggest * society gets better health care * costs are reduced via so many other means An example? Governments negotiate as large-blocks of purchasers for medication. If corporations do not play ball, then laws can be changed to allow for a reduction in IP rights, length of patents, and so on. Note that this is not some silly "Stop companies from making profit", but instead, "Stop companies from making insane, over the top, crazy profit at the expensive of poor people dying". National governments also counter the above, with a restriction on development costs. For example, state run Universities being used to assist in clinical trials, grants for developing certain types of medication, the goal being to reduce risk/profit cost for drug manufacturers, which cite such high profits as necessary due to development costs. There are so many ways to win/win, without letting people die because they lost their job. There is also a societal balance, and much like stopping companies from dumping toxic waste, or clear cutting forests (instead of selective cuts), the needs of society must be balanced with the needs for free enterprise. This is not anti-profit, any more than not having the lot next to your house, become a dumping ground for nuclear waste. I know all of this seems horrifying, yet bizarrely, the rest of the West seems to handle it quite well. You might also want to ask yourself, who benefits from scare mongering over such things? You benefits from making you think and absurd idea, that your bacon will disappear because the government pays for health care? Who? Oh wait, the for-profit, out of control, massive lobbying health-care providers in the US? Yes, they want you to feel fear.

soperj 5y ago

Every Western country on earth aside from the US has public healthcare, none of them monitor or regulate what you have for breakfast.

mywittyname 5y ago

The government already regulates what you have for breakfast. Think about how many federal organizations are out there regulating every aspect of food production. The fact that you don't realize this is indicative of how unfounded your fears are about government over-reach. Additionally, the Free Market provides health insurance companies with the power to charge extra who smoke, don't exercise, or otherwise practice unhealthy habits. I have to upload fitness data, get annual physicals, and do a bunch of other little things not required of people on Medicaid. Anti-government people forget that they have a lot more influence over government organizations than they do private ones. If people are pissed at the government, they have elected reps with the power to solve the issue. If they get pissed at a private org, there's not much that can be done unless what they are doing is illegal (even then, it will take years to remedy).

syshum 5y ago
>> The fact that you don't realize this is indicative of how unfounded your fears are about government over-reach. This is very amusing... maybe I do realize it, maybe I believe the government is already over reaching, and maybe, just maybe I oppose many of the things you are talking about. Maybe I do not want to see government expanded even more. >>Additionally, the Free Market provides health insurance companies with the power to charge extra who smoke, don't exercise, or otherwise practice unhealthy habits. Ok, and... You seem to think I would be opposed to this, I am not. I am opposed to government not voluntary exchange. To the extent the government requires insurance or the concept of insurance for healthcare to take place in the US is the core of the problem, not Freed markets. Nothing really in healthcare is free market though, it is ironic that you claim I do not understand the number of regulations on food production,but them proclaim Healthcare and/or Health Insurance are a free market. That is laughable.... >>Anti-government people forget that they have a lot more influence over government organizations than they do private ones. Martin Gilens and Benjamin Paige would disagree with you. Their analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. [1] [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

inglor_cz 5y ago

Perhaps the governments of the world should stop subsidizing sugar production... It is not as if we suffer from a lack of cheap sugar, and elimination of such subsidy would not infringe on anyone's privacy or civil rights.