The Cost of COVID

[Uncle Sparky]

Private health insurance should be illegal. The health care system should be open to everyone equally. Cue jumping should be a crime punishable by jail time, not fines.

Fines disproportionately effect poor people.

During the vaccine rollout in Canada, some jurisdictions were more efficient (and still are) at vaccinating their populations than others. In Canada, you are supposed to be vaccinated in the province you reside in. A casino owner in British Columbia (BC) noticed the vaccine rollout in the Yukon was happening much faster than in BC, so he chartered a private jet to fly him and his wife to Whitehorse, Yukon. He broke several temporary health ordinances in doing so, and ended up being denied the shots. He may have received a couple of thousand in fines, which he will challenge in court, but he owns three casinos and can charter jets, so no skin off his nose.

He should have gone to jail.

I'd like to see vaccine passports. Not only at borders, but to access restaurants, bars, venues, even grocery stores. Then let the anti-vaxxers can stay home and eat their own ****.

But, hey, the American system has always been fvck the poor people, and give all the breaks to the disproportionally white rich people. 'Merca!

[Dauphin]

For alcohol does that include domestic violence, car accidents, etc?

JM

If you mean human cost, that is an externality of permitting alcohol consumption that you can’t value, just as you can’t value the freedom of being permitted to drink alcohol. Consider it a redistribution of fortune that society has judged to be acceptable.

if you mean financial cost only, then still yes. Car accidents for a start would be covered by insurance. Take the U.K. as an example, estimated alcohol duties are £12bn a year, and NHS costs around £4bn. I don’t have figures for other potential public costs (e.g destruction of public property or policing venues) but at 3:1 I’d wager the tax take still exceeds public spend.

[Jon Miller]

If you mean human cost, that is an externality of permitting alcohol consumption that you can’t value, just as you can’t value the freedom of being permitted to drink alcohol. Consider it a redistribution of fortune that society has judged to be acceptable.

Can't you make a similar argument that society has tried to counter the other costs of alcohol consumption with higher taxes rather than holding it up as an inefficiency?

JM
(also you can value lost life/etc)

[Bereta_Eder]

I don't think vaccine refusers should be billed to be kept alive because life is sacred and health care is (or should be) free for all.

Now, that they are complete morons, I wouldn't even go as far as say that because for example astrazeneca has KILLED people.

So vaccines kill people. They save billions of people but if you're the tiny percentage that will die that's not of importance to you.

So no, they should not be billed (since the same goes for everything health related of that magnitude) and they are not "crazies".

I do think though that they are wrong and really are so few that I am happy that they are so few.

Good health to everyone

[Egbert]

Thank you for a straight answer to a simple question.

Anything for you Slowwy.

My answer was Medicare (ie taxpayer) pays but you also punish anybody who does not get vaccinated.

[giblets]

US healthcare is stupid. The government should pay for the hospitals.

[Dauphin]

Can't you make a similar argument that society has tried to counter the other costs of alcohol consumption with higher taxes rather than holding it up as an inefficiency?

JM
(also you can value lost life/etc)

I would not, because sin taxes are mostly about revenue generation and not deterrence or offset. They may be sold as such, but given they are inelastic I personally don’t accept that they are truly intended as deterrents or cost offsetting.

That the taxes are in excess of public costs and no meaningful attempt at costing exists when setting sin taxes adds to this view that the rationale is not that way around (I.e not intended to offset public cost but purely revenue targets)

[Dauphin]

JM
(also you can value lost life/etc)

I missed this first time around. We are discussing whether a person should get treatment for alcohol or tobacco induced conditions. The drinker or smoker dying is not a cost to the public purse and should not be included in any attempt to put a price on it - they chose to abuse their body and pay the full price of that. I'm indifferent as to whether you want to add in the cost of people injured or killed by the smokers or drinkers actions - it is a cost to society, but not an actual cost in the form of tax spend. I would note that societies have largely chosen to ban indoor smoking, drink driving and other scenarios where unconnected third parties can be injured or killed and so attempts are made to curb this cost to society.

Stats I have seen put alcohol related driving deaths on the order of 500 a year, in the UK. This includes the person who consumed, and does not mean alchohol was the cause. There are on the order of 100 domestic abuse deaths per year in the UK. These may not all include alcohol as a factor. You can factor these in as costs to society. Assuming £1m per life as a ball park insurance figure, you are looking at no more than £1bn per year, or less than 10% of the tax take on alcohol duties.

[Jon Miller]

Almost no (wo)man is an island. People have parents, children and spouses and so on. As they die, they create costs. As they live their lives as alcoholics/etc, they create costs. For society and not just themselves.

These costs are meaningful and are something society should consider (and is some of the argument behind sin taxes).

If you are ignoring those, I don't see how you can be relevant when addressing whether the amount of taxation is reasonable or not? At least, as far as everyone else is concerned).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Remember, the history of it is that alcohol was completely prohibited in the US as part of the same movement that originated the first sin tax in 1901.

JM

[ricketyclik]

I would not, because sin taxes are mostly about revenue generation and not deterrence or offset. They may be sold as such, but given they are inelastic I personally don’t accept that they are truly intended as deterrents or cost offsetting.

That the taxes are in excess of public costs and no meaningful attempt at costing exists when setting sin taxes adds to this view that the rationale is not that way around (I.e not intended to offset public cost but purely revenue targets)

I'm not so sure about them being inelastic. With every cigarette duty hike in Australia a significant amount of people have quit smoking. The anti smoking lobby has stated that it's by far the most effective measure, more effective than the social engineering publicity campaigns, plain packaging, etc, which are also effective.

The counter argument is, of course, that there are those who are just too addicted or can't/won't give up for whatever reason, and that they are being unneccarily punished and will be driven onto the black market.

Disclaimer: I have been a smoker for 37 years. I'm on a reasonable income, but when 50g pouches of tobacco cracked $100 my limit was reached, and I decided to quit. Then I found a - perfectly legitimate I'm sure - website that sells tobacco for $32.50/50g

[Dauphin]

Almost no (wo)man is an island. People have parents, children and spouses and so on. As they die, they create costs. As they live their lives as alcoholics/etc, they create costs. For society and not just themselves.

These costs are meaningful and are something society should consider (and is some of the argument behind sin taxes).

If you are ignoring those, I don't see how you can be relevant when addressing whether the amount of taxation is reasonable or not? At least, as far as everyone else is concerned).

JM

I'm not ignoring the cost, I am saying that when you are deciding whether to give someone who smokes or drinks healthcare, then they've already paid for their cost of care through taxes. If you think that they shouldn't get healthcare (as it was self-inflicted), then the obesity problem says 'hello'.

The topic of whether allowing alchohol and tobacco to be consumed in society as a whole is a net good or bad thing, is a completely different discussion. If we were discussing that, then I would include societal costs. We aren't we are discussing tax and spend finances, and unless you are arguing the economy will boom if you got rid of alcohol and tobacco, then it doesn't factor.

[Dauphin]

I'm not so sure about them being inelastic. With every cigarette duty hike in Australia a significant amount of people have quit smoking. The anti smoking lobby has stated that it's by far the most effective measure, more effective than the social engineering publicity campaigns, plain packaging, etc, which are also effective.

The counter argument is, of course, that there are those who are just too addicted or can't/won't give up for whatever reason, and that they are being unneccarily punished and will be driven onto the black market.

Disclaimer: I have been a smoker for 37 years. I'm on a reasonable income, but when 50g pouches of tobacco cracked $100 my limit was reached, and I decided to quit. Then I found a - perfectly legitimate I'm sure - website that sells tobacco for $32.50/50g

You are discussing what many have found - if you raise taxes too high, people will just smuggle it, and you lose that tax and retain the consumption.

[Egbert]

You are discussing what many have found - if you raise taxes too high, people will just smuggle it, and you lose that tax and retain the consumption.

Cigarettes are being smuggled into the country. These days the majority of cigarette packets I see are not plain packaging, they are foreign packaging.

The cheapest packet of legal cigarettes at my local store is $29.50 for a packet of twenty. Another local store sells cigarettes under the counter for $13 for a packet of twenty

I anticipate future problems with organised crime.

[Broken_Erika]

Cigarettes are being smuggled into the country. These days the majority of cigarette packets I see are not plain packaging, they are foreign packaging.

The cheapest packet of legal cigarettes at my local store is $29.50 for a packet of twenty. Another local store sells cigarettes under the counter for $13 for a packet of twenty

I anticipate future problems with organised crime.

pffffff! I can get a carton for $30 from the indian reserve