Hacker News Reader

Comment by sliverstorm | Hacker News Reader

Did you read the other article it was referencing?

The basis of the argument was Mexicans have a life expectancy of 2 years less than Americans, but massively smaller health care bills. The stipulation is that the return we get (2 years more life) is actually smaller than the cost (in terms of time worked, stress, etc) to bring it about. In other words, you give up 4 years of your life to your work so you can live 2 years longer. So, by giving up the 2 years greater life expectancy (cutting out/back/down hospitals and doctors) we'd get more back.

Not necessarily saying I agree, but I did want to point out that the argument isn't QUITE as fanciful as the reference might make it sound.

edit: it's all cool if you know the argument. Just wanted to make sure nobody was going solely off the sensationalist reference.

View on HN

I did not read that article but I have read enough like it to know the general thrust of the argument. The ones I've read so far have hinged

- on life-expectancy data that is measured differently -- sometimes substantially differently -- from country to country and

- the probably false belief that Americans could continue to lead the same lifestyles they do now and still live about as long under a much smaller healthcare regime.

> the probably false belief that Americans could continue to lead the same lifestyles they do now and still live about as long under a much smaller healthcare regime.

yes, leading the same lifestyles is the rub. Which is kind of annoying now that I think about it. The lifestyles of the masses essentially determines the kind of healthcare everybody else has to pay for. If my gaunt, ever-grumbling stomach is any kind of a sign, I'm going to spend my life resenting that our healthcare system doesn't fit me in the slightest.

I've always been a 'what you do on your own time is your own choice' sort of guy, but I learn more and more that other people make decisions that should be purely their own choice, but in reality impact me all the time, which is confusing my ethical system. You should be allowed to eat what and how you want, for example, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that can have a very real and measurable impact on everybody else.

I don't see any reason to be upset that a civilized society spends a large portion of its output on living longer. It seems to make sense that as the material goods and experiences we want become less expensive that we should start spending more of our money on increasing the time and comfort in which we can enjoy them.

With respect to people living bad lifestyles, you have three unappetizing options.

- Let them die.

- Force them to stop living bad lifestyles.

- Pay the price yourself for the bad lifestyles that others lead.

There isn't really a fourth way. Unless you believe that most people's bad lifestyle choices can be fixed through education or non-forceful conditioning. Which, if you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Bad behaviors often have a reason behind them: stress. Stress is often created by poorly run, evil, cruel, egotistic societies. Improve social capital - the problems will decrease by themself.

Why you think US is the country with highest incarceration rate? And let's say Norway - much smaller?

I think if you took away drug related arrests, the U.S. incarceration rate would be dramatically lower. So that's a case of stupid, fundamentalist laws more than stress causing crime.

Not sure. Incarceration rate is almost directly tied to rhe level of inequality in the society, so even if USA takes away these laws, will change, but dramatically.

There is compelling evidence that even within the US, we could cut a lot of medicine without any adverse health effects.

http://hanson.gmu.edu/CutMed.htm

Reply on news.ycombinator.com