Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Taxpayer Burden of Wowsers: The High Cost of Good Health.

Over October of last year Gareth Morgan was tweeting on his distaste of paying the health bills of the hedonistic unhealthy, and thus of his divine right to lecture and coerce all of us on how we choose to live; advocating taxes on sugar, fat, higher excises on alcohol and tobacco ... the whole wowser routine – he even took time out from his cat killing pogrom to inform us of this. He does actually have a point in that when we have a tax system forced on us then saving taxpayer money is a valid goal, and thus, in this case, seemingly a lever to use to bully individuals on their lifestyle choices  – indeed, this is part of my objection to the tax state. My reply to him at that time was that he was definitely wrong on a philosophical basis:

but the mathematics of food fascism and alcohol wowserism, let’s call it fascowerism is interesting.

My argument against food taxes and alcohol excises will always be the philosophical one of … a tax on food choice is a tax on choice, period; it's an attaxk on freedom.

Then regarding his cost complaint, I employed a completely unstudied, therefore unevidenced, logic hypothesising that it was the healthy who were in fact the drain on our healthcare dollar, for lardarses and big drinkers like yours truly may conceivably be doing the taxpayer a favour by generally dying earlier:

So let’s look at the underlying case for costs Gareth is making. I don’t have to research and answer any of the below questions. But Gareth who wants to raise the cost of living for all of us, including, I suspect disproportionately, a large grouping of society who can least afford the higher cost of food, has to answer these if he wants to make his case for fascowerism on grounds of savings to the taxpayer.

Surmise that by taxing food society ends up with healthier, longer living individuals. Okay, but what is the actual change in health costs? Is it a saving?

People who die earlier of obesity related diseases may well impact on health costs for a much lesser period of time than longer living healthier people who are still going to die of something, as well as being around longer to incur injury or disease, the latter of which with their healthier immune systems they might keep surviving from to be admitted into the health system with something else. Amateur prognosticating, yes, but I think the logic unavoidable surely.

Also, some of the obesity related diseases such as diabetes are no doubt expensive because their duration is extended, however, some of the related diseases such as coronary, which without any facts I’m going to assume to be the bigger ailment from inappropriate eating and drinking, oftentimes will have very quick outcomes. Perhaps just the cost of the ambulance to Accident and Emergency. Whereas aren’t healthier, lingering people more likely to die from longer, lingering diseases such as cancer meaning more public health bedtime, drugs and salaries?

So, cognisant of the trade-offs, are there any studies that indicate what the likely change in the cost of healthcare is from people eating healthier and living longer? It may not be that significant, or even savings at all?

Ahem, if you could see my face as I type this, you would note the overwhelming feature would be a huge smile. For given the above, you’ll understand how chuffed I must be to now find evidence that I am right, not the All-Knowing Fascowerist Morgan.  From the New York Times:

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.


The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas and changing science.

So, given there is no justification in terms of saving taxpayer dollars for telling me what to eat and what to drink, and I include in this every academic wanting to tax sugar, fat and thus living, we necessarily fall back onto the philosophical argument which for me - a free man - is leave me alone; I take the consequences of how I choose to live, so it’s none of your damned business. Gareth go back to bullying cats, and academics go find a job that doesn’t include you living on my tax dollars, you patronising fascowerists.


  1. Yes, there is a beautiful irony in all of those unintended consequences. Another example is that the entire amount of Treaty of Waitangi Settlements to date is less than the disproportionate amount of tobacco taxes that have been collected from Maori (and that doesn't count the savings in superannuation and healthcare costs that result from the high rates of Maori smoking).

    1. The thing is, however, with Morgan's training he was in a position to understand how the results of this study would have been more than likely.

      I don't understand him, he seems to have become this media reptile that has to have his oar in every aspect of our lives. As I don't understand the left.

      Wish everyone would leave everyone else alone and mind their own damned business.

  2. Thanks for highlighting that study, Mark. There is an injustice being perpetrated that doesn't get a lot of airtime, and that is the heavy taxation of those smokers and fatties that dodge a bullet, don't actually develop cancer, heart disease, stroke or diabetes, and live to be 90 (I've met plenty of them). A system where the government made every New Zealander responsible for his/her own health care costs would be much fairer.