“If we lived in the US, then yes, getting sick may be a wholly private cost.”

This conversation is going on here:

http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2010/04/26/gst-and-food-why-im-against-exempting-the-tax/

And that point was alluded to when I said “other policy distortions” (with a link to a fat tax).

“As an aside, can we not argue time inconsistency. People that are suffering weight-related complication don’t seem to (or at least it’s not reported) phlegmatically accept their plight as a probabilistic outcome based on their past choices. They’d probably mostly say they would do things differently, even if they weren’t guaranteed to get sick. Perhaps the government is correcting this.”

Yar, we can always use the cop out that is time inconsistency. However, in this case it is still the elements of choice that are causing the problem – it is the fact that the person cannot commit to an optimal path of food consumption that has led them to weight gain they regret.

In fact, this is the sort of argument that I imagine would ring true to many people. However, when we have a time inconsistency problem the safest way to come up with welfare improving policies is to have “opt-in” schemes where people can commit to a closer to optimal path.

Now, there seems to be a lot of support groups and the such that can form for such issues – if people aren’t using them, then they are saying that the benefit from solving the time inconsistency problem is less than the small cost involved.

In this case, we have both private institutions that can allow for a time consistent path AND a possible revealed low benefit from commiting to the time consistent path – hardly a situation where arbitrary govt. policies to target “fat” are likely to improve welfare.

However given that heart attacks and diabetes are covered by the public health system, if fat people are more likely to get sick, then they impose a cost on society*.

Also, why don’t we just say that certain behaviours make people ineligible for state assistance. For example, people who smoke more than x cigarettes (pick an arbitrary cutoff for probable long-term damage) are ineligible for publicly-funded treatment for smoking-related illnesses (cancer of the lungs, tongue, throat etc.)?

As an aside, can we not argue time inconsistency. People that are suffering weight-related complication don’t seem to (or at least it’s not reported) phlegmatically accept their plight as a probabilistic outcome based on their past choices. They’d probably mostly say they would do things differently, even if they weren’t guaranteed to get sick. Perhaps the government is correcting this.

* There is a direct cost of the treatement and indirect benefit from dying younger, which I admit may actually be a net benefit as with smokers.

If they are more sick that is there private cost – there is no external cost from it. Now insofar putting on the weight is there choice they should pay for it. Insofar as it is genetic, we as a society may want to transfer funds to them. It is a trade-off.

Same deal.

Also not a category I’d prefer not to have an externality tax on – after, hot people already have a higher endowment. Tax them in my opinion 😉 … j/k’s