Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by alkonaut 3214 days ago
> If government provides your health care it's only natural if it directs you to a healthier life to save people's money.

Yes. And conversely, if you provide MY healthcare (by your taxes) I'm very much concerned about YOUR ability to work and pay taxes, which is effectively the same thing.

This is exactly why we have seatbelt laws. Your seatbelt just makes you less of a dead person so you can pay for your healthcare (and mine). And when/if you have an accident it makes you a person with two broken wrists that costs my taxes less than if you were a person with critical injuries - so I'd rather pay for your damages if you wear a seatbelt.

See this is also an important point: a high-tax society also requires a sense that tax money is well spent. This means that it can't feel like the money is spent "on someone else", you can't have a feeling among the population that tax money is often wasted, or that it's spent on wars (for example). If money was spent on healthcare for people who didn't want to use seatbelts - I'd be less willing to pay taxes. So my high taxes require these kinds of laws. Still, people are free to eat pizza and beer 24/7 and I still pay for their healthcare - because the alternative would be a too big government involvement in peoples lives. All they can do is tax beer higher, not much more.

Now, of course all of these limitations of your freedoms has to be weighed against the value they provide. The cost of people driving around without seatbelts is huge to socitey. The cost for an individual to wear as seatbelt is tiny. So it's a no brainer even in the most liberal societies.

1 comments

Kinda like that. Except, while you can still refuse to wear seatbelt (pay fine or don't ride in cars or trucks at all) you won't be able to refuse mandatory health care. US already has a history of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
> you won't be able to refuse mandatory health care.

You mean you won't be able to refuse paying for it (that might be the case) or not able to refuse actually receiving the care (no one will force you)

The only exception is vaccination possibly, which should be legally required.

You won't be able to refuse receiving it. Did you read the link? People had been forcefully sterilized in the US all the way till 1970s, even without public healthcare.
The US government carrying out forcible sterilizations of course points to the well-understood fact that universal healthcare is neither necessary nor sufficient for forced medical procedures, and this objection to state-funding healthcare is an entirely bogus one.
> You won't be able to refuse receiving it. Did you read the link? People had been forcefully sterilized in the US all the way till 1970s, even without public healthcare

I saw the link but didn't see the connection between "public universal healthcare" and "forced healthcare practiced on people". Can you elaborate on that connection?

publicly funded universal healthcare is about how healthcare is funded. How it's performed is a separate matter.

I agree with the connection explained in this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15166296

Or, to give an example of this actually taking place, look at the education. It's funded by the government and also is mandatory and enforced by the government. It does not necessary have to follow, in other countries with free public education you won't get arrested for not sending your kids to school. But it could turn the way it's turned in the US just as well.

> in other countries with free public education you won't get arrested for not sending your kids to school.

These are two freedoms at play : the childs right to go to school vs. a parents right of refusing it. I'm of the opinion that the childs right is the stronger right here. Arresting parents might be a bit over the top (the childs right to have their parents at their side might be at risk instead which is worse) - but hefty fines or similar could be appropriate.