Once Again: "Taxpayer-Subsidized" Does Not Equal "Free"
---
If my greedy Swiss bank employer wants to offer me a free flu shot, on the theory that absenteeism is bad for business, then good for them, and good for me. Private parties engaging in private transactions for mutual private benefit — neat-o!
But can someone please explain to me why the City of New York has any business providingfree taxpayer-subsidized flu shots?
If you want a flu shot, then why not pay for it yourself, the same as you should pay for your own aspirin or NyQuil? The externalities of mass immunization are not so great in the case of the flu (note: not the avian flu) as to make it a public good in need of taxpayer underwriting.
And even if it did, then why shouldfree taxpayer-subsidized flu shots be provided at the local level? Shouldn't it be a national, or at least a state program? The City should stick to providing city services. Warm-fuzzy-feeling socialized preventative medicine doesn't qualify.
Incidentally, you don't need to be poor to partake of thefree taxpayer-subsidized shots, so even that pseudo-justification doesn't exist. You don't even need to be a city resident — just show up and stay flu-free, courtesy of my city income taxes, city sales taxes, city property taxes, etc.
And that makes me ill...
But can someone please explain to me why the City of New York has any business providing
If you want a flu shot, then why not pay for it yourself, the same as you should pay for your own aspirin or NyQuil? The externalities of mass immunization are not so great in the case of the flu (note: not the avian flu) as to make it a public good in need of taxpayer underwriting.
And even if it did, then why should
Incidentally, you don't need to be poor to partake of the
And that makes me ill...
Posted by Kip on
31 October 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.