Binge drinking costs about 2 bucks a drink in lost productivity and the government picks up nearly half the cost.
When I first read this I found it rather implausible. I doubt the relationship of binge drinking to lost productivity is linear. The 6th, 7th or 8th drink in one evening probably has a much bigger effect on productivity the next day than the 1st, 2nd or 3rd drink. Much of the lost productivity is borne by the drinker if they’re paid by the hour (i.e. you miss work, you lose pay). The employer probably suffers lost productivity when the drinker tries to make it in to work hungover. The $2 per drink figure seems rather spurious.
With respect to repealing CLASS, there is an argument floating around that if the President signs a CLASS repealer, he admts by legislation what we all know is true: A voluntary program that is not allowed to underwrite cannot survive. I.e., a “mandate” is necessary for it to work.
Because the rest of Obamacare relies on a mandate, the Administration might fear that repealing CLASS would lead the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude that the implied severability that inferior courts asserted when invalidating the Obamacare mandate is not correct, and invalidate the whole law.
(I’m not saying I buy the argument, but it has been circulating. I am more of the view that the President would just like to smother any Congressional action on CLASS, and the unpleasant debating thereof, as quicky as possible. I doubt it will work.)
“The costs from excessive drinking totaled $1.90 per drink and averaged out to $746 per person in the U.S.” That is an unbelievable figure!
When I first read this I found it rather implausible. I doubt the relationship of binge drinking to lost productivity is linear. The 6th, 7th or 8th drink in one evening probably has a much bigger effect on productivity the next day than the 1st, 2nd or 3rd drink. Much of the lost productivity is borne by the drinker if they’re paid by the hour (i.e. you miss work, you lose pay). The employer probably suffers lost productivity when the drinker tries to make it in to work hungover. The $2 per drink figure seems rather spurious.
Eating puppy meat? Gross.
With respect to repealing CLASS, there is an argument floating around that if the President signs a CLASS repealer, he admts by legislation what we all know is true: A voluntary program that is not allowed to underwrite cannot survive. I.e., a “mandate” is necessary for it to work.
Because the rest of Obamacare relies on a mandate, the Administration might fear that repealing CLASS would lead the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude that the implied severability that inferior courts asserted when invalidating the Obamacare mandate is not correct, and invalidate the whole law.
(I’m not saying I buy the argument, but it has been circulating. I am more of the view that the President would just like to smother any Congressional action on CLASS, and the unpleasant debating thereof, as quicky as possible. I doubt it will work.)