"Smokers remain the benefactors of the rest of us - voluntarily paying ridiculous levels of tax and then dying before taking much out of the superannuation system."
Sunday, January 6, 2013
2nd PoTD
Government logic wins. Crampton points out that the social costs of being healthy far outweigh the social costs of being sick, unfit, and smoking. The government should subsidize coke, booze, and tobacco:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
If for some reason you believe they want to be solvent, and that this is about taking care of the citizens as opposed to power and control.
The government should subsidize coke, booze, and tobacco.
That's called Welfare Mr Aretae. I can break it down for you if you like..
bdoran,
As an anarchist, I'm NEVER serious about promoting government programs. I am universally in favor of ending any and all government programs immediately. At best I have preferences about which ones are most pernicious (regulations in general) and which ones are least so (direct transfers to the poor).
I simply enjoy pointing out how broken the nanny state is. I'm not used to non-regulars reading my stuff.
Indeed.
However, it is a bit of a misnomer to label the non-smokers "healthy" if they end up sucking down major health care dollars. We are on to the problem of the small group with out-sized health care costs.
RSF,
Consider 2 cost-functions of health-care costs with age:
Non-smokers: Cost = $1000*1.2^(age-65)
Smokers: Cost = $2000*1.2^(age-65)
But the smokers die on average at 80 instead of 87: 7 years earlier.
If that's true...then the non-smokers cost about double in lifetime costs as the smokers. Even though they're healthier throughout their lives.
The solution, which I may have mentioned before, is a free Suzuki Hayabusa on retirement.
Aretae, I want to be alert to how much these over-arching social programs rely on Heroes, people who pay in but don't partake. There is a type of Pareto distribution going on in health care: 20% of the population uses 80% of the care or some such. With time and knowledge we can begin to identify the Big Users, and the Heroes will begin to exit. What then? In a high cost, subsidized setting, we need to start defining a minimum level the body politic can promise the Big Users.
Aretae,
>>>which ones are most pernicious (regulations in general) and which ones are least so (direct transfers to the poor)
The WoP is comprised mostly of direct transfers to the poor. You think the WoP destroyed the black family (with help from the WoD) and that the WoP is best viewed as the WoBP. The WoP also negatively affects non-blacks, but at a different rate. What are "regulations in general" responsible for that puts them so far down the line of pernicious statism than the WoP?
The first study I'm aware of finding this (buried, hilarious) conclusion - that smoking decreases lifetime/long-term medical costs - was done in 1997, but I have a hunch there were some even earlier ones done in other countries, all finding the same conclusion.
Of course, there's the more cheerful "lost productivity" angle, which is also used to argue that suicides cost society money rather than saving money. What do you think of that? Do you agree with Crampton that "the bulk of productivity costs are borne by the drinker, smoker, or eater himself: they're reflected in lower wages"?
Your Roquefort sauce recipe looks pretty paleo though - not helping increase the obesity epidemic and hence drop medical costs very much dude. <3
Sister Y,
1. I seem to recollect the Economist printing something on the topic back in the early '90s...maybe even late '80s when smoking bans started happening in CA.
2. I haven't thought anywhere near as seriously as you have on the suicide topic. I think the recent discussion by Crampton here points at the ethical issue with this problem. Mostly, Kant was right. It's just not cool to treat folks as means to societal ends.
3. Who eats the productivity costs? Mostly, it's the Drinker, Smoker, Eater, and his/her family.
4. Roquefort...Yeah, but it's awful good as a dinner invite for friends and friends' girlfriends...
Post a Comment