20 replies to this topic

[A941]

A few hours ago i have been in the supermarket and i looked at the prices of the unhealthy and fat things and realized that these things are very cheap, compared with other "normal" or healthy food.
Wouldnt it be a good idea to put taxes on unhealthy things, to make them less attractive, and use the money for the cures of those who have ruined there health with fat food?

What do you think?

[Mind]

In a perfect world people would pay for their own health/medical care. If they ate "bad" food, it would be their responsibility.

[babcock]

An interesting idea that would most likely result in what is currently happening around here with employers who cut checks to their healthy employees. I.E. a supermarket chain in America is currently well known for cutting checks to their employees who don't smoke, have a healthy BMI, good BP levels etc. What this has caused is a outcry from overweight, smoking, hyper-tensive employees who feel they are being "jipped" out of money. Unfortunately this reflects more on the "Socialist American" way of thinking rather than on people understanding what's actually going on (Cutting checks for cost savings).

[DukeNukem]

In a perfect world people would pay for their own health/medical care. If they ate "bad" food, it would be their responsibility.

The problem is that our lobbyist run government (both parties are inept and corrupt) doesn't recommend the right foods. Other governments have the same issue:
http://comfort-eater...g-fat-lies.html

[DairyProducts]

There are a number of soda taxes taxes being proposed in the United States at local levels. I think some have passed (Colorado) and others haven't and most are just kinda ideas floating around.

It will be interesting to see if a tax changes consumption like it did with cigarettes. Part of me thinks this is a bad thing because people should be more responsible for their health but another part of me thinks anything that steers the ignorant is good because they won't push up Medicare/medicaid/my insurance costs.

[DairyProducts]

In a perfect world people would pay for their own health/medical care. If they ate "bad" food, it would be their responsibility.

The problem is that our lobbyist run government (both parties are inept and corrupt) doesn't recommend the right foods.

Maybe instead of donating to the M-Prize, Imminst should put our efforts towards getting a lobbyist They can certainly be a good return on investment. http://taxprof.typep...investment.html.

[A941]

In a perfect world people would pay for their own health/medical care. If they ate "bad" food, it would be their responsibility.

The problem is that our lobbyist run government (both parties are inept and corrupt) doesn't recommend the right foods.

Maybe instead of donating to the M-Prize, Imminst should put our efforts towards getting a lobbyist They can certainly be a good return on investment. http://taxprof.typep...investment.html.

Why a simple lobbyist, why not a few greedy politicans which would even sell their newborn children for a little bit financial help?

[JLL]

In a perfect world people would pay for their own health/medical care. If they ate "bad" food, it would be their responsibility.

The problem is that our lobbyist run government (both parties are inept and corrupt) doesn't recommend the right foods. Other governments have the same issue:
http://comfort-eater...g-fat-lies.html

No, the problem is that government is recommending -- or rather, indirectly forcing -- certain foods in the first place.

The problem is not solved by making government officials understand "PUFAs are the bad boy, not SAs", it is solved by keeping them out of your dinner table altogether.

[JLL]

It will be interesting to see if a tax changes consumption like it did with cigarettes. Part of me thinks this is a bad thing because people should be more responsible for their health but another part of me thinks anything that steers the ignorant is good because they won't push up Medicare/medicaid/my insurance costs.

That's a very slippery slope you're going down. Pretty soon you'll be eating government-approved spam only, unless you want to pay extra taxes on your tuna salad.

[JLL]

A few hours ago i have been in the supermarket and i looked at the prices of the unhealthy and fat things and realized that these things are very cheap, compared with other "normal" or healthy food.
Wouldnt it be a good idea to put taxes on unhealthy things, to make them less attractive, and use the money for the cures of those who have ruined there health with fat food?

What do you think?

See this is the terrifying thing about not letting people make their own choices -- you get people whose understanding on any given subject is far from perfect but who are more than willing to force their "solution" on everyone else.

You have 400 posts on this forum, and yet you talk about people ruining their health with "fat food". It's okay to be ignorant, but it's not okay to make others suffer because of it.

[DairyProducts]

That's a very slippery slope you're going down. Pretty soon you'll be eating government-approved spam only, unless you want to pay extra taxes on your tuna salad.

You know that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy right? http://en.wikipedia..../Slippery_slope. Maybe you were making a joke, but do you seriously think this is a possibility?

"No, the problem is that government is recommending -- or rather, indirectly forcing -- certain foods in the first place. "

Have you considered that maybe both are a problem? Why can't the government AND Big Agra/Pharma/etc. both be different problems? There are plenty of people that don't follow the USDA guidelines and instead are hurt by fast food/packaged food, etc.

[DukeNukem]

In a perfect world people would pay for their own health/medical care. If they ate "bad" food, it would be their responsibility.

The problem is that our lobbyist run government (both parties are inept and corrupt) doesn't recommend the right foods. Other governments have the same issue:
http://comfort-eater...g-fat-lies.html

No, the problem is that government is recommending -- or rather, indirectly forcing -- certain foods in the first place.

The problem is not solved by making government officials understand "PUFAs are the bad boy, not SAs", it is solved by keeping them out of your dinner table altogether.

Very good point. Fully agree.

[niner]

In a perfect world people would pay for their own health/medical care. If they ate "bad" food, it would be their responsibility.

The problem is that our lobbyist run government (both parties are inept and corrupt) doesn't recommend the right foods. Other governments have the same issue:
http://comfort-eater...g-fat-lies.html

No, the problem is that government is recommending -- or rather, indirectly forcing -- certain foods in the first place.

The problem is not solved by making government officials understand "PUFAs are the bad boy, not SAs", it is solved by keeping them out of your dinner table altogether.

JLL has hit the nail on the head here. The US government subsidizes corn which is used to make incredibly cheap high fructose sweetener. That's why soda costs less than water. A free market would be better than the mess we have now, although I would allow that an intelligent subsidy for fresh vegetables would be even better for our health than no government action at all. If we can't get rid of corn subsidies, (and this seems to be "impossible"..) then a tax on sugar would at least partially correct the problem. It could be revenue-neutral.

[DairyProducts]

JLL has hit the nail on the head here. The US government subsidizes corn which is used to make incredibly cheap high fructose sweetener.

Are there any posts about farm/crop subsidies on this forum? I couldn't find many and I'm kind of surprised. Any one know of any good links or books on it?

[JLL]

That's a very slippery slope you're going down. Pretty soon you'll be eating government-approved spam only, unless you want to pay extra taxes on your tuna salad.

You know that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy right? http://en.wikipedia..../Slippery_slope. Maybe you were making a joke, but do you seriously think this is a possibility?

No, slippery slope arguments can be a logical fallacy.

Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done — an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

And yes, I seriously think this is a possibility. Hell, it's not even a possibility, it's a fact that things like this happen all the time. All you need to do is to take a look at history and the world around you.

[DairyProducts]

That's a very slippery slope you're going down. Pretty soon you'll be eating government-approved spam only, unless you want to pay extra taxes on your tuna salad.
And yes, I seriously think this is a possibility. Hell, it's not even a possibility, it's a fact that things like this happen all the time. All you need to do is to take a look at history and the world around you.

I'll grant that things may slide that way, but I just don't see a probable outcome where all food is taxed except for the government approved spam. Can you point to why this would realistically happen? I understand that things have happened in the past, but I don't think any change this massive will happen when the federal government is so deadlocked right now. Soda taxes are barely being passed at city/state government levels and they have budget problems.
I don't want to be antagonistic here, I just would like to know why you think this is not only a possibility but a probability.

[gregandbeaker]

That's a very slippery slope you're going down. Pretty soon you'll be eating government-approved spam only, unless you want to pay extra taxes on your tuna salad.
And yes, I seriously think this is a possibility. Hell, it's not even a possibility, it's a fact that things like this happen all the time. All you need to do is to take a look at history and the world around you.

I'll grant that things may slide that way, but I just don't see a probable outcome where all food is taxed except for the government approved spam. Can you point to why this would realistically happen? I understand that things have happened in the past, but I don't think any change this massive will happen when the federal government is so deadlocked right now. Soda taxes are barely being passed at city/state government levels and they have budget problems.
I don't want to be antagonistic here, I just would like to know why you think this is not only a possibility but a probability.

Ex-Monsanto, Cargill, and Tyson employees are deeply embedded in the agency's of the US government that regulate our food supply. Those companies directly benefit from farm and food subsidies. Its in their best interest to push food that makes them money, especially with the government paying for a lot of what should be their business costs. Add drug company's that benefit from illness and government regulated health care, and you have a recipe for what JLL is talking about. Its not so far fetched really. The possibility and probability are driven by money. These companies are setting up a situation where through regulation, taxes, and subsidies they can out-compete everyone else. We already see it with HMO's in America. Treatments and drugs made available to patients are largely determined not so much by their efficacy, but by the deals the insurance companies can make to lower their costs. "Change" doesn't even need to happen. We are already firmly pointed in that direction.

[niner]

That's a very slippery slope you're going down. Pretty soon you'll be eating government-approved spam only, unless you want to pay extra taxes on your tuna salad.
And yes, I seriously think this is a possibility. Hell, it's not even a possibility, it's a fact that things like this happen all the time. All you need to do is to take a look at history and the world around you.

I'll grant that things may slide that way, but I just don't see a probable outcome where all food is taxed except for the government approved spam. Can you point to why this would realistically happen? I understand that things have happened in the past, but I don't think any change this massive will happen when the federal government is so deadlocked right now. Soda taxes are barely being passed at city/state government levels and they have budget problems.
I don't want to be antagonistic here, I just would like to know why you think this is not only a possibility but a probability.

Ex-Monsanto, Cargill, and Tyson employees are deeply embedded in the agency's of the US government that regulate our food supply. Those companies directly benefit from farm and food subsidies. Its in their best interest to push food that makes them money, especially with the government paying for a lot of what should be their business costs. Add drug company's that benefit from illness and government regulated health care, and you have a recipe for what JLL is talking about. Its not so far fetched really. The possibility and probability are driven by money. These companies are setting up a situation where through regulation, taxes, and subsidies they can out-compete everyone else. We already see it with HMO's in America. Treatments and drugs made available to patients are largely determined not so much by their efficacy, but by the deals the insurance companies can make to lower their costs. "Change" doesn't even need to happen. We are already firmly pointed in that direction.

Greg, I don't see the financial driver for an Ex-employee to violate the public trust in order to benefit his former employer. Maybe they think they are doing the right thing because of prior brainwashing though. I think the real way the wheels are greased is though lobbyists, and soon, direct corporate contributions to political campaigns in the form of free ads. Drug companies can be slimy, but having been in and around big Pharma, I have never seen even a hint of them supporting things that make people sick in order to get more money. That's just paranoia of the highest order. The drug companies make enough money just dealing with the world as it is. (Even as their business model crumbles before our eyes...) Government regulated healthcare has absolutely nothing to do with people being forced to eat things that are bad; that makes no sense at all. If anything, if the government were responsible for paying for everyone's health care, then they would have a motivation to improve our health, not wreck it. The treatments that are available aren't just about money, they are a function of efficacy for the dollar. How else would anyone propose we control healthcare costs?

[gregandbeaker]

Greg, I don't see the financial driver for an Ex-employee to violate the public trust in order to benefit his former employer. Maybe they think they are doing the right thing because of prior brainwashing though. I think the real way the wheels are greased is though lobbyists, and soon, direct corporate contributions to political campaigns in the form of free ads. Drug companies can be slimy, but having been in and around big Pharma, I have never seen even a hint of them supporting things that make people sick in order to get more money. That's just paranoia of the highest order. The drug companies make enough money just dealing with the world as it is. (Even as their business model crumbles before our eyes...) Government regulated healthcare has absolutely nothing to do with people being forced to eat things that are bad; that makes no sense at all. If anything, if the government were responsible for paying for everyone's health care, then they would have a motivation to improve our health, not wreck it. The treatments that are available aren't just about money, they are a function of efficacy for the dollar. How else would anyone propose we control healthcare costs?

My thoughts on the subject are far more rooted in cynicism than paranoia, but I hope your assessment is more accurate than mine.

[rwac]

If anything, if the government were responsible for paying for everyone's health care, then they would have a motivation to improve our health, not wreck it.

The thing is that the "government" believes that animal products/sat fat/whatever is bad for health.
Governments can remain blind to reality longer than any other entity.

There's so many countries in the EU which have government health care.
Have you seen one which recommends fewer carbs ?

[niner]

If anything, if the government were responsible for paying for everyone's health care, then they would have a motivation to improve our health, not wreck it.

The thing is that the "government" believes that animal products/sat fat/whatever is bad for health.
Governments can remain blind to reality longer than any other entity.

There's so many countries in the EU which have government health care.
Have you seen one which recommends fewer carbs ?

All the "authorities", including whatever arm of various governments that handle nutrition guidelines, are slow to get the message, but at least they aren't forcing anyone to eat a bad diet. It would be interesting to see who comes around first, the US or one of the EU countries? Nutrition is a messier science than physics. It stands to reason that revolutions will be slower in a less clear-cut science like nutrition. When the science does finally become clear to everyone, I suspect most governments will come around and make the right recommendations. It's in their best interest, even in the US, where the government already pays a huge amount of money for Medicare, VA, and Medicaid.