3 ms·

Its weird that america cares about this so much when healthcare is primarily private so the externalities of this choice can be priced via insurance premiums. M

Its weird that america cares about this so much when healthcare is primarily private so the externalities of this choice can be priced via insurance premiums. Makes more sense to me for places eith primarily socialized medicine to care more and yet they have this largely legal and largely don't have problems as well. in short the guys that really care about this have less justification for that care (and ensueing interference) and the guys that dont care that much have larger reasons to potentially care but at the same time dont seem to be exhibitibg the large problems claimed to justify intervention.

tombert 2y ago
To be clear, I would much rather have socialized healthcare, but just to rebut your point a bit here. > Its weird that america cares about this so much when healthcare is primarily private so the externalities of this choice can be priced via insurance premiums. Makes more sense to me for places eith primarily socialized medicine to care more and yet they have this largely legal and largely don't have problems as well. Medical insurance is more or a less a collectivist thing, even in the US, and most people aren't directly buying their own insurance, they get a flat rate from their employer. If there is a considerable increase of diseases and hospitalization, insurance companies will end up raising their rates for everyone, including those who didn't do the stuff that increased the hospitalizations. Also, if there's a risk of the person drinking raw milk incubating a disease that can eventually spread to other humans, then it's absurd to pretend that it doesn't affect us. If you catch tuberculosis from raw milk, and then spread that to someone else, that's obviously bad for literally every other human on earth, or at least every other human who is susceptible to TB.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  You claimed American healthcare is large collectivist when the point was it was much less socialized/collectivist than other places that don't seem to care about raw milk being legal and also don't seem to have an appreciable health problem from raw milk being legal. I wouldn't really call that a rebut, I would call that missing the point. Also, that there is a risk to others in it self is not a per se reason for illegality (or else everything would be illegal). What matters is the cost of the risk not borne by the person making the choice vs the net benefit directly to the person taking the risk. Based on the fact that raw milk is legal in much of the world with very rare ill effects (and even rarer ill effects beyond the person consuming the raw milk product) your last two paragraphs ring very hollow
  - tombert 2y ago
    > I wouldn't really call that a rebut, I would call that missing the point. I don't think I did actually. Even if other countries are more collectivist than the US, that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect me if something causes a spike in costs. Yes, the UK is more collectivist but I don't really know what that has to do with anything other than a potential misunderstanding of the US healthcare system; rising health insurance costs could still affect me, not even counting the fact that around 100+ million people in the US (around 1/3 of the entire population) are on medicare or medicaid, which is directly socialized [1] [2] and would directly affect all taxpayers. > your last two paragraphs ring very hollow Sure. It's all about risk management, a glorified expected value calculation. I don't really care if raw milk is legal or not, I just don't like it when people pretend that anything is all sunshine and fucking rainbows. If it has a risk of carrying an airborne illness, instead of pretending that it doesn't, we should acknowledge it and regulate it properly. [1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica... [2] https://data.cms.gov/summary-statistics-on-beneficiary-enrollment/medicare-and-medicaid-reports/cms-program-statistics-medicare-total-enrollment https://data.cms.gov/summary-statistics-on-beneficiary-enrol...

tombert 2y ago

To be clear, I would much rather have socialized healthcare, but just to rebut your point a bit here. > Its weird that america cares about this so much when healthcare is primarily private so the externalities of this choice can be priced via insurance premiums. Makes more sense to me for places eith primarily socialized medicine to care more and yet they have this largely legal and largely don't have problems as well. Medical insurance is more or a less a collectivist thing, even in the US, and most people aren't directly buying their own insurance, they get a flat rate from their employer. If there is a considerable increase of diseases and hospitalization, insurance companies will end up raising their rates for everyone, including those who didn't do the stuff that increased the hospitalizations. Also, if there's a risk of the person drinking raw milk incubating a disease that can eventually spread to other humans, then it's absurd to pretend that it doesn't affect us. If you catch tuberculosis from raw milk, and then spread that to someone else, that's obviously bad for literally every other human on earth, or at least every other human who is susceptible to TB.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
You claimed American healthcare is large collectivist when the point was it was much less socialized/collectivist than other places that don't seem to care about raw milk being legal and also don't seem to have an appreciable health problem from raw milk being legal. I wouldn't really call that a rebut, I would call that missing the point. Also, that there is a risk to others in it self is not a per se reason for illegality (or else everything would be illegal). What matters is the cost of the risk not borne by the person making the choice vs the net benefit directly to the person taking the risk. Based on the fact that raw milk is legal in much of the world with very rare ill effects (and even rarer ill effects beyond the person consuming the raw milk product) your last two paragraphs ring very hollow
- tombert 2y ago
  > I wouldn't really call that a rebut, I would call that missing the point. I don't think I did actually. Even if other countries are more collectivist than the US, that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect me if something causes a spike in costs. Yes, the UK is more collectivist but I don't really know what that has to do with anything other than a potential misunderstanding of the US healthcare system; rising health insurance costs could still affect me, not even counting the fact that around 100+ million people in the US (around 1/3 of the entire population) are on medicare or medicaid, which is directly socialized [1] [2] and would directly affect all taxpayers. > your last two paragraphs ring very hollow Sure. It's all about risk management, a glorified expected value calculation. I don't really care if raw milk is legal or not, I just don't like it when people pretend that anything is all sunshine and fucking rainbows. If it has a risk of carrying an airborne illness, instead of pretending that it doesn't, we should acknowledge it and regulate it properly. [1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica... [2] https://data.cms.gov/summary-statistics-on-beneficiary-enrollment/medicare-and-medicaid-reports/cms-program-statistics-medicare-total-enrollment https://data.cms.gov/summary-statistics-on-beneficiary-enrol...