Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
well put
good to see people can still understand the difference between a rational and irrational thought, unbiased from personal opinion
The Freedom To Be Fat..Does Government Have The Right To "Outlaw" Unhealthy Foods?
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
good to see people can still understand the difference between a rational and irrational thought, unbiased from personal opinion
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Could it not be argued that smokers and obese people would in turn, be paying less in taxes because they're alive a shorter time as well? They would certainly die faster, leaving a shorter time span to care for them; but the missed tax opportunities (which are very important in a universal health care system run by the Gov) would also count for something. Hard to say what without seeing some figures, but it'd be worth looking into, IMO.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
In Canada we have GST and PST too!
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
With the sales tax put on cigarettes smokers more than pay for themselves before they die
Fat people I dunno it's perfectly possible for obese people to work their whole lives paying tax until they retire
A healthy tax might better fit reality
unfortunately, good health is not always as rewarding for smokers or overweight..often times there is something deeper tied to weight..not until the reward is felt do you have the kind of participation you are looking for..it would be good if there was incentive..free pedometers..nutritional counseling..reward for lost weight/smoking cessation that directly effects consumer..participation is key..my old company did this for employees and it worked well..
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
I'll make sure to get the BIG olives, prosciutto, and celery.i call "bloody mary sunday" over at winter's every week"
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
I thought that with Obamacare that medicaid had to take the less fortunate. Not being snarky, I truly thought that Medicaid had to take them.
It takes one brief trip to a grocery store to understand that a substantial portion of our health problems and health costs reflect the fact that we don't eat real food. I'm always appalled to see what people are carting around...
If you eat lots of added sugar, added salt, processed meat, refined grains, etc., you substantially increase your risk of later getting cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. Given that these are very expensive problems to have, why shouldn't people pay for their bad choices up front? Sin taxes on food would discourage people from eating bad food and ultimately lower healthcare costs by reducing disease rates, just as cigarette taxes have reduced the smoking rate and generated substantial revenues for the state and federal governments, which fund Medicaid and Medicare (programs that bear a huge portion of the ultimate costs of smoking, given the income profile of smokers).
If you eat lots of added sugar, added salt, processed meat, refined grains, etc., you substantially increase your risk of later getting cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. Given that these are very expensive problems to have, why shouldn't people pay for their bad choices up front? Sin taxes on food would discourage people from eating bad food and ultimately lower healthcare costs by reducing disease rates, just as cigarette taxes have reduced the smoking rate and generated substantial revenues for the state and federal governments, which fund Medicaid and Medicare (programs that bear a huge portion of the ultimate costs of smoking, given the income profile of smokers).
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
I think we should just leave people alone.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So how exactly does this kind of thing get enforced? Will there be a nutrition gestapo?
Given that we will ultimately be asked to pay for it, that doesn't make any sense. Most of the people in this country only become interested in changing their diets after something catastrophic happens.Whether it's Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, single payer, or cost-shifted emergency room care, the taxpayers ultimately bear the costs of bad decisions. Forcing people to pay for those bad decisions up front is the best possible solution, given that someone is going to have to pay for the medical care anyway.
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
First when Obamacare became a topic it was all about, for example, that the fat/smoker should have buy insurance to cover their inevitable costs. Now that you have them insured you are still not happy because they are, according to you, not paying enough. I want to know at what point does the government stop its intrusion into a person's life.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Bolded is untrue smokers and obese die younger and cheaper than "healthier people"
Old age brings all the diseases you mention
You can easily find studies that cut both ways. Ultimately it depends on how and what you're measuring and how you adjust your data. The economic and social costs of smoking/bad diet are undeniably greater than healthcare savings from early death. If someone had worked an extra 20 years instead of dying from lung cancer at 50, their extra productivity likely exceeds the extra healthcare costs. Let's say they incur $50,000 in costs from cancer at 50 and avoid $100,000 in costs from death; if the worker earned $30,000 a year, $600,000 of economic value is lost.
And I'm connecting disease with bad diet, not obesity. You can eat a terrible, terrible diet that skyrockets health risks and not be obese.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Now your moving the goalposts to an overall economic view rather than pure medical costs 2 very different beasts
Pulling numbers out of your arse isn't a strong argument either
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
My question is: what constitutes "bad foods", and who will adjudicate that? This book advances the thesis that the "good/bad food" issue is political. I am retooling my diet based on it.
Where about in Baja do you live?
I think I could retire in Todos Santos