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

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

       And, most people will incur extraordinary medical
expenses at the end of their lives whether they are
dying sooner from lung cancer (or some other tobacco-
induced illness) rather than later.  The "saving money"
argument comes from reduced social security outlays.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Sawicky <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, November 19, 2000 7:45 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:4646] Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction
commentary


>> . . .  I am of two minds about tobacco taxes. On the one hand it may to
>some
>> extent discourage use. But surely governments are hypocritical to condemn
>> its use and then profit from its sale. The huge suits for health care are
>in
>> my opinion a total farce.
>
>mbs:  chances are the tax rates exceed the point where
>they discourage use and are simply punishment and a
>regressive revenue raiser.
>
>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
>
>