Hippy Hamburgers!

[Vuk]

Numbers with AIDS compared to obese persons is tiny. These days most who are HIV+ve are relatively healthy.
HIV is not just a disease spread by sexual contact. It is also spread by any blood to blood or fluid to fluid contacts.



Cigarette smokers not only kill themselves, but those around them too. In the UK the tax could be said to be there to help the health service; in America since there is no National health I guess the governemt just pockets the money.

You've made the example with McD's rather simplistic. If they were informed that taxes go up with foods over a certain level of calories they'd most likely do something to reduce the calorific content; similarly if it was also percentage of fat they'd reduce this to avoid the $15 meal; since all other competitors have the same rules this would not unfairly penalise them - any more than selling the junk does in the first place.

lol, you know there are many scientists who say that second hand smoke is not the danger it is made out to be. It is just which opinion the government decides to base its policy on (whichever is more profitable for the government, whichever interest groups pay them the most).

I don't think that second hand smoke is dangerous. If a business owner thinks so, then he has the right to not allow smoking in his establishment, and if that is what majority of the people think, then business owners will do so because they will get majority of the business.

On an unscientific note though, I got my right lung torn when I was 16 (fell a great height without letting breath out. Try it some time, it is painful ), and had to have my lungs examined. The doctor was concerned because he asked me if anyone in my family smoked and I told him my dad smoked 4 packs a day. He was suprised though because my lungs were in excellent condition. I have lived in close quarters with smokers for the first 3/4+ of my life. It wasn't until I was 15 and half when my dad died that I was not around smokers daily.

Don't mean to turn this into a 2nd hand smoking discussion, but I am just saying, that is another problem with the government making policies like that. Which scientists do you believe? How about giving people the freedom to make their own choices?

[Ironside]

Come on Frag, you could say the same thing about Jocks! (or people who do dangerous work)
That is ridiculous. How is it fair when I don't cost the health care system a cent, yet will have to pay through my nose? That is hardly fair. I tell you what though Frag, if we make fat people and smokers pay more, how about drinkers? That causes a stew of health problems as well. And who is to determine what is too fat and what is not? How about the government sticking their noses out of things, and not trying to run health care?

Because you already have a tax on alcohol? It's a wimpy one, but you never really got the catch on "sin taxes".

And yeah, that is a big thing. I eat a lot and have gotten fat, but for the most part, what I eat is very healthy (including lots of fruit and vegetables), which is why I have a good cholesterol level, good heart rate, good blood pressure, and am in all respects but weight extremely healthy.

So as they're going to tax fatty food afaik, you're barely going to be taxed at all?

Old saying goes "it is not so much how much you eat as what you eat". The government cannot determine things like that (unless they are gonna monitor how often people eat at fast food joins and you will need a federal license to buy a Twinkie), so how can they ever make it fair? They will just make it more unfair.

So by taxing fatty food you're not making people who eats a lot of fatty food reconsider their choises?

Oh, and by the way, though my income some times has been below the poverty line :P, I have always paid my own medical bills. Seems pretty unfair that a guy like me should be taxed up the *** because Obama cannot figure out how to pay for gargantuan health care takeover.

Any decent health care reform would reduce your cost on average quite considerably. Going with the tax bill might cost you more when you're young and healthy, but will save you costs if/when you need it. You know, like this insurance thingy.

On an unscientific note though, I got my right lung torn when I was 16 (fell a great height without letting breath out. Try it some time, it is painful ), and had to have my lungs examined. The doctor was concerned because he asked me if anyone in my family smoked and I told him my dad smoked 4 packs a day. He was suprised though because my lungs were in excellent condition. I have lived in close quarters with smokers for the first 3/4+ of my life. It wasn't until I was 15 and half when my dad died that I was not around smokers daily.

Then the million dollar question is... Did he smoke outside? Kitchen fan? Inside? At home? Only at work?

[Vuk]

So as they're going to tax fatty food afaik, you're barely going to be taxed at all?

No, because I also eat fatty foods, just not the really unhealthy ones.

So by taxing fatty food you're not making people who eats a lot of fatty food reconsider their choises?

The main problem is actually not with the amount of fat, but the type of fat. I eat foods that can be heavy with olive oil or butter, but they still are not really unhealthy, just a little fattening. Thing is, that the fatty foods often taste the best. If you do this tax, all you are going to be doing is creating a class gap where the rich can afford the luxury of fatty foods, and the poor who cannot pay the taxes cannot. There are lots of foods that are not unhealthy, and that if eaten in moderation will not make you fat, but contains a lot of fat.


Any decent health care reform would reduce your cost on average quite considerably. Going with the tax bill might cost you more when you're young and healthy, but will save you costs if/when you need it. You know, like this insurance thingy.

Bah!

Then the million dollar question is... Did he smoke outside? Kitchen fan? Inside? At home? Only at work?
He smoked inside, outside, in the car, everywhere he went. So much in fact that the house was often filled with ciggy smoke like a barroom. It did no wonders for his health (he had incredibly unhealthy lungs), but it didn't seem to do any harm to my lungs.

You still have not adressed the question though, if you are going to do this, are you going to tax other unhealthy behaviors (like hockey) as well?

[Sarmatian]

I agree with Sarmatian about smokers, but not about fast food. If you did that, no one would eat fast food (they eat it because it is cheaper than other food, which it no longer would be), and killing the entire fast food industry all at once like that would devastate the economy. The whole point of Obama's proposed tax is to pay for the health care system, but when the economy takes a blow like that, less people are working, and have less money to pay taxes, it would be a lot harder to pay for anything. (and what right does the government have to take all those jobs away from people)
Anyway, who is to say what is unhealthy? Even scientists disagree all the time on what is and isn't. The truth is that there are many aspects to things, and a lot that we don't know.

Obviously I exaggerated when I said 15$, but some small increase in price (5, 10, 15%) wouldn't be bad. In the case of America, we're talking billions of dollars and people would eat junk food less. If the downside is that MCD and similar junk food restaurants earn less money, I certainly wouldn't cry a river.

It should be followed with emphasis on proper physical education of kids and education about food, naturally.

And like I said Sarmatian, think of the fairness. If you are going to do that, will you also put a large tax on hockey equipment? How about sex toys? What about extreme sports equipment? You know what I mean? It is unfair to tax one thing that adds to the cost but not the other. At the same time though it would be impossible to fairly tax everything that adds to the cost.
That is why I think that the government should not be trying to run health care. Small companies have a hard time being fair and taking care of themselves. When the government takes health care over it will be just a massive company with near absolute power, and 100 times the capacity for corruption and mismanagment.

And think of percentages and health issues. I've read that obesity is gonna surpass smoking as No.1 preventable cause of death in the US very soon, if it didn't already. Even if the principle is the same, dildo industry still doesn't strain health budget of the US.

It means more sick people which translates into less money and more spending.

Cigarette smokers not only kill themselves, but those around them too. In the UK the tax could be said to be there to help the health service; in America since there is no National health I guess the governemt just pockets the money.

You've made the example with McD's rather simplistic. If they were informed that taxes go up with foods over a certain level of calories they'd most likely do something to reduce the calorific content; similarly if it was also percentage of fat they'd reduce this to avoid the $15 meal; since all other competitors have the same rules this would not unfairly penalise them - any more than selling the junk does in the first place.

The fact remains that most of price of cigarettes is already tax. If the government decides to use that to build a bridge or finance war in Iraq, that's not my problem and I shouldn't be taxed again because of that. Also, in the US and most western European countries I've visited, smoking is forbidden in most public places.

It's not just the amount of calories or fat, it is also about type of calories and fat. If fast food restaurants adapt and start selling better food, the result would be less obese people and less health spending which solves the problem in a different, better, way. That's kind of the point of it all, just like the point of cigarette tax isn't to bring more money to the government but to make people smoke less.

[rory_20_uk]

Obviously I exaggerated when I said 15$, but some small increase in price (5, 10, 15%) wouldn't be bad. In the case of America, we're talking billions of dollars and people would eat junk food less. If the downside is that MCD and similar junk food restaurants earn less money, I certainly wouldn't cry a river.

It should be followed with emphasis on proper physical education of kids and education about food, naturally.

And think of percentages and health issues. I've read that obesity is gonna surpass smoking as No.1 preventable cause of death in the US very soon, if it didn't already. Even if the principle is the same, dildo industry still doesn't strain health budget of the US.

It means more sick people which translates into less money and more spending.

The fact remains that most of price of cigarettes is already tax. If the government decides to use that to build a bridge or finance war in Iraq, that's not my problem and I shouldn't be taxed again because of that. Also, in the US and most western European countries I've visited, smoking is forbidden in most public places.

It's not just the amount of calories or fat, it is also about type of calories and fat. If fast food restaurants adapt and start selling better food, the result would be less obese people and less health spending which solves the problem in a different, better, way. That's kind of the point of it all, just like the point of cigarette tax isn't to bring more money to the government but to make people smoke less.

First off with the cigarette tax I agree that in the USA you're charged twice. But then the health system in the USA is not fit for purpose...

Yes, fast food joints need to adapt their menus. That's in essence what a tax on fatty foods would achieve! Most aren't going to just raise prices or loose customers. Their foods are fatty, salty and sugary as these are three things that humans are driven to have. Bunging them all together is a great way of getting customers - unless the cost would be prohibitive.
More exercise? Sure, no complaints there, but I did not mention that as it was not directly related to the issue being discussed.

[Vuk]

Inactivity is the single most important reason for unhealthy, obese people I think. Whether they move or not is their choice. It would cost the government nothing if the government did not run health care. Why not make people take responsibility? If their obesity makes them need medical attention, then they should pay out of pocket for it. That would motivate people to live healthier lifestyles without destroying industry, discriminating, or running the government dry. I mean seriously, do you think that I would not stay in better shape if I knew that I would not be able to pay for any medical complications? Of course I would. People can enjoy fatty foods without being obese (I used to), and depending on their lifestyle, can enjoy lots of fatty foods and not be obese. The problem is that people now adays are a bunch of pampered, lethargic, bums who do not like to move. A tax on fatty foods will not change that. It should be someone's choice if they want to stay trim and fit or be fat and lazy, and they should have to deal with the consequences themselves. People who are not creating a problem should not be made to give up foods with a certain amount of fat in them though because of the problems that others create.

[Ironside]

Inactivity is the single most important reason for unhealthy, obese people I think. Whether they move or not is their choice.

Correct. And to ensure that they don't we add extra taxes on playing hockey... Or not. Called acceptable side effects.

It would cost the government nothing if the government did not run health care.

Obesity costs society no matter what medical system you use (even none). Ever used or heard smaller piece from a larger cake rethoric to support tax cuts? Obesity makes the cake smaller.

Why not make people take responsibility? If their obesity makes them need medical attention, then they should pay out of pocket for it. That would motivate people to live healthier lifestyles without destroying industry, discriminating, or running the government dry.

Why are generally students so stupid he asks. Why generally are smart people easily be made to believe in evolution he asks. People are generally able to draw long term conclusions using probabillity statistics, he concludes.
Obama's idea of making "decent" the default choise and letting people choose good and bad on top of that is freaking brilliant IMO (he's certainly not the first one), when you deal with large populations.

I mean seriously, do you think that I would not stay in better shape if I knew that I would not be able to pay for any medical complications? Of course I would.

Sure.... See above, most wouldn't. Are you fatter now because you consider yourself to be able to pay for any medical complications, while you didn't when you were younger?

People can enjoy fatty foods without being obese (I used to), and depending on their lifestyle, can enjoy lots of fatty foods and not be obese. The problem is that people now adays are a bunch of pampered, lethargic, bums who do not like to move.

The problem is that the food has gone fatter, while the work and entertainment has gone lazyer. People have always been a bunch of pampered, lethargic, bums who do not like to move. But nowadays they don't have to. And that is evidently a problem.

A tax on fatty foods will not change that. It should be someone's choice if they want to stay trim and fit or be fat and lazy, and they should have to deal with the consequences themselves. People who are not creating a problem should not be made to give up foods with a certain amount of fat in them though because of the problems that others create.

A tax on fatty foods will change that. Well how much fatty food they eat that is. Which should be positive on general public health.
Generally these taxes are more of a decrease rather than a give up system, but that is always a question of the indiviual freedom vs the collective damage/benefit. Should heroin be legal? Some can surely handle it. Evidently you say that individual freedom triumph in the fatty food case.

He smoked inside, outside, in the car, everywhere he went. So much in fact that the house was often filled with ciggy smoke like a barroom. It did no wonders for his health (he had incredibly unhealthy lungs), but it didn't seem to do any harm to my lungs.

Fair enough. Training youth is the best lung recovering group though, when it comes to the general decline of lung capacity, so your mother would probably be a better test subject for that. Lost two grandparents to lungcancer and iirc both were secondary smokers (either that or smokers with with extra exposure from other family members), so I'm a bit biased on personal anectdotes.

[Vuk]

Correct. And to ensure that they don't we add extra taxes on playing hockey... Or not. Called acceptable side effects.

When there are safer alternatives and they still do it they should be taxed.

Obesity costs society no matter what medical system you use (even none). Ever used or heard smaller piece from a larger cake rethoric to support tax cuts? Obesity makes the cake smaller.

How does it hurt society if they pay for their own expenses? It hurts only them.

Why are generally students so stupid he asks. Why generally are smart people easily be made to believe in evolution he asks. People are generally able to draw long term conclusions using probabillity statistics, he concludes.
Obama's idea of making "decent" the default choise and letting people choose good and bad on top of that is freaking brilliant IMO (he's certainly not the first one), when you deal with large populations.

Translation please?

Sure.... See above, most wouldn't. Are you fatter now because you consider yourself to be able to pay for any medical complications, while you didn't when you were younger?

I am fatter now because I am inactive. I am in college now and have very little time to do anything, and I have tendinitis in both my arms, which means that I cannot do a lot of things. And no, I would not be over weight if I could not afford potential medical complications.

The problem is that the food has gone fatter, while the work and entertainment has gone lazyer. People have always been a bunch of pampered, lethargic, bums who do not like to move. But nowadays they don't have to. And that is evidently a problem.

They are pampered by their parents who never make them do any real work, then they waste four or more years of their life in college where they generally do not learn a lot anyway and still do no real work or get any real world experience, and then they spend the rest of their lives finding ways not to move. It is a societal problem that stems from the way that parents raise their kids, and not something that a government tax can fix.

A tax on fatty foods will change that. Well how much fatty food they eat that is. Which should be positive on general public health.
Generally these taxes are more of a decrease rather than a give up system, but that is always a question of the indiviual freedom vs the collective damage/benefit. Should heroin be legal? Some can surely handle it. Evidently you say that individual freedom triumph in the fatty food case.

As I said, the problem is with people not moving, not with fatty foods. The secondary problem is with unhealthy foods, not with fatty foods.

Fair enough. Training youth is the best lung recovering group though, when it comes to the general decline of lung capacity, so your mother would probably be a better test subject for that. Lost two grandparents to lungcancer and iirc both were secondary smokers (either that or smokers with with extra exposure from other family members), so I'm a bit biased on personal anectdotes.
Ok, granted, I surely do base my belief on my personal experience, but I think there is evidence enough out there to prove that second hand smoke is not the evil it is made out to be. Like I said, it is personal choice. If people do not want to breath it, then businesses will not allow smoking, and that is their choice.

There are problems, and they need solving, but the people of America need to solve them, not the government. They are societal problem, not policy problems.

[Strike For The South]

I would like to have sex and eat a cheeseburger at the same time.

Is there a silly name for that yet

[HoreTore]

Inactivity is the single most important reason for unhealthy, obese people I think.

Indeed!

Sex is an activity. A round in the hay roughly equals half an hour of running. You want to cut back on the sex? Why do you want people to be unhealthy, if I may ask?

[Major Robert Dump]

While I am undecided about taxing the porkers, I can assure you, Vukky, that obesity, poor diet, and its related problems kill far more people and tax the healthcare industry than STDs, dangerous jobs, sex toys, whatever.

I would probably lean more towards a food-related vice tax thnt a tax on people who are fat, since high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes etc happens in the skinnies as well.

your argument about a fast food tax killing the fast food industry and devastating the economy has one core fallacy: people still have to eat. The jobs would shift. Taxing things that are deep fried will creat jobs in an industry where things are chargrilled, or baked, or steamed, etc.

And you and I both know that taxing something won't deter people who really want to eat it any way. Fatty foods are addictive just like tobacco and alcohol.

But what really concerns me about you is that this is the second thread in a week where you advocate eating people you don't agree with, and in the first of which you advocated eating people who had poor language, writing, and reasoning skills, a group that one that one may argue you belong to for not using paragraphs. Just pointing that out.

[Vuk]

While I am undecided about taxing the porkers, I can assure you, Vukky, that obesity, poor diet, and its related problems kill far more people and tax the healthcare industry than STDs, dangerous jobs, sex toys, whatever.

I would probably lean more towards a food-related vice tax thnt a tax on people who are fat, since high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes etc happens in the skinnies as well.

your argument about a fast food tax killing the fast food industry and devastating the economy has one core fallacy: people still have to eat. The jobs would shift. Taxing things that are deep fried will creat jobs in an industry where things are chargrilled, or baked, or steamed, etc.

And you and I both know that taxing something won't deter people who really want to eat it any way. Fatty foods are addictive just like tobacco and alcohol.

But what really concerns me about you is that this is the second thread in a week where you advocate eating people you don't agree with, and in the first of which you advocated eating people who had poor language, writing, and reasoning skills, a group that one that one may argue you belong to for not using paragraphs. Just pointing that out that out.

Just pointing that out.