5 ms·

No actions live in a bubble. Wether we like it or not what you and I do affect each other. Certain things we should protect for people to do individually, and o

No actions live in a bubble. Wether we like it or not what you and I do affect each other. Certain things we should protect for people to do individually, and others should not be. How that is weighed is based on the level of harm. The cost of medical and other socioeconomic issues in individuals that smoke, along with them harming others through second hand smoke is a far larger cost to society. Therefore, we tax it.

erulabs 5y ago
Not pushing one way or the other, but it's important to consider the framing: Ignoring the second-hand smoke complexity for a moment, if everyone pays for every one else's health, then of course we should ban or tax cigarettes and/or anything that causes excess harm to a single person that others have to pay for (taxes help cover the externality). However, if each individual pays for the entirety of their own health-care costs, then it is far less obvious what actions should be taken. To put it another way, if I was in command of an army, I wouldn't allow smoking or various unhealthy or time-wasting activities. China wants a higher GDP: ban all the video games! This sort of social-engineering is _possibly_ for the best, and possibly for the worse, but I think it's a bit of an injustice to just state "well we all have to pay for each other's health so the policy should be ______". We don't necessarily have to all pay for each others health. Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. If we all had to pay for each others hobbies, for example, you'd bet there would be folks trying to get cloud-watching banned in favor of something productive like knitting. This sort of social planning rarely works out how one expects it to.
- Clubber 5y ago
  I would argue in the US, that sort of thing benefits corporate healthcare more than anything. Nobody wants other people telling them what to do. In other words, the more people say we're going to ban ______ because I don't want to pay for your risky lifestyle through my healthcare taxes, the less likely universal healthcare will ever be a thing in the US. If we really want universal healthcare, we should allow everyone to join, thus the universal part. But people like to preach to other people, so Que Será, Será.
- Talanes 5y ago
  > If we all had to pay for each others hobbies, for example, you'd bet there would be folks trying to get cloud-watching banned in favor of something productive like knitting. If I had to pay for other people's hobbies, surely I'd want the opposite? Why would I prefer to buy someone yarn rather than let them watch clouds for free?
- wheels 5y ago
  > Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. This is probably false. Smokers rack up less health care costs than nonsmokers because they die earlier. The study I'm linking doesn't consider the possibility of exiting paying into a healthcare system early, but even most smokers die after retirement: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506
  - erulabs 5y ago
    Hah that is interesting. I don't think it changes my point tho - maybe just makes smoking a bad example. However, I was using it as a proxy for "anything that increases your health-care costs".
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    Retired people provide a lot of useful labor, it’s just much of it is in the home and therefore both unpaid and invisible. Grandparents provide childcare for working children and they help take care of their spouses that would otherwise need in-home care. It’s a complicated calculation.
    - wheels 5y ago
      I think the argument that you're making is that smoking is a net-negative economically, which strikes me as plausible, if not obviously true. There you'd also need to go a step further and consider the economic contributions of the tobacco industry. You're right that it's very complicated (and macabre). But that's a broader question than whether or not their relative costs (vs. payments) into a healthcare system. The reason I brought up retirement is that most people in the west pay into health care systems until retirement, and only (or mostly) draw from it once retired.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  I find it it interesting that spending billions on promoting smoking somehow isn't considered social engineering, but trying to prevent it somehow is.
  - erulabs 5y ago
    In spirit, I agree, but just in terms of economic language, the "social engineer" by definition has to raise funds non-voluntarily. You're 100% right, we're _all_ social engineers - but if you raise your funds voluntarily (ie: on the market), you're more accurately called a capitalist, at least in the language of econ.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  >However, if each individual pays for the entirety of their own health-care costs, then it is far less obvious what actions should be taken. This doesn't exist in the nature we find modern civilization in. You pay for others health, one way or another. We either pay for it sooner and reap the benefits of people being able to work, have families, money, or you pay for it with poverty, crime, "blood". You also pay for it with driven yet disadvantaged people not being able to rise to positions that use their abilities. Example: Students. Health is inherent to humans. To be human at all is to have health and medical requirements. Cloud services are not a requirement of your very existence.
rank0 5y ago
This is a horrible argument. I could apply the same logic to all your unhealthy habits as well. I don’t smoke but regressive tax structures and social control “for the greater good” are signs of a dystopia. Good intentions, road to hell…etc
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  Quite a lot of people on HN are arguing for such social control in the US through promoting a universal healthcare system. And which many countries currently implement… so your contrarian opinion is interesting. How would you balance tradeoffs in either direction?
  - rank0 5y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your question. I do not believe that universal healthcare cannot exist without prohibition and regressive taxes.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  "good intentions are a road to hell" is false with some very basic thought experiments. For example, read the U.S. consitution, specifically on its ammendments. Freedom of speech is a good intention. Individual autonomy at all is a "good intention" just as much as fascism is. Everyone can have conflicting good intentions, therefore it's a poor argument that doesn't address the merits. You could apply that argument to other unhealth habits. Heart Disease is one of the most deadly and debilitating problems in the U.S., which should be met with significant tax on sugary products. The health costs are astronomical and deadly. However you're strawmanning my argument, there is a weight to when someone deserves regulation and does not. Many "unhealthy habits" do not rise to a great enough problem or have other benefits. For example, sitting at the computer is an "unhealthy habit", and it can be quite lucrative in certain work. Dystopia is when a private company advertises to children that they should take a substance that company designed to be heavily addictive and harmful to themselves and everyone around them. Social control is an natural part of humans and has always existed. Government regulations, when done in certain methods, demonstrably work. Other times, they do not.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

erulabs 5y ago

Not pushing one way or the other, but it's important to consider the framing: Ignoring the second-hand smoke complexity for a moment, if everyone pays for every one else's health, then of course we should ban or tax cigarettes and/or anything that causes excess harm to a single person that others have to pay for (taxes help cover the externality). However, if each individual pays for the entirety of their own health-care costs, then it is far less obvious what actions should be taken. To put it another way, if I was in command of an army, I wouldn't allow smoking or various unhealthy or time-wasting activities. China wants a higher GDP: ban all the video games! This sort of social-engineering is _possibly_ for the best, and possibly for the worse, but I think it's a bit of an injustice to just state "well we all have to pay for each other's health so the policy should be ______". We don't necessarily have to all pay for each others health. Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. If we all had to pay for each others hobbies, for example, you'd bet there would be folks trying to get cloud-watching banned in favor of something productive like knitting. This sort of social planning rarely works out how one expects it to.

Clubber 5y ago
I would argue in the US, that sort of thing benefits corporate healthcare more than anything. Nobody wants other people telling them what to do. In other words, the more people say we're going to ban ______ because I don't want to pay for your risky lifestyle through my healthcare taxes, the less likely universal healthcare will ever be a thing in the US. If we really want universal healthcare, we should allow everyone to join, thus the universal part. But people like to preach to other people, so Que Será, Será.
Talanes 5y ago
> If we all had to pay for each others hobbies, for example, you'd bet there would be folks trying to get cloud-watching banned in favor of something productive like knitting. If I had to pay for other people's hobbies, surely I'd want the opposite? Why would I prefer to buy someone yarn rather than let them watch clouds for free?
wheels 5y ago
> Absolutes aside, a smoker should have higher insurance costs than a non-smoker. This is probably false. Smokers rack up less health care costs than nonsmokers because they die earlier. The study I'm linking doesn't consider the possibility of exiting paying into a healthcare system early, but even most smokers die after retirement: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506
- erulabs 5y ago
  Hah that is interesting. I don't think it changes my point tho - maybe just makes smoking a bad example. However, I was using it as a proxy for "anything that increases your health-care costs".
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  Retired people provide a lot of useful labor, it’s just much of it is in the home and therefore both unpaid and invisible. Grandparents provide childcare for working children and they help take care of their spouses that would otherwise need in-home care. It’s a complicated calculation.
  - wheels 5y ago
    I think the argument that you're making is that smoking is a net-negative economically, which strikes me as plausible, if not obviously true. There you'd also need to go a step further and consider the economic contributions of the tobacco industry. You're right that it's very complicated (and macabre). But that's a broader question than whether or not their relative costs (vs. payments) into a healthcare system. The reason I brought up retirement is that most people in the west pay into health care systems until retirement, and only (or mostly) draw from it once retired.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
I find it it interesting that spending billions on promoting smoking somehow isn't considered social engineering, but trying to prevent it somehow is.
- erulabs 5y ago
  In spirit, I agree, but just in terms of economic language, the "social engineer" by definition has to raise funds non-voluntarily. You're 100% right, we're _all_ social engineers - but if you raise your funds voluntarily (ie: on the market), you're more accurately called a capitalist, at least in the language of econ.
devwastaken 5y ago
>However, if each individual pays for the entirety of their own health-care costs, then it is far less obvious what actions should be taken. This doesn't exist in the nature we find modern civilization in. You pay for others health, one way or another. We either pay for it sooner and reap the benefits of people being able to work, have families, money, or you pay for it with poverty, crime, "blood". You also pay for it with driven yet disadvantaged people not being able to rise to positions that use their abilities. Example: Students. Health is inherent to humans. To be human at all is to have health and medical requirements. Cloud services are not a requirement of your very existence.

rank0 5y ago

This is a horrible argument. I could apply the same logic to all your unhealthy habits as well. I don’t smoke but regressive tax structures and social control “for the greater good” are signs of a dystopia. Good intentions, road to hell…etc

MichaelZuo 5y ago
Quite a lot of people on HN are arguing for such social control in the US through promoting a universal healthcare system. And which many countries currently implement… so your contrarian opinion is interesting. How would you balance tradeoffs in either direction?
- rank0 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your question. I do not believe that universal healthcare cannot exist without prohibition and regressive taxes.
devwastaken 5y ago
"good intentions are a road to hell" is false with some very basic thought experiments. For example, read the U.S. consitution, specifically on its ammendments. Freedom of speech is a good intention. Individual autonomy at all is a "good intention" just as much as fascism is. Everyone can have conflicting good intentions, therefore it's a poor argument that doesn't address the merits. You could apply that argument to other unhealth habits. Heart Disease is one of the most deadly and debilitating problems in the U.S., which should be met with significant tax on sugary products. The health costs are astronomical and deadly. However you're strawmanning my argument, there is a weight to when someone deserves regulation and does not. Many "unhealthy habits" do not rise to a great enough problem or have other benefits. For example, sitting at the computer is an "unhealthy habit", and it can be quite lucrative in certain work. Dystopia is when a private company advertises to children that they should take a substance that company designed to be heavily addictive and harmful to themselves and everyone around them. Social control is an natural part of humans and has always existed. Government regulations, when done in certain methods, demonstrably work. Other times, they do not.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]