4 ms·

This is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extre

• WarmWash 6mo ago
  We can just tax the rich to cover the cost of our personal decisions. Which is their fault anyway because I wouldn't have gotten diabetes if they didn't shove that junk take out food down my throat.
• tastyfreeze 6mo ago
  Now to take the last logical step like Canada and suggest assisted suicide to the high cost patients.
  • BLKNSLVR 6mo ago
    Only those who have become high cost patients due to choosing to put themselves at risk for years.
    • tastyfreeze 6mo ago
      Admittedly I have only read of Canadian Healthcare, but, that is not what I have read. Terminal patients and the elderly are offered death as a treatment. Cancer patients are the most common. About 5% of deaths in Canada are from the MAID program.
• fontain 6mo ago
  I assume you’re being sarcastic but just in case: the goal of single payer healthcare isn’t to spend the least amount of money on healthcare. The goal of single payer healthcare is to guarantee everyone a minimum quality of life. You can believe that the minimum quality of life includes the option to engage in unprotected sex and sky diving.
  • tt24 6mo ago
    I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior. Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?
    • fontain 6mo ago
      Society is by definition “forcing” people to carry the burden of other’s choices. You’re drawing an entirely arbitrary line at direct taxation. Why is it “fair”? Because society isn’t zero sum. We each give and take in different ways.
      • tt24 6mo ago
        Not sure how much a skydiving soda drinking drug user “””gives””” to society haha
        • fontain 6mo ago
          Your perception of drug users is woefully out of date. The most “valuable” members of society by your metric (contributing tax dollars) are using a lot of drugs. The U.K. upper middle class are snorting so much coke.
          • tt24 6mo ago
            Sorry I don’t believe this
            • newdee 6mo ago
              Why not?
              • 6mo ago
• keybored 6mo ago
  Taxes as they currently exist are a bandaid on wealth inequality. Getting rid of rich people parasitism would be a better way to balance the budget than either right-libertarian principles or taxing commoners for their stress relief like tobacco. Though judging by the amount milords in the article I suspect that is far ways off.
  • tt24 6mo ago
    Wealth inequality is a nonissue. Nobody has ever been able to provide me with any evidence to the contrary.
    • keybored 6mo ago
      Not an insignificant amount of ink has been spilled on this over the centuries. So I guess you will never be convinced otherwise.
      • tt24 6mo ago
        Not until someone provides evidence for it no
• postepowanieadm 6mo ago
  Not really: you want to prevent people from being passive smokers, and add sufficient taxation on cigarettes.
• masfuerte 6mo ago
  You are wrong. The swingeing taxes on cigarettes already cover the healthcare costs and the smokers die early saving even more money.
  • bitshiftfaced 6mo ago
    > smokers die early saving even more money. I thought cancer care tended to be pretty expensive. Not sure that your math is so clear cut.
    • masfuerte 6mo ago
      There's good news there too. Smokers don't just die of cancer. They also suffer from a variety of other fatal conditions.
• noplacelikehome 6mo ago
  Why must I do anything of the sort? As with all things there is a balance to be found that does not necessarily mean zero. I can both support healthcare that’s free at the point of access (this distinction is important, because the NHS is not strictly speaking a “single payer” system, as both National Insurance and tax revenues from e.g. alcohol and cigarette sales are used to fund it) and individual liberty, even if that increases the cost of healthcare delivery. The NHS is not evidence of an authoritarian regime, it is evidence of the state playing a role in maintaining baseline standards of health, largely for the purposes of maintaining a healthy workforce. Americans have such a wildly warped worldview in my experience.
  • tt24 6mo ago
    The 5% of high risk healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. It’s not fair for the 95% of low risk people to subsidize the remainder.
    • noplacelikehome 6mo ago
      [dead]