Picture a few liberals in a bar, railing about the need for universal health care over their gin and tonic. If such people get their way, eventually you can kiss the "gin and tonic" part of that scene goodbye.
Don't believe me? Just take a look at what's happening in Britain. Citing, among other reasons, the higher healthcare costs to which excessive drinking leads, the British Medical Association is asking for higher taxes on alcohol, restrictions on the hours alcohol-serving establishments can be open, and the prohibition of "happy hour" drink promotions.
If the government pays for health care, the government will look for ways to reduce the cost of health care...and that means any activity that could lead to an increase in costs will be taxed, restricted, or even banned. Fish and chips? Uh-oh, that could lead to obesity and heart disease -- better tax that. Contact sports? Uh-oh, that could cause injuries -- better restrict people to low-impact aerobics. Unwinding with a drink at the bar after work? That might mean a trip in an ambulance later -- better slap that down. Never mind that plenty of people are able to enjoy fattening food, playing sports, and alcoholic drinks in moderation -- they'll pay the price for those who don't.
In a free market, the overweight and the drunk would hurt no one but themselves. (Obviously, drunk people do stupid things, some of which can injure or even kill others; but they should properly be prosecuted for the action, such as driving a car, that hurt someone, not the mere fact of their drunkenness.) If a drunk passed out on the sidewalk and was rushed to the hospital, the bill would be sent to him -- not to taxpayers -- and the rest of us could enjoy a glass of wine with dinner in peace.
So if you're wishing for universal health care, be aware of all you're actually wishing for, and know that that includes paying more for your beer -- if you can get it at all.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yes. And in the US, the MADD police have gone from opposing drunk driving to opposing alcohol period. Now people who have a glass of wine at a restaurant can and are prosecuted for driving under the influence when they are under the legal limit for intoxication. Even though they have done no harm to anybody.
Of course this takes police time and money away from catching and prosecuting the real problem for most drunken driving fatalities--the serious alcoholic. This is how we can tell that it has less to do with drunken driving fatalities than it does with state control on individuals. Chalk another one up for the Nanny State.
As part of the move to discourage drinking, the government wants supermarkets to raise the price of the alcohol they sell - ie to end the heavy discounting they operate now. Britain's biggest supermarket, Tesco, opposes this - but not for the reasons you might hope. Their argument is that if any one supermarket ends the discounts, that business will thereby give all the others an advantage. The only way to avoid that is for all the big supermarkets to agree on the price at which they will sell alcohol. If they do that, however, they will fall foul of anti-competition laws... Tesco's proposed solution is that the governmen enact a bill allowing supermarkets to collude on the price of alcohol.
I am frequently appalled by the frequency with which my (American) medical school classmates think in terms of people and behaviors as "burdens on the system." Few, if any, actually consider that it is individuals, not "society," who should be paying medical bills. With that in mind, they think in terms of society-level "fixes" such as taxing and banning "unhealthy" choices. No surprise, then, the idea of banning alcohol.
Post a Comment