[mirror_neuron]

In a society with socialized healthcare, you would be harming others by making it more expensive to care for you in the future.

In a society where the price of healthcare is set by market forces alone, perhaps you should have unlimited freedom to make bad decisions.

It seems like a lot of people would prefer socialized healthcare over that unlimited freedom.

[lockhouse]

This is the slipperiest of slopes. Where do we draw the line then if we’re talking about personal decisions that make it more expensive to care for you in the future?

Should the government prevent people from being sexually promiscuous since contracting HIV would harm others by making it more expensive to care for you in the future?

Should they sterilize women after a certain age since the likelihood of pregnancy complications gets higher the older they get?

Maybe we should limit couples to having only one child. Safe child birth and pre- and post-natal care is very expensive.

Is just wearing a cloth mask enough? Maybe we should wear an N95 mask and full universal precautions PPE everywhere we go just to make sure we don’t harm others.

[mirror_neuron]

I disagree that this is a slippery slope. The line should be drawn by the people living in the society that draws it. As that society (and the cultural, technological, and environmental context around it) changes, the position of that line might change as well.

Many in the USA would choose a world with more expensive junk food and socialized healthcare than the reverse.

(I'm assuming your questions are rhetorical. Each of them has their own set of trade-offs.)

[manuelabeledo]

> This is the slipperiest of slopes.

It really isn't.

Drinking and eating crap is a choice. One may as well be addicted to it, but addiction may be treatable.

You are comparing a biological drive like sex and reproduction, with a desire for Coke, cigarettes, and fatty beef.

Also, societies will survive without sugary drinks. Without sex and children? I doubt it.