[smt88]

- Reduced demand on emergency rooms and other limited medical resources

- Decreased insurance claims, which are paid for by other patients in the form of premium increases

- Prevented burdens on taxpayers from illness or premature deaths of workers (welfare payments, orphanned children, lawsuits, etc.)

No one in a developed, Western society is an island. They borrow from society in childhood and pay society back as an adult. And they use common resources like drugs, hospitals, and (in the case of insurance) risk.

[alex43578]

If we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits.

Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased.

Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).

[smt88]

> If we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits.

> Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased.

We already attempt to do these things through public health campaigns and laws against the purchase of cigarettes/alcohol by minors.

You're actually making my point for me, because public interventions to reduce smoking have saved tens of millions of lives and many billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

> Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).

In what universe is the US not trying to enforce laws around fentanyl?

[alex43578]

Sure, and I'm saying that under that same justification, we should extend the same requirements to these other public health crises that President Biden tried to create for COVID vaccination.

Federal worker? BMI needs to be below 30, because otherwise you're costing the system too much. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7990296/

Private sector business with 100 more employees? Nobody is allowed to smoke on premises because of the risk of second hand smoke, just like the OSHA justification for vaccination requirements.

>In what universe is the US not trying to enforce laws around fentanyl?

Oregon passed Measure 110, decriminalizing heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, only backtracking because the policy was so bad. California has Prop 47, knocking possession down to misdemeanors on par with jaywalking. New York has safe injection sites, and I'm going to guess this isn't for safe injection of insulin.

Enforcement of laws around these drugs would mean arresting and prosecuting the flocks of fentanyl users bent over in Philly's Skid Row, SF's tenderloin, or basically all of Portland: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9372555/Philadelphi...

[nolok]

Your point being ? That we should not do anything unless we do everything with no exception (that's an absurd way to view things and not a counter argument whatsoever), or that those things should be done (which is probably true but doesn't change his point at all) ?

[alex43578]

I'm agreeing that the current implementation of our public health system is a worst-of-all-worlds option.

Weigh 500lbs, don't work, and drink a six pack a day? You get free healthcare via Medicaid, making the taxpayer shoulder your burden.

Self-employed, 35, and can run a 7 minute mile, but broke a bone? Expect outrageous healthcare costs, deductibles, etc.

The current approach to public health is the epitome of a moral hazard.

[account42]

So basically what you are saying it's ok for the government to take away peoples bodily autonomy, as long as it benefits the economy? Wild.

And if you really want to make this calculation, any vaccine that predominately helps old people actually increases costs to society in the long run.

[watwut]

Funny how bodily autonomy is all that important when it comes to right wing fear of vaccines, but completely irrelevant when it comes to abortions, womens rights in general, sexual abuse, trans rights and generally rights of anyone disliked by this admin.

> any vaccine that predominately helps old people actually increases costs to society in the long run

I think that big difference between the political sides is that one of them does not see "kill all old people" as ethical strategy.

[smt88]

> ok for the government to take away peoples bodily autonomy, as long as it benefits the economy

No. That's a straw man and you know it. I'm against forced vaccinations. No one in the US was forced to be vaccinated.

However, most of the people against vaccination in the US are against abortion rights, so how could this debate really be about bodily autonomy? Forced birth is actually forced by the government, unlike vaccination programs. There is no situation where you could be put in jail for refusing a vaccine.

[ziml77]

> No one in a developed, Western society is an island

And you know the anti-vaxxers know this because they also intersect heavily with the set who get very mad/judgemental about unemployed people or about people who don't eat well and exercise.