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
-
kanebrewer88 wrote: »In the UK where every nationals health is paid for by the Tax payer YES Absolutely!!
Unfortunately people are too ignorant to understand the importance of a healthy diet, ussually those people are the ones on benefits or in low wages. Make foods that as a product as a whole, add up to HALF or MORE of your daily calorie intake more expensive, and use that to subsidize or reduce taxes on healthier foods. This will increase incentive for family to buy healthy and reduce the likelyhood of requiring NHS treatment.
EDIT: How ignorant of me, id like to further add, its not just ignorance that pushes poorer familys to unhealthier foods. Its time, when both parents are working flat out, its far easier to stick a pizza in the oven then it is to cook properly. pre-made meals arent much help either as they're full of sugar and salt.
which causes diabetes and heart problems when not used in moderation.
If my country wants to be able to maintain our precious Free Medical Treatment for ALL policy, this is something we need to consider to combat BALLOONING costs.
Whose daily calorie intake? Hopefully not mine, or you're going to find food costs are going to go WAY up.
I'm also completely confused as to why it's easier to stick a frozen pizza in the oven than any other frozen meal. Do they not sell frozen meals that have moderate calorie counts in the UK? Because they do in the US, and it certainly isn't putting us ahead as far as obesity goes.
The thing is, it isn't just about convenience. It's about convenience, not giving enough of a flip about how much food they're eating (for many reasons including it's low on the priority totem pole), and wanting the food to be 'feel good' food - which gives an edge to the frozen pizzas and pot pies vs frozen vegetables and meat.
Frankly, if there were a way you could get people to care about how much food they're eating that worked other than having a personal epiphany, then you could get somewhere. They could even have a frozen pizza or pot pie if they wanted. And save money, because it'd stretch further.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
This has been a thing for a long time in many places. It's not helping. I can give you all of the numbers in the world, but if you don't know what they mean, and don't actually track them, it's pointless.
ETA: not necessarily in TV adverts, etc., but I have been seeing more and more nutrition info in big bolded numbers on chip stands, and things of that nature. Also, restaurants in certain cities are required to have the information on their menus. Honestly though, you could have a banner go across the middle of the screen during Super Bowl commercials saying "600 calories per bag", and that's not going to stop anyone from eating it, that wants to eat the stuff to begin with. Hell, just take a look around this website, and these people are on a damned forum that's attached to a nutrional database (though many of the entries are suspect).
It might make them think twice though. I used to work at a pizza place and after we started posting our calorie counts, a lot of people stopped eating there every day for a "light snack" before heading home for dinner. (They would take one look at that 600 calorie slice of pizza, 1000 calorie meal - due to the enormous soda that came with it - and walk away).0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
I guess if you dont care about the enviroment or the food supply or the purpose of taxing junk food in the first place, then sure it could go back to the tax payers instead!
Yes, a return would be dandy. Some of us start to feel like the only adults in the room after paying for everything and listening to so much uninformed garbage.3 -
I'm in favor of taxing foods high in sugar that likely lead to cravings and obesity. This tax can be just a small amount, i'd like the revenue to be used to help pay for increased costs asssociated with obesity related diseases because some people will never "push back" from the table.
The amount of overeating many ppl do is extreme.....not everyone will agree but this is worth trying, as mentioned above, perhaps in a limited area.1 -
let people e happy with what they eat do etc. you have one life and there is already millions of restrictions.0
-
I'm in favor of taxing foods high in sugar that likely lead to cravings and obesity. This tax can be just a small amount, i'd like the revenue to be used to help pay for increased costs asssociated with obesity related diseases because some people will never "push back" from the table.
The amount of overeating many ppl do is extreme.....not everyone will agree but this is worth trying, as mentioned above, perhaps in a limited area.
Sugar doesn't lead to cravings for me, and obesity is causes by too many calories, period. Why should I pay a higher tax for my Oreos?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I'm in favor of taxing foods high in sugar that likely lead to cravings and obesity. This tax can be just a small amount, i'd like the revenue to be used to help pay for increased costs asssociated with obesity related diseases because some people will never "push back" from the table.
The amount of overeating many ppl do is extreme.....not everyone will agree but this is worth trying, as mentioned above, perhaps in a limited area.
Sugar doesn't lead to cravings for me, and obesity is causes by too many calories, period. Why should I pay a higher tax for my Oreos?
So you can perhaps pay lower costs in total if a significant junk food tax and/or restrictions on use of SNAP funds reduces the costs incurred by the government and insurance companies related to obesity.
If you pay taxes and/or have insurance this impacts you.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I'm in favor of taxing foods high in sugar that likely lead to cravings and obesity. This tax can be just a small amount, i'd like the revenue to be used to help pay for increased costs asssociated with obesity related diseases because some people will never "push back" from the table.
The amount of overeating many ppl do is extreme.....not everyone will agree but this is worth trying, as mentioned above, perhaps in a limited area.
Sugar doesn't lead to cravings for me, and obesity is causes by too many calories, period. Why should I pay a higher tax for my Oreos?
So you can perhaps pay lower costs in total if a significant junk food tax and/or restrictions on use of SNAP funds reduces the costs incurred by the government and insurance companies related to obesity.
If you pay taxes and/or have insurance this impacts you.
So pay more in taxes to save money on taxes?2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I'm in favor of taxing foods high in sugar that likely lead to cravings and obesity. This tax can be just a small amount, i'd like the revenue to be used to help pay for increased costs asssociated with obesity related diseases because some people will never "push back" from the table.
The amount of overeating many ppl do is extreme.....not everyone will agree but this is worth trying, as mentioned above, perhaps in a limited area.
Sugar doesn't lead to cravings for me, and obesity is causes by too many calories, period. Why should I pay a higher tax for my Oreos?
So you can perhaps pay lower costs in total if a significant junk food tax and/or restrictions on use of SNAP funds reduces the costs incurred by the government and insurance companies related to obesity.
If you pay taxes and/or have insurance this impacts you.
Please point to me where the promises of increased taxes have ever resulted in a positive influence on the market. I can provide many instances where the opposite has occurred, such as mandatory auto insurance, ACA, lottery systems, medicare, alcohol tax, tobacco tax....
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is what?1 -
ha ha ha, I live in NY- it's already taxed! Everything is taxed in NY.0
-
bennettinfinity wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I'm in favor of taxing foods high in sugar that likely lead to cravings and obesity. This tax can be just a small amount, i'd like the revenue to be used to help pay for increased costs asssociated with obesity related diseases because some people will never "push back" from the table.
The amount of overeating many ppl do is extreme.....not everyone will agree but this is worth trying, as mentioned above, perhaps in a limited area.
Sugar doesn't lead to cravings for me, and obesity is causes by too many calories, period. Why should I pay a higher tax for my Oreos?
So you can perhaps pay lower costs in total if a significant junk food tax and/or restrictions on use of SNAP funds reduces the costs incurred by the government and insurance companies related to obesity.
If you pay taxes and/or have insurance this impacts you.
So pay more in taxes to save money on taxes?
Exactly. Because if there's anything that government and insurance companies love to do, it is lower taxes and premium payments...
I was mostly challenging the statement that sugar causes cravings and obesity... It doesn't.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I'm in favor of taxing foods high in sugar that likely lead to cravings and obesity. This tax can be just a small amount, i'd like the revenue to be used to help pay for increased costs asssociated with obesity related diseases because some people will never "push back" from the table.
The amount of overeating many ppl do is extreme.....not everyone will agree but this is worth trying, as mentioned above, perhaps in a limited area.
Sugar doesn't lead to cravings for me, and obesity is causes by too many calories, period. Why should I pay a higher tax for my Oreos?
So you can perhaps pay lower costs in total if a significant junk food tax and/or restrictions on use of SNAP funds reduces the costs incurred by the government and insurance companies related to obesity.
If you pay taxes and/or have insurance this impacts you.
Please point to me where the promises of increased taxes have ever resulted in a positive influence on the market. I can provide many instances where the opposite has occurred, such as mandatory auto insurance, ACA, lottery systems, medicare, alcohol tax, tobacco tax....
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is what?
You're saying tobacco tax increases smoking?
I think he's saying it's had a negative impact on the economy.1 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I'm in favor of taxing foods high in sugar that likely lead to cravings and obesity. This tax can be just a small amount, i'd like the revenue to be used to help pay for increased costs asssociated with obesity related diseases because some people will never "push back" from the table.
The amount of overeating many ppl do is extreme.....not everyone will agree but this is worth trying, as mentioned above, perhaps in a limited area.
Sugar doesn't lead to cravings for me, and obesity is causes by too many calories, period. Why should I pay a higher tax for my Oreos?
So you can perhaps pay lower costs in total if a significant junk food tax and/or restrictions on use of SNAP funds reduces the costs incurred by the government and insurance companies related to obesity.
If you pay taxes and/or have insurance this impacts you.
So pay more in taxes to save money on taxes?
User fee. Those who eat a bunch of that stuff pay more.
Ideal world $ would specifically go to offset costs of obesity0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Many people are saying education is the answer. Honestly don't you think anyone other than a special needs person or very young child knows drinking a 2 liter bottle of pop or eating 6 doughnuts daily, etc isn't good for their health?
Which means, in all honesty, if they afford it, they will still buy it. Seriously. This won't stop it.0 -
I think so. People not taking care of themselves ends up costing the health system hundreds of millions each year. It's only fair that a certain percentage of that burden be put back on those creating it. That being said, I have zero idea as to how one would go about creating or calculating what the tax should be or what it should be on.
It's a little like motorcycle helmet laws. I always wear a helmet when I ride, but I couldn't care less what the guy up the street wants to do with his head when he's on his bike. He's a grownup, that is his decision to make. The problem is that the average cost of an accident to healthcare services goes up by tens of thousands of dollars when the rider isn't wearing a helmet. If he doesn't have insurance, or has just the legal minimum, then those tens of thousands just end up coming out of public funds. I don't care about him cracking his skull, I just don't want to have to pay for it.
1 -
Even asking the question is offensive. There is no person outside of me that should have any say on what I eat. how incredibly stupid.4
-
Whose daily calorie intake? Hopefully not mine, or you're going to find food costs are going to go WAY up.
haha! well the average recommended is 2000-2500 depending on size/sex? make it simple, if its 1000 calories, up the price.I'm also completely confused as to why it's easier to stick a frozen pizza in the oven than any other frozen meal. Do they not sell frozen meals that have moderate calorie counts in the UK? Because they do in the US, and it certainly isn't putting us ahead as far as obesity goes.
Pizza was just an example. Ready Meals in general in the UK are packed full of salt and sugar which if not moderated can attribute heart problems & diabetes. The time vs putting a Ready Meal in the oven, vs defrosting and cooking vegetables, meat, sauces, is vastly different. Obviously the latter is preferable.The thing is, it isn't just about convenience. It's about convenience,
makes sense
not giving enough of a flip about how much food they're eating (for many reasons including it's low on the priority totem pole), and wanting the food to be 'feel good' food - which gives an edge to the frozen pizzas and pot pies vs frozen vegetables and meat.
er yeah sure, but idk about the US but here we've been educating people for two decades, both in schools and Media. And the problem only gets worse, caused by a sedentary lifestyle and a careless diet.Frankly, if there were a way you could get people to care about how much food they're eating that worked other than having a personal epiphany, then you could get somewhere. They could even have a frozen pizza or pot pie if they wanted. And save money, because it'd stretch further.
Make it more expensive. I dont see how thats a problem. When you walk into a supermarket in the UK, the first thing you see is 5 donuts for a pound, jumbo packet of crisps for a quid. Then you get to fruit and veg and its more or less the same price for a pack of leeks, bag of apples. Make the junk food more expensive and the healthy food cheaper, bottles of pop especcially, they are calorific!! and I watch family wheel and waddle this stuff out by the 6 pack. Drink *kitten* fizzy water with squash in it!!!! not 2 liters of full fat coca cola!!
I dont think this is the final solution to the problem, but it would help.
1 -
After being in this thread from the beginning, it seems there are some clear areas of agreement, and then maybe two primary schools of thought where there is disagreement (at least after we got past the mid thread "card" nonsense that derailed the conversation for so long)
First, I think there is widespread consensus that there is an obesity problem (some countries greater than others) and that rising medical issues resulting from obesity can result in burden on taxpayers under current health policy/insurance models in certain countries.
Contributing factors to obesity are too many calories and too sedentary of a lifestyle. Eating too much calorie dense "junk food" can contribute to this but it is not the singular cause of obesity.
I also think everyone largely agrees that ignorance plays a part in contributing to obesity, that education about calorie needs, exercise and nutrition could help people understand and make better choices about their foods.
Agreed?
Now here is where the opinions start to divide into two basic camps.
1. Those that do not want to have additional taxes on "junk food" because they feel increasing costs overall on certain items punishes people who consume these foods in moderation without the resulting obesity related medical issues. Many feel that taxes are a way for the government to control, or at least influence what consumers eat and are not in favor of government oversight in areas that should be left to personal choice, particularly in a free market economy.
2. Those that believe that increasing taxes on "junk food" now will help offset rising healthcare costs for all taxpayers in that there will be less obesity related issues to have to pay for.
There are obviously other nuances to these discussions but I think this covers about 80% of the responses....
So my question for those in group 2, those in favor of the increased tax on junk food... We haven't talked about how much the tax would be, but as with most taxes, it would likely be a small percentage of the cost of the product. Do you really think that increasing costs by a few pennies, nickels, dimes or quid here or there, even if it results cumulatively in a higher grocery bill by what, $10-$20 a week, would be enough of a deterrent to change the behavior of individual consumers? In order to truly impact obesity they would have to eat less calories overall and over an extended period of time, to lose weight and reverse things like prediabetes. If my neighbor who is an obese single man, goes to the store tomorrow and his chips, soda and Oreos are now each $0.50 higher, do you think he's going to not just dig deeper in his wallet, grumbling the whole time, but still consuming the foods? Because I think people will still buy the foods, maybe less frequently but probably not. But for the sake of argument, lets say he is on a tight budget and is off put and decides to forego these items this week. Does he now know to head to the produce aisle instead, stopping by to get some quinoa and lentils on his way? Does he know enough that he needs to eat less total calories in order to make that change in what he is buying have a positive impact on his weight? Does he continue to make this change week after week, month after month, in order to actually see results? Or does he just sacrifice in other areas if money is tight so that he can continue to buy these items?
But for the sake of the discussion Let's say that that the tax changes individual behavior and enough individuals change their habits... in this new world with higher taxes on "junk foods" that you get enough momentum through rising costs and education to have a measurable impact on obesity rates, and that we do see a reduction in obesity related medical costs in 5-10 years (as this will not be a short term change). Do you think government is going to lower the taxes now? Do you think insurance companies will lower premiums for all individuals?
I'm truly curious, for those in favor of this tax, if you believe that it will change individual behavior and that any net positive outcome will result in lower costs for all taxpayers in the long run?5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »After being in this thread from the beginning, it seems there are some clear areas of agreement, and then maybe two primary schools of thought where there is disagreement (at least after we got past the mid thread "card" nonsense that derailed the conversation for so long)
First, I think there is widespread consensus that there is an obesity problem (some countries greater than others) and that rising medical issues resulting from obesity can result in burden on taxpayers under current health policy/insurance models in certain countries.
Contributing factors to obesity are too many calories and too sedentary of a lifestyle. Eating too much calorie dense "junk food" can contribute to this but it is not the singular cause of obesity.
I also think everyone largely agrees that ignorance plays a part in contributing to obesity, that education about calorie needs, exercise and nutrition could help people understand and make better choices about their foods.
Agreed?
Now here is where the opinions start to divide into two basic camps.
1. Those that do not want to have additional taxes on "junk food" because they feel increasing costs overall on certain items punishes people who consume these foods in moderation without the resulting obesity related medical issues. Many feel that taxes are a way for the government to control, or at least influence what consumers eat and are not in favor of government oversight in areas that should be left to personal choice, particularly in a free market economy.
2. Those that believe that increasing taxes on "junk food" now will help offset rising healthcare costs for all taxpayers in that there will be less obesity related issues to have to pay for.
There are obviously other nuances to these discussions but I think this covers about 80% of the responses....
So my question for those in group 2, those in favor of the increased tax on junk food... We haven't talked about how much the tax would be, but as with most taxes, it would likely be a small percentage of the cost of the product. Do you really think that increasing costs by a few pennies, nickels, dimes or quid here or there, even if it results cumulatively in a higher grocery bill by what, $10-$20 a week, would be enough of a deterrent to change the behavior of individual consumers? In order to truly impact obesity they would have to eat less calories overall and over an extended period of time, to lose weight and reverse things like prediabetes. If my neighbor who is an obese single man, goes to the store tomorrow and his chips, soda and Oreos are now each $0.50 higher, do you think he's going to not just dig deeper in his wallet, grumbling the whole time, but still consuming the foods? Because I think people will still buy the foods, maybe less frequently but probably not. But for the sake of argument, lets say he is on a tight budget and is off put and decides to forego these items this week. Does he now know to head to the produce aisle instead, stopping by to get some quinoa and lentils on his way? Does he know enough that he needs to eat less total calories in order to make that change in what he is buying have a positive impact on his weight? Does he continue to make this change week after week, month after month, in order to actually see results? Or does he just sacrifice in other areas if money is tight so that he can continue to buy these items?
But for the sake of the discussion Let's say that that the tax changes individual behavior and enough individuals change their habits... in this new world with higher taxes on "junk foods" that you get enough momentum through rising costs and education to have a measurable impact on obesity rates, and that we do see a reduction in obesity related medical costs in 5-10 years (as this will not be a short term change). Do you think government is going to lower the taxes now? Do you think insurance companies will lower premiums for all individuals?
I'm truly curious, for those in favor of this tax, if you believe that it will change individual behavior and that any net positive outcome will result in lower costs for all taxpayers in the long run?
If you look at the impact a tax could have it adds to some pretty decent money to fund education, increased SNAP benefits for healthier food (assuming you remove junk food from SNAP eligibility), etc. As an example:
The US consumes 154 liters of soft drinks per capita:
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-levels-of-soft-drink-consumption.html
and about 80% of soda sale are the non-diet versions
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120223/us-pepsi-next-cola-wars-glance/
A $.02 per ounce tax on the non-diet versions would raise about $24B (around $80 per person). To put that in some perspective the Federal SNAP budget in 2015 was $74B
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/26/74-Billion-Food-Stamp-Program-Budget-Crosshairs
And the Federal budget for education is $68B (understand there is some "education spending" in other departments like the USDA, etc)
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-funding-where-does-the-money-go
So if, as many people have said, education is key, a tax on junk food assuming (and a big assumption given the behavior of government) it was used for education should make a difference.
0 -
Great post, WinoGelato.
My own view is agnostic or local-control-based (the states are the laboratories of democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy). That is, my instinct is that taxes won't make a difference as to obesity rate (maybe consumption of specific products) and that taxes probably won't get used in a useful way, but will merely go to general revenue (although in my state/locality that might be useful, since we need money largely due to babysloth pension issues, but I digress). However, I am quite willing to be proven wrong and I am not against taxes used for this purpose in theory. So if various localities and states want to experiment, I'm in favor. (I'd be against a federal tax currently.)
There is pretty good evidence that alcohol taxes affect drinking amounts and alcohol-related costs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735171/. Same with tobacco, although it's hard to separate it from cultural changes and other laws in that case. The effect on drinking is also counterintuitive to me (so I don't trust my instincts). It also may be not that large. (My anecdotal experience is that I've never noticed cost of alcohol affecting how much people drink--obviously not talking about the poorest people here--and have had lots of people tell me they smoke less or had increased cost as an incentive to finally get around to quitting with cigarettes. But anecdotal evidence is, obviously, not significant.) Worth noting that both tobacco and alcohol taxes are quite high (alcohol with the combination of state and federal taxes), although they vary from state to state.
My thought on how a law should be structured to test the theory best would be to focus on soda/sugary drinks. You do have the problem as with cigarettes that consumption is apparently already on the decline, but in many ways sugary drinks are an ideal target as they are non satiating calories and we drink far more of them than before obesity was common, they are a particular issue with obese kids, etc. I'd also argue that this is a product where extra cost might affect demand more, as it is seen as a luxury, less likely to be compared with other types of food that could remain more expensive (like fruits and veg), our culture seems to have changed pretty quickly from seeing them as a special treat to (for some) the go-to beverage. So I'm good with testing the theory. (Re: kids, however, when I was little we didn't drink much sodas and I don't think juice boxes were yet a thing -- I feel like they were when I was babysitting, though -- but we did drink koolaid which was presumably as sugary. Dunno about cost, I believe you added sugar, but cannot recall for certain.)
Arguments that could be for OR against (other than those you mentioned) are that soda is already subsidized, so a tax just makes them reflect actual price (soda is subsidized through the way that agricultural incentives mean that we produce more corn than we otherwise would and prices are cheaper than they otherwise would be--this has far-reaching effects on our agricultural system and food costs way beyond soda so is not so easy to cut out, for instance I think it would make meat costs higher).
Argument against: obviously it's easy to get fat without drinking sugary soda. Wouldn't surprise me if the majority of overweight and obese people in the US did not drink much sugary soda. I know I didn't (I also don't believe my consumption of soda would have been affected by price in that I historically have consumed drink diet soda in contexts in which the price is inflated -- at a restaurant, from a 7-11, not bought in bulk -- or free to me (at social event or at work). Would it affect how much soda is offered free to the drinker? I doubt it, but perhaps on the margins and that is what we are talking about.
Also, there's the question of what would be included -- you could tax based on amount of added sugar per oz or some such, but do manufacturers just share costs with other products like diet or even the vast majority of other things sold? If it were a sales tax as opposed to a tax on distributors/manufacturers, this would be harder to do.
Couple of things to add: I don't see taxing something as saying it's uniquely bad or itself the problem with obesity in a way that other things are not. I do see it as a way of placing the costs of negative externalities to the users of the product. In that way it's analogous to taxing emissions or even strict liability for injuries caused by products, in that even if the user screwed up that some will is expected and therefore a cost of having the product that ought to be spread to those who manufacture/buy the product as a whole.1 -
After having read through this whole conversation, I am left with a few passing thoughts:
1) There will always be people in this world who feel they know better than everyone else how to live and desire nothing more than to bring you this great enlightenment (Lose weight, prevent diabetes, help you quit smoking, teach you how to raise your kids, educate pigs on the fine art of singing, etc)
2) They are all idiots - brilliant, well-meaning, idiots.
3) No amount of arguing will ever get them to see that when they try to push their beliefs on others (scientific facts or not - when it comes to a lot of things, we can't even agree on what "facts" are and we certainly change our tune every 10-20 years, don't we?) they are in effect trying to CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.
*You* have no right - ZERO - to dictate how other people live. This includes taxing foods *you* deem bad, so that others cannot afford to eat them. You also do not have the right to dictate how people live, how they raise their children, what entertainment they enjoy, what activities they wish to do and what clothing they should wear.
NONE.
If you feel that you are, please explain (in simple terms) how you are mentally, physically and morally superior to the entire human race and therefore are fit to judge and make decisions for all.
If not, then take your helpful suggestions and put them to use for yourself. Lead by example. If others see it and go, "Wow, that's awesome, how did you do it?" THEN feel free to share. Until then, keep it to yourself and don't try to control others because you want to feel morally superior, please.
If you're so concerned about being able to afford healthcare costs for all of society with so many people having diabetic issues (or soon to have issues) then STOP TRYING TO SOCIALIZE MEDICINE! Again, you're FORCING PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTHCARE that may not want it! STOP IT!
That's called control. When you try to control other people's lives - even in a benevolent dictatorship kind of way, you're still being a dictator...or at least the first syllable of the word.
You know, I agree with Robert Heinlein. He said, "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
He also said, "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Which I also very much agree with. Stop trying to take responsibility for anyone's actions other than your own and you'll stop screwing up your life and everyone else's in the process.
Do we need to find more money to support our government? NO.
Our government has the same problem many of us do - it's fat. It's WAY overweight, bloated and bogged down with enough nonsensical fluff to cause coronary arrest in any of us.
Want to fix our government? Cut the fat. Stop creating a nanny state where the government is "responsible" for caring for everyone. Stop allowing politicians to have LIFETIME POSITIONS! Stop lobbyists from spending money in order to influence the minority vote into the majority vote.
And most importantly - STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYONE!
How about we all be responsible for ourselves and call it a day?
Oh crap, how'd I get up here?
<Steps down from his soapbox>14 -
After having read through this whole conversation, I am left with a few passing thoughts:
1) There will always be people in this world who feel they know better than everyone else how to live and desire nothing more than to bring you this great enlightenment (Lose weight, prevent diabetes, help you quit smoking, teach you how to raise your kids, educate pigs on the fine art of singing, etc)
2) They are all idiots - brilliant, well-meaning, idiots.
3) No amount of arguing will ever get them to see that when they try to push their beliefs on others (scientific facts or not - when it comes to a lot of things, we can't even agree on what "facts" are and we certainly change our tune every 10-20 years, don't we?) they are in effect trying to CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.
*You* have no right - ZERO - to dictate how other people live. This includes taxing foods *you* deem bad, so that others cannot afford to eat them. You also do not have the right to dictate how people live, how they raise their children, what entertainment they enjoy, what activities they wish to do and what clothing they should wear.
NONE.
If you feel that you are, please explain (in simple terms) how you are mentally, physically and morally superior to the entire human race and therefore are fit to judge and make decisions for all.
If not, then take your helpful suggestions and put them to use for yourself. Lead by example. If others see it and go, "Wow, that's awesome, how did you do it?" THEN feel free to share. Until then, keep it to yourself and don't try to control others because you want to feel morally superior, please.
If you're so concerned about being able to afford healthcare costs for all of society with so many people having diabetic issues (or soon to have issues) then STOP TRYING TO SOCIALIZE MEDICINE! Again, you're FORCING PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTHCARE that may not want it! STOP IT!
That's called control. When you try to control other people's lives - even in a benevolent dictatorship kind of way, you're still being a dictator...or at least the first syllable of the word.
You know, I agree with Robert Heinlein. He said, "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
He also said, "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Which I also very much agree with. Stop trying to take responsibility for anyone's actions other than your own and you'll stop screwing up your life and everyone else's in the process.
Do we need to find more money to support our government? NO.
Our government has the same problem many of us do - it's fat. It's WAY overweight, bloated and bogged down with enough nonsensical fluff to cause coronary arrest in any of us.
Want to fix our government? Cut the fat. Stop creating a nanny state where the government is "responsible" for caring for everyone. Stop allowing politicians to have LIFETIME POSITIONS! Stop lobbyists from spending money in order to influence the minority vote into the majority vote.
And most importantly - STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYONE!
How about we all be responsible for ourselves and call it a day?
Oh crap, how'd I get up here?
<Steps down from his soapbox>
Solid post. The sort of arrogant control you speak of can be seen throughout modern revolutionary history, and it's often accompanied by a degree of distain for the 'commoners.' I'm more than a little amused by that same attitude shown on here by those who think, after a few months or years of losing weight, they now have the secret key to improving society. We are at a time in history where most of the devloped world is carrying massive national debt loads. Combined with fiat currencies, and constant issuance of new bonds the interest on which are slowly taking up an increasing level of revenue, and it's only a matter of time before the entire house of cards comes crashing down. Then, it will not be the western "enlightened" democracies who are world leaders, but instead whatever government is burdened by less debt (and holding much of the debt of the above countries) and has enough population to sustain growth for a significant measurable period. Of course, by the time the general populace wakes up to this fact (the finance community has been discussing it for several decades and we have a great example of the stagnation massive debt can cause in Japan) it will be too late.3 -
I'm all for personal responsibility. Fact of the matter is too many don't take personal responsibility, eat, drink too much of this crap, suffer the health consequences of it and go to insurance companies and/or the government to bail them out. This isn't the wild west of 150 years ago when if someone did stupid *kitten* they died, the family put them in a hole or the buzzards just took care of things. Now others have to share in the cost of bad behavior.
As someone who pays for insurance and pays taxes getting tired of paying for the irresponsibility of others.0 -
*You* have no right - ZERO - to dictate how other people live. This includes taxing foods *you* deem bad, so that others cannot afford to eat them. You also do not have the right to dictate how people live, how they raise their children, what entertainment they enjoy, what activities they wish to do and what clothing they should wear.
NONE.
Actually, I pay taxes, I have to right as a citizen to democratically vocalize my opinion how they are spent. My country has free national health, people not looking after themselves affects how much I pay in taxes and/or what alternate services I recieve.If you're so concerned about being able to afford healthcare costs for all of society with so many people having diabetic issues (or soon to have issues) then STOP TRYING TO SOCIALIZE MEDICINE! Again, you're FORCING PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTHCARE that may not want it! STOP IT!
Good luck finding a country in the world that is unhappy with the fact they have socialized healthcare.
Infact the nations that do have it are laughing at so called 'civilized' nations that let familys become impoverished due to the affects of cancer. No, we'll keep socialized healthcare and ill keep complaining about those who dont look after themselves raising the costs.
EDIT: If you have private insurance, frankly your right, I couldnt give two *kitten* what you eat. Unfortunately you cant refuse medical treatment via the NHS here, so an opt out system is not possible.
0 -
So we're going to force people to use socialized medicine. And then we're going to use the fact that they use socialized medicine as giving us the right to punish them for eating a certain way.
I've seen studies that suggest that the fact that I'm a night owl and don't get as much sleep as I should could be affecting my health. When am I going to start having to pay a fine every time I go to bed after midnight? Some day you guys might be paying for my medical care because of that.
How about taxing people who watch more than 2 hours of TV per day? We could put a meter on the television and jack up the cost every hour. It's increasing their risk of obesity, right?
Ya know, to make this easier, we could just have cameras installed in everyone's homes, and the government could levy fines and taxes based on what they see. The money they collect would of course go right into programs to increase health and fitness education and improving the quality of the food supply, because based on hundreds of years of history it's clear the government would for sure get that done. Everyone would be slim and healthy, it would be AWESOME!4 -
First of all, I'd like to start off by offering a sincere apology to anyone I may have offended with my opening statement. I consider most people who think deeply on such subjects to be very brilliant individuals. I just simply cannot fathom why they don't see the sames things I do - this does not make them idiots.kanebrewer88 wrote: »Actually, I pay taxes, I have to right as a citizen to democratically vocalize my opinion how they are spent. My country has free national health, people not looking after themselves affects how much I pay in taxes and/or what alternate services I recieve.
Absolutely. Also, the more "free" healthcare they force upon you, the less money is your own. Eventually you hit pure socialism. This is the problem with the whole concept of "just a little socialism is okay!" because it is not.
Sure, there are people who fall through the cracks, there are those who die of cancer because they cannot afford the treatments. But what's the flip side? They want a government panel to decide who gets what treatments based on their age, sex and the risk of how much quality of life the person will have, etc.
Note, nowhere in there did I say, "Based upon the DOCTOR'S recommendations." I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable. Government controlled healthcare is government controlled health. The government decides who gets life-saving treatments and who doesn't based on age, sex, risk and cost.
You're okay with that? I'm not.kanebrewer88 wrote: »Good luck finding a country in the world that is unhappy with the fact they have socialized healthcare. Infact the nations that do have it are laughing at so called 'civilized' nations that let familys become impoverished due to the affects of cancer. No, we'll keep socialized healthcare and ill keep complaining about those who dont look after themselves raising the costs.
EDIT: If you have private insurance, frankly your right, I couldnt give two *kitten* what you eat. Unfortunately you cant refuse medical treatment via the NHS here, so an opt out system is not possible.
So...your argument is since everyone is doing it, we should just keep right on trucking until the nations fall apart because they can't afford it?
Look at the USA right now. Right this minute. We have so many special interest groups and funding for said groups FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT that we're bleeding money. We haven't had the budget balanced in ages.
We are not anywhere near mature enough to handle socialist healthcare.
We are not financially responsible enough to handle socialist healthcare.
There may be some countries out there who can deal with it - either because they have very high conservative policies on other things (like say - no military actions to speak of, no contributions to the outside world, etc) or because they have VAST natural resources that they exploit and will continue to do so for another few hundred years, due to the fact of having a small nation and big resources.
Others cannot because they try to do it all - the USA is one of those countries. We have *ALWAYS* been a nation of power and we are looked upon to help settle conflicts by the UN, we are constantly turning to aid countries who ask for our help, all the while also protecting our own interests, as any nation should.
But you cannot be a super power, run a massive military, blow money for every dirty deal that comes down the pike (career politicians make a fortune doing just this) and then going, "Hey, I know what we should do with all of our negative capital - start up some socialist healthcare services!"
It. Doesn't. Work.
At the start, it'll be rough, it will fail and there will be bugs to be worked out.
After a decade or more, things will start to smooth out.
After twenty to thirty years, the people will be used to having 2/3rds of their income vanish before it ever gets put into a check.
After about fifty to seventy-five years, the system starts to fall apart.
It's happened in more countries than I care to point out - most of them are countries that socialists point to and go, "See? This works!" during the time everything looks oh so pretty and then they just plug their ears and cry out "I'm not listening!" when you say, "Those countries are bankrupt now."
But ultimately, if the United States continues on its socialist path, the rest of the world will suffer because we simply will not be able to afford to help fight terrorism or settle disputes or protect people from a dictator.
In fact, we'll be lucky to keep our own nation safe.
The reason I bring that up is because nobody is willing to let the special interest groups drop into the private sector where NPOs could take up the slack. Because of this, we have money going to groups, to infrastructure, to military, to education, to pork barrel spending (riders on bills should be outlawed, let's be honest) and now on healthcare.
It's too much. If we were all taxed equally, it would require a 50-75% taxation across the board and frankly, the rich would go, "Well hell, what's the point? The taxes are less over in X nation."
There's no victory here for socialist/democrat/liberal types. There's only a heroin-like high as their dreams come true and then the crash of reality and everyone praying the EMTs can bring them back to life because they went too far.
For the record, I am not a fan of democrats nor of republicans. I have some conservative beliefs and some liberal ideas, although mostly moderate.
I am an odd fish - I am a Libertarian.
I believe that growing our government only leads to one inevitable conclusion - loss of freedom for all. The more power our government has, the more they will utilize that power. Whom do they have the authority to utilize this power upon?
Us. The citizens.
So, yes...by all means, let's forge the chains and shackles our government will use to enslave us.
Excellent idea.
You either wish to control others, or you do not wish to do so at all.10 -
I think taxing questionable foods will really never happen. Denying medical services to people with poor health habits is already a fact of life for many and is having a positive on the lifestyle of those who want a better/longer quality of life. That may be one plus of socialized medicine.0
-
Don't tax the individual that buys highly processed, nutrient poor, calorie dense foods, but tax the companies that produce them. Put these taxes towards health services, lowering the cost of fresh foods, putting in footpaths and safe lighting where needed to encourage active transportation, teaching cooking skills, community gardens etc etc.0
-
Don't tax the individual that buys highly processed, nutrient poor, calorie dense foods, but tax the companies that produce them. Put these taxes towards health services, lowering the cost of fresh foods, putting in footpaths and safe lighting where needed to encourage active transportation, teaching cooking skills, community gardens etc etc.
Which passes the cost on to the consumer. OK4
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