6 ms·

Because our tax dollars pay for Medicare/Medicaid, so for those people who don't have private insurance, they're saddling society with the costs of their choice

Because our tax dollars pay for Medicare/Medicaid, so for those people who don't have private insurance, they're saddling society with the costs of their choices. In general I lean libertarian and agree that banning things isn't great, but if you want to make your own choices, you have to bear the costs of those choices. If you want to waive your right to government funded healthcare, then you ought to be able to make whatever unhealthy choices you want.

kube-system 6y ago
Just tax cigarettes to the equivalent or greater than the amount of dollars of burden they place on the healthcare system. Make smokers pay for their own choices. Externalized costs are the root of many seemingly insurmountable societal problems, and most can be fixed by simply accounting for the costs appropriately.
- techrat 6y ago
  You're getting dangerously close to the whole "social credit" style of cost burden. Slippery slope, bud. Now what? Your healthcare costs should go up because you like your eggs fried and with salt instead of hard boiled?
  - atlasunshrugged 6y ago
    I mean things probably will go that way as tracking of individual behaviors gets easier right? For example, I believe some healthcare providers will give free fitbits to users (I think the State of Nevada does) to get them to exercise more, so not a direct fee but they are incentivizing a certain behavior. Then you've got all the car insurers now that are looking at more details of your driving above and beyond the standard 1) how old are you 2) have you been in any accidents
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      I seriously hope not. It completely defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread risk.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    No, but it would make sense to put a health tax on salt. Make people bear their external costs. Like a carbon tax. Just make sure you have a dividend that goes back to the poor to make up for the regressiveness of such taxes.
    - rcoveson 6y ago
      The idea that my own health is an external cost is crazy. How do you tax a free solo rock climber like Alex Honnold? A 1000% tax on chalk dust?
      - awillen 6y ago
        This actually reminds me of https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-teens-doomed-record-attempt-is-found-drifting-off-australia https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-t... I think that in situations like that, you ought to cover the cost of a potential rescue up front, either by paying for an insurance policy or putting down a deposit. People search until your deposit/insurance runs out, then they stop. If you don't survive, that's on you. There's just absolutely no reason that anyone's tax dollars should be spent to help someone who performs a totally needless and incredibly dangerous activity of their own volition.
        rcoveson 6y ago
        The issue is that, when you get down to it, it’s just going out into the wilderness and climbing a rock. If you regulate that, you’ve made a wrong turn. Same goes for surfing, or having consensual, unprotected sex. Both dangerous, or at least much more dangerous than the average human activity, but both too basic and natural to consider regulating. In my opinion.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Sin taxes have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. These concepts aren’t slippery slopes, they’re just taxes like any other taxes.
- NilsIRL 6y ago
  In France, taxation accounts for 80% of a cigarette pack. [0] Yet tobacco costs 120 billion euros a year for only 16 billion in revenue (to the government). [1] It is almost infeasible to tax cigarette to the equivalent of their burden on the health care system. [0]: https://www.boursorama.com/patrimoine/actualites/les-taxes-sur-le-tabac-vont-rapporter-un-pactole-a-l-etat-dcbd76e15e8dc22a79b8be3156dbdea5 https://www.boursorama.com/patrimoine/actualites/les-taxes-s... [1]: https://www.reseau-hopital-ght.fr/actualites/patients/campagne-d-information-prevention/120-milliards-d-euros-par-an-le-vrai-cout-du-tabac-et-le-prix-fort-pour-la-sante-publique.html https://www.reseau-hopital-ght.fr/actualites/patients/campag...
- ArkanExplorer 6y ago
  Smokers save Governments money on healthcare, because they die earlier. "According to the research, a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime, a smoker just £165,000 and an obese person £187,000." https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-actually-save-government-health-care-costs/#:~:text=New%20Study%20Shows%20Smokers%20and%20Obese%20Actually%20Save%20Government%20on%20Health%20Care%20Costs,-February%205%2C%202008&text=By%20contrast%20smokers%20%E2%80%93%20who%20pour,they%20tend%20to%20die%20younger https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-.... By this logic, there should be no tax (or indeed a subsidy) on cigarettes.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Fair point, but healthcare costs are only one of the external costs that a smoker might cause. There are other costs to society as well.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    Sounds like someone just finished reading a bunch of Ayn Rand novels.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
That’s the problem with socialized medicine. Once you institute it now your body belongs to the state. You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Prohibition is wrong. It’s not just unethical but impractical. And congrats, now cops aren’t just going to claim they smell weed in my car, they’re going to claim they smell menthol too. — Also your “waive your right to gov funded healthcare” argument doesn’t make sense. Because I still have to pay for the other guy’s healthcare too.
- jolux 6y ago
  >You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Has any country with socialized medicine actually banned tobacco fully? Genuinely curious. If they haven't then I don't understand why regulation isn't continuous with the current regime, where smokers have to pay a lot more for health insurance. These problems do not go away in a free market system, insurance companies will always try to incentivize you to take on less risk.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Being incentivized by paying for your increased risk via decentralized market dynamics is fine. Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Unaware what countries have fully banned tobacco. Without looking it up at all...maybe singapore? They seem like the type.
    - jolux 6y ago
      >Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Sure but that's not really what's being discussed here right now, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that this has happened. From another perspective, governments are trying to do their best to protect their citizens from the malign interests of private entities who sell dangerous products. I agree that banning tobacco entirely would be too coercive, though. Apparently Bhutan is the only country where tobacco is illegal. I understand your concerns with regards to prohibition but I think this is a slippery slope argument without a better example or a more compelling explanation.
veilrap 6y ago
I generally feel similarly, but I'd rather go the taxation route than the control route. If people want to use hazardous substances, tax the substances to help fund the government subsidized health care.
yissp 6y ago
How far do you take that logic, though? A huge variety of medical issues could be argued to be "your fault" to some extent.
atlasunshrugged 6y ago
This is the view I am most sympathetic with. I actually did advocacy work to increase tobacco taxes but got frustrated because almost everyone in the field wanted governments to outright ban products, and as someone who believes in freedom of choice that didn't sit well with me. I advocated for governments to find out how much "cost" a pack of cigarettes actually inflicted (e.g. cost to the healthcare system from the smoker, if they smoke indoors to their family, from lower productivity and therefore lower earnings/taxes, etc.) and increase the tax to cover that price
oytis 6y ago
Did anyone make a calculation on that? I mean smokers are obviously less healthy, but their lifespan is also shorter.
km3r 6y ago
From what Ive seen, smokers are cheaper on Medi-* because they, on average die, so much younger.
rcoveson 6y ago
> Because our tax dollars pay for Medicare/Medicaid, so for those people who don't have private insurance, they're saddling society with the costs of their choices. This may sound pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction: Society has saddled society with the costs of their choices. It's not the self-destructive choice maker's fault. If a child in public school willfully refuses to practice cursive, they may require additional instruction and resources. I wouldn't say that child is "saddling society with the costs of their choices". They're just living the life they were born to, and society is obsessing over them.

kube-system 6y ago

Just tax cigarettes to the equivalent or greater than the amount of dollars of burden they place on the healthcare system. Make smokers pay for their own choices. Externalized costs are the root of many seemingly insurmountable societal problems, and most can be fixed by simply accounting for the costs appropriately.

techrat 6y ago
You're getting dangerously close to the whole "social credit" style of cost burden. Slippery slope, bud. Now what? Your healthcare costs should go up because you like your eggs fried and with salt instead of hard boiled?
- atlasunshrugged 6y ago
  I mean things probably will go that way as tracking of individual behaviors gets easier right? For example, I believe some healthcare providers will give free fitbits to users (I think the State of Nevada does) to get them to exercise more, so not a direct fee but they are incentivizing a certain behavior. Then you've got all the car insurers now that are looking at more details of your driving above and beyond the standard 1) how old are you 2) have you been in any accidents
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    I seriously hope not. It completely defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread risk.
- jedberg 6y ago
  No, but it would make sense to put a health tax on salt. Make people bear their external costs. Like a carbon tax. Just make sure you have a dividend that goes back to the poor to make up for the regressiveness of such taxes.
  - rcoveson 6y ago
    The idea that my own health is an external cost is crazy. How do you tax a free solo rock climber like Alex Honnold? A 1000% tax on chalk dust?
    - awillen 6y ago
      This actually reminds me of https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-teens-doomed-record-attempt-is-found-drifting-off-australia https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-t... I think that in situations like that, you ought to cover the cost of a potential rescue up front, either by paying for an insurance policy or putting down a deposit. People search until your deposit/insurance runs out, then they stop. If you don't survive, that's on you. There's just absolutely no reason that anyone's tax dollars should be spent to help someone who performs a totally needless and incredibly dangerous activity of their own volition.
      - rcoveson 6y ago
        The issue is that, when you get down to it, it’s just going out into the wilderness and climbing a rock. If you regulate that, you’ve made a wrong turn. Same goes for surfing, or having consensual, unprotected sex. Both dangerous, or at least much more dangerous than the average human activity, but both too basic and natural to consider regulating. In my opinion.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Sin taxes have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. These concepts aren’t slippery slopes, they’re just taxes like any other taxes.
NilsIRL 6y ago
In France, taxation accounts for 80% of a cigarette pack. [0] Yet tobacco costs 120 billion euros a year for only 16 billion in revenue (to the government). [1] It is almost infeasible to tax cigarette to the equivalent of their burden on the health care system. [0]: https://www.boursorama.com/patrimoine/actualites/les-taxes-sur-le-tabac-vont-rapporter-un-pactole-a-l-etat-dcbd76e15e8dc22a79b8be3156dbdea5 https://www.boursorama.com/patrimoine/actualites/les-taxes-s... [1]: https://www.reseau-hopital-ght.fr/actualites/patients/campagne-d-information-prevention/120-milliards-d-euros-par-an-le-vrai-cout-du-tabac-et-le-prix-fort-pour-la-sante-publique.html https://www.reseau-hopital-ght.fr/actualites/patients/campag...
ArkanExplorer 6y ago
Smokers save Governments money on healthcare, because they die earlier. "According to the research, a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime, a smoker just £165,000 and an obese person £187,000." https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-actually-save-government-health-care-costs/#:~:text=New%20Study%20Shows%20Smokers%20and%20Obese%20Actually%20Save%20Government%20on%20Health%20Care%20Costs,-February%205%2C%202008&text=By%20contrast%20smokers%20%E2%80%93%20who%20pour,they%20tend%20to%20die%20younger https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-.... By this logic, there should be no tax (or indeed a subsidy) on cigarettes.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Fair point, but healthcare costs are only one of the external costs that a smoker might cause. There are other costs to society as well.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  Sounds like someone just finished reading a bunch of Ayn Rand novels.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

That’s the problem with socialized medicine. Once you institute it now your body belongs to the state. You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Prohibition is wrong. It’s not just unethical but impractical. And congrats, now cops aren’t just going to claim they smell weed in my car, they’re going to claim they smell menthol too. — Also your “waive your right to gov funded healthcare” argument doesn’t make sense. Because I still have to pay for the other guy’s healthcare too.

jolux 6y ago
>You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Has any country with socialized medicine actually banned tobacco fully? Genuinely curious. If they haven't then I don't understand why regulation isn't continuous with the current regime, where smokers have to pay a lot more for health insurance. These problems do not go away in a free market system, insurance companies will always try to incentivize you to take on less risk.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Being incentivized by paying for your increased risk via decentralized market dynamics is fine. Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Unaware what countries have fully banned tobacco. Without looking it up at all...maybe singapore? They seem like the type.
  - jolux 6y ago
    >Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Sure but that's not really what's being discussed here right now, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that this has happened. From another perspective, governments are trying to do their best to protect their citizens from the malign interests of private entities who sell dangerous products. I agree that banning tobacco entirely would be too coercive, though. Apparently Bhutan is the only country where tobacco is illegal. I understand your concerns with regards to prohibition but I think this is a slippery slope argument without a better example or a more compelling explanation.

veilrap 6y ago

I generally feel similarly, but I'd rather go the taxation route than the control route. If people want to use hazardous substances, tax the substances to help fund the government subsidized health care.

yissp 6y ago

How far do you take that logic, though? A huge variety of medical issues could be argued to be "your fault" to some extent.

atlasunshrugged 6y ago

This is the view I am most sympathetic with. I actually did advocacy work to increase tobacco taxes but got frustrated because almost everyone in the field wanted governments to outright ban products, and as someone who believes in freedom of choice that didn't sit well with me. I advocated for governments to find out how much "cost" a pack of cigarettes actually inflicted (e.g. cost to the healthcare system from the smoker, if they smoke indoors to their family, from lower productivity and therefore lower earnings/taxes, etc.) and increase the tax to cover that price

oytis 6y ago

Did anyone make a calculation on that? I mean smokers are obviously less healthy, but their lifespan is also shorter.

km3r 6y ago

From what Ive seen, smokers are cheaper on Medi-* because they, on average die, so much younger.

rcoveson 6y ago

> Because our tax dollars pay for Medicare/Medicaid, so for those people who don't have private insurance, they're saddling society with the costs of their choices. This may sound pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction: Society has saddled society with the costs of their choices. It's not the self-destructive choice maker's fault. If a child in public school willfully refuses to practice cursive, they may require additional instruction and resources. I wouldn't say that child is "saddling society with the costs of their choices". They're just living the life they were born to, and society is obsessing over them.