[profile53]

Not wearing a seatbelt is also a choice to force the healthcare system to support the person for 50 years after they break their neck in a preventable way. The choice is individual but the consequences are societal.

[WalterBright]

One of the things I don't like about free health care is it comes with the notion that the government should force you to do things to reduce those costs.

[pkulak]

The alternative is letting people die on the street who may not be able to pay. No developed country will ever have a health care system that shifts 100% of costs to the individual.

[robotresearcher]

No it doesn't. The US government doesn't force military vets and retirees to quit smoking and eating donuts.

I don't think a single one of the many countries with socialized health care for all does this.

They may pay for education and awareness of the risks of smoking, and they may highly tax cigarettes to dissuade you. But they don't force you.

[WalterBright]

Seatbelt laws and helmet laws.

[robotresearcher]

These apply to everyone in the US, whether or not they are eligible for 'free' medical care.

[sagarm]

Everyone is eligible for 'free' medical care via EMTALA.

[pas]

then it's not free :)

anyway, spending on carless infrastructure to provide alternative transport modalities to people is what works, whereas trying to force people to just "do the healthy things" doesn't really

plus there's nothing stopping the US from coming up with "free healthcare 2.0" that also solves this with clever incentives (eg. via a voucher system, people who opt out of the hazardous things get a voucher, for example people without a car get a "free" monthly public transit ticket, etc.)