Is it time to use the ancient method of price incentives to reduce drug addiction in the USA?
The Chicago Tribune contained two related articles. One about Juul nicotine Vaping products The other, Voice of the People, an opinion stated its time for a voter referendum to decide the politics of replacing private medical insurance with one pay Medicare system.
The Purpose of This Post
Is to question and reveal the compelling truth of why people who make personal choices to use medical proven addictive drug products, which have proven high risks of detrimental health effects, should require people who make healthy choice pay higher insurance premiums to pay for folly of fools.
King Solomon
“Blessed is the one who finds wisdom, and the one who gets understanding, for the gain from her is better than gain from silver and her profit better than gold. She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.”(Proverbs 3:13-16)
Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer, but whoever refuses to shake hands in pledge is safe. (Proverb 11:15)
The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to
their ways, but the folly of fools is
deception.
(Proverb 14:8)
What’s My Point?
We know the truth and identity of the harmful health effects and medical costs to treat the effects addictive drugs have on humans. We know we are borrowing trillions of dollars to our National Debt to pay for medical costs to treat people who make foolish decisions to invest addictive drugs. We know humans are cost conscious of most every product they buy. We know cost incentives work to inhibit people from buying items they cannot afford.
Sowhy are we not making people who make foolish decisions pay for their foolishchoices instead of everyone else?
For example, Juul is selling a nicotine product and is now suing suppliers whosell less costly nicotine products which can be used on their inhaler products.The CDC, has conducted tests and published the detrimental effects of nicotineproducts paid for by all taxpayers. Cigarette manufacturers are paying foradvertisements demanded by a suit they lost that prove they covered up andmisled past cigarette smokers of the harmful effects of smoking.
Every doctor who treats any patient asks if they are or were a cigarette smoker in the past or use addictive drugs. Why, because they know the majority of health problems, they will at are experiencing are the result of a harmful drug they chose to use in their lifetime and now cost billions of dollars to treats.
In the meantime, people who are wise and choose not to invest harmful drugs all must pay for the medical costs of fools who chose otherwise.
In My Opinion
We are all fools to allow politicians to ignore this folly and continue to listen to people who make all health providers make everyone pay for the foolish choices of “strangers” to the use of wisdom in their lives as stated in above Proverb…
What to Do Instead?
The old idiom, “If you want to play, then you must pay,” should begin by making all suppliers of addictive drug products raise their prices to pay for the long-term health effects that are medically proven to cause health problems.
The added costs to be directed to a separate fund, similar to Medicare, to pay the costs for medical care of anyone who tests to have ingested an addictive drug.
In other words, use the ancient proven method of employing wise cost incentives to decrease use of harmful drug products.
The simple how’s, whys, and therefore detail are too long to describe in a blog post. Another ancient wisdom saying is “When there is a will, there is a way,” means the present can find the means if they really set their minds to the task.
If Interested
Read the Source Links Below and Previous Posts.
You Decide
Are we taxpayer fools for keep electing people who make us pay for the folly of strangers who make foolish choices in their lives.
Are we fools for electing politicians who keep adding to the National Debt to pay for the strangers who make foolish choices in their lives?
Are we fools for allowing politicians to pass laws to give incentives for the strangers to sell addictive drugs and make it more affordable for our children to become addicted to life from their products?
When will we American taxpayers discern and be prudent with how our tax money is being used by politicians and quit being deceived to pay for fools who make foolish health choices?
Or are we the real fools for allowing ourselves to be deceived into paying for folly and borrowing to be paid by our children and grandchildren?
Should the voter referendum suggestion instead ask voters to stop paying taxes to pay for the health costs of fools who ingest addictive drugs foolish choices?
Regards and good will blogging.
Source Links
Chicago Tribune
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-juul-lawsuit-copycat-ecigarette-20181126-story.html
CDC Nicotine
Click to access Electronic-Cigarettes-Infographic-508.pdf
Ancient Wisdom Source of Compelling Truths
https://www.compellingtruth.org/long-life.html
Previous Posts
Rudy u Martinka 
does that mean you ignore supports for poor families cause they are unlikely to become rich, so remain a burden, the greater issue is to recognize how we are so easily addicted, and so plan on ways to develop healthy states of being in the very young, more nutritious food costs extra for those with less to spend, but to support such initiatives decreases the risk of many problems going forward.. just a point of thought, thanks for the post
LikeLiked by 1 person
@bwcarey
See comment to Doug.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bwcarey
Thanks for your comment.
My post topic was drug addiction which has no boundaries for rich or poor victims, or was food mentioned.
However, since you brought up poof families, it reminded me of a previous post of the cigarette addiction of people living below the poverty level who smoke one pack a day will spend 20 percent of their annual income to pay for cigarettes addiction.
In another previous post about a small story owner in a poor neighborhood being caught with a bag of money in excess of a quarter million dollars from selling fatal marijuana which happened to kill three customers.
Yes, there is a correlation in poor neighborhoods having a high incidence of being drug addicts.
They make free will choices to become addicted and children witnessing their parents smoke will have a higher incidence of emulating their smoking habits.
If anything, having the costs of nicotine products increase may prevent minors from being able to pay for the cost of nicotine products.
As for marijuana, if convicted drug sellers would have to forfeit all their personal property and money in fines when convicted, that might be an incentive to not want to sell illegal drugs.
In other words, if the cost were so high, maybe they might not be able to afford becoming addicted or afford to make foolish personal choices and make other hard-working people pay for their resultant health care.
Regards and good will blogging.
If interested
https://rudymartinka.com/2018/07/06/king-solomon-wisdom-rights-responsibilities/
https://rudymartinka.com/2018/04/29/king-solomon-drug-addiction-hiv-aids-std-who-or-what-to-blame/
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/low-ses/index.htm
LikeLiked by 2 people
good point, sometimes i think if we become too absolute in our beliefs, it’s easy to step into territory we never wanted in, but of course, what is harmful should not be encouraged, at the same time, those at the bottom need a lift, thanks for the reply
LikeLiked by 1 person
In theory I actually agree with you that people should indeed take greater responsibility for their poor choices in life. But all of us make mistakes in some form.. it’ s our nature as human beings. When it comes to health issues as a result of our mistakes it gets pretty complex. Generally it’s entirely about where do you draw a line between a personal mistake YOU pay for given it was your bad choice, or our taxes pay for.. and.. who judges?
I might be putting up Christmas lights on the house and reach an area where I might have to dangle precariously over some edge. Common sense suggests I avoid that.. the macho side whispers, “This isn’t going to hold me up; I can do this.” You place the ladder into an awkward position thinking you’re macho enough to compute the proper balance.. you climb the ladder, loose balance.. fall to the ground.. and end up a quadriplegic for the rest of your life.. sucking the hind teet of welfare forever. We live in a society of relative compassion for others for one thing.. for another thing, just letting people falter along the wayside will end up being social problems in other ways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug, Tom.
Doug, you stated, “In theory I actually agree with you that people should indeed take greater responsibility for their poor choices in life.”
Then you go on to bring up government compassion, etc. etc.
There lies the problem with making everyone understand the wisdom, from early childhood, that there are personal consequences for making foolish choices in life.
My point is when government makes taxpayers responsible to pay for their foolish decisions based on compassion is not what the USA Constitutions was founded.
If was to provide freedom from tranny from a King, who now has somehow been transposed over time, in my opinion, to be a nanny government forcing taxpayers to pay for the foolish choice’s fools make.
I have to confess, when I first started reading Citizen Tom’s comments about nanny government, I did not fully understand his view point about how government needs to be reduced because private enterprise and charities are run more efficiently than government programs.
For example, a private insurance company would make a cigarette smoker pay a much higher premium because they are not blinded by government liberalized ideas that someone else is responsible to pay for their own poor choices they make in life.
Same with schools, charities, etc.
Perhaps someday, your liberalized views of nanny government will vanish into the reality of truth, Truth that too many people rely on government to solve their problems which result from their own foolish choices.
Regards and good will blogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you want to get specific on the Constitutionality of what you are Tom are assigning as “charity”, the Constitution stipulates the government/governing body… Congress.. will legislate laws that are for the public good. Unemployment compensation? Yep.. people should be responsible for their own loss of work; why should the taxpayer give them free money to look for work? So.. you have GM who is going to toss 16,000 out of work. Those 16,000 people are now likely going to serve a measure of time as real live “poor people” who are going to be left up to their own devices to scraping an income to support their families.. who will likely starve, become desperate, and very likely turn to crime to feed the family. I certainly would in the same situation. Then what happens is that less time is actually devoted to job hunting as more time is allocated to scrounging for the next meal. As that is repeated over and over you tend to threaten a destabilization of the social fabric.
I’m not suggesting that each and every welfare program is perfectly justified.. I am saying I do not see any “charity” in welfare in general.
Now… what does tick me off to no end is people who continually live in areas prone to natural disasters.. hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, etc. and they expect to get bailed out by the government without any sort of preparation for personal survival . They piss & moan about FEMA not getting there in time. Forget FEMA… you live there, you screwed up… blame yourself for not having evacuation plans. You want to build your home raised up on sticks or in the middle of a forest that’s dry 10 months out of the year just so you have a view.. then YOU assume the risk. Not government.
I live in an area of SoCal with a moderate risk of fire and earthquake and I have made preparations in the event of evacuation, like go-bags in both vehicles. In fact, the go-bags remain in each vehicle not for an evac from my home, but anywhere I travel in CA I am subject to anything that happens when I am there or passing through. I have three days at least prep in both vehicle go-bags. I don’t want to be traveling down some interstate and suddenly get blinded by the smoke from a raging fire stopping all traffic.
I think you get my point.
LikeLike
Unemployment insurance is not charity. It is a Congress Approved program to accrue funds over time for the possibility of loss of employment not of their making.
It allows time to live while they look for another job. Unfortunately as I witnessed when the dems allowed millions s of jobs be outsourced to other country workers. Instead of livable wages the displaced workers will have to adjust lifestyles to live on mk omum wages.
Thank God, President Trump is working on return mfg jobs instead of Obs.aa
yto. ncortunstel
LikeLike
Doug,
My earlier reply was cut short because I hit “the send” key in error before I could comment on your wise preparations for an emergency in California.
Reminded me of all the numerous times I taught young boy scouts the motto.
“Be prepared”
You obviously were involved in BSA in your past.
You are wise in this regard. Kudos to you.
Regards and good will blogging.
LikeLike
Yeah.. pretty much raised in a world of white entitlement. 🙂 But.. thanks. I enjoyed my time in Scouting… and good to know you volunteered as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
We better be prepared for a lot bigger problem, in my opinion, if we live long enough.
Check out my sad comment I just sent to Tom on this post for an explanation.
Regards and good will blogging.
LikeLike
@Doug
Not certain I agree with Rudy on this one.
Anyway, here are a couple of thoughts.
First thought. People who use addictive substance generally pay a high sales tax. Since the revenues from such taxes usually go into the general fund, instead of being used to treat the addicted, we usually don’t connect treatment with such taxes, but that is one of the ways spendthrift politicians justify these taxes. The problem is that politicians would rather buy votes, and addicts are not reliable voters. So politicians have little interest in spending any money on them.
Second thought. We have become so accustomed to government-run charity we no longer stop to wonder why we trust politicians with such a responsibility. Stop! Think! At least half of the people we elect campaign by accusing their opponents of foul thoughts and deeds. So whoever gets elected it does not make sense to trust them.
The people who founded our country made it quite clear we are foolish to trust those we elect to rule us.
Allowing politicians to take what belongs to one person just so they can give another person what they want creates a dangerous conflict of interest. We end up giving the same people responsible for protecting our property rights the power to arbitrarily take our property away so that they can give it to someone else. Therefore, we would be better off relying on private charity. That would not be a perfect solution, but it would be a better solution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One reason I have always been for periodic extension mandates for given social programs. Even Obamacare; there should have been mandated reviews after “x” number of years built in to the original legislation to review results to date, determine further application of the program, review original intention vs. evolved application, etc. If legislators are afraid that changing political moods at some future date will lead to a politically inspired termination rather than relying on practical consideration to the welfare of the country, then build into the legislation up front a criteria that forces objective review and not future political bias or expediency.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Doug
A sunset date? Well, the idea sounds logical, but broaching the concept leaps over three fundamental concerns.
1. Is the distribution of charity an ethical function of government?
2. Does our Constitution authorize Congress to spend money on charity?
3. Given the obvious conflicts of interest, do we have the moral capacity to make government-run charity work without corrupting our nation?
I think the answer to all three of those question is “no”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I intentionally didn’t mention “sunset” because that implies a termination or cutoff… although sunset laws do have a purpose as well. Some things don’t need to last forever.
Given your three points, I’d submit that while a program might suggest a charity many do serve the social purpose of a collective good for the nation in some form. Now, likely you would present a list of these to debate from contemporary terms, but to be true to reason one would have to go back to the original incentive for passing such legislation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Doug
What are you saying? The people who set up government-run charities had good Intentions. Welfare isn’t charity because it is about the collective good? Don’t be silly!
When people refuse to express themselves plainly, I suspect they are trying to hide their thoughts, perhaps even from themselves.
When people started setting up government-run charities, did they have good intentions? Did they have the collective good in mind? Let’s assume they did.
Intentions are important, but they don’t make our actions ethical.
Think about another old proverb.
The first proverb is just another way of saying the second. When we don’t choose an appropriate way to implement our good intentions, we don’t get the results we want. That’s the point of my questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom,
Check out my reply to Doug and you.
Maybe someday, Dough will be decompressed from a nanny government state and understand your message.
Regards and good will blogging
LikeLiked by 1 person