Let me reiterate: let's assume that the tax on salt would indeed cut salt intake by 6 percent, and "[result] in 327,892 fewer strokes and 306,173 fewer heart attacks." Let us assume further that the cut in salt consumption would make many high blood pressure medications superfluous, saving the government money in these areas insofar as people use government assistance programs and the like. This is not unreasonable, per se, and I wouldn't debate it.
But we must consider that often, individuals with high salt intakes have a bad diet to boot, and there arises a whole caboodle of problems that, frankly, kill people. If we're still talking about people who use the government dole to pay for their medical care, there's no reason to believe that a new set of complications wouldn't be covered by such aid. Worse, still, is if people live longer while on government medical aid; costs haven't decreased in such a scenario.
The problem with this study is that it's just a snapshot of the state of things minus people with high blood pressure. This is understandable, but no less fallacious, considering the impossible task it would be to map out all the other scenarios and ways that people could die if not from high blood pressure-related complications, and how these paths would affect medical costs for the government.
It's like justifying a tax on tobacco by citing lower medical costs. But that's dubious, if smokers die at a younger age, requiring less medical care than otherwise, thus saving money in the long-run.
So, it isn't about costs. It never was/is/will be about costs, because the government multiplies the cost of anything it breathes legislation on.
Instead, this is about control. Every damn thing they do is about controlling every facet of your life.
No comments:
Post a Comment