zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. roenxi+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-08-11 03:18:48
> In a system where healthcare is socialized, you also get strong incentives to introduce policies that can reduce that cost. Examples would include the UK's ban on cigarette branding, introducing a tax on sugar in soft drinks, and banning smoking in public spaces.

Strictly speaking the incentives don't change much. People have a strong incentive to stay healthy no matter what system is in place, and the insurance companies have a strong incentive to make sure people know about the risks of sugar drinks etc.

replies(1): >>aaomid+94
2. aaomid+94[view] [source] 2024-08-11 04:43:00
>>roenxi+(OP)
I don’t think you’re really getting incentives here.

For example, countries with socialized healthcare have significantly more walkable and bikeable cities. That’s not a coincidence.

replies(1): >>roenxi+v4
◧◩
3. roenxi+v4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-11 04:50:53
>>aaomid+94
That example is silly. It implicitly suggests that if a country suddenly switched to a fully socialised healthcare system their cities would suddenly becoming more walkable. Or if an economy liberalised then their cities would magically become less walkable. The chains of causality there are absurd.

The most plausible link would be if people couldn't afford cars under a socialised healthcare system; but I doubt anyone is going to try and argue that seriously.

replies(1): >>defros+U4
◧◩◪
4. defros+U4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-11 05:01:00
>>roenxi+v4
> It implicitly suggests that if a country suddenly switched to a fully socialised healthcare system their cities would suddenly becoming more walkable.

No. It does not. Not "suddenly" or "magically".

What does happen is that social health concerns and advice feed back into other public policy making decisions.

Advertising agencies get contracts for campaigns to improve health awareness, walking and biking paths become routine considerations in city planning, etc.

This takes decades to iterate through from non existent to commonplace.

replies(2): >>aaomid+7b >>roenxi+en
◧◩◪◨
5. aaomid+7b[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-11 07:06:22
>>defros+U4
Yup thank you
◧◩◪◨
6. roenxi+en[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-11 10:28:20
>>defros+U4
Yeah sure. You got any references for this ridiculous linkage of local town planning and healthcare funding scheme?

You might like to check whether the layout of the citys involved were decided on before or after the invention of the car - and the introduction of universal health care - before you post anything. That'll probably come up.

replies(1): >>defros+Qn
◧◩◪◨⬒
7. defros+Qn[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-11 10:38:29
>>roenxi+en
Quite the attitude you're sporting there sparky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoHCDK9kfM

[go to top]