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.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
Wow. What a thread! Can't we all just eat our junk food in a dark closet, drying our tears with chocolate-stained napkins? You know - like normal people?!6
-
-
I ate some movie theater buttered popcorn just last night... Didn't gain an ounce. In fact, I also just had a health screen that was ridiculously perfect for my age...
Oh, and I had pizza the other night, and a burger from McDonald's the other day.
Granted, I ate really, really healthy stuff like grilled chicken, beans, etc for my other meals on those days, but yeah, I have at least something that could be considered "junk" almost 4 or 5 times a week.
The vast majority of vegans think eating anything that came from an animal is immoral. Should we therefore propose taxing meat and dairy?
Excuse me while I slip down this slope..........
2 -
Here in MN I believe the way it works is most with sugar (other than natural sugar) are taxed. Candy..douhnuts..chips..pop...and anything you buy preheated in the store...such as you go into a gas station and buy a breakfast sandwhich that is sitting in the warmer ready to grab and eat0
-
There's already more than enough taxes everywhere. The solution is to cut down on entitlement care.6
-
-
Packerjohn wrote: »
Not let people without insurance die if it's for a non-lifestyle induced illness. For a start, I'd propose increasing care for all emergency patients and accident-related care, free of charge. A national health system for this emergency care funded by income tax. Then, a complete eradication of all public-sponsored elective surgeries, gastric bypass, or any lifestyle disease that is self-induced. Exemptions would be allowed provided evidence is provided that it wasn't self-induced. Eg: evidence of a healthy lifestyle but nevertheless suffering from a genetic disorder predisposing one to weight gain. These would be exempt but rare cases.
This alone would increase healthcare for people that do everything right but get unlucky, or suffer from an emergency medical condition, whilst forcing people to pay for their own lifestyle decisions. This would also bring back personal responsibility, which would have a far reaching impact socially as well. The net result would be savings and less taxation needed by government.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Not let people without insurance die if it's for a non-lifestyle induced illness. For a start, I'd propose increasing care for all emergency patients and accident-related care, free of charge. A national health system for this emergency care funded by income tax. Then, a complete eradication of all public-sponsored elective surgeries, gastric bypass, or any lifestyle disease that is self-induced. Exemptions would be allowed provided evidence is provided that it wasn't self-induced. Eg: evidence of a healthy lifestyle but nevertheless suffering from a genetic disorder predisposing one to weight gain. These would be exempt but rare cases.
This alone would increase healthcare for people that do everything right but get unlucky, or suffer from an emergency medical condition, whilst forcing people to pay for their own lifestyle decisions. This would also bring back personal responsibility, which would have a far reaching impact socially as well. The net result would be savings and less taxation needed by government.
We can't even decide how to define junk food... How would you "prove" a healthy lifestyle? Food diaries (which we all know can be horrendously inaccurate) and exercise tracking? What if the person is eating a reasonable amount of calories but still eats candy bars - could they be disqualified? What if they have PCOS, which doesn't prevent weight loss but can definitely make it a harder, longer process?
Extend this to other things. I'd assume I'd get coverage if I get lung cancer, I don't smoke. But what if I got skin cancer when I don't always wear sunscreen? How about eating disorders like anorexia - is that a "lifestyle decision" or something that should be treated? Are pregnancies covered? What if a woman gets pregnant despite using birth control?1 -
All food is taxed in the USA because they hate us.1
-
The clear solution is nutritious gruel for all.3
-
Packerjohn wrote: »
Not let people without insurance die if it's for a non-lifestyle induced illness. For a start, I'd propose increasing care for all emergency patients and accident-related care, free of charge. A national health system for this emergency care funded by income tax. Then, a complete eradication of all public-sponsored elective surgeries, gastric bypass, or any lifestyle disease that is self-induced. Exemptions would be allowed provided evidence is provided that it wasn't self-induced. Eg: evidence of a healthy lifestyle but nevertheless suffering from a genetic disorder predisposing one to weight gain. These would be exempt but rare cases.
This alone would increase healthcare for people that do everything right but get unlucky, or suffer from an emergency medical condition, whilst forcing people to pay for their own lifestyle decisions. This would also bring back personal responsibility, which would have a far reaching impact socially as well. The net result would be savings and less taxation needed by government.
So say someone is 20 pounds overweight on the BMI scale and they roll into the ER with a heart attack. Do you treat them as someone that had a preventable situatuon and let them die or treat them?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Not let people without insurance die if it's for a non-lifestyle induced illness. For a start, I'd propose increasing care for all emergency patients and accident-related care, free of charge. A national health system for this emergency care funded by income tax. Then, a complete eradication of all public-sponsored elective surgeries, gastric bypass, or any lifestyle disease that is self-induced. Exemptions would be allowed provided evidence is provided that it wasn't self-induced. Eg: evidence of a healthy lifestyle but nevertheless suffering from a genetic disorder predisposing one to weight gain. These would be exempt but rare cases.
This alone would increase healthcare for people that do everything right but get unlucky, or suffer from an emergency medical condition, whilst forcing people to pay for their own lifestyle decisions. This would also bring back personal responsibility, which would have a far reaching impact socially as well. The net result would be savings and less taxation needed by government.
So say someone is 20 pounds overweight on the BMI scale and they roll into the ER with a heart attack. Do you treat them as someone that had a preventable situatuon and let them die or treat them?
That depends, do they smoke?
/sarcasm1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Not let people without insurance die if it's for a non-lifestyle induced illness. For a start, I'd propose increasing care for all emergency patients and accident-related care, free of charge. A national health system for this emergency care funded by income tax. Then, a complete eradication of all public-sponsored elective surgeries, gastric bypass, or any lifestyle disease that is self-induced. Exemptions would be allowed provided evidence is provided that it wasn't self-induced. Eg: evidence of a healthy lifestyle but nevertheless suffering from a genetic disorder predisposing one to weight gain. These would be exempt but rare cases.
This alone would increase healthcare for people that do everything right but get unlucky, or suffer from an emergency medical condition, whilst forcing people to pay for their own lifestyle decisions. This would also bring back personal responsibility, which would have a far reaching impact socially as well. The net result would be savings and less taxation needed by government.
So say someone is 20 pounds overweight on the BMI scale and they roll into the ER with a heart attack. Do you treat them as someone that had a preventable situatuon and let them die or treat them?
BMI is a terrible indicator. That's one thing that would absolutely need to go the way of the dodo, if treatment refusal due to self-induction were to become an option for providers.
The smoking thing, while sarcastic, I actually agree with. And yeah, as someone who smoked until this year, I should be turned away as well, unless I can pay my own way.1 -
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Not let people without insurance die if it's for a non-lifestyle induced illness. For a start, I'd propose increasing care for all emergency patients and accident-related care, free of charge. A national health system for this emergency care funded by income tax. Then, a complete eradication of all public-sponsored elective surgeries, gastric bypass, or any lifestyle disease that is self-induced. Exemptions would be allowed provided evidence is provided that it wasn't self-induced. Eg: evidence of a healthy lifestyle but nevertheless suffering from a genetic disorder predisposing one to weight gain. These would be exempt but rare cases.
This alone would increase healthcare for people that do everything right but get unlucky, or suffer from an emergency medical condition, whilst forcing people to pay for their own lifestyle decisions. This would also bring back personal responsibility, which would have a far reaching impact socially as well. The net result would be savings and less taxation needed by government.
So say someone is 20 pounds overweight on the BMI scale and they roll into the ER with a heart attack. Do you treat them as someone that had a preventable situatuon and let them die or treat them?
BMI is a terrible indicator. That's one thing that would absolutely need to go the way of the dodo, if treatment refusal due to self-induction were to become an option for providers.
The smoking thing, while sarcastic, I actually agree with. And yeah, as someone who smoked until this year, I should be turned away as well, unless I can pay my own way.
BMI isn't a terrible indicator. It is pretty reliable for the majority of people. It should be used with other assessments but it is a good indicator.
"BMI does not measure body fat directly, but research has shown that BMI is moderately correlated with more direct measures of body fat obtained from skinfold thickness measurements, bioelectrical impedance, densitometry (underwater weighing), dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and other methods 1,2,3. Furthermore, BMI appears to be as strongly correlated with various metabolic and disease outcome as are these more direct measures of body fatness 4,5,6,7,8,9. In general, BMI is an inexpensive and easy-to-perform method of screening for weight category, for example underweight, normal or healthy weight, overweight, and obesity.
A high BMI can be an indicator of high body fatness. BMI can be used as a screening tool but is not diagnostic of the body fatness or health of an individual.
To determine if a high BMI is a health risk, a healthcare provider would need to perform further assessments. These assessments might include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, family history, and other appropriate health screenings10."
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html2 -
That was my point. By itself, it CAN function fine. However, given the huge percentage of people who seem to be in denial over their obesity, I can almost assure you that you'd end up having to run the other tests anyway because "I'm not fat, I'm big boned".0
-
For the man/woman on the street with a waist is greater than 38/34 is about all one needs to know to understand a health risk has developed that needs to be addressed.0
-
just stumbled across this too http://goywc.com/6ix0
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »just stumbled across this too http://goywc.com/6ix
Inb4 people are smuggling soda to Philly, like they do cigs to NYC.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »For the man/woman on the street with a waist is greater than 38/34 is about all one needs to know to understand a health risk has developed that needs to be addressed.
What if the woman is pregnant?3 -
I'm a 42", 34", 42", what now?0
-
2
-
Wow, what a thread. So was that a low carb binge or...?
amusedmonkey wrote: »Honestly? I think what goes in the discussions of policy makes is kind of similar to what goes here sometimes. I don't know if it's spending too much time around health conscious people or what, but some of the answers are really disconnected from reality. People in general, and many of us were the same, are not very concerned with nutrition. Does it look good? Does it taste good? Is it cheap? Is it convenient? If hits all or most of the notes it gets eaten even if all packaged foods had calories listed in a font size the covers more than half the package.
Hmm. So because it didn't or wouldn't work for you, why extrapolate that to mean it wouldn't work for anyone else? Maybe they might select another treat that hit all the major points but contained fewer calories.
There was a previous post about people making their own treats at home if the store ones were highly taxed. I'm probably saying this from the perspective of a calorie counter, but making my own food often gives me tighter control over the calories contained in it, so this could be a good thing. Of course if I didn't care about calories at all, then it might have minimal to no impact.1 -
Wow, what a thread. So was that a low carb binge or...?amusedmonkey wrote: »Honestly? I think what goes in the discussions of policy makes is kind of similar to what goes here sometimes. I don't know if it's spending too much time around health conscious people or what, but some of the answers are really disconnected from reality. People in general, and many of us were the same, are not very concerned with nutrition. Does it look good? Does it taste good? Is it cheap? Is it convenient? If hits all or most of the notes it gets eaten even if all packaged foods had calories listed in a font size the covers more than half the package.
Hmm. So because it didn't or wouldn't work for you, why extrapolate that to mean it wouldn't work for anyone else? Maybe they might select another treat that hit all the major points but contained fewer calories.
There was a previous post about people making their own treats at home if the store ones were highly taxed. I'm probably saying this from the perspective of a calorie counter, but making my own food often gives me tighter control over the calories contained in it, so this could be a good thing. Of course if I didn't care about calories at all, then it might have minimal to no impact.
How many people, outside of MFP and the health conscious community, do you see paying special attention to calories other than "I probably shouldn't eat this, but meh". How many people are dedicated enough to make all of their treats at home, tightly watching the calories they contain, then packing them in case they feel like eating something when out and about? Even those who do make their home treats, I doubt many would even consider calories as a deciding factor. They would just be making pecan pies and donut holes.
This thread is trying to present a population level solution that would somehow "force" people to ditch their years old, culturally ingrained, convenience driven habits, it's not trying to look for a solution that would work for the select few who already are aware of portion sizes and already are watching their calories. Those select few don't need that kind of push anyway because they're already doing what should be done.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Wow, what a thread. So was that a low carb binge or...?amusedmonkey wrote: »Honestly? I think what goes in the discussions of policy makes is kind of similar to what goes here sometimes. I don't know if it's spending too much time around health conscious people or what, but some of the answers are really disconnected from reality. People in general, and many of us were the same, are not very concerned with nutrition. Does it look good? Does it taste good? Is it cheap? Is it convenient? If hits all or most of the notes it gets eaten even if all packaged foods had calories listed in a font size the covers more than half the package.
Hmm. So because it didn't or wouldn't work for you, why extrapolate that to mean it wouldn't work for anyone else? Maybe they might select another treat that hit all the major points but contained fewer calories.
There was a previous post about people making their own treats at home if the store ones were highly taxed. I'm probably saying this from the perspective of a calorie counter, but making my own food often gives me tighter control over the calories contained in it, so this could be a good thing. Of course if I didn't care about calories at all, then it might have minimal to no impact.
How many people, outside of MFP and the health conscious community, do you see paying special attention to calories other than "I probably shouldn't eat this, but meh". How many people are dedicated enough to make all of their treats at home, tightly watching the calories they contain, then packing them in case they feel like eating something when out and about? Even those who do make their home treats, I doubt many would even consider calories as a deciding factor. They would just be making pecan pies and donut holes.
This thread is trying to present a population level solution that would somehow "force" people to ditch their years old, culturally ingrained, convenience driven habits, it's not trying to look for a solution that would work for the select few who already are aware of portion sizes and already are watching their calories. Those select few don't need that kind of push anyway because they're already doing what should be done.
I don't know a lot of people that conscientiously count their calories. But.... not everyone goes around advertising that they do, to to be honest I couldn't tell you for sure who has and uses the app, and who doesn't. Additionally, although I don't know a lot of calorie counters, I do know lots of people who take deliberate steps to watch their weight. They have personal policies such as, no soda, no bread, don't eat if they don't feel like it (even when at a restaurant they chose!), don't like / eat sweets, etc. What's to say having the calorie information displayed more prominently won't help more individuals easily make choices that align a bit better with a calorie controlled diet?
My issue with NOT taking action at the population level, or at least giving options at that level is that we love to compare how fat the US is compared to other countries. Problem is, many of these nations don't necessarily have cheaply and abundantly available food, transportation may not be as easy and convenient so they have to walk, a LOT, or their governments have taken deliberate steps to make physical activity a more commonly selected choice. Meanwhile we just want to fall out of bed healthy without taking any specific action and wonder why the population continues to get fatter2 -
I say we induce a zombie apocolypse and destroy the grid, thus leading to sustenance farming for any who survive.
Nutritious whole foods for all!!!
Bonus points for also solving the national debt crisis with the same stone.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I say we induce a zombie apocolypse and destroy the grid, thus leading to sustenance farming for any who survive.
Nutritious whole foods for all!!!
Bonus points for also solving the national debt crisis with the same stone.
Also, running from the zombies. Very healthy. I'll bring the seeds.5 -
Food should be not taxed. We are taxed enough on every purchase we make. And, depending on what you define as 'junk' food, it is already taxed if it is ready to go from take out joints and served in restaurants.1
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »This thread is trying to present a population level solution that would somehow "force" people to ditch their years old, culturally ingrained, convenience driven habits, it's not trying to look for a solution that would work for the select few who already are aware of portion sizes and already are watching their calories.
What "force?" This thread is about whether or not a tax should be levied on non-essential items that some people buy voluntarily.0 -
Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions