3 ms·

> We could just as easily say that the taxpayer won't be responsible for the cost. I thought Covid made it obvious that there is no insular, zero-externality h

> We could just as easily say that the taxpayer won't be responsible for the cost. I thought Covid made it obvious that there is no insular, zero-externality health of individuals. Public health is a public commons, and we will be responsible for the cost whether through taxes and preventive action or through other channels in a reactive manner. Being obese has tons of externalities other than healthcare costs. Higher levels of sickness and absence from work reduces productivity, being out of employment due to disability completely demolishes it. Premature mortality means the national output is reduced because we are losing the societal investment on grown, skilled, experienced adults to death. Some businesses bear higher operating costs; e.g. larger seats or more fuel for aircrafts. Deteriorating mental health is not only a healthcare cost, you and your kids interact with people daily, you make collective decisions (e.g. vote in elections) with them. In short, wellbeing of your fellow humans is never a zero-externality phenomenon and it can't really be distinguished from smoking or pollution because you can't opt out of the consequences of a lower GDP or mentally unwell peers.

ksdale 6y ago
These are very interesting points! Though, I don't really think it's the responsibility of individuals to maximize GDP, and people who die younger generally incur lower lifetime medical expenses than people who die older, which plausibly more than offsets things like aircraft fuel. People who eat too much also plausibly subsidize food for the rest of us. Mental health is a good point, though justifying government intervention on that point also justifies forcing medication on people, does it not? And then the issue of defining where something veers from merely annoying to "mental health problem." I'm wary of defining externalities so expansively that they justify any intervention.
- acituan 6y ago
  > I don't really think it's the responsibility of individuals to maximize GDP Insofar we are in economic competition with other countries, I think being as productive as we can be is also a game of autonomy, survival and values. Ultimately it all drives from individuals carrying their weight (sorry for the pun) which is affected by being in their best shape or disabled. > I'm wary of defining externalities so expansively that they justify any intervention. I totally agree. I would say if it comes down to government interventions, there has already been a considerable delay in response. But markets are unable to implement corrective measures proactively, so NGOs and governmental support seems to be the best tools we have for designing a better society. After all, those externalities do exist and keep flowing, whether we take account of them or not. > though justifying government intervention on that point also justifies forcing medication on people, does it not? I get your point that these might be on a continuum, but forcing ingestion that defies bodily autonomy is not in the same class of interventions as collecting taxes that try to solve the problem through market based incentives. To add more, to the extent forced institutionalization is implemented, forced medication also does happen.

ksdale 6y ago

These are very interesting points! Though, I don't really think it's the responsibility of individuals to maximize GDP, and people who die younger generally incur lower lifetime medical expenses than people who die older, which plausibly more than offsets things like aircraft fuel. People who eat too much also plausibly subsidize food for the rest of us. Mental health is a good point, though justifying government intervention on that point also justifies forcing medication on people, does it not? And then the issue of defining where something veers from merely annoying to "mental health problem." I'm wary of defining externalities so expansively that they justify any intervention.

acituan 6y ago
> I don't really think it's the responsibility of individuals to maximize GDP Insofar we are in economic competition with other countries, I think being as productive as we can be is also a game of autonomy, survival and values. Ultimately it all drives from individuals carrying their weight (sorry for the pun) which is affected by being in their best shape or disabled. > I'm wary of defining externalities so expansively that they justify any intervention. I totally agree. I would say if it comes down to government interventions, there has already been a considerable delay in response. But markets are unable to implement corrective measures proactively, so NGOs and governmental support seems to be the best tools we have for designing a better society. After all, those externalities do exist and keep flowing, whether we take account of them or not. > though justifying government intervention on that point also justifies forcing medication on people, does it not? I get your point that these might be on a continuum, but forcing ingestion that defies bodily autonomy is not in the same class of interventions as collecting taxes that try to solve the problem through market based incentives. To add more, to the extent forced institutionalization is implemented, forced medication also does happen.