Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Options
Replies
-
Even when I was running 5 miles a day several days a week, wearing a size 2, and going to the gym and had perfect blood pressure and cholesterol, I was "overweight" by the standard chart. I weighed in at 133-136 depending on the time of day and or month I stepped on the scale. So you're saying I should have been penalized for not fitting into their "box" image of the perfect weight?0
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.
This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.
... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.
No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.
The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.
I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)
Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.
End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/
But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.
This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...
Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.
My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.
This is exactly the attitude I find so interesting about so many in the UK when it comes to the NHS and government-run healthcare. It's like a point of patriotic pride for so many of them, and in the end has very little to do with how it actually performs.
Actually it performs better or similar than the US for the general population (the US outperforms us when you get to the highest income brackets where people can afford to pay for it) and costs less than half per person (do you not find that incredible or worthy of merit?), it has also got measurably worse with the introduction of private profit to some services and purposeful underfunding and I support what the frontline staff are saying are the issues. I don't have blind patriotism there are many institutions that I am very critical about my country but when something is overwhelmingly brilliant for the population (both through personal experience and measurable statistics) I will fight for that. I'm just giving you my experience, also hate to tell you but you can't have free market on emergency services or natural monopolies where someone has no choice but to receive that service or potentially die. That's why fire services are socialist institutions.
Do you have waiting lists for elective procedures?
yes, although the waiting times have unfortunately gotten worse this parliament
"Maximum waiting times for non-urgent referrals
The maximum waiting time for non-urgent consultant-led treatments is 18 weeks from the day your appointment is booked through the NHS e-Referral Service, or when the hospital or service receives your referral letter.
However, your right to an 18-week waiting time does not apply if:
you choose to wait longer
delaying the start of your treatment is in your best clinical interests – for example, where stopping smoking or losing weight is likely to improve the outcome of the treatment
it is clinically appropriate for your condition to be actively monitored in secondary care without clinical intervention or diagnostic procedures at that stage
you fail to attend appointments that you had chosen from a set of reasonable options
the treatment is no longer necessary"
18 weeks. More than four months.
That's 17 weeks longer than I've ever had to wait to see a specialist, I don't need a referral at all, so I just call and make an appointment. In fact I can't remember it ever taking a whole week to get in to see a specialist. Then if I need an MRI or something, I get it the same day.
If, for example, I was having foot pain while running, I would call the sports medicine clinic and make an appointment. I'd be seen by them before next Monday, and they'd MRI the foot while I was at their office. I definitely would not have to request a referral from my insurance and then wait 18 weeks after the sports medicine clinic receives it to get in.
What on earth would make me want to trade what I have for 18 week waiting times?
I've never had to wait 18weeks for anything under the NHS. I went to my GP about my knee and before I'd left the parking lot, I was getting a phone call from the physiotherapist to set up an appt to go in for assessment. The referral was done electronically on the computer by the GP while I was talking to her. So my wait was ten minutes tops.
Too my daughter got iritis, we went to optician who said go to A&E, we went to A&E and their eye centre saw her immediately. No referral or preapproval needed. Then they automatically saw her for over a year to ensure she didn't lose any eyesight.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.
Need2 did not say healthcare should not be paid for, but insurance. In a single payer model (for one example) you'd pay for healthcare through taxes, but not insurance. (You could have a system where people could still buy insurance for supplemental care, but would not have to, also.)
This is the poster's statement:
I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance
No mention how healthcare would be paid for. My statement should have been recognized as obviously tongue in cheek. I was interested in how i.e, what kind of taxes, the poster was thinking of.0 -
animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary. I could meet my deductible and take the payroll deduction for the insurance and not go over 1.3% in a year comined, although prior to the so-called "Affordable Care Act" I had no deductible at all and my payroll deduction was lower than it is now. Getting the government involved actually increased my costs.
I'm not sure how to put this but I don't have to go to the GP for something like knee pain. I just go to the specialist. If my knee hurt, I'd go to the orthopedics doctor first. That doctor would order an MRI (on site, immediately) and determine what was actually wrong. I would only go to a physical therapist after that if there wasn't an injury that required other treatment, and if it required surgery that doctor would do it at the surgery center where his office is.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary. I could meet my deductible and take the payroll deduction for the insurance and not go over 1.3% in a year comined, although prior to the so-called "Affordable Care Act" I had no deductible at all and my payroll deduction was lower than it is now. Getting the government involved actually increased my costs.
I'm not sure how to put this but I don't have to go to the GP for something like knee pain. I just go to the specialist. If my knee hurt, I'd go to the orthopedics doctor first. That doctor would order an MRI (on site, immediately) and determine what was actually wrong. I would only go to a physical therapist after that if there wasn't an injury that required other treatment, and if it required surgery that doctor would do it at the surgery center where his office is.
No I get that. Do you have a PPO type of plan then? It's just in comparing wait times, you said you'd get in with a specialist within a week. With my knee pain, I also got in with a specialist within a week despite having to see a GP before the specialist. The reason mine wasn't a surgeon was because I didn't need surgery.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
I was thinking along the lines of products such as highly processed foods ( potato chips, soda, and candies which are known not to be nutritious) and not ideas or diets themselves.
I think crafting a legal definition that included the foods you find obvious candidates for such a tax while excluding others that are less obvious candidates would be quite challenging.
For example, if there is a tax on candy would that include the Gu packs I buy for marathon training? I can't imagine what would distinguish them from the candy you would like to tax, they're pure sugar.
Or what kind of rule would include a tortilla chip while excluding the (equally processed) soft corn tortilla?
The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
If overweight and obese people eat fruit (and they do) and it contributes to them consuming more calories than they burn, then they're contributing to obesity.
We're assuming that people today, people who are accustomed to eating more than they need, would somehow automatically slip into a calorie balance if candy bars cost a bit more. That's a pretty big assumption -- it may be true, but there is no evidence to establish that.
This is part of a whole problem with making certain foods the "bad guy" when it comes to talking about obesity. I think we need to look at the context of the whole diet. Candy bars, in and of themselves, don't make anyone fat. We have many people here who regularly eat candy (including myself) and still maintain a healthy weight.
And I think the challenge of creating a definition for foods that "deserve" to be tax should absolutely be part of the discussion. If the proposal is that certain foods are to be singled out, we need to at least consider how those foods will be identified -- if Swedish Fish are going to be considered the same thing as a muffin, if a bowl of grits is the same thing as a tortilla chip.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary. I could meet my deductible and take the payroll deduction for the insurance and not go over 1.3% in a year comined, although prior to the so-called "Affordable Care Act" I had no deductible at all and my payroll deduction was lower than it is now. Getting the government involved actually increased my costs.
I'm not sure how to put this but I don't have to go to the GP for something like knee pain. I just go to the specialist. If my knee hurt, I'd go to the orthopedics doctor first. That doctor would order an MRI (on site, immediately) and determine what was actually wrong. I would only go to a physical therapist after that if there wasn't an injury that required other treatment, and if it required surgery that doctor would do it at the surgery center where his office is.
No I get that. Do you have a PPO type of plan then? It's just in comparing wait times, you said you'd get in with a specialist within a week. With my knee pain, I also got in with a specialist within a week despite having to see a GP before the specialist. The reason mine wasn't a surgeon was because I didn't need surgery.
It is a PPO type plan. The really good doctors take a few days to get an appointment in some cases, but there's really no run around there. Any doctor I'd actually want to see is "in network" so the only potential for delay is if the doctor I want is booked solid.
I like that I don't have to take unnecessary extra steps. If I had to go see the GP for the sports injury, it's going to waste my time and his because all he's going to do is tell me "I don't do knees."2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.3 -
Speaking of taxing "bad foods" Barkley California has seen their sales of sugar sweeetened soda drop by 10% and sales of water increases since they introduced a sales tax that taxes one cent per fluid ounce of drink, so 12 cents per can of soda. They're surprised the tax had an effect, but apparently taxes can influence consumption.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.
I think there is a big difference between saying something like "Here are the top sources of calories for the US population, a country that has a weight problem" (which is something that can be backed up by facts) and "I've never met a person who was overweight due to vegetables" (one person's personal experience that can't even be backed up by them knowing the diet of every overweight person they have ever met).
I think it's also worth noting that many of those things would be quite difficult to tax (how would you tax a "chicken-mixed dish"?). I know you're not arguing that everything on that list should be taxed, but the person I was responding to was making an argument that foods that contribute to obesity should face an special tax. This list makes it clear how difficult that would be.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.
I think there is a big difference between saying something like "Here are the top sources of calories for the US population, a country that has a weight problem" (which is something that can be backed up by facts) and "I've never met a person who was overweight due to vegetables" (one person's personal experience that can't even be backed up by them knowing the diet of every overweight person they have ever met).
I think it's also worth noting that many of those things would be quite difficult to tax (how would you tax a "chicken-mixed dish"?). I know you're not arguing that everything on that list should be taxed, but the person I was responding to was making an argument that foods that contribute to obesity should face an special tax. This list makes it clear how difficult that would be.
My post did not say a person could not be overweight due to excess fruits and veggies. The sources of calories, plus the fact that Americans on average don't eat near the recommended amount of these items make it a very rare case someone is overweight due to these items.
Regarding taxes, soda, dairy desserts and grain based desserts are pretty easy to identify.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.
I think there is a big difference between saying something like "Here are the top sources of calories for the US population, a country that has a weight problem" (which is something that can be backed up by facts) and "I've never met a person who was overweight due to vegetables" (one person's personal experience that can't even be backed up by them knowing the diet of every overweight person they have ever met).
I think it's also worth noting that many of those things would be quite difficult to tax (how would you tax a "chicken-mixed dish"?). I know you're not arguing that everything on that list should be taxed, but the person I was responding to was making an argument that foods that contribute to obesity should face an special tax. This list makes it clear how difficult that would be.
My post did not say a person could not be overweight due to excess fruits and veggies. The sources of calories, plus the fact that Americans on average don't eat near the recommended amount of these items make it a very rare case someone is overweight due to these items.
Regarding taxes, soda, dairy desserts and grain based desserts are pretty easy to identify.
If you're not arguing that a person cannot be overweight due to excess fruits and vegetables then I'm not sure why you posted in response to me questioning someone who are arguing just that. What is your exact problem with me pointing out that it's relatively meaningless for an individual to assert they have never met someone who was overweight due to vegetables? It's meaningless because the individuals we personally meet form a poor basis for crafting tax policy and it's meaningless because there is no way we can know the diet of every overweight individual we have ever encountered.
Yes, it would be relatively easy to tax soda, dairy desserts (including, I suppose, yogurt that has been sweetened with fruit or sugar), and grain-based desserts (including protein bars with grain in them), but according to the list you posted, Americans get more calories from chicken and chicken-mixed dishes than they do from soda. Why would we just randomly choose foods from lower on the list and exclude foods from higher on the list if the point is to target foods that contribute to excess calories in the American diet?2 -
Speaking of taxing "bad foods" Barkley California has seen their sales of sugar sweeetened soda drop by 10% and sales of water increases since they introduced a sales tax that taxes one cent per fluid ounce of drink, so 12 cents per can of soda. They're surprised the tax had an effect, but apparently taxes can influence consumption.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows
Does it apply to zero calorie soda, or only the kind sweetened with sugar and HFCS? If they're applying it to this, why not fruit juice (or "fruit juice cocktail" that contains mostly sugar, HFCS and water)? What about chocolate milk (and other flavors) that have a ton of sugar added to them?
Hershey's 2% chocolate milk has 29 grams of sugar in an 8 oz serving, for example, and no more protein and calcium than unflavored milk (which contains 12 g of sugar for the same serving size).2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Speaking of taxing "bad foods" Barkley California has seen their sales of sugar sweeetened soda drop by 10% and sales of water increases since they introduced a sales tax that taxes one cent per fluid ounce of drink, so 12 cents per can of soda. They're surprised the tax had an effect, but apparently taxes can influence consumption.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows
Does it apply to zero calorie soda, or only the kind sweetened with sugar and HFCS? If they're applying it to this, why not fruit juice (or "fruit juice cocktail" that contains mostly sugar, HFCS and water)? What about chocolate milk (and other flavors) that have a ton of sugar added to them?
Hershey's 2% chocolate milk has 29 grams of sugar in an 8 oz serving, for example, and no more protein and calcium than unflavored milk (which contains 12 g of sugar for the same serving size).
The article says the tax doesn't apply to sugar free sodas. Don't know about non fizzy drinks. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out long term.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
They are.
My question is when you say frozen cheeseburgers... what do you mean.
These(frozen burgers)
http://www.costcobusinessdelivery.com/Quick-N-Eat-Cooked-Angus-Choice-Beef-Hamburger-Patty,-12-ct.product.11647990.html
Or these Frozen cheeseburgers
http://www.costcobusinessdelivery.com/Pierre-Signatures-Angus-Cheeseburger,-6.2-oz,-8-ct.product.11981498.html
I don't think so. They've been a major component in my nearly 30 lbs of weight loss.. the first, not the second
Thanks. That's a helpful response, as it shows the diversity of some of these products.
So not inherently causing weight gain, then.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.
Need2 did not say healthcare should not be paid for, but insurance. In a single payer model (for one example) you'd pay for healthcare through taxes, but not insurance. (You could have a system where people could still buy insurance for supplemental care, but would not have to, also.)
This is the poster's statement:
I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance
No mention how healthcare would be paid for. My statement should have been recognized as obviously tongue in cheek. I was interested in how i.e, what kind of taxes, the poster was thinking of.
Yeah, I know, my point was that she didn't say no payment for healthcare, but for insurance. In the US they seem to be equated sometimes.
I expect we all agree that taxes would then have to pay for them and that we (as a group) pay taxes.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.
I think there is a big difference between saying something like "Here are the top sources of calories for the US population, a country that has a weight problem" (which is something that can be backed up by facts) and "I've never met a person who was overweight due to vegetables" (one person's personal experience that can't even be backed up by them knowing the diet of every overweight person they have ever met).
I think it's also worth noting that many of those things would be quite difficult to tax (how would you tax a "chicken-mixed dish"?). I know you're not arguing that everything on that list should be taxed, but the person I was responding to was making an argument that foods that contribute to obesity should face an special tax. This list makes it clear how difficult that would be.
My post did not say a person could not be overweight due to excess fruits and veggies. The sources of calories, plus the fact that Americans on average don't eat near the recommended amount of these items make it a very rare case someone is overweight due to these items.
Regarding taxes, soda, dairy desserts and grain based desserts are pretty easy to identify.
Most grain-based desserts I eat are prepared at home. Are we taxing flour and sugar and butter?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions