undefined | Better HN

0 pointslokar18d ago0 comments

I think health costs are the bigger issue

0 comments

Yes, this is one of the reasons there is resistance to socialized health care. People view it as opening the door to the government controlling what they due due to health care costs.

Sure, I dislike smoking, I really don't drink that much either.

But then it leads to questions such as; What about birth defects? What about extreme sports(risk of permanent injury)?

There was a scandal in Canada recently about veterans asking for medical care and being push to assisted suicide: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investig... >MacAulay walked the committee through what his department knew, thus far, saying the first case that came to light occurred last summer where the caseworker repeatedly pushed the notion of MAID to an unnamed veteran who had called seeking help with post-traumatic stress.

lokarOP18d ago

IMO they should just charge a premium for smoking that about covers the expense overall

cucumber373284218d ago

Solving it with money doesn't really solve it unless there's "real" competition.

Look at automotive insurance points systems. People have to buy it so the sellers lean on the legislatures and before you know it a ticket costs the same points and screws you out of just as much money as an actual accident.

lokarOP18d ago

That seems appropriate. A small fraction of people cause most of the losses, they should pay more.

1 more reply

mytailorisrich18d ago

In the UK taxes on tobacco earn more than the (socialised) healthcare financial cost of smoking. So this argument is a fallacy.

d1sxeyes18d ago

I don’t think the argument as a whole is a fallacy, it’s true that the exact cost to the NHS is more than covered by tax, but most estimates of wider cost to the economy (e.g. lost productivity, disability benefits, etc) is higher. https://fullfact.org/health/farage-smoking-revenue-nhs/

mytailorisrich18d ago

It's equally a fallacious argument to try to fit "cost to the economy", whatever that means, to the healthcare cost (usually this is done to inflate costs to fit the narrative). By that logic, ban everything and allow only what allows individuals to maximise their productive labour... what a nightmare.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

themaninthedark18d ago

Yes, this is one of the reasons there is resistance to socialized health care. People view it as opening the door to the government controlling what they due due to health care costs.

Sure, I dislike smoking, I really don't drink that much either.

But then it leads to questions such as; What about birth defects? What about extreme sports(risk of permanent injury)?

lokarOP18d ago

IMO they should just charge a premium for smoking that about covers the expense overall

cucumber373284218d ago

Solving it with money doesn't really solve it unless there's "real" competition.

lokarOP18d ago

That seems appropriate. A small fraction of people cause most of the losses, they should pay more.

1 more reply

mytailorisrich18d ago

In the UK taxes on tobacco earn more than the (socialised) healthcare financial cost of smoking. So this argument is a fallacy.

d1sxeyes18d ago

mytailorisrich18d ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse