Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Max, you are correct in your first point below.  Hypocracy abounds on all
sides.

With regard to health costs, the health costs for smoking comes at the end
of life.  Those costs are high regardless of whether the person dies young
or not.  John Shoven, 20 years ago?, said that smoking deaths helps Social
Security, but it limits the years in which workers make contributions.

Here in Butte Co., the smoking $$ are going to build a juvenile detention
center that is sure to contribute to public health.

On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 07:40:27PM -0500, Max Sawicky wrote:

> My reading of the suits is opposite, in a sense.  The
> money is absurdly little, in light of the purported rationale--
> defraying public health care costs associated with smoking.
> This does not contradict my previous statement re: the
> tax rates unless we see the tax as a health care charge
> on the user, rather than a discouragement of smoking
> behavior.  But tobacco tax revenues go into general
> revenues and are basically fungible, so there is no real
> channel of tobacco revenues to health care spending.
> By the same logic, we would have special taxes on
> people that genetic research could identify as susceptible
> to certain diseases.
>
> > . . . Researchers paid by tobacco companies claim that total costs for
> smokers are
> > actually less-since they die early. Of course no leftist believes this
> > because they accept the ad hominem argument that if it is research paid
> for
> > tobacco companies it is not sound. The same type of ad hominem is
> ubiquitous
>
> There is research here to the same effect that is not
> supported by the tobacco companies.  The idea is pretty
> simple -- if you die earlier from tobacco you forego the
> extraordinary medical expenditures that are routine for
> the very old in the last two years of life.  The real issue
> is not the budget calculation, but the idiotic policy implication
> -- that smoking is some kind of public service because it kills
> off people at an earlier age.  That is completely separate
> from the simpler matter of reduced health care spending
> that results from people dying at a younger age.  In general
> things that help people live longer are preferred to those
> that don't.  Most people, at any rate.
>
> mbs
>

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx