Topic: Will bitcoin = public sector workers rioting?? (Read 4813 times)

ha ha ha I agree as well!

Cheers!

Fiatleak wurde exhumiert:  Smiley

http://fiatleak.dyndns.org/

I thought we were talking about the system as a whole, not a specific injury that drunk women are prone to...

We are off topic though, i think that some government workers will most definitely riot if their government can't pay them and they lose their cushy unproductive jobs and the rest of the perks, not all of them though, some will find work elsewhere.

I do wonder though, will they riot against the government who royally shafted them or will they join something similar to the occupy movement?


Fair call, i guess any system that coerces money from people is always going to be suboptimal. If you're taking money from everyone then theres no tangible financial incentive to being healthy... well there is to a degree if you reduce premiums but because alot of people lean toward instant gratification it seems like it would be unlikely to be effective.

I don't think theres any way to get around the financial burden for unhealthiness, all you can do is take away the financial disincentive for being healthy. I guess the only way to do that is have people voluntarily purchase their own health insurance and let the market sort it out.


Awesome idea! Can wait to see one on the shelves.

If you look at it that way, increasing premiums on people who live unhealthy lifestyles could be pretty analogous to "beatings." Higher premiums for bad life choises is still a negative reinforcement. Perhaps having everyone start out with high premiums, and reduce their premiums for every good decision they make is a way to change that to a positive reinforcement system, but I'm not sure whether that would be effective.

We really need to get that 'tricorder" tech that's being worked on finished and out for sale. If you haven't heard of it, there are some universities and private groups working on a hardware attachment for spartphones that will be able to test your heart rate, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and even take blood and other fluid samples to test for many other things, which it will then instantly process and give similar results to what you would get from your annual checkup. The idea is to get these things to places like Africa, where the number of doctors are low, so that nurses and volunteers can quickly test and diagnose people to see if anyone needs to go to an actual doctor, and in developed countries so that people can easily keep track of their health, daily if they wish, to be able to catch any problems like onset of deseases or cancers quickly enough to easily treat them. I can see something like this be implemented with health insurance or medical programs, and possibly give financial or gift rewards for reaching or maintaining certain goals.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--90847

That was your quote.  Which one is the ACA thread?

Um.  We are wildly off topic here.  And you are talking about women WHOSE LEGS ARE BROKEN.  How much more incentive than broken legs are you hoping for?  Rape? Murder? 

I've dealt with it in the ACA thread and its off topic to this thread so I'll pass.

Of course, something like heroin very often leads to exactly the crappy existence you're trying to avoid with the drug.  But there are certainly cases of situational addiction where the habit goes away when the motivation for it does.  For instance, many soldiers developed a heroin habit during Vietnam and then came home and just dropped it.  Many others, though, didn't.

There are really all kinds of addict, though.  Some people get exposed to drugs and completely go into a downward spiral leading to death, while others maintain a habit and more or less normal life.

I think opiate addiction is only very rarely a rational choice.

What models? I thought it was generally well known that poor people generally favour toward instant gratification... Its one of the primary reasons that poor people stay poor. In their 1988 paper "A Theory of Rational Addiction," economists Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy argued that shooting heroin is a logical choice when all you're giving up is a crappy existence.

I think its entirely reasonable to expect people to become healthier and for there to be less of a burden on the healthcare system if people get financial incentives to be healthy... How do you train your children to do the right thing? or even most animals for that matter? I guess you could beat them and force them to do them... but we all know that sends the wrong message and just doesn't work very well... Don't we?

The US system is a joke but your claim is it is because it penalizes some sick people?

If you can't see the US health system is a joke, it would be better to let you google it than waste time educating you as to what counts as a good patient outcome and how various countries compare in terms of efficiency in reaching the outcomes.

Its an interesting question and I don't know the answer.  Cigarettes are taxed at a point where they are a real burden for the poor.  Yet smoking is primarily a poor person's habit.  In theory, only the rich should smoke but poor people do keep failing to act as models predict

I'm not sure that's true. Keep in mind that such penalties aren't limited to "if you're sick, you get no health insurance" or "if you have no health insurance, you are screwed."
If insurance companies could charge you based on your weight, your cholesterol level, and other things that directly affect your health that you have full control over, it would create incentives for people to avoid such things. But at present everyone just pays the same premium, regardless of how healthy they are, because most people are lumped together into employer provided insurance pools.
I don't know if there are actual examples of financial penalties for health. Maybe some states have some laws that make doing something unhealthy more expensive? Maybe you could even extrapolate cigarette tax to heart desease statistics? But I wouldn't be surprised if they were positive.

Surely the health of a society can be qualified and quantified in many different ways that include external factors.  That's like saying financial penalties didn't result in a healthy society in Hiroshima since they all died.  How would one obtain the proof or lack of such evidence in a complex system or am I missing the point of that sentence?  Also when you say the US health system is a joke what does that mean and how would the fact that the US penalizes SOME sick people have bearing on that?

I don't know of any civilised country that does't have an ambulance service for drunks with broken ankles.    We don't need utopia to be civilised.

Agree

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.  Given that the US does penalize some sick people and the US health care system is a joke, surely most evidence suggests that encouraging people to get to a doctor asap regardless of cost is a good idea?

Beware of anyone who says they love humanity.  Because they probably don't like actual humans very much and you're probably on a list of people they need to get rid of for their ideal of humanity to work.

People who say they love humanity either don't know very many humans or are merely claiming to love humanity for a purpose that is almost always nefarious.

Trust misanthropes.

A health system that punishes the healthy financially is the exact opposite of rational thinking. One of the major pillars of psychology is the human response to incentives
and if our society is anything to go by, financial incentives are the most widely spread and motivational motivation tool there is.

Giving unhealthy people no financial incentive to be healthy is right up there as far as bad ideas go when it comes to minimizing harm in society.