Posted on 05/18/2012 5:33:32 AM PDT by Abathar
And as a bonus to the skinny people, they can't run very fast.
This sin-tax tactic has worked so well with cigarettes - right?
We don’t need more Nanny-State government tentacles intruding into our lives, we need less.
So would involuntary detention in concentration camps with controlled diets.
Both options are government overreach.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. - John Stewart Mill
They have been taxing cigarettes for quite some time. It could be argued (although I have my doubts) that the increased taxes has reduced the rate of smoking. However, government has become addicted to that tax money and is now looking for other things to tax (i.e. fat people) to make up for lost "revenue".
If this tax is put into place, and the rate of obesity drops, watch out. The government will have become fatter on the extra taxes and will need to find some other way to feed itself.
First they impose the FAT tax.
Then a black market for cheeseburgers and twinkies appears. Legal cargoes of tax-paid fat foods are hijacked by organized crime to supply the market.
A new federal agency with police powers, the Fat Enforcement Agency is chartered by Presidential edict under the expanded powers of the New Patriot Act against the non-existent War on Terror.
High altitude drones, especially outfitted to detect the heat signature of deep fat fryers criss-cross the South and Mid-west where most of the illegal foods are manufactured in home kitchens and outdoor bar-b-q cookers.
Warrantless raids are conducted to root out fat people who have been driven underground. When captured they are marched off to ‘re-education’ farms where they are worked to death producing arugula, tofu and other ‘fancies’ for the elites living on the two coasts and in fortified cities and campuses.
I could go on, but I feel the need for a giant Supreme Burrito from Mamacitas.
They already do that. What insurance companies should actually do is price the policy to the individual based on their previous year's use of insurance. They certainly have all that information at their disposal.
Why penalize someone who smokes or is fat if they've never had a medical issue because of it?
I work with a health nut who is constantly sick, going to the doctor, having surgeries, etc while the fat smoker is never sick.
If insurance companies can price policies based on what might happen, then why can't we jail people who live in areas that produce at lot of criminals before they can commit that crime?
“I’d pay 20 percent. It’s worth it,” one woman said. “I would eat a lot more healthy just to save more money.”
Another idiot that has no idea what Liberty means.
With the communist ‘RATS, another TAX is always the answer.
I used to could eat all the burgers I wanted and never get fat from it, wouldn’t it be simpler to just tax people for BEING fat?
I’m far more in favor of creating an “oppressive dumbass” tax for those who propose such taxes.
It would do so very much good that society be freed from people who wish to solve “other people’s problems” by oppressing them.
And what better instant karma than to be oppressed yourself when you try to oppress others?
This tax would be the same as a tax on firearms. It would tax anyone not the problem people.
Inevitably the end result - obesity is the problem not the food. Taxing fat people would be more honest.
To add to my post, it would be even more honest to tax those obese who are of ill health, since that is the end objective?
There are healthy fat people, at least for awhile.
They will pry my weekly treat (DQ Blizzard) from my cold, dead hands.
Is 80 cents really going to stop you from ordering a cheeseburger?
Hell no. This is all about lining the bloated pockets of government, and absolutely nothing else.
If you drop a 60 percent rate by 3.5 percent, that lowers the rate to 57.9 percent. (It is possible they meant to indicate 56.5 percent and wrote it poorly, it doesn't really make a big difference.) That is totally laughable in terms of a solution.
Imagine a company with a 60 percent failure rate in their products. You are tasked with solving the problem. You go in to the boss and present your big idea, which will lower the failure rate to 57.9 percent. Oh my God, you are sure to be hailed as a Hero.
More likely, on your next job you'll get to say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Poor people and minorities hardest hit.
Will this apply to gov’t fat and pork?
I’ve never been asked my weight—or weighed—for health insurance. I’d imagine that has to do with state-by-state regulations.
But it should be up to the insurance companies to use their own risk assessments. If they believe smoking is a greater factor than having made a claim in the previous year, so be it. Also, I’d expect there’d have to be careful with jacking up premiums after the filing of a claim else they’d be seen as ‘one time only’ insurance that would leave the policyholder inclined not to file a claim except for something major. (That’s already the case somewhat with homeowners and auto insurance.)
Just the logical next step. First we trained the sheeple with tobacco, now we can go after everyone’s food!
“I have a NATURAL right to eat what I want...without government interference or penalty.”
That right was lost with the wars on (some) drugs and tobacco. Many a supposed conservative celebrates those wars, so it is not surprising that we now see a war on (some) food.
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.