8 ms·
Lobbying groups are known to pay people to comment spam like this. The irony is too great though, the oil/gas industry has about $6 trillion in subsidies per y
by sixQuarks 11y ago
Lobbying groups are known to pay people to comment spam like this. The irony is too great though, the oil/gas industry has about $6 trillion in subsidies per year when you factor in environmental damage.
- 50CNT 11y agoWonder whether they get more than 50ct for that, or less.
- refurb 11y agoWould you say alcoholics get a subsidy as well due to the damage they cause to their health? It certainly adds to the cost of the healthcare. Your argument seems a little silly.
- maxerickson 11y agoIf they pay less for healthcare than they receive in services, what else would you call it other than a subsidy? That seems much more clearcut than who exactly benefits from various economic policies and government actions.
- aerovistae 11y agoIf the companies are creating products that do health/environmental damage that the taxpayers have to fix, how is it silly? Say a given Toyota does $500 worth of environmental damage in its lifetime, and the government pays to repair it. Is that not a $500 subsidy, a fee handled by taxpayers which the responsible party (Toyota) is somehow permitted to ignore?
- refurb 11y agoIf the companies are creating products that do health/environmental damage that the taxpayers have to fix, how is it silly? A few reasons why it's silly. You can't accurately measure it, so it's a somewhat useless metric. Also, everything is interdependent if you look at it that way. Rich people are being subsidized by landlords due to rent control! Alcohol companies are being subsidized because they don't pay for crashes caused by drunk drivers. It goes on and on and it doesn't add much value.
- Jack000 11y agoIn Canada the alcoholics example holds because we have universal healthcare. Alcohol/tobacco is actually highly taxed because of this.
- DanielDent 11y agoI've seen research indicating that tobacco users actually cost the Canadian healthcare system less overall: they die ~5 years younger, and healthcare costs go up with age.
- maaku 11y agoYou're comparing a statistic of one population (smokers) with a different stat of another (general population). There's no conclusions to draw from that. E.g. healthcare costs go up with age because that's when people start dying. Smokers die at an earlier age, so they experience those costs earlier. Is this correct? Who knows, but it's one of the many ways in which the argument you wrote could be invalid.
- DanielDent 11y agoYou are quite right and I could have been more clear. In this case they specifically looked at the total healthcare costs and still concluded it was cheaper. Unfortunately I don't have a link and feel a strong [citation needed] flag is warranted. Furthermore, healthcare costs don't reflect the complete picture. Firstly, lost productivity is an issue. Secondly, we may not want a society where ritual suicide is encouraged at a pre-determined age with the goal of reducing healthcare costs.
- crgt 11y agoHere's a link that mentions a NE Journal of Medicine report backing up your claim: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-01-04/news/1998004017_1_smokers-pay-pack-of-cigarettes-cents http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-01-04/news/1998004017_...
- kirrent 11y ago
- kisna72 11y agosource?
- aerovistae 11y agoKind of don't need a source to tell you that world governments are having to go to great lengths to deal with global warming, do we?
- sixQuarks 11y agothe $6 trillion figure comes from Elon Musk during a recent interview.