Blame Rasho wrote:Simple economics tell you that you are giving people incentives to be reckless in how they live their lives. How many are obese, and how many problems arise from it?They would not feel the actual costs of their decisions.
I would argue against this. We spend more on healthcare than any other nation, and this is in large part due to the fact that there is very little emphasis on preventative care in the US. In other words, some dude smokes cigarettes and never sees his doctor. He doesn't seek healthcare until he starts coughing out blood, is eventually found to have lung cancer, and now has to pay for a bronchoscopy/cervical mediastinoscopy and a lobe resection, and a weeklong stay in the SICU.
Studies have shown that SIMPLE QUICK interventions (taking 3-5 minutes to discuss the risks of smoking, etc.) on the part of the physician make a huge impact on getting people to quit smoking, getting people to drink less, getting people start exercising, etc.
You could easily argue that under a universal healthcare system where doctor visits are perceived as "free", people would seek their doctors more often in the early stages of risky behaviors. In fact, this is exactly what you see in other nations, and a large part of why despite their universal coverage they still pay less.
But as I said before, what it ultimately boils down to is whether or not you think healthcare is a human right. Those who do will argue for social medicine no matter what the cost.
+ 
= 
