undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmillstone7y ago0 comments

This is downvoted but is actually a good take.

A failure mode of environmentalism is attaching it to random other progressive ideas. "Let's have a carbon tax and use it to fund universal healthcare!" I want a carbon tax, and I want universal healthcare, AND I want them to be completely disjoint. I will argue for each independently on their merits.

Otherwise both magnify each others' vulnerabilities. For example, say universal health care is funded through a carbon tax, and this tax works really well and emissions plummet. Now universal health care suffers? What a stupid outcome!

Robust government programs are independent with separate funding (see Social Security). Make a big carbon tax, have it fund an equally big carbon dividend, and run it independently from everything else on the progressive or conservative wish list.

This cuts the other way too. No, a carbon tax should not fund conservative pet projects like eliminating capital gains. That has to live or die on its own merits, not tied to environmentalism. The carbon tax must be its own thing to endure.

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

mtgx7y ago· 4 in thread

Ironically, if the U.S. had national healthcare system for which the government had to pay directly, it may not have been basically the only country on Earth to reject climate change.

Countries that have to pay for healthcare have a strong incentive to keep its population healthy to reduce healthcare costs. The U.S. doesn't because it doesn't pay for it directly - it's the citizens themselves that have to pay for it.

Ultimately, the U.S. economy is still negatively impacted by an unhealthy population/workers, but since it's not a direct impact for which the government has to pay out of its tax funds, it doesn't care nearly as much about that impact.

macspoofing7y ago

>Countries that have to pay for healthcare have a strong incentive to keep its population healthy to reduce healthcare costs

It doesn't work that way in practice. It's a weird argument and nobody would ever buy it as there is no obvious cognitive (and politically valid) path from climate change policy to healthcare policy. This is true for America, and Canada and Australia and I suspect every other country.

Also, your underlying assumption, that the American government either has no incentive or is uncaring with respect to keeping the American public health, is just wrong and probably betrays your ideology. Both parties, Dems and GOP, care about people.

Amezarak7y ago

Medicare and Medicaid together are the federal government’s biggest expense. That’s not counting other federal health care spending, like VA or ACA related items, nor does it count state contributions to Medicaid. Or CHIP for that matter.

About 20% of Americans have Medicaid, and about 20% have Medicare. There is some, but not much, overlap, so the total percentage doesn’t hit 40%. Health care needs to be better in the US, but it’s misleading to suggest that huge amounts (trillions of dollars) of government money aren’t already being spent on it.

njarboe7y ago

If you look at the numbers, the various levels of government in the US spend more on healthcare, as a percent of GDP, than most(all?) European countries. So if this was a thing that would push policy on climate change, it would be a bigger lever in the US than in Europe.

ams61107y ago

the government is the citizens. The government has no money of its own, and can't pay for healthcare without taking the money first from the citizens.

d4rti7y ago· 1 in thread

Hypothecation and/or ring fencing is generally bad policy anyway, but it has a certain appeal.

Here it’s mostly seen when people argue that road taxes (VED) and fuel taxes should be spent on roads.

I’m with Churchill on the one: “Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed…and the yield devoted to the general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads. Obviously this is all nonsense…Such contentions are absurd, and constitute…an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and upon common sense.”

fjsolwmv7y ago

Churchill has a pleasant way with words, but the logic of argument simply boils down to "no u". Not everyone agrees that parliament is sole sovereign over citizens' lives. Many believe that Parliament's legitimacy derives from consent of the governed, and that taxes should be justified for a purpose, not arbitrary demonstrations of "might makes right".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse