Posted on 04/11/2011 11:29:32 AM PDT by neverdem
Offering incentives for lifestyle choices likely to cut medical costs is an idea worth considering.
If an individual's body mass index isn't a purely personal matter, what is? We have the right to choose between healthy food or junk food, even if the latter is more likely to result in obesity and related health problems. But once our choices affect others, there's a natural conflict between individual freedom and social responsibility. In a nation where rising healthcare costs and diminished access to medical care are issues of grave concern, personal decisions are no longer strictly private. The treatment of obesity- and smoking-related disease is tremendously expensive, which in turns drives up health insurance premiums for everyone, as well as raising the costs for Medicaid, Medicare and health coverage for public employees.
These legitimate concerns have resulted in a raft of nanny-state proposals to shape the public's dietary habits by taxing this food or that drink or by outlawing free toys that accompany unhealthy children's meals at some restaurants. Such proposals raise inevitable questions of fairness and effectiveness. Does it make sense to tax a can of soda but not a fruit juice that contains more calories per cup and very little additional nutrition? Would a vitamin-fortified soda be exempt from the tax? And it's hard to figure out whether the bigger obesity culprit is a small order of fried chicken at a fast-foot outlet or a giant slab of prime rib at a pricey restaurant. Or, as many dietitians now think, maybe it's the carbs; has the time come for a public pasta tax? In any case, there is much uncertainty about whether such tactics would have any effect on the country's collective bulging belly.
We prefer the approach most recently proposed in Arizona, where officials hope to levy...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well, we already have high cigarette taxes and the like.
I am convinced that man is utterly incapable of ruling himself, he’ll be ruled by the sword until the Lord returns. Only a perfect King can rule.
We need to pass a stupid tax first. That alone would likely single-handedly wipeout the federal deficit and put this country in a surplus situation.
Sure, there should be a fat tax. Also, a don’t-wash-your-hands tax, and the one I can’t wait to see, the “no illicit sex” tax.
Anyone having sex with anyone or anything that is not their one lifetime hetero partner is at grave risk of sexual disease.
Also the no-high-risk behavior tax (pilots, scuba divers, race car enthusiasts), and the no-recreational-drugs tax.
I want a tax on those who don’t sleep at least eight hours a night, and a tax on those with stair in their homes.
Also a tax on anyone with a pet.
Those who shower less than every other day need a tax. Also those who skip their vitamins.
I need a tax on those who don’t laugh very often. Also, a tax on worry.
Yes right after they tax homosexuals, their lifestyle is the most expensive to society.
I’ve known many fat people who were fine shots. Just saying...
where were you when they came for smokers?
“Should there be a ‘fat tax’? Offering incentives for lifestyle choices likely to cut medical...”
Hey...why stop at a tax? Just use a gas chamber. That’s what you want anyway.
It’s clear that if the government seeks to structure behavior via taxation, the country is badly in need of a Stupidity Tax.
Unfortunately for America, this would mean the end of the Democratic Party, the profession of journalism, the eliniation of most school teachers and college professors, and much else, besides.
So we continue to read proposals for diet taxes, tobacco taxes, and all manner of taxation on an endless variety of private business which concerns no one in public life, but we hear no calls for a Stupidity Tax.
Too bad; in America, such a tax would generate a fortune in revenues.
Add me to the list!
It’s all about Obamacare.... you will be using more health care resources if you are overweight- diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. Your lifestyle will be regulated or you will not receive the medication you need to survive (insulin, beta blockers, etc.). They won’t need death panels for old people, people will die young.
I think premiums should be higher for those whom are overweight, smoke or have high blood pressure....if they’re not working to stop the trends. Our medical insurance industry is so collective in nature, especially since most of it’s through our employers...we have to have some sense of responsibility.
I think the gov’t should get out oF Healthcare....I’ll take care of myself AND my healthcare....the costs would be reasonable if they weren’t the elephant in the room!!!
Those who really know their health issues can tell you that taxing fats is as big a mistake as the food pyramid. Organic coconut oil, grass fed beef, and such are excellent for your health.
If they really want to tax the unhealthy stuff, corn syrup is a good start, along with its kin, sugar and processed white starches.
If they must tax, tax the RESULT, and charge more for those who are fat (or have high cholesterol - though even that is debatable), regardless of what they eat.
Of course, the biggest tax for bad eating is poor health, and the costs that go along with it.
Eliminate the tax free nature of health insurance benefits, and don’t have a socialized medicine program, and you’ll really create some motivations to be healthy. (Also, require docs to quote in writing the cost of each procedure before it is given.)
What I’m saying has nothing to do with gov’t...in fact, I would say insurers would be able to do it, if gov’t wasn’t in the way. Some SMART companies already charge higher premiums for those whom smoke, so why not the other unhealthy aspects...!? After all, who is going to end-up paying in most cases...not the individual under the plan, but the person giving them the job. That’s the nature of our healthcare system NOW.
It would be nice if it was more about individual responsibility, but pools (which are collective) also have their advantages as well.
Well...except in lots of places government decides what health insurance companies MUST cover....I really don’t need coverage for AIDS or for pregnancy (anymore). I’d just like some good catastrophic coverage....as far as smoking .... my Uncle lived to 80....and smoked 60+ years of that time...can’t usually say that about homo’s...
I pony up extra money for insurance every month because my wife and I both smoke, so I say, “Sure!” Screw the fat people, especially the ones who got smoking cancelled in most places.
Well, I agree you should be able to pick the level of care you want. From basic catastrophic, to essential elements or even the full package...which we are forced to pay into. Our system is so heavily lobbied by folks in certain industries, that it’s almost vested in the status quo. I think something like car insurance is far more desirable. You pick the level of coverage and you can join pools for those whom are on your health level for cheaper costs...etc...etc.
Yeah, I know you can smoke for many years and not have any consequences...but that’s not a statistical norm...nor should a non-smoker have to pay higher premiums because of the vices or choses of others. If the game plan for healthcare doesn’t change, they’ll have to put responsibility in their some how. It would be nice if our way was instituted...but it’s all on the right being educated enough to say our current way wasn’t good enough and we have to reform, but not Obama’s way.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.