Here Comes the Statist Fat Police

[Major]

Originally Posted by halfbreed First, it's false. People will take steps to be as healthy/safe as they see fit. They will fasten their seat belt if they feel it is a benefit to them not outweighing the costs. I will fasten my seat belt even if the government stops writing people tickets for failure to do so.

Except that when seatbelt laws were first passed, seatbelt use went up dramatically.

Originally Posted by halfbreed Second, it is none of the government's business, currently, how healthy I am. If I want to be unhealthy what business is it of the government's? It is MY decision to do so. I think the fear is that once their is a single payer, entirely government run health care system, which is where I think most believe this will lead to, that it WILL be the government's business because the government will be paying.

But we already do pay for it because we already have to subsidize the uninsured.

[SuperStar]

My solution would be to raise the price of McDonald's dollar menu.

[Invisible Fan]

Originally Posted by DonnyMost Somewhere in SS's tripe there is an interesting discussion to be had about the role of government in shaping the culture of its citizens to be healthier... maybe one day we'll have that discussion.

I never knew you were an anti-statist sympathizer.

/THE TRUF IS OUT THERE

[B-Bob]

Originally Posted by halfbreed I think what bothers him is the quote that people can only make healthy decisions if the government passes laws that essentially force them to do so.

I hear that, loud and clear, but I just don't see the "force" thing here, if we make an analogy to smoking, for instance. You pay more for health insurance if you're a smoker. And you have to read a little label on the pack of cigs that tells you what you're doing to yourself. But you can definitely smoke, and plenty do.

See Majors comments also. For better or worse, the seatbelt laws have worked, and a LOT more people are surviving accidents and having a lot less emergency room costs after accidents.

What would you think about incentives for health? The carrot, and not the stick.

[Refman]

Originally Posted by B-Bob I hear that, loud and clear, but I just don't see the "force" thing here, if we make an analogy to smoking, for instance. You pay more for health insurance if you're a smoker. And you have to read a little label on the pack of cigs that tells you what you're doing to yourself. But you can definitely smoke, and plenty do. See Majors comments also. For better or worse, the seatbelt laws have worked, and a LOT more people are surviving accidents and having a lot less emergency room costs after accidents. What would you think about incentives for health? The carrot, and not the stick.

The problem is that a tax on unhealthy foods will generally impact the poor - the very people that we are trying to help with healthcare. Unhealthy foods are usually cheaper. Look at all the fast food that is cheap. It is much cheaper to get a fatter cut of meat as well.

This is, in effect, become a regressive tax.

[pouhe]

Originally Posted by Refman The problem is that a tax on unhealthy foods will generally impact the poor - the very people that we are trying to help with healthcare. Unhealthy foods are usually cheaper. Look at all the fast food that is cheap. It is much cheaper to get a fatter cut of meat as well. This is, in effect, become a regressive tax.

I guess with the federal budget creeping into $4 - 5 trillion range we might have to consider spreading the tax burden around a bit.

[CometsWin]

Originally Posted by Refman The problem is that a tax on unhealthy foods will generally impact the poor - the very people that we are trying to help with healthcare. Unhealthy foods are usually cheaper. Look at all the fast food that is cheap. It is much cheaper to get a fatter cut of meat as well. This is, in effect, become a regressive tax.

This is why goverment needs to get involved in setting health standards. A while back there was a story about NYC wanting to force restaurants and food companies to cut back on the amount of salt that they put into food, apparently it's twice the level they used in the 70's. Conservatives here had a fit about it, big brother etc. As if buying your own table salt to flavor your food rather than having the food companies do it automatically was way too much of an infringement on personal freedom.

[robbie380]

[Refman]

Originally Posted by pouhe I guess with the federal budget creeping into $4 - 5 trillion range we might have to consider spreading the tax burden around a bit.

How do you administer a tax on unhealthy food effectively other than at the point of purchase? If you tax at the point of purchase, how do you avoid it being regressive?

[rockbox]

I remember the days when a big guy was 200 pounds. Now 200 pounds seems like the norm and you aren't considered fat unless you're over 220-250.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Refman How do you administer a tax on unhealthy food effectively other than at the point of purchase?

Tossing out an idea here (and maybe this has already been discussed/done before), but wouldn't it be possible to tax corporations if the food they make exceeds certain health guidelines? I'm not talking like an extra sprinkle of salt or two, but something like 150% of recommended daily fat in one meal strikes me as decidedly unbalanced. The FDA already bans unsafe foods so there is a logical extension that they should restrict foods that may not have immediate short-term effects but certainly, over the long haul, will endanger and reduce one's life. Obviously, in the interest of corporate profits, loading foods with fats and sugars will make more cash; we've been conditioned to respond to these. It may come high time to punish the producer instead of the hapless consumer and something like this would raise revenue, promote more innovation in the field (instead of a stagnant "oil, fat, sugar" routine) and ultimately produce a powerful disincentive to the production of all the junk out there.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea though. To be honest, I'd rather the gouvernment get out of social issues as much as possible and I can see a cycle of "less profits for fast food joints, less jobs etc." However, if in the face of dwindling resources and a potential epidemic of obesity, we are forced to act, I'd rather we punish the big guys out there rather then the consumers.

[A_3PO]

Originally Posted by Southern Select This is such a coincidence with the socialist health care program. Who would have thunk it??? I would to thank the liberals in advance for saving me from myself. (I would like to add that blaming Mexicans for our CRISIS is racist and is lacking tolerance in our new found Obama-defined glorious, tolerant utopia.) But in the end, D.C. is right and they need to save Texas from our anti-liberal culture.

Guy, either you need to be de-programmed or your IQ is pretty low. Your OP is so ignorant I don't know whether to laugh or be sad.

Just wow!

[Refman]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm Tossing out an idea here (and maybe this has already been discussed/done before), but wouldn't it be possible to tax corporations if the food they make exceeds certain health guidelines? I'm not talking like an extra sprinkle of salt or two, but something like 150% of recommended daily fat in one meal strikes me as decidedly unbalanced. The FDA already bans unsafe foods so there is a logical extension that they should restrict foods that may not have immediate short-term effects but certainly, over the long haul, will endanger and reduce one's life. Obviously, in the interest of corporate profits, loading foods with fats and sugars will make more cash; we've been conditioned to respond to these. It may come high time to punish the producer instead of the hapless consumer and something like this would raise revenue, promote more innovation in the field (instead of a stagnant "oil, fat, sugar" routine) and ultimately produce a powerful disincentive to the production of all the junk out there. I'm uncomfortable with the idea though. To be honest, I'd rather the gouvernment get out of social issues as much as possible and I can see a cycle of "less profits for fast food joints, less jobs etc." However, if in the face of dwindling resources and a potential epidemic of obesity, we are forced to act, I'd rather we punish the big guys out there rather then the consumers.

The only problem with this is that the corporations will never bear the brunt of this. If they are taxed additionally, they will raise prices to cover the cost. The end consumer will still end up paying for it.

I like the idea though.

[pouhe]

Originally Posted by Refman How do you administer a tax on unhealthy food effectively other than at the point of purchase? If you tax at the point of purchase, how do you avoid it being regressive?

I think you're giving me too much credit. I was actually advocating a regressive tax of some kind. And not necessarily just for obesity, just the concept in general.

[Refman]

Originally Posted by pouhe I think you're giving me too much credit. I was actually advocating a regressive tax of some kind. And not necessarily just for obesity, just the concept in general.

The problem is that when you tax food that is disproportionately purchased by the poor, you cause their monetary need to be higher. It will cost us more in the long run. As far as economics goes, nothing is solved.

[rhadamanthus]

And here's the chronicle article (from the very same day) that might make the need for a tax apparent:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6574236.html

WASHINGTON — Obesity is the elephant in the room of health care reform, a public health catastrophe that kills well over 100,000 Americans a year, may cost Texas $15.6 billion next year in health care costs and lost productivity, and promises to shorten U.S. life expectancy for the first time since the Civil War. Whatever Washington does this year to try to lower medical spending almost certainly will be swamped by the nation's rising weight. Obesity lurks behind the top chronic illnesses — heart disease, diabetes, stroke and colon, breast and prostate cancers, among many others — whose treatments routinely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In two decades the obesity rate in Texas has more than doubled — 29 percent of Texans in 2007 were obese. Every third child born in 2000 is likely to wind up diabetic. Obesity strikes hardest at the poor and minorities; black women are nearly 40 percent more likely to contract heart disease than white women. Two out of three adults are overweight in Texas and nationwide. Obesity is causing “death and illness on a massive scale,” according to a new study by University of Virgina and Urban Institute researchers. And it is all but impossible to treat. “Rising obesity rates are increasing health care expenditures per person in a way that is going to be very difficult to finance,” said Jay Bhattacharya, a doctor and health economist at Stanford University's Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. “Unless there is some vast improvement in the efficiency of the health care system — and I mean vast — we're going to be spending a lot more just because a lot more people will have diabetes” and other obesity related diseases. Prevention is the only cure. If obesity-prevention efforts are not implemented, Texas will have more than 15 million obese adults by 2040, according to projections by Texas State Demographer Karl Eschbach. Yet while health care legislation in Congress would raise spending on prevention of chronic disease, it does little to tackle the underlying obesity epidemic directly. In fact, most of the bills are silent on what many health professionals contend would be one of the most effective weapons: a tax on soda. Junk food taxes are part of a growing consensus among public health experts to adapt the successful fight against tobacco to the more complex obesity epidemic. Food, unlike tobacco, is necessary to life, and cheap food has all but eliminated hunger among the poor. Yet there are parallels with smoking. Texas getting help The Texas Legislature has not seriously considered politically controversial junk food taxes. Instead, the state and health groups are focusing on education and community strategies to fight excess weight from birth. The Texas Department of State Health Services will receive $4.7 million over the next two years to support obesity-prevention programs, including a “Texas! Bringing Healthy Back” initiative that was launched last year. Since 2000, Texas has been one of 25 states also receiving funds from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to fight obesity. Lindsay Rodgers, a health department prevention specialist, said the CDC has urged sending money to communities for vegetable gardens, sidewalks and work site wellness programs and to hospitals to make them baby-friendly so more mothers will breast feed, one way to reduce obesity risk in children. Statistics indicate that African-Americans and Latinos have higher obesity rates than Anglo Texans. But experts say that obesity prevention programs have not successfully targeted minority residents. Texas Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio said education programs that have tried to teach kids about eating nutritious foods have “backfired” because they made the food their families cooked for them seem bad. “We love Mexican food in this state,” Van de Putte said, adding that there are ways to prepare it to be healthier. More can be done, she said, like tax incentives for workplace wellness programs. “The government can't be a nanny to someone, but if we continue to ignore (obesity), we all pay the price. … It's not a moral imperative, it's a financial imperative.” A mixed performance Mitchell Gibbs, a Texas Health Institute spokesman, said the Legislature's record on obesity issues is mixed. In the past session, lawmakers agreed to encourage healthy food in schools and funding for physical education programs. But bills allowing the use of food stamps at farmers' markets, banning unhealthy trans fats in restaurants, and requiring menu labels at chain restaurants failed. What's more, the Legislature made high school health class optional and reduced physical education requirements from 1½ semesters to one. In Washington, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee mocked proposed jungle gyms and bike trails in health reform legislation, yet studies show such efforts help. “It doesn't sound crazy if you start looking at the causes of the problem,” said Kelly Brownell, an obesity researcher at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “In poor neighborhoods there is low access to healthy foods, high access to calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods, and when healthy foods are available, they're more expensive.” Fast food on every corner The same holds for physical activity, where crime, poor facilities and parents working multiple jobs limit opportunities for safe play and exercise. The obesity problem took hold over one generation, a short period in the history of public health. “Every successful public health movement, whether it was sanitation or air pollution or drunk driving or tobacco, has shown that people can only be healthy if there are policies in place that support them in making healthy choices,” said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy. “We put fast food on every corner, we put junk food in schools, we got rid of PE, we put candy and soda at the checkout stand of every retail outlet you can think of,” he said. “The results are in. It worked.”