That's a tidy story, mhaze.

//It's the crux of most of these societal issues. Some people think the world would be better if everyone thought like them, and they intend to enforce that. Others think the world would be better if everyone just let everyone else get on with the life they want.//

But it only works if you ignore shared costs, public infrastructure, and basic harm management. Nobody’s trying to “enforce” a worldview, they’re trying to avoid footing the bill for the consequences of choices that come with measurable risk.

That’s not tyranny. It’s sensible policy.

//The link I gave for 'Yes Minister' was comedy but the numbers do indeed stack up. Smokers put more into the health system than they take out.//

Only if you count dying younger as a fiscal asset. That argument boils down to: “Don’t worry, they’re profitable because they don’t live long enough to claim a pension.” If that’s your version of good governance, it’s hard to imagine a more dystopian benchmark.

//But if we are going to force everyone to pay a premium for lifestyle choices that cost the medical system money then where to stop? Obesity costs for the health system are enormous. Perhaps a tax on plus-sized clothing? The possibilities are endless.//

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy - where every reasonable measure is just one step away from the absurd.

We already make distinctions: we tax cigarettes and alcohol because the harms are clear, compounding, and well-studied. That doesn’t mean we tax every imperfect choice. That’s what policymaking is: weighing risk, cost, and evidence, and deciding where regulation is justified.

//Credentialled doesn't equal expert.//

Agreed, but you used “credentialed” as a slur, while offering no alternative standard for expertise beyond personal preference or political instinct. If someone spends their career studying public health and publishes peer-reviewed research, that carries more weight than someone armed with a hunch and a YouTube link.

Credentialed isn’t always expert, but anti-intellectual isn’t the answer either.

I give up.

Zero new illegals released into the US and JD claims that doesn't matter because a few thousand were caught and NOT released. BTW the sky isn't blue because there's that small fluffy white cloud over there!

USAID has been closed down but JD claims otherwise because some of its functions have been continued at State. BTW the White Australia Policy continues because we still have an immigration system.

Struth!

The gymnastics some will go through to deny the massive successes of the first 6 months of Trump's term are impressive not to mention comedic.

Wrong thread, mhaze,

It's understandable, though. When you’re juggling this many debates and watching them all unravel at once, it’s easy for the replies to blur together.

I'll reply to your rage-quit in the correct thread.
_____

Let’s follow your principle through, Yuyutsu.

If someone doesn’t wear a seatbelt, you say they should be denied treatment or pay their own bills. Does that also apply to smokers with lung cancer? Drinkers with liver failure? People with diabetes linked to diet?

If you’re consistent, then a huge chunk of the population would be left to suffer in agony. But think about what that means for nurses and doctors:

They’d be "coerced" into refusing care to people they desperately want to help, forced to suppress basic human compassion just to keep the system consistent. That’s not “non-violence.” That’s moral violence against caregivers.

If you wouldn’t actually go that far - and I doubt you would - then you’ve already accepted that society must step in and manage risk collectively. The only real question is how.

Dear John,

All I said was that it is LEGITIMATE to deny free medical aid from those who take unnecessary risks to their life and health.

I did not say that you must necessarily always deny it, and I certainly did not say, nor ever agree, that you should forbid others to compassionately provide that aid.

And why indeed not ask those who take unnecessary risks to pay for their treatment when they have the means?

Yuyutsu,

That’s interesting, because what you’ve just described is close to how things already work.

People who take bigger risks (like smokers or heavy drinkers) already pay more in taxes, insurance, and surcharges. Others are free to offer voluntary aid. And we certainly don’t make nurses stand by while people die to teach them a lesson.

This isn't perfect, but it’s why public health policies exist: to balance compassion with responsibility before it gets to the point of denying treatment.

I’m glad to hear you now saying that denying treatment isn’t mandatory and that compassion shouldn’t be forbidden. Previously, you described seatbelt enforcement as “abusive” and public health mandates as “unacceptable violence,” which strongly implied the opposite - that refusing treatment was the only morally consistent option.

Would you agree that what you’re describing now sounds much closer to the humane system we already have?

Dear John,

There are two quite different questions and standards involved:

1) what is humane?
2) what is morally acceptable?

You seem to be concerned with the former while I am concerned with the latter.

I do however, lean in the direction of being more humane whenever it is morally acceptable to do so.

What to do, I may or may not enjoy living in a humane society - that would be a personal preference, but to the extent that my humanism necessitates actively hurting others, then it is a big no-no: PRIMUM NON NOCERE.

So threatening someone with an active punishment if they choose not to wear a seatbelt (presently if they do so repeatedly and continue to drive then they could be locked up in jail), is violent.

As I wrote earlier, such violence MAY be excused on grounds of self-defence, but this is not the case here (whereas it could for example be excused in the case of speeding on a public road, or with exposing non-consenting others to passive smoking).

Charging a higher insurance premium, OTOH, seems perfect in this case.

And taxing excessive risks-takers more (since you mentioned it), well that goes into the big grey area of taxation, which we could go into some other day.

Sorry for being brief, that is all the time I have today, but I will be happy to expand on it some other day.