[jobu]

Yeah, the headline could easily be flipped with the subheading and most people's reaction would be drastically different.

Overall I think a single-payer system is for the best. Having healthcare tied to your job creates another anchor to keep people tied to large, stable companies instead of taking risks with startups or small businesses.

The main downside is that companies have started doing tiered healthcare costs based on things like smoking or health indicators. Having income tax based on your weight or smoking status is probably a non-starter, so it removes some of the incentives for people to make good choices (and reduce healthcare costs).

[Fatnino]

Some system to earn tax credits if you can prove that you lead a healthy lifestyle. Maybe verified by the doctors in the unified health system.

[Maarten88]

A sugar tax will accomplish a lot and is much easier.

[conanbatt]

But now it is tied to the government, which is way worse...You can't complain to the government.

[dragonwriter]

> You can't complain to the government.

Yes, you can.

And you get a vote on who is running it, too

[seanmcdirmid]

> But now it is tied to the government, which is way worse...You can't complain to the government.

Elections have consequences. Try un-electing your group plan provider.

[seanmcdirmid]

> Having income tax based on your weight or smoking status is probably a non-starter

Australia has very high taxes on cigarettes mainly because they want to keep their (universal) healthcare costs down. They could do the same thing to sugary snacks as well, even the conservatives would get onboard if it was to save money on healthcare expenditures.

[twiddling]

and funnel money away from crop subsidies?