Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

I think the challenge is really that even spices like pepper cause inflammation.

You can always find a downside to anything you ingest.

I think you’re correct, the best approach is to explain “safe limits”.

Personally, I think it’s fine if people smoke, drink, etc until their heart is content. That said; it’s also why I’m opposed to socialized medicine. Almost everyone I know on social medicine didn’t take care of themselves (only a maybe one couldnt take care of themselves).

The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.

View on HN

I had to google the meaning of "socialized medicine" (no I don't live in the US). My first thought was that maybe it meant "getting better thanks to emotional support from other people", but Wikipedia had this to say about "socialized medicine":

>> More recently, American conservative critics of health care reform have attempted to broaden the term by applying it to any publicly funded system.

Fascinating how different political groups literally do not speak the same language. I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?

It’s a pretty ubiquitous term here used by all sides. They even poll using the term https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20080214/poll-us-sp...

Though I think some of the political proponents have shifted their SEO terms to “universal healthcare” in recent years after they found the term confusing.

> I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?

I’m not saying one way or the other what I think. I’m saying the logical conclusion of paying for everyone’s medical bills is that you create regulation to try to lower said bills. By definition, this restricts freedoms, which I’m opposed to.

> The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.

That has not worked in the past. Do you think it would work any better nowadays?

It actually has worked in the past. But a more pragmatic approach is to tax alcohol heavily so that it costs you more to willingly destroy your body.

Could present-day China pull something like that off?

The reason its effectively impossible to ban alcohol is because the precursors are sugar, water, and yeast. It's trivial to make alcohol even in small apartments.

Yes prohibition in any form, anywhere has always worked successfully

There is no logical banning of alcohol, we've learned that lesson.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com