Except that when seatbelt laws were first passed, seatbelt use went up dramatically. But we already do pay for it because we already have to subsidize the uninsured.
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.
I guess with the federal budget creeping into $4 - 5 trillion range we might have to consider spreading the tax burden around a bit.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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/metropolitan/6574236.html
