You claimed American healthcare is large collectivist when the point was it was much less socialized/collectivist than other places that don't seem to care about raw milk being legal and also don't seem to have an appreciable health problem from raw milk being legal. I wouldn't really call that a rebut, I would call that missing the point.
Also, that there is a risk to others in it self is not a per se reason for illegality (or else everything would be illegal). What matters is the cost of the risk not borne by the person making the choice vs the net benefit directly to the person taking the risk. Based on the fact that raw milk is legal in much of the world with very rare ill effects (and even rarer ill effects beyond the person consuming the raw milk product) your last two paragraphs ring very hollow
> I wouldn't really call that a rebut, I would call that missing the point.
I don't think I did actually. Even if other countries are more collectivist than the US, that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect me if something causes a spike in costs. Yes, the UK is more collectivist but I don't really know what that has to do with anything other than a potential misunderstanding of the US healthcare system; rising health insurance costs could still affect me, not even counting the fact that around 100+ million people in the US (around 1/3 of the entire population) are on medicare or medicaid, which is directly socialized [1] [2] and would directly affect all taxpayers.
> your last two paragraphs ring very hollow
Sure. It's all about risk management, a glorified expected value calculation. I don't really care if raw milk is legal or not, I just don't like it when people pretend that anything is all sunshine and fucking rainbows. If it has a risk of carrying an airborne illness, instead of pretending that it doesn't, we should acknowledge it and regulate it properly.
Also, that there is a risk to others in it self is not a per se reason for illegality (or else everything would be illegal). What matters is the cost of the risk not borne by the person making the choice vs the net benefit directly to the person taking the risk. Based on the fact that raw milk is legal in much of the world with very rare ill effects (and even rarer ill effects beyond the person consuming the raw milk product) your last two paragraphs ring very hollow