-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Universal healthcare and how it pertains those who live unhealthy lifestyles.....
- Thread starter New Fang
- Start date
Ask any doctor and they will tell you that health education and prevention is key. Taxing alcohol and cigs is a no-brainer, but the food industry must also be brought to heel. They are externalizing their costs and passing them on to hospitals/taxpayers, just like oil companies do. Externalizing is the fucking devil.
You also have to incentivize restaurants to offer mainly healthy foods. Make unhealthy restaurants an expensive treat, instead of the cheapest option. People will follow their wallet. Expensive cigarettes result in fewer smokers. The same should work with food.
In general, solve the externality problem, and you will have saved the world, and billions of lives.
You also have to incentivize restaurants to offer mainly healthy foods. Make unhealthy restaurants an expensive treat, instead of the cheapest option. People will follow their wallet. Expensive cigarettes result in fewer smokers. The same should work with food.
In general, solve the externality problem, and you will have saved the world, and billions of lives.
Really, our government does fuck-all to get folks on the healthy train. Sin-taxes help, but they're more designed as a revenue source masquerading as a public health measure. If the government were paying for everyone's healthcare, it might take more steps to encourage healthy lifestyles, whatever those steps may be.
The ones who typically protest the loudest against universal health care are the ones I often suspect lead the unhealthiest lifestyles to begin with.
This shit just isn't a concern in countries that smartly already have it.
Part of the problem of Americans' understanding of health care is believing that health outcomes are tightly died to "lifestyle choices." First, they're not, necessarily; second, American society is structured to encourage bad "choices" and discourage or even disallow good "choices."
Ah yes our bi-monthly "These people smoke, clearly we should abandon them to die" thread on why we don't need universal health care. Never gets old. Nobody makes 100% good healthy choices all the time. Abandoning people to die or charging them exorbitant prices simple to continue living is disgusting and shameful.
I'm not going to claim that he is particularly unhealthy. I'm guessing he's not.
What i am saying is he could almost certainly be healthier if he made better decisions. Does he still deserve healthcare?
How much fast food am I "allowed" to eat before I lose my healthcare? Is there a quota? Are we going to make it so the government or the health agencies track how much I'm eating garbage food? If I go over an allotted caloric intake every day do I disqualify myself?
You're advocating for an Orwellian hellscape under the guise of protecting late capitalist health industry hucksters who charge 12-15x what a treatment actually costs and individual so they can make a profit off people's sickness and injuries.
You're advocating for an Orwellian hellscape under the guise of protecting late capitalist health industry hucksters who charge 12-15x what a treatment actually costs and individual so they can make a profit off people's sickness and injuries.
I pay a fixed percentage of my income each month towards my insurance and the other half is on my employer. It's fine the way it is and I have no problem paying for those who lead an unhealthy lifestyle. People should be encouraged to discontinue unhealthy habits or maintain an average weight but not punished for them.
I can't agree with this in any way at all. It's universal for a reason. It covers everyone. Incentives for people who exercise and eat healthy? Sure! Depriving people of health care because of "poor choices?" Absolutely not.
Also, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding how substance abuse disorders work. In the vast majority of cases, there WILL be a relapse and usually multiple. My father's side of the family struggles with alcoholism and a family friend is an alcoholic. Whenever they've entered hospitals for treatment it has always been accompanied by the option of going to therapy and rehab. The medical provider can't force them to go. It's not like they go "You're liver is fine for now. See you soon!"
Not only that, the cities and states pay out for the visits that people can't pay for. I've never agreed with for-profit hospitals in general anyway.
That's fine if you have the time to make food. I worked overnight full time and went to school for time. I used public transport that took 3 hours a day for my commute. It was fast food or nothing, I literally had no time to cook for myself. It's not uncommon for poor people to eat poorly because there isn't much time in the day to cook.
I completely understand. Sometimes I'll just grab a bunch of carrots and celery and a nice amount of homemade hummus. To me, that's a meal and the hummus takes 10min to make the night before.
Price of that (which would last a week for me) would be $1.50 for LB carrots, $.99 for celery stalks, 25 cents a lemon or lemon juice, garlic, canned chickpeas 2 for a buck. So, ~$4.00 for a quick, filling, and healthy snack/meal that lasts the week. I know it doesn't sound like much and it's not for everyone but those are pretty much my eating habits for the past few years, can't complain. I'm the cheapest person I know and it took a while to spend/eat like this but my wallet thanks me lol Sorry to get off-topic.
Edit* Mind you, there's other things in rotation not always as simple as that but there's a shitton of things to choose from that can be that simple.
Last edited:
I don't care if its GG Alin. Everyone should be covered.
I pay taxes so kids go to school and I am surrounded by less stupid people. I would pay taxes to have the unhealthiest to have health insurance so they don't drain me economically in other ways. Plus I like less infectious diseases spreading.
Put a selfish spin on it. This benefits you. Not a zero sum game.
I pay taxes so kids go to school and I am surrounded by less stupid people. I would pay taxes to have the unhealthiest to have health insurance so they don't drain me economically in other ways. Plus I like less infectious diseases spreading.
Put a selfish spin on it. This benefits you. Not a zero sum game.
It's definitely a lot easier to eat healthy if you have more time and money for sure. That said, even when I was crazy busy and cash poor in grad school I still ate mostly at home and mostly healthy. There are lots of things that don't require cooking like fruits, vegetables that are good raw (even better with store bought hummus), sandwiches, yogurt, low-sugar cereal and milk etc. And reasonably healthy things you can fix very quickly like low fat/salt soups, veggie burgers, steamed veggies, "dump" meals in a crock pot where you just dump stuff in (can by the already cut up veggies in the store) and turn it on and have a meal ready whenever you get home etc. There's a lot of stuff you can fix quickly and eat at home/take with you that doesn't take much more time (or even less) than hitting a fast food spot and waiting on your order. Granted, some of that stuff costs a bit more than the cheapest items on fast food menus for sure, so you're point still stands.
Even now with more time and a lot more money we still eat a lot of that stuff. It's just nutrients and cheaper and healthier to keep it simple. I'm still doing the same sandwich and a couple fruits packed lunch I've done for 20+ years, for instance.
Fast food and junk companies deserve to maintain their profit margins.
Poor unhealthy people don't deserve healthcare.
This is how ridiculous this train of thought is. Tax these companies into oblivion, they do not deserve to turn a profit more than people deserve to live.
Poor unhealthy people don't deserve healthcare.
This is how ridiculous this train of thought is. Tax these companies into oblivion, they do not deserve to turn a profit more than people deserve to live.
Oh I totally agree with both of you. There are quite a bit of relatively cheap meals that are healthy for you. It's just that being in a situation where I was, I understand how people choose to eat fast food especially if one has to feed multiple people. I was also in a situation where the fast food place was the place I worked at so it was convenience and even cheaper than normal.
I definitely eat better now that I don't have to worry so much about time and money.
you're saying this about the country tripping over itself to prop up the coal industry.
Well put. Universal healthcare is a great public health measure. People aren't scared to run to the doctor or stay away from work if they have the flu. We're encouraged to engage in the process as we age, because even the most cynical actuary could see that monitoring for disease and treating it early is far less expensive to the public purse than waiting until it gets more serious.
Please explain to me how this won't negatively affect the poorest of the population
Oft repeated, not often actually thought about
It's definitely a factor but I don't think it's as big an issue as people make it out to be. And you can help offset the impact on the health system by using tax dollars to fund programs to help with things like smoking cessation, alcohol abuse, etc. You're never going to be able to eliminate it entirely and there are always going to be people who don't care about their health, but that doesn't make them any less eligible for universal health care.
The biggest impact is age, and you aren't going to jack up taxes on the elderly. The average health care cost borne by the government for 30-35 year olds? About $2,600. Add fifty years for 80-85? That balloons to over $15k per person.
The biggest impact is age, and you aren't going to jack up taxes on the elderly. The average health care cost borne by the government for 30-35 year olds? About $2,600. Add fifty years for 80-85? That balloons to over $15k per person.
Definitely understandable, and didn't mean anything negative toward you. Was just countering the point about needing to cook (or spend much time cooking) to eat healthy. There's that other thread with the dude pissed about ruining a meal and wanting to switch to carryout and TV dinners.
Some people just make cooking out to be more of an ordeal than it is. It can be very simple if you just stick to basic whole foods and some healthy-ish processed foods that require little time or effort to make meals out of. We leave the fancier stuff for when we eat out or weekends when we have more time for meal prep and want a treat. Otherwise it's just keeping fueled with mostly quick, healthy stuff that keeps our energy up and our weight down.
Honestly, I think for a lot of people (not saying for you) the bigger issue than cooking/prep time is being addicted to the taste and pleasure of eating a wider variety of foods and things that are very flavorful that tend to be high in fat, calories, salt and sugars. Outside of TV dinners and junk food making that type of stuff at home requires more cooking time generally than a simple meal with a lean protein and some veggies and maybe a complex carb.
Part of a holistic approach to health justice is also subsidizing healthier food options, providing more free avenues for public exercise (parks and so on), that sort of thing. I think there's a lot of carrot that can be used well above and beyond the basic stick of taxing cigarettes (which, FWIW, I'm fine with doing also).
Any type of tax that hits all goods is going to hit poorer people harder. But I think part of the idea is that poor people shouldn't be wasting money on booze, tobacco and sugary junk food/sodas in the first place, and that everyone regardless of income should be (dis)incentivized to avoid/limit consumption of unhealthy goods. We should also subsidize cost of healthy foods for lower income folk somehow. Maybe make foodstamps worth more for lean meats, fresh fruits and veggies than for other categories of eligible foods/drinks?
Things like regular physicals that lead to higher premiums and what not would hit poor people even harder and should be avoided as much as many like the idea. I'm work for a state university and there's a $75 a month surcharge if you're a tobacco user--you have to certify use/non-use each year and there are some penalties involved if caught lying (not sure what or how caught). That's clearly very regressive as the poor staff members are more likely to smoke/chew and less able to afford the surcharge than the faculty and admins.
I try not to think about this because it raises my blood pressure.
This right here.
The potential would be if the US went to a universal healthcare system that the federal government may impose further sin taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol as a means of further promoting healthy lifestyles. But that's kind of putting the cart before the horse. You gotta still convince people that helping their fellow man through their tax dollars is a worthwhile investment.
It's a right, not a privilege of those who meet some kind of arbitrary healthiness scale. Where do you draw the line? It's the same problem with pre-existing conditions. Do you tell people who work in hazardous conditions they're fucked because they "chose" to work in those conditions?
And also not providing health services to certain segments of society will just hurt society and have an even higher overall monetary cost. Fuck you got mine isn't a great economic strategy.
And also not providing health services to certain segments of society will just hurt society and have an even higher overall monetary cost. Fuck you got mine isn't a great economic strategy.
It would absolutely disproportionately fall on the poorest, I just don't think that's a problem so long as there is an adequate safety net elsewhere through universal healthcare, UBI, wage subsidies, or other benefits. Helping the poor is super important, but it can't be the only lens you're looking at policy through. I mean, hell, most European welfare states are funded through regressive VATs, as are a lot of the most left-wing single payer proposals in the US.
i know, i know. but they would throw the same hollow defense over burger flipper jobs without batting an eye. the absurdity that they do not respect that labor in the least would not matter at all.
This is one of those threads that shows that the idea that this place is far left is laughable. The sentiments behind a lot of posts here tend towards centre right. A heavy emphasis on focusing on "personal responsibility" over social reality, and a strong reaction against any sort of communal action that is felt to not have a clear and immediate personal benefit. Because let's be clear, a system set up this way benefits everyone in the long run.
Huge misconception. She'll end up costing less. Obese and smokers almost always cost less over the lifetime. They die at 55 from heart disease and incur no further costs.
Healthy people live to 88. Contact cancer$$$$ at 60. Beat it after rounds of expensive treatments$$$$$ and countless specialists$$$$$ visits$$$$$ and tests$$$$$. Get knees and hips replaced$$$$$ in their 70's then spend weeks or months in physical rehabilitation$$$$$. Finally reach their 80's where they rebattle cancer$$$$$ and failing organs$$$$ for years incurring huge costs in more tests$$$$, more visits$$$$, and more treatments$$$$$. All the while being on 7 plus pills$$$$$ a day and seeing docs regularly for decades.
Healthy people are expensive. Unhealthy people just drop dead.
Last edited:
Then don't use tax as a tool to try and correct behaviour. Why financially hit poorer people in an attempt to change behaviour when it should only be about education and making the right stuff available.
Poorer people will make the choices they want to make, not because of financial punishment, but out of being incentivised to do so and ease of access. They will end up sacrificing something else over the comforts that they enjoy.
For the record, I'm not trying to imply poorer people are stupid and I'm not trying to be condescending to them. But those comforts are more important a lot of the time than things that are existential
except pretty much every Europeans I've met (that come from universal health care countries), they do'nt even buy cigarettes. They just buy the tobacco and roll it themselves, thereby avoiding the cig tax. Also, no EU countries has legalized weed that I know of. Alcohol in Europe is cheaper than the US...so I do'nt know if there's a sin tax there.
You seriously think that cigarettes are taxed and tobacco isn't? I've got shiny new bridge to sell you, my dude.
Absolutely, addiction is a major force so I should have mentioned it. Often addiction is a part of social dysfunction brought upon by financial pressure so it all rolls in together really.
Make poor people less poor or not poor at all and a great deal of the ills of society will solve themselves
If you read my other post you'd see there's a tax per gram on loose tobacco in Canada as well so you're paying it regardless.
There's not, but we're talking about the hypothetical of a universal healthcare system being established, so I'm talking a bit more in terms of ideals than what we should do in the current system. Funding some small portion of a national health insurance system off of taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and sugar seems smart to me. Hiking taxes on those things right now, not attached to some welfare expansion, no.
Universal healthcare means precisely that. It's universal. Everyone gets the same access to medical treatment. It doesn't matter if you smoke or are overweight, you have a right to healthcare.
Cigarettes are highly taxed in Canada and that goes towards our healthcare system.
I don't care that "I'm paying for someone else's healthcare if they smoke" because someone else is also paying for mine. I haven't had any major medical problems (yet) but I have family members who have and it cost nothing except for paying for parking at the hospital when visiting them.
Cigarettes are highly taxed in Canada and that goes towards our healthcare system.
I don't care that "I'm paying for someone else's healthcare if they smoke" because someone else is also paying for mine. I haven't had any major medical problems (yet) but I have family members who have and it cost nothing except for paying for parking at the hospital when visiting them.
Ive never advocated that any of these groups of people who suffer from chronic illnesses or addiction SHOULDN'T receive health care or say they need to pay more. What I've said is that the universal healthcare system can't be used as a crutch so they can continue to live their lives while consuming the substances that are killing them at a regular rate.
I've got quite the expierence with people close to me and their families suffering from opioid addiction and alchoholism. I know for 2 of them right off the top of my head, who absolutely will oppose rehab and continue drinking or popping pills until they end up doing something that winds them up in jail. In both their cases, they only ended up going to rehab (and relapsing after as many do) because they were forced to as part of their release from prison. And yes, many do relapse and they should not be punished when they falter. But I know in both cases, they will consume whatever they can as it's their only joy in life, and they don't care if it lands them in an early grave.
Universal healthcare needs to not be a safety net for people who push their addictions to the point of body failure, and it also doesn't need to cut these people out. If universal healthcare is going to take care kf these people when hospitalized, it needs to extend beyond that and recognize that continued treatment is not an option.
When someone gets shot you don't remove the bullet and send them on their way and say "life saved, job is done". You sow them up and make sure they dont have an infection, broken bones, or rip their stitches. When someone is bed ridden after a car accident, when their bones are healed you don't say "all good now". You provide them therapy.
I'm not for cutting these people out of coverage, or forcing them to pay more. I'm for making sure they get treatment that will prevent future visits, even if that treatment is not what they want.
How that takes form, I don't know. But it's sure as hell better than what we have now with high mortality rates and near death expierences.
I was mostly just playing devil's advocate. I don't think tax disincentives or the incentive you suggest will work--be it for poor people or rich people or people in between. Most people are just apathetic shit bags that are never going to take care of themselves or make much impact on the world. It just is what it is. Most people of all incomes will more often choose the tasty, unhealthy food over the chicken breast and veggies regardless of price and access. Eating is pleasure rather than just a health requirement for most.
The real answer is people just have to accept that those of us that do take care of ourselves, are fortunate to be well off (or at least comfortable) financially are going to always have to sacrifice--and often in ways that on the surface seem unfair--for the good of society. People just need to realize it's also for their own good even if the benefits are more indirect and less tangible than keeping more of our paychecks. Society would be a worse and more dangerous place if people were dying in the streets, if people where even less educated than now and so on. So I'm fine paying for that stuff even though I rarely use health care and won't have any kids to send to public school--and I'm a borderline sociopath with little empathy. It's just a matter of getting more people to either be empathetic or at least see the indirect benefits that is key.
In terms of funding, the easiest solution in the US is to slash our fucking absurd military spending and end interventionism. That could pay for universal health care with no extra taxes while still keeping a large enough force to keep us safe.
And all benefits and costs reduced to short term (sub 50 year) finance.
#1 eats unhealthy, #2 is a smoker and #3 lives the ideal healthy lifestyle. #3 will die young cuz he is hit by a car during the day.
In retroperspective #3 would have had to pay more than 1 and two despite living a healthy life because shit happens.
1# might develop diabetes due to bad food, #234 eating healthy all life still develops disbetes too — fuck genetics. #2 turns 85 with no problems then dies naturally during sleep.
Your lifestyle doesnt mean shit, because your body can be fucked up either way. The thealthiest people develop the worst illnesses out pf nowhere.
Do you drink often, smoke, use substances, enjoy sugary drinks/food?