Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for an antibiotics tax

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#51

Post by breischl »

ataggart wrote: post #48
breischl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your overall point. However, the implicit claim that there are no externalities to cigarette smoking is silly. There are clearly effects on everyone who might be nearby when you're smoking. In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance, which is nearly certain in old age with Medicare and increasingly probable at younger ages, then the effects on your own health become a problem…

>In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance ... then the effects on your own health become a problem for everyone else. A vile argument. The idea that the state is empowered to curtail people's personal activities simply because the state chose to subsidize the personal health care costs of those activities should be anathema in a free and civilized society.

Once we've chosen to subsidize health care, then everyone has a financial interest in everyone else's behavior. I agree that it's a vile situation, but I tend to think it's a reason to avoid government-subsidized health care in the first place. Once we've got it, ignoring the financial consequences is just stupid.

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#52

Post by [deleted] »

mekoka wrote: post #22

There was recently an interview posted here on HN about the end of antibiotics ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-techn... ). In short, the interviewee Dr. Arjun Srinivasan was pleading for a serious conversation about what to do to further regulate their usage, because some bacteria are developing increased resistance to most, if not all, antibiotics available. What's stunning to me about all t…

[deleted]

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#53

Post by maxerickson »

ericd wrote: post #49
maxerickson wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grain finishing was done before the discovery of antibiotics.

Does grain finishing get grass-fed-tasting compounds out of the meat?

Probably. I can only cop to having read about it some. One of the big goals is to increase the fat content of the meat.

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#54

Post by sneak »

jswinghammer wrote: post #10

The 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 res…

> 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.

I don't disagree with your conclusion about what needs to be done, but you can't "just end those crop subsidies" with a flip of a switch.

We're talking about millions of people and tens of thousands of jobs directly affected, and huge secondary effects to the entire food industry (and everyone who eats food) in the United States as the price of corn and corn-related products goes up.

This would drive the cost per calorie on the bottom end of the market up not insignificantly.

It would have to be a gradual reduction in subsidy over a period of time, ending at zero after a number of years.

Otherwise, you just fuck millions of normal people over— everyone from the people who work at these agribusinesses to the ultra-poor barely scraping by on the cheapest 1500kcal/day they can find to buy.

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#56

Post by markdown »

ataggart wrote: post #48
breischl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your overall point. However, the implicit claim that there are no externalities to cigarette smoking is silly. There are clearly effects on everyone who might be nearby when you're smoking. In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance, which is nearly certain in old age with Medicare and increasingly probable at younger ages, then the effects on your own health become a problem…

>In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance ... then the effects on your own health become a problem for everyone else. A vile argument. The idea that the state is empowered to curtail people's personal activities simply because the state chose to subsidize the personal health care costs of those activities should be anathema in a free and civilized society.

You live in a democracy, so replace "the state" with "the people".

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#57

Post by sliverstorm »

ronaldx wrote: post #3

The 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…

So in what way do we restrict access to antibiotics to prevent their abuse (to the great detriment of all of humanity)?

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#58

Post by Fomite »

ihsw wrote: post #23

> The agency is asking the makers of animal drugs to voluntarily alter their labels so that farmers can no longer buy antibiotics to promote animal growth (a fairly common practice). I was under the impression that growth is secondary to supplementing the animal's immune system, especially since factory farms are terribly unsanitary.

> I was under the impression that growth is secondary to supplementing the animal's immune system, especially since factory farms are terribly unsanitary.

Antibiotic use for growth and for prophylactic treatment due to farm conditions are both common uses, and industry is pretty unapologetic about both.

Watching a presentation by the National Pork Board at a public health conference was...eye-opening.

Or at least it was before I walked out because I couldn't take the disingenuousness anymore.

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#59

Post by dllthomas »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #43
fleitz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An antibiotics tax won't solve anything. About the only effective thing you can start doing is MSRA wards in hospitals and a system of rotating antibiotics. Developing new antibiotics would probably also be a good idea, no idea what the situ looks like there.

A tax won't solve anything, agreed, unless it's on the order of 10,000% or more. Restricting antibiotics (further than they are currently) may or may not help, but is certainly within the purview of a limited libertarian state. Restricting most (all?) other medications is not.

Antibiotics are used in commercial farming because they increase weight. The tax simply needs to be enough that (weight(antibioticked cow) - weight(non-antibioticked cow))*(price of beef) < (cost of antibiotics). Maybe that's "on the order of 10,000% or more", but I'd like to see numbers.

Re: The case for an antibiotics tax

#60

Post by derleth3 »

Fomite wrote: post #32
mekoka wrote: post #22

There was recently an interview posted here on HN about the end of antibiotics ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-techn... ). In short, the interviewee Dr. Arjun Srinivasan was pleading for a serious conversation about what to do to further regulate their usage, because some bacteria are developing increased resistance to most, if not all, antibiotics available. What's stunning to me about all t…

It isn't actually a "lack of understanding" - I was doing research into phage therapy over a decade ago, and the field has progressed since then. There are however a number of problems with phage therapy, and this is from the perspective of someone who likes phage therapy: - Phages are usually very bacteria specific, there isn't really a "broad spectrum" phage. The therapy used in Russia and Georgia is often a bespok…

> It's a hell of a lot harder to give someone a 14 day course of bacteriophages to take home than it is a 14 day course of antibiotics.

As we've seen, this is a good thing. Especially since people insist on only taking part of a course and saving antibiotics for later, when they might or might not work at all.

Post reply on HN