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?

1…4446484950

Replies

  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    Maybe a Tariff should be placed on Fast Food Restaurants.

    So we should penalize what?

    Assembly line food production methods?
    Standardization of food production?
    Speedy turnaround between order and delivery?

    this.

    People pick on fast food way too much IMO. Most fast food places have (1) calorie info clearly available, and (2) plenty of lower calorie choices. (FYI- lower calorie choice really is as simple as buying just 1 burger and maybe a value fry off the $1 menu or the smaller size of chicken nuggets instead of the '5 for 5' or 'grande meal' or whatever). So much easier to eat somewhat reasonable calories than a restaurant or pub.
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    Maybe a Tariff should be placed on Fast Food Restaurants.

    How could anyone, in the age of the smart phone in nearly everyone's hands not know it's a bad idea to consume the majority of your meals at fast food restaurants?

    Make people pay the consequences of their choices and stop trying to blame others.

    I think that general policy would address a whole host of bad choices that people make.

    If we bail out bankers for making poor banking choices, will bankers ever learn? - Probably not.

    If we bail out people who make poor health choices, will they ever learn? - Probably not.

    We can look at a whole host of issues and see where the bailouts do not result in changes in behavior.

    Passing risk and consequences to others does little to educate those who take the risks.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    My mom and I were discussing this today and I thought it would be a great topic for this forum, especially with all the politics surrounding health care these days.

    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?

    Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?

    Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?

    I know that with obamacare/ACA there are wellness programs available, do you think these are all that helpful if you've been to one?

    I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them

    My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?

    I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.

    Because it's a societal problem? Just like everyone pays taxes on alcohol although the vast majority drink it without issue.

    People already pay taxes on food. We're talking about singling out specific foods for extra taxes based on nebulous criteria.

    Excise tax like alcohol?

    I'm not a tax expert, I'm not sure if the food taxes where I live qualify as excise taxes or not. Even if they don't, I'm already paying taxes on food. Paying more for certain foods because other people can't control themselves is objectionable to me especially when the list of foods is bound to be random and heavily influenced by politics and food fads.

    Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel.

    https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/excise-tax

    You typically don't see the excise tax on alcohol as it is included in the price. They tax you see at the store is the local and/or state tax.


    https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44854
    In 2012, the federal government collected $9.7 billion in revenue from excise taxes on distilled spirits, beer, and wine. The different alcoholic beverages are taxed at different rates. ... The current excise tax levied on those spirits, $13.50 per proof gallon, translates to about 21 cents per ounce of alcohol.

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited June 2018
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    My mom and I were discussing this today and I thought it would be a great topic for this forum, especially with all the politics surrounding health care these days.

    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?

    Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?

    Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?

    I know that with obamacare/ACA there are wellness programs available, do you think these are all that helpful if you've been to one?

    I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them

    The big problem with this is that there are no specific foods that lead to obesity - it is overall excess consumption that leads to obesity... and there is a 100 page thread someplace on here about trying to tax junk food out of existence - you should do a search for it.

    There are lots of specific foods that can lead to obesity, like full fat fizzy drinks, any chocolate bar, cake, full fat ice creams, most takeaways etc the list could go on. If you increase the prices of these items it will make people eat them in moderation because they just won’t be able to afford it

    No there are not - any person on this planet can eat any or all of the foods that you mention and as long as they maintain a calorie deficit they will lose weight. The ONLY thing that causes obesity is excess consumption of calories - doesn't matter if those calories come from 'healthy' foods or from 'junk' food. There are numerous examples on these boards of people who got fat from eating 'healthy' foods.

    Ah ok that makes sense, I guess the problem then is purely down to the person who chooses to eat a large/regular amount of unhealthy food.

    It's not the food that is unhealthy, it's the dose. A serving of chocolate is fine for health. Eating sweet potatoes or broccoli in excess is bad for my health.

    Food can be unhealthy though, in moderation it’s ok for some people but for example a donut is unhealthy, there is no nutritional value in it what so ever .. but yes I agree that it’s all about how much of certain foods you eat that make it become more unhealthy

    Donuts have nutritional value. The donuts I eat contain carbohydrates, fat, and protein, macronutrients my body can use for energy. They're typically made with enriched flour, which is going to provide vitamins and minerals, like iron and some B vitamins.

    Nothing wrong with an occasional doughnut, but someone saying doughnuts have nutritional value on a heath and fitness forum makes me want to wash my eyes out with bleach.

    The quality of carbs and fats in the typical doughnut are very poor from a healthy diet standpoint.

    Donuts have nutrients -- my body is capable of using the fat, protein, carbohydrates in them. In the context of a varied diet where nutritional needs are being met, I'm not sure what harm you think they're going to do to someone.

    Sure donuts have nutrients, although the fats, proteins and carbs in them are the "bottom feeders" in that the doughnut is very nutrient poor for the calories in the product.

    Understand all food has nutrients. However in the context of a heath and fitness site where many confused people come to learn about nutrition, IMO saying an item has "nutrients" to many this would mean it's nutritious (defined as: nourishing; efficient as food) which I'm sure we can all agree it's not.

    As I said earlier, nothing wrong with an occasional donut. I read an article by a Phd in nutrition who stated a 12 oz can of regular pop every couple weeks would be reasonable consumption for a typical individual. I'm guessing the same would apply to donuts. Have a feeling most who consume donuts do so much more frequently than 1 every couple weeks.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    My mom and I were discussing this today and I thought it would be a great topic for this forum, especially with all the politics surrounding health care these days.

    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?

    Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?

    Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?

    I know that with obamacare/ACA there are wellness programs available, do you think these are all that helpful if you've been to one?

    I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them

    My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?

    I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.

    Because it's a societal problem? Just like everyone pays taxes on alcohol although the vast majority drink it without issue.

    People already pay taxes on food. We're talking about singling out specific foods for extra taxes based on nebulous criteria.

    Excise tax like alcohol?

    I'm not a tax expert, I'm not sure if the food taxes where I live qualify as excise taxes or not. Even if they don't, I'm already paying taxes on food. Paying more for certain foods because other people can't control themselves is objectionable to me especially when the list of foods is bound to be random and heavily influenced by politics and food fads.

    Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel.

    https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/excise-tax

    You typically don't see the excise tax on alcohol as it is included in the price. They tax you see at the store is the local and/or state tax.


    https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44854
    In 2012, the federal government collected $9.7 billion in revenue from excise taxes on distilled spirits, beer, and wine. The different alcoholic beverages are taxed at different rates. ... The current excise tax levied on those spirits, $13.50 per proof gallon, translates to about 21 cents per ounce of alcohol.

    Okay, I think I understand. Yes, I'm opposed to excise taxes on specific food items if the reasoning is to discourage people from choosing that food.

    But it seems like excise taxes can be levied for all types of reasons -- surely nobody tries to explain the excise tax on truck highway usage as a way to discourage commerce. There are other justifications that are used, presumably, for that tax. There is a long history of taxing alcohol in the US so I'd want to see some better evidence before assuming the initial justification was to discourage alcohol use instead of being, say, a tax levied on an optional item for which there was high demand and offered a reliable revenue stream for the government.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited June 2018
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    Mandylou19912014 wrote: »
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    My mom and I were discussing this today and I thought it would be a great topic for this forum, especially with all the politics surrounding health care these days.

    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?

    Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?

    Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?

    I know that with obamacare/ACA there are wellness programs available, do you think these are all that helpful if you've been to one?

    I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them

    The big problem with this is that there are no specific foods that lead to obesity - it is overall excess consumption that leads to obesity... and there is a 100 page thread someplace on here about trying to tax junk food out of existence - you should do a search for it.

    There are lots of specific foods that can lead to obesity, like full fat fizzy drinks, any chocolate bar, cake, full fat ice creams, most takeaways etc the list could go on. If you increase the prices of these items it will make people eat them in moderation because they just won’t be able to afford it

    No there are not - any person on this planet can eat any or all of the foods that you mention and as long as they maintain a calorie deficit they will lose weight. The ONLY thing that causes obesity is excess consumption of calories - doesn't matter if those calories come from 'healthy' foods or from 'junk' food. There are numerous examples on these boards of people who got fat from eating 'healthy' foods.

    Ah ok that makes sense, I guess the problem then is purely down to the person who chooses to eat a large/regular amount of unhealthy food.

    It's not the food that is unhealthy, it's the dose. A serving of chocolate is fine for health. Eating sweet potatoes or broccoli in excess is bad for my health.

    Food can be unhealthy though, in moderation it’s ok for some people but for example a donut is unhealthy, there is no nutritional value in it what so ever .. but yes I agree that it’s all about how much of certain foods you eat that make it become more unhealthy

    Donuts have nutritional value. The donuts I eat contain carbohydrates, fat, and protein, macronutrients my body can use for energy. They're typically made with enriched flour, which is going to provide vitamins and minerals, like iron and some B vitamins.

    Nothing wrong with an occasional doughnut, but someone saying doughnuts have nutritional value on a heath and fitness forum makes me want to wash my eyes out with bleach.

    The quality of carbs and fats in the typical doughnut are very poor from a healthy diet standpoint.

    Donuts have nutrients -- my body is capable of using the fat, protein, carbohydrates in them. In the context of a varied diet where nutritional needs are being met, I'm not sure what harm you think they're going to do to someone.

    Sure donuts have nutrients, although the fats, proteins and carbs in them are the "bottom feeders" in that the doughnut is very nutrient poor for the calories in the product.

    Understand all food has nutrients. However in the context of a heath and fitness site where many confused people come to learn about nutrition, IMO saying an item has "nutrients" to many this would mean it's nutritious (defined as: nourishing; efficient as food) which I'm sure we can all agree it's not.

    As I said earlier, nothing wrong with an occasional donut. I read an article by a Phd in nutrition who stated a 12 oz can of regular pop every couple weeks would be reasonable consumption for a typical individual. I'm guessing the same would apply to donuts. Have a feeling most who consume donuts do so much more frequently than 1 every couple weeks.

    I don't have access to any data on donut consumption that would validate your feelings on the subject, so I'm not sure.

    I don't consider that a healthy diet has to be devoid of all food items that don't meet your standard for "nutritious" (I understand you aren't arguing this either), so if the argument is that all such items should be taxed additionally to discourage consumption, I disagree. That there is a level at which people can consume donuts (or soda or heavy cream or gummy bears) that allows one to maintain a healthy weight is sufficient for me. I think we should focus on the real driver of obesity and that's consuming excess calories.

    When I initially wrote that donuts had nutrients, it was in the context of responding to someone who declared donuts had "no nutritional value." That's simply not true and that is what I was correct, not making the argument that the donut is a nutritional powerhouse (I don't think it has to be in order to justify why I think donut shops shouldn't be targeted with additional tax laws).
  • fuzzylop72
    fuzzylop72 Posts: 651 Member
    I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.

    The thing is, I can't think of any way to measure nutrient density in relation to calories that doesn't also rope in foods like oil, butter, cream, maple syrup, jams, salad dressings, and other common foods that aren't typically classified as "junk." Maybe proponents of punitive food taxes are okay with that, but it seems less than ideal.
  • fuzzylop72
    fuzzylop72 Posts: 651 Member
    edited June 2018
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.

    The thing is, I can't think of any way to measure nutrient density in relation to calories that doesn't also rope in foods like oil, butter, cream, maple syrup, jams, salad dressings, and other common foods that aren't typically classified as "junk." Maybe proponents of punitive food taxes are okay with that, but it seems less than ideal.

    I agree. However, if your argument against doughnuts is nutrient density, then go all in and set a nutrient density line in the sand. You'll include a lot of whole foods if you do that, though, and (hopefully) realize how silly the whole idea is.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.

    The thing is, I can't think of any way to measure nutrient density in relation to calories that doesn't also rope in foods like oil, butter, cream, maple syrup, jams, salad dressings, and other common foods that aren't typically classified as "junk." Maybe proponents of punitive food taxes are okay with that, but it seems less than ideal.

    I agree. However, if your argument against doughnuts is nutrient density, then go all in and set a nutrient density line in the sand. You'll include a lot of whole foods if you do that, though, and (hopefully) realize how silly the whole idea is.

    If my understanding of human nature is correct, you'd probably also see a lot of gaming in the system (like manufacturers determining exactly how much they had to add to a donut or cookie in order to meet the minimum nutrient density tax cut-off point) while smaller businesses and more traditional foods would still be taxed. So quickly you'd have a big confusing mess where the Kale-Infused Quinoa Super-Donut by Frito-Lay isn't subject to the tax, but people are still paying extra taxes on jam made with just sugar and strawberries or on coconut oil.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.

    The thing is, I can't think of any way to measure nutrient density in relation to calories that doesn't also rope in foods like oil, butter, cream, maple syrup, jams, salad dressings, and other common foods that aren't typically classified as "junk." Maybe proponents of punitive food taxes are okay with that, but it seems less than ideal.

    I agree. However, if your argument against doughnuts is nutrient density, then go all in and set a nutrient density line in the sand. You'll include a lot of whole foods if you do that, though, and (hopefully) realize how silly the whole idea is.

    If my understanding of human nature is correct, you'd probably also see a lot of gaming in the system (like manufacturers determining exactly how much they had to add to a donut or cookie in order to meet the minimum nutrient density tax cut-off point) while smaller businesses and more traditional foods would still be taxed. So quickly you'd have a big confusing mess where the Kale-Infused Quinoa Super-Donut by Frito-Lay isn't subject to the tax, but people are still paying extra taxes on jam made with just sugar and strawberries or on coconut oil.

    Yeah, Picture Dunkin Donuts doping with Metamucil/multivitamins.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    First there is an ethical decision on whether or not you think it appropriate for the government or insurance agencies to actively punish people for behaviors they wish to discourage. Once you decide that the answer to that is "Yes" then I would think the solution is fairly obvious...target those behaviors. I find it strange that a lot of people seem to want to target things incidental to those behaviors instead. Almost like the idea of punishing a person directly for their behavior makes them too uncomfortable but they still want to discourage that behavior by interventions.

    If you want to discourage obesity then put policies in place that punish obesity itself. Taxing food doesn't do that.

    If insurance companies raise rates on people who qualify as obese that is direct discouragement of that behavior. If instead you tax chocoolate or fast food then that doesn't affect obese people who don't eat those things (yeah, you can be obese without eating chocolate or fast food) and it does affect people who eat those things but are not obese. Why do that? As soon as you are willing to be interventionist why not just go after the thing you actually want to stop directly instead of just dancing around it with taxing things just loosely related at best.

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    First there is an ethical decision on whether or not you think it appropriate for the government or insurance agencies to actively punish people for behaviors they wish to discourage. Once you decide that the answer to that is "Yes" then I would think the solution is fairly obvious...target those behaviors. I find it strange that a lot of people seem to want to target things incidental to those behaviors instead. Almost like the idea of punishing a person directly for their behavior makes them too uncomfortable but they still want to discourage that behavior by interventions.

    If you want to discourage obesity then put policies in place that punish obesity itself. Taxing food doesn't do that.

    If insurance companies raise rates on people who qualify as obese that is direct discouragement of that behavior. If instead you tax chocoolate or fast food then that doesn't affect obese people who don't eat those things (yeah, you can be obese without eating chocolate or fast food) and it does affect people who eat those things but are not obese. Why do that? As soon as you are willing to be interventionist why not just go after the thing you actually want to stop directly instead of just dancing around it with taxing things just loosely related at best.

    I've been noting for some time that taxation is the tool de jour of the passive aggressive personality disorder.
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    I'm a simple guy, I like simple examples.

    If I have two kids and one makes the bad decision to throw his dinner in the trash, not eating it, taking food from the other kid doesn't teach the first kid to make better choices.

    Pretty obvious, right. Yet that is in essence what is proposed when people suggest we tax X, because it's bad. It isn't focused on those making the bad choices. I can eat a reasonable portion of chocolate, or bacon, or donuts, or whatever. So putting a tax on those items isn't going to change my behavior. Taking money off of my plate will not improve my behavior.

    Nor will it improve the behavior of those making the bad choices. Why? They don't pay the full consequences of their choices in the tax donuts scenario. Seems the most effective lever is to let the consequences fall on those and ONLY those who make the bad choices.

    Eat enough cheezy poof or even Kale to become as big as a house and you've made a bad choice somewhere. The person who buys cheezy poofs only for a birthday or Christmas party and doesn't make them a diet staple will simply be harmed by a food tax with no benefit to society.

    If the goal is to change behavior, then you have to target ONLY those who engage in the behavior. Any other means harms society as a whole. It impacts those who don't engage in the bad behavior and it fails to significantly impact those who do.
  • ChaelAZ
    ChaelAZ Posts: 2,240 Member
    Thankfully our system has a set price for everyone, but then gives incentives for people who complete certain lifestyle improvement initiatives. So currently if you test as a non-smoker you get a monthly discount $360 annually. If you simply complete a health risk assessment you get $240 annually. So as much as $600 a year, or $50 a month off premiums. All voluntary and there are no standards of health that have to be achieved to qualify (except being a non-smoker).

    To me, as someone who strives for a healthy lifestyle I believe this is fair and more than justified.
  • Amerane
    Amerane Posts: 136 Member
    ChaelAZ wrote: »
    Thankfully our system has a set price for everyone, but then gives incentives for people who complete certain lifestyle improvement initiatives. So currently if you test as a non-smoker you get a monthly discount $360 annually. If you simply complete a health risk assessment you get $240 annually. So as much as $600 a year, or $50 a month off premiums. All voluntary and there are no standards of health that have to be achieved to qualify (except being a non-smoker).

    To me, as someone who strives for a healthy lifestyle I believe this is fair and more than justified.

    I like the idea of this way better than increasing premiums because of adverse health conditions, especially if it's paired with subsidized health programs (that are flexible enough to accommodate all types of home situations/work schedules/family commitments) to improve fitness, diet, etc. There are several companies that do this "carrot" method, and I think it's easier to motivate people to get healthy for a prize versus fining them for their current state. Certainly feels more humanizing.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Leslierussell4134 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.

    I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.

    I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO

    Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.

    And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.

    Seriously, this is the same argument that has been going on for the last half dozen pages of this thread, and it has repeatedly been pointed out what a bad idea this is. Does anyone even bother reading the thread anymore before regurgitating these same foolish ideas? You want to increase the price of bread, but lower the price of ground beef? Explain to me how one food is inherently better for you than the other. I eat both of those foods and am at a healthy weight. If I were to overeat either of those foods, I could become overweight or obese. So many people in this thread want to demonize the food instead of holding the individual responsible for consistently exceeding their daily calories. I guarantee you there are plenty of people that are eating far more ground beef than they should be, but because you perceive that food as healthier than bread, it should be cheaper? I should not have to pay more for ANY food just because someone else could potentially eat too much of it.

    Some foods are already subsidized. They often tend to go towards the ingredients of the more refined and highly processed food varieties. If the government is going to subsidize foods, why not those associated with better health and nutrition?

    Some foods are better for you than others. I know opinion will vary about which foods in particular are healthier but I think most would agree that whole foods are usually a healthier choice than refined and highly processed foods. I never said that people should never eat those foods, but I doubt anyone would benefit by eating more of those foods rather than limiting them in a realistic way.

    I am aware that one can get fat on too much beef or too much bread. I already said that. Beef is something that a person could live off of without other foods. Bread not so much. That would make beef nutritionally more complete, or more nutritious.... Neither are required to live. One is fortified (like a vitamin with calories) and the other does not need to be altered besides being cut up in different ways. I just gave beef as an example. I don't think it would be horrible to make a food like beef less expensive while raising the price of pork rinds or chips.

    Why subsidize corn over greens or fish? I think the States' feds puts a lot of money into corn and soy. The dairy industry is subsidized up here. I would guess that not everyone is drinking milk. I suppose you could say that the lactose intolerant are being unfairly punished.
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.

    I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.

    I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO

    Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.

    And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.

    The other problem with this idea (besides the ones pointed out above) is that you are penalizing people who live in the inner cities and other food desserts where the ONLY foods that are readily available are the processed foods that last longer on the shelves.

    I don't think we have food deserts up here like I've heard about in the States. Perhaps up north in the arctic....

    The reason Corn and Soy are subsidized is because thats what they are feeding to the "beef," cows. The government will never advocate other vegetables until the the demand goes down for beef and dairy. Why would they? That's where they make all their money.

    I think the cows get the leftover from making corn and soy oil, which is a bit disturbing to begin with considering a grazer's natural diet.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    The goal of the farm subsidies was probably to keep the farmers afloat in more difficult times so we would not face a food shortage later on (a possible concern decades ago). (I do remember from history class that at one point dairy farmers were taking a loss by sending milk to market versus dumping it out due to rising transportation costs - this was of concern to the government). If your concern is food shortages causing (more) people to starve to death or succumb to diseases of malnutrition, then it makes sense to subsidize higher calorie density foods. (I doubt they foresaw the future desire for high volume low calorie foods due to people wanting to stuff their faces with massive volumes of food..it didn't used to be so cheap and over-abundant). One also needs to take into consideration what will actually grow where....the climate in most of the US & Canada isn't exactly mediterranean. A lot of stuff isn't going to grow in New York state. Corn will.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,374 Member
    Most of the corn subsidies go to either corn that is grown for bio-fuel or for feedlot corn. Very few of them go to food-grade corn that is sold for human consumption. The dairy subsidy is the main reason that we are not paying upwards of $10 a gallon for milk.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Leslierussell4134 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.

    I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.

    I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO

    Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.

    And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.

    Seriously, this is the same argument that has been going on for the last half dozen pages of this thread, and it has repeatedly been pointed out what a bad idea this is. Does anyone even bother reading the thread anymore before regurgitating these same foolish ideas? You want to increase the price of bread, but lower the price of ground beef? Explain to me how one food is inherently better for you than the other. I eat both of those foods and am at a healthy weight. If I were to overeat either of those foods, I could become overweight or obese. So many people in this thread want to demonize the food instead of holding the individual responsible for consistently exceeding their daily calories. I guarantee you there are plenty of people that are eating far more ground beef than they should be, but because you perceive that food as healthier than bread, it should be cheaper? I should not have to pay more for ANY food just because someone else could potentially eat too much of it.

    Some foods are already subsidized. They often tend to go towards the ingredients of the more refined and highly processed food varieties. If the government is going to subsidize foods, why not those associated with better health and nutrition?

    Some foods are better for you than others. I know opinion will vary about which foods in particular are healthier but I think most would agree that whole foods are usually a healthier choice than refined and highly processed foods. I never said that people should never eat those foods, but I doubt anyone would benefit by eating more of those foods rather than limiting them in a realistic way.

    I am aware that one can get fat on too much beef or too much bread. I already said that. Beef is something that a person could live off of without other foods. Bread not so much. That would make beef nutritionally more complete, or more nutritious.... Neither are required to live. One is fortified (like a vitamin with calories) and the other does not need to be altered besides being cut up in different ways. I just gave beef as an example. I don't think it would be horrible to make a food like beef less expensive while raising the price of pork rinds or chips.

    Why subsidize corn over greens or fish? I think the States' feds puts a lot of money into corn and soy. The dairy industry is subsidized up here. I would guess that not everyone is drinking milk. I suppose you could say that the lactose intolerant are being unfairly punished.
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.

    I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.

    I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO

    Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.

    And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.

    The other problem with this idea (besides the ones pointed out above) is that you are penalizing people who live in the inner cities and other food desserts where the ONLY foods that are readily available are the processed foods that last longer on the shelves.

    I don't think we have food deserts up here like I've heard about in the States. Perhaps up north in the arctic....

    The reason Corn and Soy are subsidized is because thats what they are feeding to the "beef," cows. The government will never advocate other vegetables until the the demand goes down for beef and dairy. Why would they? That's where they make all their money.

    I think the cows get the leftover from making corn and soy oil, which is a bit disturbing to begin with considering a grazer's natural diet.

    This is US-specific, but according to the government most of the corn grown in the US is used to feed cattle and 70% of the soy is used to feed animals in the food system. They're not getting the "leftovers." Subsidies for corn and soy are effectively subsidies for beef, chicken, and other foods produced from/by animals. We're already making ground beef cheaper.

    https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feedgrains/background/

    https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf

Categories