Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonpalmisc | Hacker News Reader

I can't believe it's even legal to sell those. That seems simply insane.

My best guess, and I've thought about this a lot, is that chronic illness drives billions of dollars of direct economic activity.

Of course, illness has an even larger cost to society and to overall happiness, but that's much less measurable, and therefore has less effect on public policy.

Your body, your choice.

At least with cigarettes there was a public nuisance argument because of the smell and also the secondhand effect. I dont find general public health a compelling argument for restricting sugar.

You don't need to restrict it. Just educate people about its effect. That's the least you can do

I'm with you here, those white organic powders should have no restrictions whatsoever.

That's semi-reasonable in America, but less so in any country with single-payer health care. Like smoking, there are serious effects later in life that cost money to treat; this makes for a compelling case for a sin tax IMO, like we have for tobacco and liquor here in Canada.

Won’t the smokers die earlier and save the government old age benefits?

Cancer costs a lot. And surgeries, and palliative measures for people with bpco, etc..

So if we vote for a single payer healthcare system, we get a back door for government tyranny over every little aspect of our lives that they decide is bad for us, including as the science shifts? Don’t eat eggs or you lose your coverage, no wait, eat 3 eggs a week or you lose your coverage, no wait.. Sounds like a bad deal, and most Americans will take freedom over free health care if that’s the cost.

It doesn't work like that.

In a single payer system, the government is mandated to provide you with health care, since you are paying for it with your taxes (or would be if your income was high enough), no exceptions.

Typical tools of such governments include:

- taxes on products which are deemed of danger to public health, for example taxes on cigarettes in the EU. The government is then mandated to invest these taxes into the health care system

- public health campaigns (ads etc.)

- age restrictions, as they exist on alcohol in the US.

Legislation shifts to represent newest advances in science, yes. That's not per se a bad thing.

Not every country with a single-payer system is an authoritarian communist hellscape, you know.

That sound very reasonable and I'm inclined to agree, but empirically US health care system is the worst I know of. You're only free if you're rich and if you're rich you're not free, cause you've got so much to lose.

And from a more theoretical viewpoint the societal cost of unhealthy people is still there at the least in loss of productivity, so the argument for prohibition is still there and the US is only really liberal in things that are backed by wealthy corporations/people that have subverted the government.

In the end I guess freedom is the straw man here.

Yes, having billions poured into creating foods that are as addictive as possible and manipulation campaigns to get people hooked is a much better system.

This system also affects your freedoms in many ways. If a large portion of the population gets fat, you have a smaller pool of people that are able to do physical work, making it more expensive for you. You have a lot more demand for healthcare, making it more expensive for you. You have people demanding car-centric infrastructure because they can't walk, and that will affect you. Etc.

This not only doesn’t happen, but those "tyrannical" systems also usually have lower minimum age requirements for alcohol consumption than the US, and healthcare is cheaper while people are healthier on average.

It is sad how so many people in the US were persuaded to be so afraid of supposed "communism" that they are actively voting against their interests.

If you never used health insurance (which is paid for by more health-conscious people than you, on average), you'd have a more compelling case.

> most Americans will take freedom over free health care

When you're addicted to something (alcohol, nicotine, sugar, gambling, ...) is it really "freedom"?

It’s the root of the toxic nature of American culture. We worship the “freedom” to have bad outcomes shoved in our faces, but castigate and actively harm anyone who falls afoul as a result.

From my limited travels in Europe, I see countries with problems, but with people who appear to be happier and healthier.

"God gave us free will" and we're all equal, so if i can do it and you can't...

mental health care, addiction treatment, obesity, college loans. At the root of it all, even if they won't admit it directly.

> That's semi-reasonable in America

Is it? You'll either have higher health insurance costs to cover the people destroying their bodies, or you'll have to prove to your insurance provider that you live a healthy lifestyle somehow. Both seem like a bad thing.

I agree with you, and I think the sin tax up here in the Great White North is great. There are more externalities than just the healthcare system having more, expensive, patients. To lead with a strong argument that's less likely to be nit-picked apart though, I avoided getting into that discussion for the USA

> Your body, your choice.

Corporate profits. They want you to get addicted for recurring revenue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com