Feb 3, 2022·edited Feb 3, 2022Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
>17% unvaxxed times the US population is 56,508,640 unvaxxed, give or take.
17% is the unvaxxed over-18 population, not the US' population, so 44.3M
As for the rest of it, great, and I do wish there was a subsidy for being healthy and beautiful or, as a proxy, being able to run a 10-minute mile and complete one pull-up, at the very least
And we need to throw McDs executives in jail, or take China's example and do something far worse
Then, we could stop deluding ourselves, accept that we affect each other in ways that go far beyond the cost-sharing of socialized medicine, and try to be less individualistic.
Contrary to libertarian fantasy, you have a responsibility towards everyone around you, which you can fulfill by being your healthiest, best self.
What seems to be missing from the analysis in this comparison is a question of how much obesity is a volunteer choice. I assume part of the idea of taxing the unvaccinated is to encourage vaccination (tax the things you want to discourage), because proponents happily pay the hospital bills of the vaccinated. The point is not to cover the total cost, just the percentage that is due to voluntary choice. We know that obesity is caused to some degree by genetics, compulsion or addiction (the counter-argument to what I'm saying here is that we already DO tax cigarettes). The second point to consider is how much of obesity is due to poverty. Healthier foods tend to be more expensive, whereas high-calorie foods (fast food, sodas, etc.) are more affordable. According to the CDC, obesity is more prevalent in lower-educated and/or lower-income women (though more prevalent towards the middle class in men). So, not apples to oranges, although it makes for a compelling discussion. Part of the impetus must be a tax on "immorality", so to what degree are overweight people morally culpable?
>If policy makers want to tax the unvaccinated, and they want to do it in an honest fashion
At the risk of being more heat than light here, they don't. Any talk of mandates post-omicron is no longer about public health (assuming they were in the first place), it is purely about getting the few remaining holdouts to submit to the authority of their betters.
Feb 1, 2022·edited Feb 1, 2022Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
I think you did your math wrong. The political calculus is:
Tax the obese = anger 44.9% of the electorate, probably increasing their voter enthusiasm by an outsized (pun intended) percentage
vs.
Tax the unvaxxed = anger 17% of voters, most of whom probably are on their way to being too demoralized to vote anyway, plus you probably give your tribe something to be enthusiastic about (at a time when they have little of that).
(I know you know this. Asking for anything that makes sense from the politicians who write out tax laws is asking too much these days.)
The Kaiser Foundation is not exactly trustworthy. It is part of the media and coastal elite and I am pretty sure the number of unvaccinated people is higher than 17%. I am curious if it would make more sense to have two different surveys and split the difference. Not sure how the math works out but reading this is just not convincing considering Kaiser has a working relationship with NYT and WaPo. They also work with a lot of the elite universities as well.
welp, getting a vaccine takes a little bit of time and effort versus going from obese to a healthy weight which takes a whole lot more. this even in the absence of genetic factors which may contribute.
>17% unvaxxed times the US population is 56,508,640 unvaxxed, give or take.
17% is the unvaxxed over-18 population, not the US' population, so 44.3M
As for the rest of it, great, and I do wish there was a subsidy for being healthy and beautiful or, as a proxy, being able to run a 10-minute mile and complete one pull-up, at the very least
And we need to throw McDs executives in jail, or take China's example and do something far worse
Then, we could stop deluding ourselves, accept that we affect each other in ways that go far beyond the cost-sharing of socialized medicine, and try to be less individualistic.
Contrary to libertarian fantasy, you have a responsibility towards everyone around you, which you can fulfill by being your healthiest, best self.
What seems to be missing from the analysis in this comparison is a question of how much obesity is a volunteer choice. I assume part of the idea of taxing the unvaccinated is to encourage vaccination (tax the things you want to discourage), because proponents happily pay the hospital bills of the vaccinated. The point is not to cover the total cost, just the percentage that is due to voluntary choice. We know that obesity is caused to some degree by genetics, compulsion or addiction (the counter-argument to what I'm saying here is that we already DO tax cigarettes). The second point to consider is how much of obesity is due to poverty. Healthier foods tend to be more expensive, whereas high-calorie foods (fast food, sodas, etc.) are more affordable. According to the CDC, obesity is more prevalent in lower-educated and/or lower-income women (though more prevalent towards the middle class in men). So, not apples to oranges, although it makes for a compelling discussion. Part of the impetus must be a tax on "immorality", so to what degree are overweight people morally culpable?
“BuT ObEsiTy’s NOt cONtaGIoUs!” **spongebob meme**
>If policy makers want to tax the unvaccinated, and they want to do it in an honest fashion
At the risk of being more heat than light here, they don't. Any talk of mandates post-omicron is no longer about public health (assuming they were in the first place), it is purely about getting the few remaining holdouts to submit to the authority of their betters.
I looked at the tweet that video of the trucks at night comes from and people are saying it's actually from Germany in 2019.
Perfectly logical. Unfortunatley logic is dead.
I think you did your math wrong. The political calculus is:
Tax the obese = anger 44.9% of the electorate, probably increasing their voter enthusiasm by an outsized (pun intended) percentage
vs.
Tax the unvaxxed = anger 17% of voters, most of whom probably are on their way to being too demoralized to vote anyway, plus you probably give your tribe something to be enthusiastic about (at a time when they have little of that).
(I know you know this. Asking for anything that makes sense from the politicians who write out tax laws is asking too much these days.)
The Kaiser Foundation is not exactly trustworthy. It is part of the media and coastal elite and I am pretty sure the number of unvaccinated people is higher than 17%. I am curious if it would make more sense to have two different surveys and split the difference. Not sure how the math works out but reading this is just not convincing considering Kaiser has a working relationship with NYT and WaPo. They also work with a lot of the elite universities as well.
welp, getting a vaccine takes a little bit of time and effort versus going from obese to a healthy weight which takes a whole lot more. this even in the absence of genetic factors which may contribute.