Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

sacbee.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–85 of 85 posts

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#81

Post by flukus »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #63
flukus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions. Is that worse than corporate intrusion? Does your health insurance not factor these things in already?

"Is that worse than corporate intrusion?" Yes. You sometimes have a choice about which corporation you deal with. You don't get a choice when it comes to the government.

> You don't get a choice when it comes to the government.

But you do get a vote, you don't get that with a corporation.

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#82

Post by Turing_Machine »

flukus wrote: post #81
Turing_Machine wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Is that worse than corporate intrusion?" Yes. You sometimes have a choice about which corporation you deal with. You don't get a choice when it comes to the government.

> You don't get a choice when it comes to the government. But you do get a vote, you don't get that with a corporation.

Sure you do. You can vote to not give them your money.

Try that with taxes.

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#83

Post by jlarocco »

fpgaminer wrote: post #49
jlarocco wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, it's already done with cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, gasoline, and a ton of other stuff. These type of taxes are the only way I'm in favor of government healthcare programs. Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs.

> Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs Actually, all those things you listed _decrease_ lifetime medical costs. From a purely economic sense, people who drink, smoke, and eat junk food are _ideal_. They're reasonably healthy during their most productive years, and then mortality rate spikes just before retirement (a time when most people are least productive). So if the logic is that we…

> Actually, all those things you listed _decrease_ lifetime medical costs. From a purely economic sense, people who drink, smoke, and eat junk food are _ideal_. They're reasonably healthy during their most productive years, and then mortality rate spikes just before retirement (a time when most people are least productive).

Actually, the numbers don't back that up. A person doesn't get diabetes and die the next day with no medical costs. A smoker doesn't get lung cancer and die tomorrow. They might not live as long, but their medical costs are higher the entire time, and the older they get, the higher the costs become. Eating poorly is especially costly because it doesn't kill people quickly, but causes significant health problems.

> So if the logic is that we tax things based solely on economic externalities, then we should encourage drinking, smoking, and obesity. We should subsidize all those activities.

No, the logic is that we provide healthcare to everybody so that they can have longer, healthier lives. Makes no sense to waste money on the people actively working against that goal, so if smokers/drinkers/fatties want to take part then they need to cover the extra costs they've created for themselves.

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#84

Post by sctb »

wtbob wrote: post #77
sctb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've asked you countless times not to post these ideological talking points here. We ban accounts that continue, so please stop.

sctb, I honestly don't understand why you are threatening to ban me. It's not an ideological talking point that people who die earlier due to health problems don't cost extra in pension funds. It's just a fact: if someone dies at 55, he won't cost a pension system which starts paying out at 65 a penny. fpgaminer posted much the same thing. Nor, I think, was my aside about taxes being enforced with violence an ideolog…

The issue is the same as before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13911550. I appreciate that it's not your intention to derail, but the effect of these comments is predictable and we need commenters to be mindful of that so that we can have the kinds of discussions—thoughtful, informative—that we're after here.

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#85

Post by wtbob »

sctb wrote: post #84
wtbob wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sctb, I honestly don't understand why you are threatening to ban me. It's not an ideological talking point that people who die earlier due to health problems don't cost extra in pension funds. It's just a fact: if someone dies at 55, he won't cost a pension system which starts paying out at 65 a penny. fpgaminer posted much the same thing. Nor, I think, was my aside about taxes being enforced with violence an ideolog…

The issue is the same as before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13911550 . I appreciate that it's not your intention to derail, but the effect of these comments is predictable and we need commenters to be mindful of that so that we can have the kinds of discussions—thoughtful, informative—that we're after here.

Would you please be so kind as to update https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html to indicate 'ideological talking points' the staff believe prevent thoughtful & informative discussion?

Otherwise I feel that there's a loaded gun pointed at my head and any random statement is likely to set it off.

Post reply on HN