4 ms·

> Who fucking cares? Starving people across the world. As the pie grows everyone gets a slice. Now the pie needs to be better divided across the globe, I agree

> Who fucking cares? Starving people across the world. As the pie grows everyone gets a slice. Now the pie needs to be better divided across the globe, I agree. > Why? Inalienable rights are a cornerstone of this country. I think this should include what we ingest. Now, we're not exempt from the consequences of what we ingest. I can def understand situations where the collective has a higher responsibility, but I don't think smoking flavored tobacco is one of them. Edit: To the person below me, it is ludicrous that healthy people subsidize non-healthy people's healthcare when they choose to smoke.

ineedasername 4y ago
I'm not a smoker, but right now I am suffering from the consequences of other people's choices. I pay higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums because smokers make bad choices. Whether you charge the company & they pass the cost on to consumers or charge the consumers directly with a tax, they should pay the financial cost of the decisions they make.
- 4ggr0 4y ago
  For me the difficulty with this is where to draw the line. Should we do the same for people who consume alcohol? What about people who aren't fit, overweight? What about excessive sport, bad posture, eating lots of red meat, sugar or fat, or do or consume [INSERT LIST OF UNHEALTHY THINGS] Someone may call this a slippery-slope argument, but I'd disagree. If the argument is that people should pay for their own reckless, unhealthy or dangerous behaviour, I don't understand why we would only apply this to smoking. Lots of things we do as humans are unhealthy and unnecessary, I really don't understand the focus on smoking. PS: I am not and never was a smoker.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    Someone may call this a slippery-slope argument, but I'd disagree. I agree, and don't think it's a slippery slope. I see nothing wrong with health insurance premiums being partially determined by life choices. Life insurance often already does this to some degree. Car insurance does this all the time based on the choices a person has made (choice of car, choice to speed, drive drunk, or otherwise engage in riskier behavior) The fact that people might argue over where to draw the line is never, by itself, justification for not drawing a line at all. Smoking & alcohol at least are areas with enough research to quantify costs a bit more. Excessive sport is murkier: Are risks of injury offset by an overall healthier body? Food is more difficult. There are a lot of socioeconomic issues surrounding access & affordability to healthy foods that mean the issue isn't purely one of choice.
    - Drblessing 4y ago
      > The fact that people might argue over where to draw the line is never, by itself, justification for not drawing a line at all. Wow, this is a great quote. I'm using this in the future.
    - 4ggr0 4y ago
      > Life insurance often already does this to some degree. Car insurance does this all the time based on the choices a person has made This is probably different from person to person, based on their ideology or world-view. Because I don't think that we should be treated differently based on our choices. For me insurances are an act of solidarity - We all pay, and if someone needs money, they receive it. Of course that excludes fraud, but I think you know what I mean. But I respect your view, I understand why people would want premiums to be individual. It's just not my style. > socioeconomic issues surrounding access & affordability to healthy foods That's true, yes. Socioeconomic standings can however also influence other factors we have mentioned, though admittedly not so much as food. But one example I have in mind is drug use - Technically opiates and other hard drugs are very dangerous and harmful, and I think we're both aware how much socioeconomic factors influences consumption of such substances. I have to agree with the other commenter, this sentence is very quotable: "The fact that people might argue over where to draw the line is never, by itself, justification for not drawing a line at all." Good insight, thanks. Will keep this in mind the next time I think about potential lines.
- yucky 4y ago
  This line of thinking gives ultimate autonomy over a persons body to the state. There is no difference between this and a person who is too fat, does drugs, skydives, has too any abortions, etc. Every ideological group will salivate at the idea of controlling what you can and can't do with your body if the result could be higher medical expenses that need to be paid for by the community.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    It doesn't have to be the state, it could also be the insurance companies.

ineedasername 4y ago

I'm not a smoker, but right now I am suffering from the consequences of other people's choices. I pay higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums because smokers make bad choices. Whether you charge the company & they pass the cost on to consumers or charge the consumers directly with a tax, they should pay the financial cost of the decisions they make.

4ggr0 4y ago
For me the difficulty with this is where to draw the line. Should we do the same for people who consume alcohol? What about people who aren't fit, overweight? What about excessive sport, bad posture, eating lots of red meat, sugar or fat, or do or consume [INSERT LIST OF UNHEALTHY THINGS] Someone may call this a slippery-slope argument, but I'd disagree. If the argument is that people should pay for their own reckless, unhealthy or dangerous behaviour, I don't understand why we would only apply this to smoking. Lots of things we do as humans are unhealthy and unnecessary, I really don't understand the focus on smoking. PS: I am not and never was a smoker.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Someone may call this a slippery-slope argument, but I'd disagree. I agree, and don't think it's a slippery slope. I see nothing wrong with health insurance premiums being partially determined by life choices. Life insurance often already does this to some degree. Car insurance does this all the time based on the choices a person has made (choice of car, choice to speed, drive drunk, or otherwise engage in riskier behavior) The fact that people might argue over where to draw the line is never, by itself, justification for not drawing a line at all. Smoking & alcohol at least are areas with enough research to quantify costs a bit more. Excessive sport is murkier: Are risks of injury offset by an overall healthier body? Food is more difficult. There are a lot of socioeconomic issues surrounding access & affordability to healthy foods that mean the issue isn't purely one of choice.
  - Drblessing 4y ago
    > The fact that people might argue over where to draw the line is never, by itself, justification for not drawing a line at all. Wow, this is a great quote. I'm using this in the future.
  - 4ggr0 4y ago
    > Life insurance often already does this to some degree. Car insurance does this all the time based on the choices a person has made This is probably different from person to person, based on their ideology or world-view. Because I don't think that we should be treated differently based on our choices. For me insurances are an act of solidarity - We all pay, and if someone needs money, they receive it. Of course that excludes fraud, but I think you know what I mean. But I respect your view, I understand why people would want premiums to be individual. It's just not my style. > socioeconomic issues surrounding access & affordability to healthy foods That's true, yes. Socioeconomic standings can however also influence other factors we have mentioned, though admittedly not so much as food. But one example I have in mind is drug use - Technically opiates and other hard drugs are very dangerous and harmful, and I think we're both aware how much socioeconomic factors influences consumption of such substances. I have to agree with the other commenter, this sentence is very quotable: "The fact that people might argue over where to draw the line is never, by itself, justification for not drawing a line at all." Good insight, thanks. Will keep this in mind the next time I think about potential lines.
yucky 4y ago
This line of thinking gives ultimate autonomy over a persons body to the state. There is no difference between this and a person who is too fat, does drugs, skydives, has too any abortions, etc. Every ideological group will salivate at the idea of controlling what you can and can't do with your body if the result could be higher medical expenses that need to be paid for by the community.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  It doesn't have to be the state, it could also be the insurance companies.