Economics

[Superman]

In Economics, we learn (if we're paying attention) that the true costs of production for certain goods are not always included in the price. Government subsidizes tobacco production heavily. Your tax dollars are used to clean up the environmental messes that manufacturing companies have left behind after producing certain products. I think we can all agree that it would be best, and fairest, and would make the most sense in a supply-and-demand economy if the complete, true costs of production were included in the selling price. That is starting to happen. Good.

Soft drinks. I occasionally drink soft drinks, but not much. I've got my problems, but obesity is not one of them. I am told that obesity and soft drink consumption is strongly correlated. Particularly among children. Obesity is a medical problem and causes other medical problems. Medical costs in America are skyrocketing. Besides soft drinks and the (assumed) resultant obesity, there are a bunch of other contributors. Smoking. It causes health problems for which you and I pick up the tab. Right now, our government is going after the tobacco industry on this. That industry is paying out. Somewhat.

Now, I know that some folks' worlds are so simple that in their minds, everyone could just pay for their own costs, and there would be no need to consider this issue. The imagine that their medical insurance premiums can be insulated from these costs, and that their taxes might not include community costs.

How 'bout the rest of us, who live in the real world, discuss the inclusion of these costs in the selling prices of goods which incur societal expenses like medical costs.

[legion]

So...you want to sue the soda companies for forcing people to drink their beverages?

Another nail in the coffin of personal responsibility.

[Superman]

Sharpen your reading skills, Legion. Perhaps get someone to read my post to you and explain the terms I used.

[cashflyer]

I think companies should disclose hidden costs, incidental cost, and indirect costs (such as the cost in tax dollars that subsidies create) in a clear manner that the average consumer can understand.

Products will need a product information sheet attached, similar to the ones that are attached to bulk packs of drugs when received by a pharmacist.

Knowledge is power, and knowing is half the battle.

[legion]

How else do you propose to "include these costs"?

Will ethanol producers have to start stating how much oil they use in producing their product?

[legion]

BTW, I love how you framed the discussion by stating your opinion is "the real world". Genius!

[Dottore]

Originally posted by Superman

Government subsidizes tobacco production heavily.

.......... Medical costs in America are skyrocketing. ...... Smoking. It causes health problems for which you and I pick up the tab. Right now, our government is going after the tobacco industry on this. That industry is paying out. Somewhat.

Only in America!

Government subsidizes the big tobacco and then goes after big tobacco for the cost of the health problems associated with the product.

Cloud cuckoo land!

[Superman]

Yes, that is the case in the tobacco industry. Yes it is cuckoo. I wonder if it might make sense to stop the subsidies, and at the same time require tobacco companies to take care of the health care costs currently being paid by government programs like medicare. And increased medical insurance rates. In this way, those costs will be included in a pack of cigarettes. That, Legion, is an example of placing the decision to incur those costs in the first place.....into the hands of the consumers like you suggest.

Legion, if your input is to say that it is difficult to identify and quantify and connect specific costs to specific products, then that is a cogent comment. But we don't know if that is what you said.

[cmccuist]

The problem with capturing the real cost of a product is that it is too hard to define. Some smokers handle smoking better than others and don't get as sick or die. Some people don't get fat eating McDonalds.

Also, to be fair, you would have to start capturing the cost of high-risk activities - scuba diving, sky diving, bungee jumping, race car driving, etc. Peolple in high stress professions are more likely to get ulcers, heart attacks, strokes and divorced.

Actually one of the unhealthiest lifestyles is homosexuality with a higher incidence STD's, hepatitis, infections, hemoroids and all manner of physical ailments. I'm pretty sure you're not going to be taxing homosexuals for their contribution to higher medical costs any more than you're going to tax fat people for pushing one Big Mac down with another.

[Superman]

I can't argue too much with that, which is the way it's done now....to the extend and using the criteria that a particular insurance company wants to use in pooling risk groups. Then again, the insurance industry has not inspired my trust and I'm not sure that segregating people into finer and finer risk groups is appropriate or efficient. Extended, each person would be in a risk group by themselves.

When I chose the soft drink product as my example, I had children in my mind.

And, I wonder if perhaps product cost presents a clearer, more momentous decision for the consumer than insurance costs that they generally do not understand, might not know the amount of and don't feel is within their control. Rolling all those considerations together into medical insurance premiums hides the details and specifics of consumption decisions. And then there are things like clothing sizes. If Americans were as fit as most other Western cultures then we might not need to make those jeans in a Size 26.

Just rambling......

[cmccuist]

Supe, I agree with you that there are many unhealthy people in the US who are unfairly adding to the health costs of others. My daughter is a fourth year medical school student and she can't believe the high incidence of childhood diabetes. And she says many times the parents will come in with their overweight children and sabotage the diet plan that the hospital is trying to get the kids to follow by bringing fries and soft drinks!! Incredible.

Possibly health education and maybe more physical type activies in school would help.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Superman
And, I wonder if perhaps product cost presents a clearer, more momentous decision for the consumer than insurance costs that they generally do not understand, might not know the amount of and don't feel is within their control.

Insurance actuaries know more about you than you do.

[Moneyguy1]

Actuarial tables are not that difficult to obtain.

It ain't rocket science.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
How about charging people health insurance rates based upon their weight, smoking status, etc ? Weight would be easiest to quantify.

-Wayne

I thought they did...or maybe it's life insurance? Group policies, like those issued for Government employees, with the taxpayers footing the bill would be problematic, though.

[JeremyD]

Isn't the whole idea of insurance to spread the risk?

[Taz's Master]

Factor in the real costs of TV. Include decreased health due to inactivity and the costs to society due to advertising of products that degrade health and/or the environment, and the glorification of practices that hurt society (violence, drug/alcohol/tobacco use, promiscuity...), the same with movies. Then factor in the real costs to society of legal actions. Determine the costs to a community for a poor public school system that does a bad job of educating children.

[turbo6bar]

What is the real cost of arguing too frequently on the OT forum? Are we talking days, months, or years of lifespan lost?