The case for an antibiotics tax
washingtonpost.com
The case for an antibiotics tax
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#2This is a great idea. The point of a tax is to impose penalties that exist in real life, but are not part of the original transaction: externalities. Widespread use of antibiotics has a cost associated with it that must be paid by someone, and it should be part of the price of antibiotics.
Much like there's a cost associated with income inequality, so we tax the rich more to supposedly cover that cost. Costs associate with pollution, greenhouse gases, moral hazard, etc. are all risks and costs that must be mitigated at the transaction level, otherwise the market fails.
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#3The primary use-case of antibiotics remains: curing bacterial illnesses.
We should not seek to increase the price of this for the least well-off in society.
This would potentially have a net negative effect as it allows bacterial infection to spread, requiring increased antibiotic use.
Besides, a tax on use wouldn't impact upon doctor's behaviour in the desired way (reduce non-essential use): since the doctor is still making a net profit from the prescription and it (still) acts as a convenient placebo.
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#4Or we could ban giving them to animals
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#5The primary use-case of antibiotics remains: curing bacterial illnesses. We should not seek to increase the price of this for the least well-off in society. This would potentially have a net negative effect as it allows bacterial infection to spread, requiring increased antibiotic use. Besides, a tax on use wouldn't impact upon doctor's behaviour in the desired way (reduce non-essential use): since the doctor is stil…
[deleted]
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#6Or we could ban giving them to animals
That's too blunt of an instrument, though. Antibiotics still have legitimate veterinary uses.
A small tax per unit might stand a better chance, though. Something that might not be onerous at the low quantities one typically buys antibiotics for when they intend to use it legitimately, but adding up to something prohibitive in the mass quantities needed for industrial-scale prophylaxis.
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#7I've read that the most effective way for the state to control the public's behaviour is a combination of taxes and subsidies (sorry, don't recall the source). Simply tax bad behaviour and subsidize good behaviour. Other means are possible, but less efficient.
The user fee could work, depending on the scale... if it is possible to be small enough to not deter individual use, but large enough to deter mass use in agriculture, then it stands a chance.
As an aside, the common practice of municipal hotel taxes never made sense to me. Wouldn't a city wish to encourage people to visit?
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#8The primary use-case of antibiotics remains: curing bacterial illnesses. We should not seek to increase the price of this for the least well-off in society. This would potentially have a net negative effect as it allows bacterial infection to spread, requiring increased antibiotic use. Besides, a tax on use wouldn't impact upon doctor's behaviour in the desired way (reduce non-essential use): since the doctor is stil…
RTFA. It's a tax for use of antibiotics on livestock, not humans.
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#9The primary use-case of antibiotics remains: curing bacterial illnesses. We should not seek to increase the price of this for the least well-off in society. This would potentially have a net negative effect as it allows bacterial infection to spread, requiring increased antibiotic use. Besides, a tax on use wouldn't impact upon doctor's behaviour in the desired way (reduce non-essential use): since the doctor is stil…
RTFA. It's a tax for use of antibiotics on livestock, not humans.
Which the cost will be passed along to the consumer.
Re: The case for an antibiotics tax
#10The basic problem is that one intervention is seeking to fix another. Crop subsidies are the reason why these antibiotics are so widely used. Farmers are encouraged to feed animals food they aren't meant to eat which makes them so sick they need antibiotics to stay alive long enough to be slaughtered.
Just end those crop subsidies and let things take care of themselves. A few agribusinesses will be pissed but the rest of us will be much better off.