However, diabetes, broken ankles and heart disease are not a public health
threats, which means that the government has no call to impose the costs
of
treating such individual illnesses on others, because there is no exported
harm that justifies imposing this burden on others.


You don't think so? There are many ways that society pays the price for
illness beyond the obvious issues of contagion and health care costs. The
economic costs of so many Americans sitting at home because they're sick or
injured is astronomical when you consider things like lost productivity,
overinflated payrolls forced upon employers (which transfer those costs to
consumers), etc. When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money. So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but they're
enormous.

A Usenet persona calling itself Franklin wrote:


However, diabetes, broken ankles and heart disease are not a public health
threats, which means that the government has no call to impose the costs
of
treating such individual illnesses on others, because there is no exported
harm that justifies imposing this burden on others.


You don't think so?

Nope.

There are many ways that society pays the price for
illness beyond the obvious issues of contagion and health care costs. The
economic costs of so many Americans sitting at home because they're sick or
injured is astronomical when you consider things like lost productivity,
overinflated payrolls forced upon employers (which transfer those costs to
consumers), etc.

And who is responsible for inflated payrolls? The government.

When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money.

So what? That's just part of the cost of doing business. Why should
government bail out the business owner? Why should I? If the business owner
fails to properly plan for sick employees, how is that MY problem and why
should I be required to pay for that employee's health care in order to
protect the business owner? If the business owner feels the employee is
essential, then the employer should purchase health insurance to keep him
healthy, not the government or the rest of us.

If his business fails because he plans and manages badly, why, that just
provides an opportunity for some new businessman to try to do it better.

So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but they're
enormous.

Not really. You falsely presume that the economic impacts of absenteeism are
the responsibility of the government to ameliorate or prevent. That
responsibility lies with the employee and the employer and no one else.

Such things are only an impact because the government interferes with the
employer's ability to avoid or reduce those impacts.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

There are many ways that society pays the price for
illness beyond the obvious issues of contagion and health care costs.
The
economic costs of so many Americans sitting at home because they're sick
or
injured is astronomical when you consider things like lost productivity,
overinflated payrolls forced upon employers (which transfer those costs
to
consumers), etc.

And who is responsible for inflated payrolls? The government.


Huh? Payrolls get inflated because businesses don't want to lose their
profit margin, government has nothing to do with it.

When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money.

So what? That's just part of the cost of doing business. Why should
government bail out the business owner? Why should I? If the business
owner
fails to properly plan for sick employees, how is that MY problem and why
should I be required to pay for that employee's health care in order to
protect the business owner? If the business owner feels the employee is
essential, then the employer should purchase health insurance to keep him
healthy, not the government or the rest of us.


Again... huh? Who's talking about government bailouts? That's just the
cost of doing business? Sure... to you. You're the one paying for inflated
prices. If the business owner needs to purchase health insurance to keep
his employees healthy, it costs him extra. And you're the one who bears
that additional cost through price increases. Duh.

If his business fails because he plans and manages badly, why, that just
provides an opportunity for some new businessman to try to do it better.

So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but
they're
enormous.

Not really. You falsely presume that the economic impacts of absenteeism
are
the responsibility of the government to ameliorate or prevent. That
responsibility lies with the employee and the employer and no one else.


No, I don't. I'm simply saying that poor health care has secondary impacts
that, among other things, manifest themselves in higher prices. Higher
prices that *you're* going to pay. You don't want government to step in and
help keep the economy more efficient? Fine, but it'll cost you.

A Usenet persona calling itself Franklin wrote:

There are many ways that society pays the price for
illness beyond the obvious issues of contagion and health care costs.
The
economic costs of so many Americans sitting at home because they're sick
or
injured is astronomical when you consider things like lost productivity,
overinflated payrolls forced upon employers (which transfer those costs
to
consumers), etc.

And who is responsible for inflated payrolls? The government.


Huh? Payrolls get inflated because businesses don't want to lose their
profit margin, government has nothing to do with it.

Wrong, Government mandates minimum wages and imposes payroll taxes and
forbids employers from shedding employees who are a net drain on their
business under, among other laws, the ADA.


When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money.

So what? That's just part of the cost of doing business. Why should
government bail out the business owner? Why should I? If the business
owner
fails to properly plan for sick employees, how is that MY problem and why
should I be required to pay for that employee's health care in order to
protect the business owner? If the business owner feels the employee is
essential, then the employer should purchase health insurance to keep him
healthy, not the government or the rest of us.


Again... huh? Who's talking about government bailouts? That's just the
cost of doing business? Sure... to you. You're the one paying for inflated
prices. If the business owner needs to purchase health insurance to keep
his employees healthy, it costs him extra. And you're the one who bears
that additional cost through price increases.

But that's voluntary. I'm free not to buy his product if I don't like the
price.

If his business fails because he plans and manages badly, why, that just
provides an opportunity for some new businessman to try to do it better.

So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but
they're
enormous.

Not really. You falsely presume that the economic impacts of absenteeism
are
the responsibility of the government to ameliorate or prevent. That
responsibility lies with the employee and the employer and no one else.


No, I don't. I'm simply saying that poor health care has secondary impacts
that, among other things, manifest themselves in higher prices. Higher
prices that *you're* going to pay. You don't want government to step in and
help keep the economy more efficient? Fine, but it'll cost you.

Fine by me, so long as government stays out of it *entirely.* Problem is
that it doesn't, which means that the free market is always skewed by
government intervention.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser