Your objection appears to me to be without merit. You are essentially engaged in the fallacy of the slippery slope. There are quite a few countries that provide universal health care without oppressing people by policing their bad health care decisions.

You wish to deny universal health care access in the United States because there is a potential that society will enact laws to prevent you from making bad health-related decisions. It's quite hard for me to grasp how this is a legitimate concern of yours. Besides, your bad health-related decisions already cost others money.

> ...fallacy of the slippery slope.

Haha, I hear this phrasing more and more, almost always coming from the left, as we continue to slide faster and faster down the slopes you pretend don't exist.

I think the top trending Twitter threads this week are about how the government will soon be rolling out vaccine passports. Six months ago, anyone claiming these were coming would have been chastised for their fallacious slippery slope arguments.

The fallacy of the slippery slope is not a fallacy because the slope can't ever come to fruition. It's a fallacy because the scary scenario is always a possibility even if the status quo remains. The slippery slope is a fallacy because the fear mongering it uses can be applied to every situation.

The essence of the argument I responded to was:

I don't want government run healthcare for everyone because some scary scenario might possibly come to fruition. Therefore it's OK that millions don't have adequate access to healthcare.

The reasoning is sloppy and this fact has nothing to do with politics.

Well as a fellow techy who respects logical arguments, I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with your main point.

OTOH, outside in the real world i.e. Twitter and Reddit (haha), this rationale is not what was being used to attack dissenters and anyone who dared question the official standard line. Anyone who pointed out a very relevant example of a "colloquial" slippery slope- especially if it was something that was labeled as a conspiracy that we'd never allow happen or to get that far - e.g. vaccine passports, full time remote learning, restricted travel and forced government quarantines at inflated costs, fining small businesses for having one customer while Costco and Walmart are packed to capacity, etc. 6 months ago and was now occuring or being openly considered - was attacked by the mob who maliciously or mistakenly were peddling the "slippery slope argument has been debunked, just like the Earth is not flat - you are banned for 48 hours" to shut down debate.

I think how arguments are framed matter. It’s one thing to say, “If A happens then this means scary scenario B will happen.” And another to say, “If A happens then we need to be vigilant that B doesn’t result as a consequence.”

The problem as I see it is that debate on policy does not revolve on how best to achieve an outcome. It typically revolves on the mistaken belief that if change comes then either it will be glorious or have dire consequences. In the healthcare debate rational people should want everyone to have access to the healthcare system. So how best to go about achieving that? That should be the focus.

>I don't want to leave the determination of what constitutes a bad health-related decision to the vote.

The answer is to maintain both private and public insurance systems. As is already the case with Medicare. I don't think anyone is stopping you from buying your own private insurance if you are 65+.

And that's the thing I find strange about the healthcare debate in the US. There is already a huge public insurance system in place - Medicare. Yet people pretend that a public system like that is some sort of ideological novelty in the US. It's not.

Who do you think are paying for your bad health related decisions now?

Do you pay for 100% of your current costs out of pocket and will do so for your whole life?

Damned right. At the beginning of the pandemic, people were arguing that you shouldn't drive because you might risk an accident and use a hospital bed that could be used for a COVID patient. This is a degree of behavioural policing that I am not willing to accept.

So I'm sure you smoke, though most insurance policies charge through the roof if you do? And do you drive as fast as you want since hey, don't police my behavior?

Our society polices behavior all the time. And we accept that as part of a smoothly functioning society that tries to be fair and equitable.

Right, but right now, you lack the ability to push me to the back of the line for healthcare because of my love for extreme sports and motorcycling. You may want to do that because you believe it is "fair and equitable" but you can't, because you're just another third party in this relationship between me, my provider, and my insurer.

You may want everyone to only ride the lowest risk means of public transit, only eat the right food, only perform the right activities because you arrogate to yourself the right to police behaviour in pursuit of equity.

You are welcome to want this, of course, and I do celebrate your openness in stating your objectives. But that's why we're opposed. I don't share your objectives. I am willing to accept some degree of inequity in the pursuit of some degree of individual freedom.

For the record, I don't smoke. I do speed, like so many other people in California. But fortunately, my auto insurer adjusts me up for that.

EDIT: I cannot reply to you, jay_kyburz, but I do not anticipate mere societal pressure. I anticipate legal rules placing me in a different line that only gets treatment after 'conventional risk' people. i.e. at some point I believe someone will say "Rich software engineers get treated for pulling their shoulder jumping off bridges while this brave firefighter had to wait (unstated that he had to wait to have a wart removed or something)" and then the outrage will roll up until anyone jumping off bridges for fun is now placed permanently behind everyone else.

I have no objective to control your activities. I just think that a society inherently restricts freedom. That's the covenant we make for having a "civil" society. Isn't your insurer impinging on your freedom by charging you more for what they deem reckless or risky behavior? We require people to wear seatbelts, to drive sober, to have a license when operating most vehicles. We restrict people from a large amount of BASE jumping. We prohibit many drugs for recreational use. Society is full of restrictions.

And if you don't have insurance? You sure are pushed to the back of the line for healthcare. Get laid off? COBRA only covers you so long, so you'll have to get on the ACA. That's why maintaining the existing healthcare system is a non-starter. It's why traditional Medicare is so popular. Once my generation dies off, it's a no-brainer that the younger generation will do away with the nonsensical system we have.

Right, society does restrict my freedom. It doesn't seem particularly outlandish that I already chafe at the fetters and object to any further expansion of that control.

Essentially, you seem to be arguing that since society already controls me it should have further power to control me. Well, I think the control it already exercises on me is too much, and I desire a reduction in said control, or at worst a stalling at where it stands right now.

There's nothing strange about this disagreement. It's fairly garden variety, except for the argument in favour of the slippery slope, which I must confess to never having heard before.

EDIT: I cannot reply to you, jay_kyburz, but I am content to retain the status quo, which would seem acceptable to both so we have no quarrel.

I'm more concerned about the slippery slop sliding the other way, people thinking they can do what they want with no regard to how it might impact their community.

But, who cares if there is some "perceived pressure" not to do unhealthy things. (Ride motorbikes, smoke, drink sugar and be obese).

Nobody in Australia stops to think if they should not risk their health because it might cost their fellow tax payers a few extra dollars.

Where’s the evidence that that kind of pressure ever makes a difference to anyone's behaviour?

Surely the pressure to avoid debilitating illness/injury or slow/painful premature death is far more profound, and for anyone who doesn't care about that, there are much bigger issues at play than the cost of healthcare.