Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Spivak 578 days ago
You and others with this take are why I'm staunchly against single-payer healthcare. It's seems impossible for it to not get politicized in this manner and be used to effectively control other's behavior in ways that would be flagrantly unconstitutional otherwise.

Folks desperately need to understand the dignity of risk before we can talk about health policy. You're advocating for diet eugenics. There is very little moral hazard to justify your rules because having serious medical problems is awful even without the bill.
3 comments
secstate 578 days ago
I don't live in a socialized-medicine country, but I think this is a solved problem where capitalism still allows one to pay for private health insurance that will cover eye color change surgery.

While I appreciate your effort to avoid constitutional violations related to health care, we already walk all over (and have historically simply ignored) the constitution with regards to zoning, taxation, bank loans, voting, protests, free speech, etc, that this seems like a silly hill to die on, especially given the upsides to single-payer healthcare.

And to be clear, all those constitutional violations are abhorrent and should be actively legislatively and judicially worked against (not executive-ly because that branch almost by definition works against the constitution). But given our history of red-lining, voter suppression, un-banking, rich tax exceptions, NIMBY zoning, etc, I'm okay with single-payer, so long as there are private options if you think surgically modified eye color can make you more employable or improve your quality of life.

link
Spivak 578 days ago
I think it's fine that single-payer doesn't pay for cosmetic procedures, it's the parent's take that getting an elective procedure or apparently engaging in any behavior they deem too risky locks you out of healthcare for medical-necessity seemingly forever.
link
BobaFloutist 578 days ago
We do, however, absolutely need a public option.
link
Eumenes 578 days ago
where in the constitution does it say I have to pay for someone's drug addiction rehab or cosmetic eye surgery? i don't expect anyone to cover my vices or vanity. not wanting to fund vice/vanity is not "controlling behavior" .. by all means, kill yourself with substance abuse or change your eye color, but expecting your fellow citizen to bail you out is certainly a form of "control".
link
Spivak 578 days ago
Drug-addiction rehab — yes, because that's a medically necessary therapy for people suffering from addiction.

Cosmetic procedures — no, wouldn't be covered.

Locking you out of public healthcare as described by the parent if you have ever engaged in behavior deemed too risky, absolutely not. That is the part that is controlling.

link
kelseyfrog 578 days ago
The constitution places limits on the government. Unless you're telling me that you are literally The United States Federal Government, it doesn't apply to you.
link
Eumenes 578 days ago
Actually, the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do. Fortunately with the Chevron deference, unelected bureaucrats and "experts" can no longer do whatever they please. Congress, who directly represent the People, will have to craft laws/policy and not the smug busybodies of DC. This is Democracy.
link
kelseyfrog 578 days ago
> the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do

I'm hate to be the one to inform you, but the court system is part of the government. Indeed courts pertaining to federal laws are part of the federal government.

Again, unless you are literally the federal government of the United States, the constitution doesn't constrain your actions.

link
Eumenes 578 days ago
No need to be obtuse. The judiciary is obviously one of 3 branches of the government, but the federal government as a whole operates within the framework of the Constitution as interpreted by the courts/judiciary. This was established by Marbury v. Madison in 1803: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madis...

In the context of this thread, I was replying to a comment saying that it was "unconstitutional" to "control" public healthcare funded elective procedures, as a form of "eugenics" ... quite ridiculous.

link
kelseyfrog 578 days ago
No, you were making a literal statement about the constitution in a way that wasn't logically valid.

It's a common tactic to make an egregious error and the dial it back until with hedges and constraints until the other person concedes. It's embarrassing.

There are plenty of valid ways to make your point. Choose one of those instead.

link