Taxing soda won't end America's unhealthy obsession with sugary drinks. Better education might.

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  3 weeks ago  •  218 comments

Taxing soda won't end America's unhealthy obsession with sugary drinks. Better education might.
A tax isn’t a nutrition lesson unless it’s partnered with a robust public health campaign.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


When I talk to my personal fitness clients, one of the most common concerns I hear is, I know it’s bad for me, but I just love soda.

Unfortunately, it’s a common refrain: A 2012 study stated that almost half of all Americans drink soda at least once a day, despite knowing that soda “is bad for them.” Soda consumption, besides being a contributing factor to obesity generally, is also linked with increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, bone density issues, and — as latest research has shown — Alzheimer’s disease.

It’s not only the adults, either. Research published earlier this year suggests that the prevalence of soda and other sugar-laden foods in the daily diets of infants and toddlers means that that the diseases we associate with adulthood are now becoming more common in the elementary-aged population.

No matter how much we uncover about the risks associated with drinking straight sugar, people are still stuck on the stuff. At some point, it starts to feel like an impossible feat to get people to limit their soda habit.

That’s exactly why many cities across the country are taking a stab at helping their residents kick the habit. Numerous cities — Philadelphia, Boulder, Colo., San Francisco and Seattle among them — have all taken runs at trying to institute a soda tax.

In fact, despite his failed attempt to institute a ban on sugar-sweetened beverages larger than 16 ounces, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was adamant that it had been the right move. "With so many people contracting diabetes and heart disease, with so many children who are overweight and obese, with so many poor neighborhoods suffering the worst of this epidemic ... it would be irresponsible not to," he said after the attempt was struck down by the Manhattan Supreme Court.

"People are dying every day. This is not a joke."

Soda taxes have certainly been great for bringing in more money to the government, but the open question has always been whether they actually discourage soda consumption.

Research in the September 2018 edition of the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition has suggested that the taxes do, in fact, have a slight chilling effect on the the habit. Scientists analyzed 17 studies intended to explore both sales reports and the buying behavior of the public after a tax was implemented.

The research concluded that the higher the tax, the greater effect on purchasing choices; taxes hovering around 10 percent had the greatest effect.

The thinking behind taxing soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks is that, if we make it harder for the public to afford the product, then perhaps they won’t buy it. Or, alternately, if people are going to insist on buying something consistently shown to be deleterious to one’s health, then the tax revenue should go to strengthening the health care system in that local community.

The problem with this thinking, however, is that it’s myopic. It’s one thing to try to discourage purchasing by passively raising the price, but all that does is penalize the poor in ways that their wealthier peers wouldn’t feel. Taxing soda means that drinking it ultimately boils down to whether or not you can afford to pollute your body with a product linked to chronic illness — something that no one can technically afford to do, no matter what’s in their bank account.

The larger problem is that people simply don’t understand what it means to eat healthily, and that a tax isn’t a nutrition lesson unless it’s partnered with a robust public health campaign that combines research with insight into how to incorporate healthier practices in one’s day to day life.

Despite New York City’s failed attempt to tax the consumption of sugar sweetened drinks, the city still managed to achieve a 35 percent decrease in adult consumption, and 27 percent for high schoolers primarily because, alongside the attempt to institute the tax, the city’s Department of Health and Mental Health crafted a masterful campaign intended to educate the public on the harmful effects of overconsumption. Simply pinning a tax on a singular harmful item isn’t enough to encourage healthier habits, especially when people might harbor an unhealthy attachment to the item in question.

Read more at the seeded content


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    3 weeks ago
Despite New York City’s failed attempt to tax the consumption of sugar sweetened drinks, the city still managed to achieve a 35 percent decrease in adult consumption, and 27 percent for high schoolers primarily because, alongside the attempt to institute the tax, the city’s Department of Health and Mental Health crafted a masterful campaign intended to educate the public on the harmful effects of overconsumption. Simply pinning a tax on a singular harmful item isn’t enough to encourage healthier habits, especially when people might harbor an unhealthy attachment to the item in question.

You can't disagree with that or can you?

 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    3 weeks ago
You can't disagree with that or can you?

there is absolutely no thing, that I cannot disagree with

, though, it's far easier,

when,

'the city’s Department of Health and Mental Health crafted a masterful campaign intended to educate the public on the harmful effects of overconsumption"

.

an educated electorate should not , and WILL NOT, be the demise of our once great nation.\

don't worry, we're all sure, billionaire Devos, brother of  Black water founder, where both would be belonging to a family that has spent astronomical amounts attempting to DUMB DOWN our country...

well, congratulations ,

on

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !

 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    3 weeks ago
there is absolutely no thing, that I cannot disagree with

Bravo, good sir. Bravo.

 
 
cjcold
1.2  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    3 weeks ago

Haven't drunk a soda in many years. Still drink beer though.

 
 
Bob Nelson
2  Bob Nelson    3 weeks ago

The obesity problem is societal. If there's a solution, it will also be societal. No one will find a single magic formula.

We eat too much and too rich. Some individuals eat MUCH too much and MUCH too rich. Parents are involved. School cafeterias are involved. McDonald's is involved......

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    3 weeks ago
We eat too much and too rich. Some individuals eat MUCH too much and MUCH too rich. Parents are involved. School cafeterias are involved. McDonald's is involved......

I totally agree. This is a huge societal issue. Back in the 60's President Kennedy put out a health program to the youth. We all had to meet specific milestones in both gym and eating. Our lunches were healthy. Somehow, this disappeared from part of our education system, and only now is it beginning to come back.

 
 
WallyW
2.2  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    3 weeks ago

I think it is a personal preference and what tastes good. I don't start the day with coffee anymore. I turn to Mountain Dew and a couple of Tylenol to get my heart started every morning. Sugar and caffeine in one convenient package. 

 
 
cjcold
2.3  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    3 weeks ago

Folk could get away with a less than healthy diet with a little more exercise.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.3.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  cjcold @2.3    3 weeks ago
Folk could get away with a less than healthy diet with a little more exercise.

Most Americans are doing neither. 

 
 
Jack_TX
3  Jack_TX    3 weeks ago

If you want to discourage something, make it more expensive.  

Very few people in America fail to realize that soft drinks are not good for them.  They don't care.  Telling them isn't going to do anything.  At the end of the day the vast majority of people respond much more to what you DO than what you SAY.

 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 weeks ago

I quit drinking soda pop about fifteen years ago and it had nothing to do with the expense. I quit as part of a conscious effort to improve my fitness and continue to eat and drink with nutritional benefit as the top priority in the foods and drinks I choose not price. I do not want government interfering in the individuals freedom or artificially inflating the cost of goods or services with unnecessary taxes. 

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.1    3 weeks ago

Dean,

I understand you are a great believer in personal choice and I respect that. But most of the people who need this the most, do not understand why. And from a fiscal POV, it costs our health system a fortune to support the illnesses that go along with poor eating. 

I am not for taxing alone, but for also educating the masses. That is what this article is about. 

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.1    3 weeks ago
I do not want government interfering in the individuals freedom or artificially inflating the cost of goods or services with unnecessary taxes. 

That "interfering" ship has sailed.  

We spend over $250,000,000,000 on healthcare solely due to obesity.  Most of that is US Govt funded.  If people are going to soda themselves into the hospital, there isn't any reason we shouldn't be taxing them on the habits.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
We spend over $250,000,000,000 on healthcare solely due to obesity.  Most of that is US Govt funded.  If people are going to soda themselves into the hospital, there isn't any reason we shouldn't be taxing them on the habits.

Exactly. 

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.4  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
We spend over $250,000,000,000 on healthcare solely due to obesity.  Most of that is US Govt funded.  If people are going to soda themselves into the hospital, there isn't any reason we shouldn't be taxing them on the habits.

interesting idea.. i guess we should do that with all food because of the obesity issue our country has right ? in fact - we should just monitor everyone and tax them in general for every decision they make that isn't considered "healthy", correct ? or... we could let people have their individual freedoms to eat/drink what they want ? 

 
 
cjcold
3.1.5  cjcold  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.1    3 weeks ago

We finally agree on something.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

Most foods provide necessary nutrients, to some degree, at least. Soda is entirely empty calories.  IMO, a tax on soda is equivalent to a tax on tobacco.  Make those engaging in unhealthy behaviors contribute to funding the care those behaviors generally necessitate. 

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.6    3 weeks ago
MO, a tax on soda is equivalent to a tax on tobacco.  Make those engaging in unhealthy behaviors contribute to funding the care those behaviors generally necessitate. 

That is a very good point Sandy! Quite right.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
interesting idea.. i guess we should do that with all food because of the obesity issue our country has right ?

When people engage in self destructive behavior and then expect the rest of us to pay their hospital bills, then we should tax that self destructive behavior.  We already tax the hell out of alcohol and cigarettes, partially for that reason.

we could let people have their individual freedoms to eat/drink what they want ? 

Then they can pay more for their health insurance or pay their own medical bills.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.9  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.6    3 weeks ago
Most foods provide necessary nutrients, to some degree, at least. Soda is entirely empty calories.  IMO, a tax on soda is equivalent to a tax on tobacco.  

oh ? Cheetos provides what necessary nutrients again ? shouldn't we be overtaxing those  and punishing people who choose to exercise their freedom to consume foods/drinks of their choice ?

Make those engaging in unhealthy behaviors contribute to funding the care those behaviors generally necessitate.

then let's monitor everyone and for every unhealthy behavior they indulge in (i don't care if it's "cheat day") then we will heavily tax them for their choices right ? and how about genetics playing a factor - how will we compensate for genetics ? why, there are people allergic to peanuts - but isn't that considered a "healthy food" ? so now what do we do with those people - we could just tax them for finding an alternative that might not be healthy right ? where would you like to stop with all of this controlling behavior ? how much further would you like to expand the government into everyone's personal lives ?

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.10  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.8    3 weeks ago
When people engage in self destructive behavior and then expect the rest of us to pay their hospital bills, then we should tax that self destructive behavior.  We already tax the hell out of alcohol and cigarettes, partially for that reason.

ah, another advocate for expanding government even further into everyone's personal lives to control all of their behaviors and choices - punishing them for making "unhealthy" decisions. Very interesting... 

Then they can pay more for their health insurance or pay their own medical bills.

sure they can - they made the choice. Are we having Big Brother Government help out with that too ? how much more government do you think we actually need ?

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.9    3 weeks ago
oh ? Cheetos provides what necessary nutrients again ? shouldn't we be overtaxing those

Maybe we should.

where would you like to stop with all of this controlling behavior

What melodrama.

People are still free to buy soda, and would be free to buy Cheetos.  Just as they are still free to buy cigarettes.

Right now, you and I are being taxed to pay for medical care for those who drink soda and eat Cheetos.  I think it's more fair that they be taxed for it, proportional to the amount they indulge.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
Are we having Big Brother Government help out with that too ?

It's also Big Brother Government that requires hospitals to stabilize heart attack patients, regardless of ability to pay for care.  Do you object to that?

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.13  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
Maybe we should.

where would you like to stop ? would you like to create a list of "unhealthy" foods that people indulge in like pastries, licorice, candies, etc ?

i always figured we paid enough taxes, i also figured the government was already inept enough with the money we pay for taxes - yet you wish to give them more ? how much more government control would you like on everyone's behaviors ?

What melodrama.

not melodrama - it's the truth on what you are advocating - you wish to control people's behaviors. Freedom also allows us to make the "wrong" decisions as well as the "right" ones - how much more punishment do you wish to put on those who make the "wrong" decisions ("wrong" as in your opinion of "wrong") ?

Right now, you and I are being taxed to pay for medical care for those who drink soda and eat Cheetos.  I think it's more fair that they be taxed for it, proportional to the amount they indulge.

so i guess if they can't - they better die quick so we don't have to pay for them, correct ? being in an interconnected society - such as we are - means you pay for others as well as yourself (and they pay for you as well as themselves - including any "bad" choices you make along the way, but i guess we had better tax you extra for your "bad" choices, right ?).

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.14  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.12    3 weeks ago
It's also Big Brother Government that requires hospitals to stabilize heart attack patients, regardless of ability to pay for care.  Do you object to that?

oh i definitely don't - but it wouldn't shock me if you did since they can't pay, right ? they can't pay for the extra tax on soda so they don't get it - so if they can't pay for the medical care for a heart attack - they don't get it right ? gee.... thankfully Big Brother Government doesn't do that, huh ?

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.13    3 weeks ago
i always figured we paid enough taxes, so i guess if they can't -they better die quick so we don't have to pay for them, correct ?being in an interconnected society - such as we are - meansyou pay for others as well as yourself

You don't want more taxes, but you want to pay for care for people whose care costs a lot of money, largely because of their own bad choices.

Seems feasible.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.14    3 weeks ago
oh i definitely don't - but it wouldn't shock me if you did since they can't pay, right ?

No, I don't have a problem with it, either.

But I learned along the line that money doesn't grow on trees.

I'm also well aware that "vice" taxes don't eliminate vices.  People still smoke.  They still drink alcohol.  They apparently don't find the tax to be much of a deterrent.  They'll still drink soda, too.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.9    3 weeks ago
oh ? Cheetos provides what necessary nutrients again ? shouldn't we be overtaxing those  and punishing people who choose to exercise their freedom to consume foods/drinks of their choice ?

Tax 'em.

then let's monitor everyone and for every unhealthy behavior they indulge in (i don't care if it's "cheat day") then we will heavily tax them for their choices right ?

Sure.  If "cheat day" is rare, they won't notice it.  

and how about genetics playing a factor - how will we compensate for genetics ?

Who has mentioned taxing something genetic?  Did you have other fantasy arguments you want to pretend people have made?

why, there are people allergic to peanuts - but isn't that considered a "healthy food" ? so now what do we do with those people - we could just tax them for finding an alternative that might not be healthy right ? where would you like to stop with all of this controlling behavior ? how much further would you like to expand the government into everyone's personal lives ?

The Supreme Court has already declared that your health is a matter of interstate commerce.  

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
ah, another advocate for expanding government even further into everyone's personal lives to control all of their behaviors and choices - punishing them for making "unhealthy" decisions. Very interesting... 

It's simply making them pay part of their additional drain on the nation's finances.

sure they can 

But they don't, do they?  

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.13    3 weeks ago
not melodrama - it's the truth on what you are advocating - you wish to control people's behaviors.

Yes.  I want to stop them spending my tax dollars and start spending some of their own.

Freedom also allows us to make the "wrong" decisions as well as the "right" ones - how much more punishment do you wish to put on those who make the "wrong" decisions ("wrong" as in your opinion of "wrong") ?

I want them to bear the full costs of those decisions.

so i guess if they can't 

If they can't pay the Cheetoh tax, maybe they should stop eating the damn Cheetohs.

being in an interconnected society - such as we are - means you pay for others as well as yourself and they pay for you as well as themselves

They don't, though.  Almost half of Americans pay nothing toward Medicaid.  They pay nothing toward defending our country.  They pay nothing toward any of the programs funded through income tax dollars.

but i guess we had better tax you extra for your "bad" choices, right ?)

Absolutely.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.13    3 weeks ago
so i guess if they can't - they better die quick so we don't have to pay for them, correct ? being in an interconnected society - such as we are - means you pay for others as well as yourself (and they pay for you as well as themselves - including any "bad" choices you make along the way,

Also, when I've bought life insurance, I've been subjected to a physical exam to purchase it.  That physical determines whether or not I'll be allowed to purchase life insurance, and is used to determine my premium.  Why?  Because if I'm unhealthy, it is more likely that I'll keel over and the insurance company will have to pay out a claim.  How do they pay out that claim?  With other people's money.  If I'm unhealthy, it is not unreasonable that I should have to pay higher premiums, as I'm increasing risk of financial loss to that risk pool.  My contributions should be commensurate with my needs, to the extent that those can be anticipated.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.21  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.8    3 weeks ago
Then they can pay more for their health insurance or pay their own medical bills.

I would agree with you, but that is not how insurance works. Risk is spread out to all of us on group policies. And who do you know who pays for their own medical bills? If you are poor, you are on Medicaid. Do you make that part of being allowed on Medicaid? Imagine the cries of discrimination.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.22  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.20    3 weeks ago
If I'm unhealthy, it is not unreasonable that I should have to pay higher premiums, as I'm increasing risk of financial loss to that risk pool.  My contributions should be commensurate with my needs, to the extent that those can be anticipated.

That is only true with individual policies. Most people who have private insurance are getting group, where the risk is spread out. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.22    3 weeks ago
That is only true with individual policies.

Yes, but it is true, and there is a valid reason for it.  And it wasn't always true only for group policies.  My dad finally quit smoking for good in the 90s when the premiums for his group health insurance through his job were going to double if he was a smoker.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.24  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.15    3 weeks ago
You don't want more taxes, but you want to pay for care for people whose care costs a lot of money, largely because of their own bad choices. Seems feasible

sure does because guess what ? those people pay for my bad choices and yours as well. Get it ? That's part of having freedom - the freedom to make good and bad choices.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.25  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.16    3 weeks ago
No, I don't have a problem with it, either.

why not ? they can't pay right ? with your "logic" that means they shouldn't get the medical care - just like they shouldn't get the soda if they can't pay the extra tax you propose

But I learned along the line that money doesn't grow on trees.

absolutely doesn't grow on trees (but that'd be nice sometimes jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif )

I'm also well aware that "vice" taxes don't eliminate vices.  People still smoke.  They still drink alcohol.  They apparently don't find the tax to be much of a deterrent.  They'll still drink soda, too.

how many more taxes do you feel we need ? when do we actually get to keep any of the money we make by working our jobs ? (i'd like a percentage or guideline, so i know how much i get to actually keep to and decide how to use for my own life, i'm not part of the rich with lots of money to spare and throw around and the latest "taxes" that you want to impose)

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.26  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.17    3 weeks ago
Tax 'em.

how many more taxes do you think we need ? when do we actually get to keep any of the money we make by working our jobs ? (i'd like a percentage or guideline, so i know how much i get to actually keep to and decide how to use for my own life, i'm not part of the rich with lots of money to spare and throw around and the latest "taxes" that you want to impose)

Sure.  If "cheat day" is rare, they won't notice it.  

i pretty much notice any taxes that i have to pay for - it comes out of what money i do make at my job, i'm not part of the rich that wouldn't notice and i'm quite sure there are many in my boat.

Who has mentioned taxing something genetic?  Did you have other fantasy arguments you want to pretend people have made?

and why haven't you mentioned genetic ? if someone is has a history of heart issues in their family - that's a drain, that's extra medical care that we all have pay for right ? why aren't we taxing them too ? where would you like to draw the line ?

The Supreme Court has already declared that your health is a matter of interstate commerce.

ah, so we should just keep taxing it ? Sorry, i prefer to keep as much of my money as possible to use how i wish - i guess we differ on this since you seem to think you know how to spend my money better than i do with your latest taxes you wish to propose.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.24    3 weeks ago

I expect to pay for any bad choices I make, myself.  If I don't make bad choices, I shouldn't be penalized for theirs.  Freedom does not absolve us of personal responsibility.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.25    3 weeks ago

Stop telling me what I think, please. I've generally respected you, and would rather not rethink that assessment. But when you tell me that I don't think people who can't pay shouldn't receive care, well, that's dishonest, and hard to respect.  I think we need to find some way to pay for that care, and taxes on purchases that lead to that care being necessary are worth considering. 

BTW,  when you throw out sarcastic suggestions to tax oxygen consumption, you make your position look silly.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.29  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.18    3 weeks ago
It's simply making them pay part of their additional drain on the nation's finances.

same thing applies to those with genetic conditions - like heart conditions. Why aren't you taxing them or proposing to tax them

But they don't, do they?

and that happens to be their freedom of choice

Yes.  I want to stop them spending my tax dollars and start spending some of their own

oh, you didn't know that as much as you pay for others - they pay for you as well ? (that's kind of how this all works, that whole pool thing and all)

I want them to bear the full costs of those decisions.

they bear as much cost as you do - since we all pay for each other.

They don't, though.  Almost half of Americans pay nothing toward Medicaid.  They pay nothing toward defending our country.  They pay nothing toward any of the programs funded through income tax dollars.

they pay no taxes ? if you want them to pay something towards it - that's the angle you work with, getting a way for them to pay toward Medicaid, pay toward defending our country etc etc. It's much more complex than a simple "soda tax" solving all of your problems. How many more taxes would you like to pay ? It's all good until it affects you, correct ?

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.30  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.20    3 weeks ago
Also, when I've bought life insurance, I've been subjected to a physical exam to purchase it.  That physical determines whether or not I'll be allowed to purchase life insurance, and is used to determine my premium.  Why?  Because if I'm unhealthy, it is more likely that I'll keel over and the insurance company will have to pay out a claim.  How do they pay out that claim?  With other people's money.  If I'm unhealthy, it is not unreasonable that I should have to pay higher premiums, as I'm increasing risk of financial loss to that risk pool.  My contributions should be commensurate with my needs, to the extent that those can be anticipated.

that's how insurance works, including medical - that's a different animal than paying a soda tax. If you want to "punish" people with a soda tax - why aren't you punishing people with genetic defects ? they should be taxed extra as well, correct ? then we could make tons of money, if those with genetic defects then purchase soda - that'll just solve all of our problems, right ?

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.31  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.27    3 weeks ago
expect to pay for any bad choices I make, myself.  If I don't make bad choices, I shouldn't be penalized for theirs.  Freedom does not absolve us of personal responsibility.

quite true - but that's not how insurance works, it's a pool. That's how medical insurance works, just like car insurance etc - risk is spread out because some of your "bad choices" you make, you may not be able to pay the consequences for. (and sometimes, that "bad choice" was literally just driving to work)

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.32  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.28    3 weeks ago
Stop telling me what I think, please. I've generally respected you, and would rather not rethink that assessment.

if you wish to rethink that assessment based upon one disagreement - it's your choice, but doesn't say as much about me as it does the opposing party. we all have disagreements, that's all apart of life. I have many friends that i disagree with - no issue whatsoever, we just agree to disagree and debate at times, but doesn't affect anything else.

But when you tell me that I don't think people who can't pay shouldn't receive care, well, that's dishonest, and hard to respect.

that's exactly what you seem to be proposing - same deal with the soda tax, same concept, if you can't pay then you don't get it.

I think we need to find some way to pay for that care, and taxes on purchases that lead to that care being necessary are worth considering. 

that's a very slippery slope

BTW,  when you throw out sarcastic suggestions to tax oxygen consumption, you make your position look silly

it's meant to look as silly as the original suggestion.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.30    3 weeks ago

This is also how insurance works - if I have a car accident,  or enough traffic violations, my car insurance premiums go up, and my policy may actually be cancelled,  if I make enough bad choices.  If my physical for life insurance shows me to be unhealthy, my premium is higher, if I can even purchase life insurance.  Higher risk leads to higher premiums.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.32    3 weeks ago

My reassessment would be based on how you're presenting your arguments - with ridicule and dishonesty.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.30    3 weeks ago
why aren't you punishing people with genetic defects ? they should be taxed extra as well, correct ?

How about you argue about views I've actually expressed, rather than repeatedly trying to put words in my mouth?

And did you miss the part about higher premiums?  I'm not sure you should be telling us all how insurance works, as it's not clear that you understand it, yourself.
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.36  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.35    3 weeks ago
This is also how insurance works - if I have a car accident,  or enough traffic violations, my car insurance premiums go up, and my policy may actually be cancelled,  if I make enough bad choices.  If my physical for life insurance shows me to be unhealthy, my premium is higher, if I can even purchase life insurance.  Higher risk leads to higher premiums

yes and that's where you pay extra - that's where you pay more for the decisions you make. thank you for pointing that out. So why do we need extra taxes again ? do you think bad choices aren't punished enough already ?

My reassessment would be based on how you're presenting your arguments - with ridicule and dishonesty

that would be your choice - if you wish to no longer converse, i will respect your decision, just let me know one way or the other. thanks.

How about you argue about views I've actually expressed, rather than repeatedly trying to put words in my mouth?

i'm applying the same concept (which are the views you have expressed) - if you can't pay then you can't have it (the soda tax)

And did you miss the part about higher premiums?  I'm not sure you should be telling us all how insurance works, as it's not clear that you understand it, yourself.
yes, higher premiums, they do pay that and that's where they pay for their "bad choices". how much more punishment do you think people need for their bad choices ? how many more taxes would you like ? 
(i figured i'd condense the replies so we only have to reply to one message instead of the multiple messages we've been doing)

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.37  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.36    3 weeks ago
yes and that's where you pay extra - that's where you pay more for the decisions you make. thank you for pointing that out. So why do we need extra taxes again ?

I really don't understand how you're not making this connection.  Bad decisions lead to higher risk.  Higher risk leads to higher premiums for those who make bad decisions.  Premiums are how we pay for the results of those bad decisions.  But you can't see the analogy to higher taxes on unhealthy decisions being used to pay for medical care made necessary by those bad decisions?

i'm applying the same concept (which are the views you have expressed) - if you can't pay then you can't have it (the soda tax)

I've never said anything of the sort.  In fact, I pointed out that "vice" taxes don't prevent "vices".  People still smoke.  They still buy alcohol.  And they'll still drink soda.  So kindly don't ascribe views to me that I don't hold based on statements I've never made.

how muchmore punishment do you think people needfor their bad choices ?

I'm not aware that there's currently any punishment for buying soda, so I'm not too fussed about people being asked to pay their fair share.  I wouldn't consider it punishment at all, in fact, any more than I consider myself to be "punished" for paying more for health insurance as I age.  I'm adding more risk to the pool, so it is reasonable that I should pay more.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.38  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.37    3 weeks ago
I really don't understand how you're not making this connection.  Bad decisions lead to higher risk.  Higher risk leads to higher premiums for those who make bad decisions.  Premiums are how we pay for the results of those bad decisions. 

that's all we need then - they are already paying for their bad choices and paying for the decisions they make and paying their fair share. Why the extra taxes again ?

But you can't see the analogy to higher taxes on unhealthy decisions being used to pay for medical care made necessary by those bad decisions?

then you should apply the same thing across the board - so we should have a lot of extra taxes by that theory.

I've never said anything of the sort.  In fact, I pointed out that "vice" taxes don't prevent "vices".  People still smoke.  They still buy alcohol.  And they'll still drink soda.  So kindly don't ascribe views to me that I don't hold based on statements I've never made.

it's the concept - those who can't pay the "vice" taxes obviously  (in general) don't buy the alcohol or quit smoking etc. they can't pay - they can't enjoy the vice, same concept for medical care, correct ? if you can't pay - you don't enjoy the medical care.

I'm not aware that there's currently any punishment for buying soda, so I'm not too fussed about people being asked to pay their fair share.  I wouldn't consider it punishment at all, in fact, any more than I consider myself to be "punished" for paying more for health insurance as I age.  I'm adding more risk to the pool, so it is reasonable that I should pay more.

well we obviously view it differently. Nothing wrong with that.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.38    3 weeks ago
it's the concept - those who can't pay the "vice" taxes obviously  (in general) don't buy the alcohol or quit smoking etc. they can't pay - they can't enjoy the vice, same concept for medical care, correct ? if you can't pay - you don't enjoy the medical care.

Again, words I've never typed on either count, so stop attributing them to me.

that's all we need then -they are already paying for their bad choices and paying for the decisions they make and paying their fair share.

Except that they're not.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.40  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.39    3 weeks ago
Again, words I've never typed on either count, so stop attributing them to me.

again - it's the same concept. why would you make an exception ? where do you want to draw the line ? there's a ton more taxes we could go with besides just soda - why stop there ? we could tax a ton of "bad decisions" that contribute to higher medical costs - big lists of unhealthy foods, aging  (since that incurs higher medical costs), extra taxes on any recreational activities chosen that could incur higher medical costs etc (yes the examples are ridiculous - but why aren't we including them ? why are we just focusing on something as small and ridiculous as soda ?)

Except that they're not.

they are not paying higher premiums ? you just stated they were. if you think those higher premiums aren't their "fair share" (which you would need to define) then you should talk to those insurance companies, right ?

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.41  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.40    3 weeks ago
again - it's the same concept.

I've never said they can't afford the taxes on soda (or anything else).  The poor are much more likely to smoke, so some are obviously finding a way to pay for "vices", and therefore can have them.  Taxes haven't stopped smoking or drinking, as I've pointed out already.   So since I never said the first (they can't afford them and shouldn't be allowed to have them), and your premise is therefore wrong, so also is your conclusion (that I think they shouldn't have medical care if they can't afford it).  You're basing one straw man on another, and you really should stop doubling down on that.

Taxing bad decisions that can be tracked (purchasing soda and other foods void of nutritional value, as an example) is, IMO, a reasonable step toward rectifying the fact that people who indulge in those bad choices are not currently paying more for the higher risk to which they expose the rest of us.

And no, they're not generally paying higher premiums.  Those on Medicaid aren't paying premiums, at all.  Those on group plans are paying the same as their coworkers who drink water, eat their veggies, and know what the inside of the gym looks like.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.42  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.41    3 weeks ago
I've never said they can't afford the taxes on soda (or anything else).  The poor are much more likely to smoke, so some are obviously finding a way to pay for "vices", and therefore can have them. 

there are always people who cannot afford them as well - it always happens.

Taxes haven't stopped smoking or drinking, as I've pointed out already.   So since I never said the first (they can't afford them and shouldn't be allowed to have them), and your premise is therefore wrong, so also is your conclusion (that I think they shouldn't have medical care if they can't afford it).  You're basing one straw man on another, and you really should stop doubling down on that.

wrong - there are people who can't afford them and quit smoking or drinking etc because it costs too much. That includes the poor (and middle class etc, since everyone decides what they want to do with their money, for the most part, etc) So the premise is fine - there are those can't afford it and so they can't have it - so it would apply to medical care as well. Taxing bad decisions that can be tracked (purchasing soda and other foods void of nutritional value, as an example) is, IMO, a reasonable step toward rectifying the fact that people who indulge in those bad choices are not currently paying more for the higher risk to which they expose the rest of us.

nanny state - i personally would rather avoid that because the government is already inept enough with more than enough power, but if you'd rather be tracked with everything you do and expand the government into everyone's personal lives, be my guest, leave me out of it please. Humans are affected differently by everything - medications, foods etc. I have one friend who quit drinking soda years ago because for her, it made her gain weight. Yet i have other friends who don't have that side effect of soda. 

And no, they're not generally paying higher premiums. Those on Medicaid aren't paying premiums, at all.  

wait.. they aren't paying premiums ??.. this article from 2014 states they are certainly charged (depends on the state):

Nevertheless, a number of states are now, for the first time, asking recipients to pay a premium for their Medicaid. In Indiana, the proposed Medicaid expansion, known as HIP 2.0, requires people making up to 138 percent of the poverty line to pay up to $25 a month to receive coverage. In Iowa, Medicaid recipients making more than the poverty line are expected to contribute $10 a month in premiums; those making 50 percent to 100 percent of the poverty line may need to pay $5 a month. In Pennsylvania, individuals making more than the poverty line may be asked to pay $25 a month. In Michigan, those making more than the poverty line must pay 2 percent of their income in premiums.

from: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/upshot/medicaid-gives-the-poor-a-reason-to-say-no-thanks.html

now, all of them don't pay - even tho they are charged those premiums:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/28/news/economy/medicaid-premium-payments/index.html

so i think we should just go after them, shouldn't we ?

Those on group plans are paying the same as their coworkers who drink water, eat their veggies, and know what the inside of the gym looks like

and that lifestyle isn't for everyone (for various reasons, some of them medical) - so what are we going to do ? try to force them into it ? if you don't live your life the way that someone else thinks is "correct" - you now advocate to punish them for it by taking away more of their hard earned money ?

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.42    3 weeks ago
there are always people who cannot afford them as well - it always happens.

What a tragedy.  Perhaps you'd like to tax the rest of us so that everybody can afford to drink and smoke.

You're working really hard to attribute views to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed.  Here's a hint - you wouldn't have to work nearly so hard if I'd actually said that people who can't afford medical care shouldn't have it, but I haven't.  You need to admit when you're wrong.

I stand corrected about Medicaid recipients being charged premiums.  Now, do you think those premiums approach the cost of care?  Because I'm fairly sure they don't.

you now advocate to punish them for it by taking away more of their hard earned money?

They would be choosing to spend their hard-earned money on luxuries which would be detrimental to their own health.  They don't have to pay the soda tax, if they don't buy soda.  See how that works?  My town has a tax on prepared foods.  Nobody is "taking" my money when I eat out or buy ready-to-eat foods.  I'm choosing to spend it.  I could just as easily choose not to eat out, and avoid that tax.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.44  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.43    3 weeks ago
What a tragedy.  Perhaps you'd like to tax the rest of us so that everybody can afford to drink and smoke.

that's not my viewpoint - i'm not proposing this:

taxes on purchases that lead to that care being necessary are worth considering.

or things of that nature - that'd be you. So let's list all the taxes you'd like to impose, shall we ?

if you haven't noticed - i'm against the tax.

You're working really hard to attribute views to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed.  Here's a hint - you wouldn't have to work nearly so hard if I'd actually said that people who can't afford medical care shouldn't have it, but I haven't.  You need to admit when you're wrong.

again - it's the concept. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand - it's the same concept.

I stand corrected about Medicaid recipients being charged premiums.  Now, do you think those premiums approach the cost of care?  Because I'm fairly sure they don't.

so then you should talk to the people in charge of Medicaid about raising the premiums, huh ?

They would be choosing to spend their hard-earned money on luxuries which would be detrimental to their own health.  They don't have to pay the soda tax, if they don't buy soda.  See how that works?  My town has a tax on prepared foods.  Nobody is "taking" my money when I eat out or buy ready-to-eat foods.  I'm choosing to spend it.  I could just as easily choose not to eat out, and avoid that tax.

and guess what ? that tax takes away the choice because... guess what ? ... it costs more money... so please list all the extra taxes you want to impose on the rest of us - i would definitely like to know how much more of my money you feel that i really don't need and should give to the government to handle.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.45  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.44    3 weeks ago
that's not my viewpoint

Sure it is.  You want the rest of us to pay more in taxes, so that those folks can get things they can't afford.

and guess what ?that tax takes away the choicebecause... guess what ? ...it costs more money

Ah, now we come to it.  You want everything to be free.  I should totally be living in a mansion with a full housekeeping staff, gardener, and sexy poolboy.  I can't afford that, but that shouldn't be an impediment, should it?  I should be free to make that choice.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.46  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.45    3 weeks ago
Sure it is.  You want the rest of us to pay more in taxes, so that those folks can get things they can't afford.

so you pay more in taxes for people who currently drink soda ? seriously ? i'm against the tax (as i've stated for the 2nd time in our conversation) and since we don't have the soda tax - tell everyone what other taxes you will have to pay more of because we don't have the soda tax currently.

Ah, now we come to it.  You want everything to be free.  I should totally be living in a mansion with a full housekeeping staff, gardener, and sexy poolboy.  I can't afford that, but that shouldn't be an impediment, should it?  I should be free to make that choice.

absolutely not. Nothing in life is free - everyone should know that by now. Of course i do believe in keeping your hard earned money - while you seem to to think we should all give it to the government with more and more taxes.

so please list all the extra taxes you want to impose on the rest of us - i would definitely like to know how much more of my money you feel that i really don't need and should give to the government to handle.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.46    3 weeks ago
absolutely not. Nothing in life is free

But not having the money to pay for something is an imposition on freedom.  It takes away my choices.  The taxes I pay to provide medical care for people who won't take care of themselves takes away my freedom to spend my money as I choose.  You said so.

Funny how you don't mind taxes being imposed on some people, isn't it?

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.48  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.47    3 weeks ago
But not having the money to pay for something is an imposition on freedom.  It takes away my choices.  The taxes I pay to provide medical care for people who won't take care of themselves takes away my freedom to spend my money as I choose.  You said so.

and the same applies to them as well - remember that pool thing ? oh wait.. you feel people still don't pay enough, even if they have to pay higher premiums due to age or physical health, so you wish to charge those people extra taxes on silly items like soda so they pay higher premiums and are charged extra taxes, right ? (wouldn't it make sense to go back to the insurance companies about the premiums ? ... or possibly to the government about Medicaid ? .. nah.. let's just have more and more taxes ! give more money to the inept government ! and if they misspend it ? more taxes !) seems like you make out on the deal with that situation... very interesting....

(and "not having the money" is very vague... i'm advocating for people to keep their money... you seem to be advocating for the opposite)

Funny how you don't mind taxes being imposed on some people, isn't it?

which taxes do i not mind again ? i don't remember the list. please provide it for me.

please list all the extra taxes you want to impose on the rest of us - i would definitely like to know how much more of my money you feel that i really don't need and should give to the government to handle.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.49  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.48    3 weeks ago
even if they have to pay higher premiums due to age or physical health

Most people aren't paying higher premiums due to unhealthy habits.  Group insurance doesn't require physicals or health questionnaires, and group insurance is what most insured people have.  Why are you still lecturing people on how insurance works, when you don't know yourself?

which taxes do i not mind again? i don't remember the list.

How do you think we pay for medical care for people who can't afford it?  You know, that which you falsely accuse me of wanting to prevent?  Should I assume that you mind being taxed for that?

You're advocating for people to spend money on soda, whose production is subsidized by our taxes, and then, when they require more healthcare, to tax us all again to provide care for them if they can't afford it.

Why do you want to tax me twice for hardly ever drinking soda?  Why are you stealing my mansion and poolboy to pay for their soda addiction?

 
 
Texan1211
3.1.50  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.49    3 weeks ago

Wasn't it a goal of Obamacare for everyone to pay the same on insurance per plan no matter what pre-existing conditions there are?

And aren't most Obamacare enrollees subsidized with taxpayer money?

So we, subsidize industries which make products which harm us, then we pay for medical care for those who can't afford it, and even the healthy among us must pay more in premiums for our own insurance to make up what the insurance companies have to pay out for those folks.

We aren't just getting double-taxed, we are being triple-taxed!

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.51  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.29    3 weeks ago
same thing applies to those with genetic conditions - like heart conditions. Why aren't you taxing them or proposing to tax them

Because they don't have a choice.  Idiotic question.

and that happens to be their freedom of choice

They'll still have freedom of choice.  Nobody is talking about banning anything.  But they'll have to bear more of the cost of the consequences of their choices.  Why does that bother you?

oh, you didn't know that as much as you pay for others - they pay for you as well ? (that's kind of how this all works, that whole pool thing and all)

That not even smart enough to be "liberal math".  Since when are tax burdens equal?  

they bear as much cost as you do - since we all pay for each other.

They sure as hell do not.  The very suggestion reflects almost complete ignorance of both the tax code and Medicare/Medicaid funding.

they pay no taxes ?

They pay no federal income taxes.  Correct.   This is a well established fact.  What part of this has you befuddled?

if you want them to pay something towards it - that's the angle you work with, getting a way for them to pay toward Medicaid, pay toward defending our country etc etc. It's much more complex than a simple "soda tax" solving all of your problems. How many more taxes would you like to pay ? It's all good until it affects you, correct ?

You're guessing at my opinions, and you're doing it very emotionally and very badly.  So please read carefully.

I want people who deliberately increase their risk of very expensive medical care to bear more of the cost of that care. 

We currently do this with tobacco products, and nobody seems to mind.  Why the emotional melt down over a soft drink?

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.52  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.25    3 weeks ago
why not ? they can't pay right ? with your "logic" that means they shouldn't get the medical care - just like they shouldn't get the soda if they can't pay the extra tax you propose

That's just ridiculous.  Where did you come up with this??

how many more taxes do you feel we need ? when do we actually get to keep any of the money we make by working our jobs ? (i'd like a percentage or guideline, so i know how much i get to actually keep to and decide how to use for my own life, i'm not part of the rich with lots of money to spare and throw around and the latest "taxes" that you want to impose)

Then you could stop your soft drink habit.  The great thing about consumption taxes is that you have total control.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.53  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.50    3 weeks ago

Pretty much.

I think providing subsidies for those with pre-existing conditions was a noble goal, same as providing subsidies for those who can't afford insurance on their own.

But...

There are economic realities.  Some people cost more to insure.  It's one thing if it's through no fault of their own - genetic conditions, injuries, etc.  If it's just plain old "I like French fries and soda and I hate the treadmill" - weil, I don't feel like it's quite so noble to enable them.  They should pay either higher premiums (and no, Phoenix, they don't) or higher taxes, so that the rest of us can keep our hard-earned money.

Every insurance involves risk pools, but most charge higher premiums for higher-risk members.  Healthcare, whether paid for by insurance companies or the government, should not be exempt, and can't be exempt without costing society at large more.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.54  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.51    3 weeks ago

Jack, if I recall correctly, doesn't your job involve actuarial science?

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.55  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.31    3 weeks ago
quite true - but that's not how insurance works, it's a pool.

It's a "risk pool".  People who are higher risk pay more into it.  This is true for every form of insurance.

That's how medical insurance works, just like car insurance etc - risk is spread out because some of your "bad choices" you make, you may not be able to pay the consequences for. (and sometimes, that "bad choice" was literally just driving to work)

You're obviously female.  I say this because you've obviously never been charged 4 times as much for your car insurance just because you were a 19 year old male.  They are charged more because that demographic has much higher claims.  

Are you aware that people with low credit scores have much higher auto claims?  Did you know they pay much higher premiums because of it?

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.56  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.54    3 weeks ago
Jack, if I recall correctly, doesn't your job involve actuarial science?

Not directly, but we use a lot of their data.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.56    3 weeks ago

I took a single course in insurance and risk management as an undergrad.  That three-credit-hour course was plenty for me to understand that you can't charge the same rate for everybody, for any kind of insurance.  The math just doesn't work.

Maybe that should be a required high school course, as part of an introduction to economics, or similar.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.58  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.21    3 weeks ago
I would agree with you, but that is not how insurance works.

It is very much how insurance works, actually.  Actuaries assess risks and determine a premium to reflect it.

Risk is spread out to all of us on group policies.

Depends on the policy.  If the employer is larger and the plan is partially self funded, high risk the participants on the plan are underwritten as a whole, but certain high risk individuals are subject to different reinsurance limits or reinsurance exclusions.

And who do you know who pays for their own medical bills? If you are poor, you are on Medicaid. Do you make that part of being allowed on Medicaid? Imagine the cries of discrimination.

More than just cries, I'd wager.  Rioting in the streets and "occupying" hospitals or some other such nonsense.  Obviously we would never be able to assess a premium on Medicaid.  Hell, 40% of those eligible can't be bothered to sign up even when it's free.  But that's where stuff like the soda tax comes into play.   I'm also good with a Cheetoh/chip tax, a cookie tax, a candy bar tax, and a tax on any fast food meal over xxx calories.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.59  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.49    3 weeks ago
Most people aren't paying higher premiums due to unhealthy habits.  Group insurance doesn't require physicals or health questionnaires, and group insurance is what most insured people have.  Why are you still lecturing people on how insurance works, when you don't know yourself?

i'm not sure when the last time you got insurance was - but they do ask you things like "do you smoke cigarettes ?" and if you do then you pay a higher rate. Go figure huh ? I'm not sure why you are lecturing me on how insurance works if you don't know that smokers pay a higher cost than non-smokers.

How do you think we pay for medical care for people who can't afford it?  You know, that which you falsely accuse me of wanting to prevent?  Should I assume that you mind being taxed for that?

some taxes are absolutely a necessary evil - taxing soda doesn't fall into that category in my opinion, or we'd have a much longer list to tax.

You're advocating for people to spend money on soda, whose production is subsidized by our taxes, and then, when they require more healthcare, to tax us all again to provide care for them if they can't afford it.

replace soda with any unhealthy food - why aren't we taxing them all ? why are you specifically focusing on soda ?

Why do you want to tax me twice for hardly ever drinking soda?  Why are you stealing my mansion and poolboy to pay for their soda addiction?

everyone is currently being taxed twice (according to your scenario) and you are proposing to tax certain group of people for a third time. why do you want to tax me 3 times for occasionally wanting a soda ? why are you stealing my mansion and poolboy to pay for an occasional soda ?

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.60  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.51    3 weeks ago
Because they don't have a choice.  Idiotic question.

LOL you might want to rethink that statement. Everyone has a choice to procreate, to continue certain lifestyles etc - no one is forced.

They'll still have freedom of choice.  Nobody is talking about banning anything.  But they'll have to bear more of the cost of the consequences of their choices.  Why does that bother you?

I prefer not to expand government nor give them any more money for silly reasons. I didn't know you were enamored with government and taxes - how many more taxes do you think we all need in this country ? i'd like a list.

That not even smart enough to be "liberal math".  Since when are tax burdens equal?

did i state that tax burdens were equal ? nope. I didn't state that. try rereading the statement again.

They sure as hell do not.  The very suggestion reflects almost complete ignorance of both the tax code and Medicare/Medicaid funding.

as pointed out - even Medicaid (depending on state) pay premiums. insurance is a pool - risk and cost is spread out

They pay no federal income taxes.  Correct.   This is a well established fact.  What part of this has you befuddled?

wait.. i didn't specify (and neither did you) about a specific tax. Please try that question again.

You're guessing at my opinions, and you're doing it very emotionally and very badly.  So please read carefully.

so far you seem to be very enamored with taxes and government - and you also seem to be answering questions i haven't asked.

I want people who deliberately increase their risk of very expensive medical care to bear more of the cost of that care.  We currently do this with tobacco products, and nobody seems to mind.  Why the emotional melt down over a soft drink?

nobody seems to mind ?

http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-cigarette-taxes-2016-ballot-measures.html

apparently not everyone is in love with taxes and not everyone has extra money laying around to pay for the extra taxes that supporters of government and taxes want everyone else to pay. (btw, i want a bazillion dollars and my own private island)

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.61  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.55    3 weeks ago
You're obviously female. 

i've never stated my gender nor my age nor anything else, you do know what they say about "assuming" right ?

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.62  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.59    3 weeks ago
i'm not sure when the last time you got insurance was - but they do ask you things like "do you smoke cigarettes ?" and if you do then you pay a higher rate. Go figure huh ? I'm not sure why you are lecturing me on how insurance works if you don't know that smokers pay a higher cost than non-smokers.

Perrie has been correct on every insurance statement she's made so far.  She's could easily work for some of the agencies we do business with.  You are barking up the wrong tree.

How do you think we pay for medical care for people who can't afford it?

Income tax on those of us who actually have to pay it.

some taxes are absolutely a necessary evil - taxing soda doesn't fall into that category in my opinion, or we'd have a much longer list to tax.

Such as?

replace soda with any unhealthy food - why aren't we taxing them all ? why are you specifically focusing on soda ?

Great idea.  But why does soda in particular bother you so much?

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.63  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.60    3 weeks ago
LOL you might want to rethink that statement. Everyone has a choice to procreate, to continue certain lifestyles etc - no one is forced.

Correct.  Why would that cause a re-think?

I prefer not to expand government nor give them any more money for silly reasons. I didn't know you were enamored with government and taxes - how many more taxes do you think we all need in this country ? i'd like a list.

So we can count on you to oppose BerniCare or some other "single payer" nonsense?

did i state that tax burdens were equal ? nope. I didn't state that. try rereading the statement again

So we agree that "as much as I pay for others, they pay for me" is nonsense.  Excellent.

as pointed out - even Medicaid (depending on state) pay premiums. insurance is a pool - risk and cost is spread out

Medicaid is not insurance, any more than food stamps are insurance.  It is simply the govt paying poor people's doctor bills. Insurance is indeed a pooled risk concept, and the risk is quantified and premiums charged accordingly. 

wait.. i didn't specify (and neither did you) about a specific tax. Please try that question again.

I did specify.  I specifically stated "income tax" and specifically referred to programs funded by income tax.  Check it again.

 you also seem to be answering questions i haven't asked.

So there is no need to guess.  Good.

nobody seems to mind ?

Please list all the states with no cigarette tax.  Don't worry.  It won't take long.

apparently not everyone is in love with taxes and not everyone has extra money laying around to pay for the extra taxes that supporters of government and taxes want everyone else to pay.

You would not be required to pay the soda tax.  Just stop drinking the sodas. 

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.64  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.61    3 weeks ago
i've never stated my gender nor my age nor anything else,

You didn't need to.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.65  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.59    3 weeks ago
i'm not sure when the last time you got insurance was - but they do ask you things like "do you smoke cigarettes ?" and if you do then you pay a higher rate.

I pay for my own health insurance.  No, they don't.  They ask my age.  There's one table for everyone, and it's age-based.  I had to have a physical for life insurance, and yes, they have the sense to charge more for people who are unhealthy, or flat-out deny them coverage.  Group health insurance - nope.

replace soda with any unhealthy food -why aren't we taxing them all ?

As I've said before, maybe we should be.

you are proposing to tax certain group of people for a third time. why do you want to tax me 3 times for occasionally wanting a soda ?

Because you want me to not be allowed to have my mansion and poolboy because I have to pay taxes for somebody to replace your joints, provide you with an insulin pump, and revive you from a couple of heart attacks, place stents in coronary arteries, do bypasses when those occlude...

In short, because of personal responsibility.  What do you have against personal responsibility?  Why do you want to enable unhealthy behaviors with my money?

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.66  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.60    3 weeks ago
Because they don't have a choice.  Idiotic question.
LOL you might want to rethink that statement.

Jack's reply "they don't have a choice" was in response to your question about genetic conditions.  Do those folks have a choice about the genes they inherit?  Granted, we have a few gene therapy treatment modalities in the works, but by and large, no, we can't control our genes.

We can avoid soda, though.  Apparently, that's easier for some than others.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.67  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.62    3 weeks ago
Perrie has been correct on every insurance statement she's made so far.  She's could easily work for some of the agencies we do business with.  You are barking up the wrong tree.

except that comment was in reply to Sandy and not Perrie... *sigh* jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

Such as?

different topic for a different seed 

Great idea.  But why does soda in particular bother you so much?

because not everyone who drinks soda becomes that medical care burden. if you are upset at a particular group of people (ie: those who don't pay their premiums for example) - try going after that particular group... or better yet - talk to the insurance companies. If someone has a leaky pipe in their apartment - they don't call the electric company demanding them to fix it.

So we agree that "as much as I pay for others, they pay for me" is nonsense.  Excellent.

try again. (you may get it right eventually or you can keep thinking you pay for everything yourself concerning you)

Medicaid is not insurance, any more than food stamps are insurance.  It is simply the govt paying poor people's doctor bills. Insurance is indeed a pooled risk concept, and the risk is quantified and premiums charged accordingly. 

Medicaid isn't insurance ?

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/medicaid/

that's almost as good as "people don't mind taxes" - health insurance covers healthcare, just like Medicaid does and Medicaid does charge premiums (varies on state, covered earlier)

I did specify.  I specifically stated "income tax" and specifically referred to programs funded by income tax.  Check it again.

you are correct - my mistake. and it's true that many don't pay income tax - doesn't mean they don't pay taxes.

So there is no need to guess.  Good.

it's easier to answer questions that are asked of you - of course i guess it might be easier to debate if you make up your own questions and answer them too, you'll have to let me know.

Please list all the states with no cigarette tax.  Don't worry.  It won't take long.

they have it - and they surely seem to mind it. I guess not everyone is enamored with the government and looking forward to giving them more money to misspend/waste etc.

You would not be required to pay the soda tax.  Just stop drinking the sodas. 

do you really think a silly soda tax will take care of all the medical insurance problems ? seriously ?

You didn't need to.

you are welcome to assume i'm female - i have many who assume i'm female and many who assume i'm male. Gender is irrelevant since you are only looking at words on a screen from an anonymous poster who you couldn't tell apart from the next person on the street you pass.

(by the way, i condensed all the replies into one to make it easier)

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.68  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.65    3 weeks ago
I pay for my own health insurance.  No, they don't.  They ask my age.  There's one table for everyone, and it's age-based.  I had to have a physical for life insurance, and yes, they have the sense to charge more for people who are unhealthy, or flat-out deny them coverage.  Group health insurance - nope.

Group Health Insurance ? yes they do ! Group is also employer health insurance and i have many coworkers who get charged extra every year because they smoke cigarettes and were specifically asked that question when signing up/renewing their insurance with the company. They also provide programs to quit smoking for those who are smokers - so they obviously need to know who smokes in order to provide those programs for them. 

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), health insurance premiums are based on the following factors: plan category, the number of individuals on the policy, age, location, and tobacco use. When it comes to health insurance rates for smokers, many insurance companies can also factor in tobacco use in order to increase premiums.  The practice of charging tobacco users more is called tobacco rating. The ACA allows for insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers through a tobacco surcharge. Although this is allowed, it doesn't mean that all states have decided to implement this charge. As demonstrated below, tobacco surcharges can vary from state to state

from: https://www.healthmarkets.com/content/what-you-need-know-about-smoking-and-health-insurance

(i provided the bolding. i thought you knew a lot about health insurance and you didn't know this ?) that applies to health coverage provided by an employer - group health insurancejrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

As I've said before, maybe we should be

you definitely sound very pro-government and pro-tax. Unfortunately taxing everyone to death won't solve all of your problems. But, everyone has a different viewpoint and that's fine.

Because you want me to not be allowed to have my mansion and poolboy because I have to pay taxes for somebody to replace your joints, provide you with an insulin pump, and revive you from a couple of heart attacks, place stents in coronary arteries, do bypasses when those occlude... In short, because of personal responsibility.  What do you have against personal responsibility?  Why do you want to enable unhealthy behaviors with my money?

i have nothing against personal responsibility - so if you have a problem with a specific group of people then go after them, right ? nope, you decide to include others who aren't even in that group. If you have a problem with health insurance not being paid - go after those particular people or talk to the insurance companies or those who manage Medicaid, right ? nope, you decide to just go after anyone you can who are "evil" soda drinkersjrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

Jack's reply "they don't have a choice" was in response to your question about genetic conditions.  Do those folks have a choice about the genes they inherit?  Granted, we have a few gene therapy treatment modalities in the works, but by and large, no, we can't control our genes.

*sigh* i'm well aware of what the comment was in reply to. please reread my reply again. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.69  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.67    3 weeks ago
because not everyone who drinks soda becomes that medical care burden.

The same is true of smokers.  But the probability is definitely increased.

if you are upset at a particular group of people

I'm not upset.  I just think people ought to bear financial responsibility for their own decisions.  Tons of people, including you, I presume, keep up the premiums on their insurance and are not a financial burden on the rest of us.  However about 1/3 of Americans have their health care paid for by tax dollars.  They then engage in habits that spend more of our money.

or better yet - talk to the insurance companies

How do you suggest they get money out of people who don't pay?

Medicaid isn't insurance ?

Not at all.  It's simply government paid healthcare.  Insurance is a contract wherein one person or entity pays a premium to transfer risk to another person or entity.  Medicaid involves no risk and there is no contract.

you are correct - my mistake.

No worries.  It was waaay up the page.

they have it - and they surely seem to mind it. I guess not everyone is enamored with the government and looking forward to giving them more money to misspend/waste etc.

Do you mind it?  Do you smoke?  Do you have a problem with people who knowingly engage in self destructive behavior being required to bear some of the cost of that behavior?

do you really think a silly soda tax will take care of all the medical insurance problems ? seriously ?

Of course not.  But a hefty enough tax will suppress demand, even if only a little...and will generate some revenue, even if only a little.

 
 
MUVA
3.1.70  MUVA  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.69    3 weeks ago

How about people that drive fast people that ski or snow board how about people that eat white bread tax them too?

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.71  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.68    3 weeks ago
if you have a problem with a specific group of people then go after them, right ? nope, you decide to include others who aren't even in that group.

People who drink soda may not develop health issues.  People who smoke may not, either.  People who drive like bats out of hell may never have an accident.  But they all raise the risk to the insured pool, so I have no problem with them being charged more for their bad decisions.

*sigh* i'mwell aware of what the comment was in reply to. please reread my reply again. 

Does

Everyone has a choice to procreate, to continue certain lifestyles etc - no one is forced.

seem to be an appropriate response to a statement about those with genetic disorders not having a choice regarding their affliction?  Are they to somehow retroactively prevent their parents from procreating?  I'm interested to know where you think choice comes into that.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.72  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.69    3 weeks ago
The same is true of smokers.  But the probability is definitely increased.

i actually see more of a point with taxing smokers - especially due to second hand smoke etc. (isn't that ironic ?)

I'm not upset.  I just think people ought to bear financial responsibility for their own decisions.  Tons of people, including you, I presume, keep up the premiums on their insurance and are not a financial burden on the rest of us.  However about 1/3 of Americans have their health care paid for by tax dollars.  They then engage in habits that spend more of our money.

so go after them specifically.

How do you suggest they get money out of people who don't pay?

above my pay grade - i can't solve all the world's problems but i have a suggestion later.

Not at all.  It's simply government paid healthcare.  Insurance is a contract wherein one person or entity pays a premium to transfer risk to another person or entity.  Medicaid involves no risk and there is no contract.

this is an interesting read (kinda long tho too) - apparently there is risk in Medicaid.. altho this is outdated so things could have drastically changed:

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.22.3.159

and it looks like if they don't pay premiums then they are locked out for a period of time (and rightfully so) but this is depending on the state

In Indiana, about 25,000 Medicaid recipients were kicked off the program from the fall of 2015 to October 2017 for failure to pay — or more than 1 in 3 who owed premiums. The payments range from $1 to $27. Indiana is the only state to lock enrollees out of Medicaid for six months for failure to pay the premium for two months in a row — and about 10,000 recipients fell into that category in 2016. Kentucky recently received federal permission to add a similar lockout provision this year.

from: http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/khn-medicaid-premiums-study.html

so maybe this is an angle we should look at to petition for every state... or we could just tax soda and that will solve all of our problems...

Do you mind it?  Do you smoke?  Do you have a problem with people who knowingly engage in self destructive behavior being required to bear some of the cost of that behavior?

i definitely mind many taxes, i don't have a separate bank account of disposable income specifically for extra taxes that other people randomly decide are needed since they like spending everyone else's money. I can understand the smoking tax (as i stated above). If we are going to tax everyone for knowingly engaging in self destructive behavior - then we need to define those behaviors exactly and go from there. (i personally don't agree with all the extra taxing, but we should have exact terms to debate with)

Of course not.  But a hefty enough tax will suppress demand, even if only a little...and will generate some revenue, even if only a little.

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif gee.. go figure.. it will be a little.. .so this will be the start of a bunch of new taxes you wish to propose, right ?.. i'm definitely not shocked.. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.73  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.71    3 weeks ago
People who drink soda may not develop health issues.

so tax them, right ? i mean.. they drank a soda and didn't develop health issues from it so they aren't costing extra for medical care but we need them to pay more anyway, right ?

  People who smoke may not, either. 

see above.

People who drive like bats out of hell may never have an accident. 

see above.

But they all raise the risk to the insured pool, so I have no problem with them being charged more for their bad decisions.

oh good - you want a nanny state. i thought you were about personal responsibility ? they personally didn't develop any health issues etc, yet you want them taxed because they made what you felt was a "bad decision". I'm definitely not on board with that (altho i'm not sure it wasn't an obvious path)

Does
Everyone has a choice to procreate, to continue certain lifestyles etc - no one is forced.
seem to be an appropriate response to a statement about those with genetic disorders not having a choice regarding their affliction?  Are they to somehow retroactively prevent their parents from procreating?  I'm interested to know where you think choice comes into that.

the viewpoint is in the statement you referenced.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.74  Phoenyx13  replied to  MUVA @3.1.70    3 weeks ago
How about people that drive fast people that ski or snow board how about people that eat white bread tax them too?

yes, that seems to be the consensus that i'm debating against - if you make any kind of "bad decision" like driving fast, skiing or snowboarding or eating white bread - you need to pay extra taxes. I personally disagree with it but i seem to be in the minority.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.75  Jack_TX  replied to  MUVA @3.1.70    3 weeks ago
How about people that drive fast people that ski or snow board how about people that eat white bread tax them too?

People who drive fast get fined.  Skiing and snowboarding are not statistically more risky than other activities.

Do understand that the Affordable Care Act officially made your health a matter of interstate commerce.  

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.76  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.73    3 weeks ago
oh good - you want a nanny state.

I would say that it seems you want the same, except that you don't want anyone to have to pay for it.  You want people who can't afford healthcare to have it anyway (as do I) - nanny state-ish, isn't it?  I'm aware, though, that health care costs money.  If government is to provide services, it must levy taxes, and you seem to think that you get final say in which taxes are worthwhile and which aren't.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.77  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.76    3 weeks ago
I would say that it seems you want the same, except that you don't want anyone to have to pay for it. 

please point out where exactly i stated such an absurd thing. Thanks

You want people who can't afford healthcare to have it anyway (as do I) - nanny state-ish, isn't it? 

I do ? did you see this that i posted:

and it looks like if they don't pay premiums then they are locked out for a period of time(and rightfully so) but this is depending on the state
In Indiana, about 25,000 Medicaid recipients were kicked off the program from the fall of 2015 to October 2017 for failure to pay — or more than 1 in 3 who owed premiums. The payments range from $1 to $27. Indiana is the only state to lock enrollees out of Medicaid for six months for failure to pay the premium for two months in a row — and about 10,000 recipients fell into that category in 2016. Kentucky recently received federal permission to add a similar lockout provision this year.

from: http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/khn-medicaid-premiums-study.html

so maybe this is an angle we should look at to petition for every state...

(the above is from post 3.1.69) oh wait.. that surely must mean that i want everything for free when i specifically stated that it was rightfully so that they are locked out for not paying.. right ? seriously, where do you come up with these ideas ?

I'm aware, though, that health care costs money.  If government is to provide services, it must levy taxes, and you seem to think that you get final say in which taxes are worthwhile and which aren't.

sorry, that seems to apply to you since you want a soda tax (and i'm sure many others) just because people are exercising their freedom of choice but you feel it's a "bad decision". if you haven't noticed - i'm not advocating for more nor new taxes, that would be you. I would prefer those who cost more to pay more - but only those people, not everyone else who isn't in that group.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.78  Trout Giggles  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
tax them in general for every decision they make that isn't considered "healthy", correct ?

Why not? Cigarettes are heavily taxed. What I don't drink in soda cigarettes make up for it.

I'm not a nanny stater tax person. I believe in personal choice, also. I don't drink soda mostly because sugary drinks do not quench my thirst. I only drink water or unsweetened tea if I'm not drinking beer.

But I smoke a lot. That's my choice and I hate interference in my chosen vice

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.79  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.77    3 weeks ago

Yes, I'm sure those $27 premiums cover the cost of their care/s.  People on Medicaid can't afford the cost of healthcare, even if they are charged a tiny token premium.  But I still want them to have care, and I'm betting you do, too.

Why do you get to say that some taxes are ok, and taxes on soda are not?  Because you've been repeatedly saying that throughout the thread, so denying it is absurd.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.80  Phoenyx13  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.78    2 weeks ago
Why not? Cigarettes are heavily taxed. What I don't drink in soda cigarettes make up for it.

would you like to give everyone a list on what is considered "healthy" ? or would you like the government to come up with that list to let everyone know what they can or can not eat/drink with/without penalty of extra taxes ?

plus, not everyone who drinks sodas become that extra medical care burden costing extra money - so why are we penalizing them again ?

here's a few lists if you want to go with unhealthy foods to be taxed extra - we are going to have lots of taxes !

https://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/unhealthy-foods/

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/15-health-foods-that-are-really-junk-foods#section13

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/food/g22617152/fake-health-foods-to-avoid/

I'm not a nanny stater tax person. I believe in personal choice, also. I don't drink soda mostly because sugary drinks do not quench my thirst. I only drink water or unsweetened tea if I'm not drinking beer. But I smoke a lot. That's my choice and I hate interference in my chosen vice

i personally think if people are upset over certain individuals (or groups) costing an extra burden in medical care - go after those specific people (or groups)

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.81  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.79    2 weeks ago
Yes, I'm sure those $27 premiums cover the cost of their care/s.  People on Medicaid can't afford the cost of healthcare, even if they are charged a tiny token premium.  But I still want them to have care, and I'm betting you do, too.

sure - if they can afford it, like everyone else, right ? everyone must pay their fair share - isn't that the point of your silly tax proposal ? so if that's the point - then charge those on Medicaid more money for their healthcare premiums and lock those out that can't pay, right ? that seems to make more sense than taxing people extra who aren't part of the problem like you are proposing (since not all soda drinkers become an extra burden on medical care costing extra money)

plus, you do realize that $27 was only for Indiana and every state is different, right ? 

Why do you get to say that some taxes are ok, and taxes on soda are not?  Because you've been repeatedly saying that throughout the thread, so denying it is absurd.

i get to say it because that's my opinion. it's the same reason you get to say that taxing soda is a good thing - because it's your opinion. Outside of that, i do think some taxes are a "necessary evil", but that's not the topic for this thread.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.82  Trout Giggles  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.80    2 weeks ago

I'm basically an unhealthy person and I apologize to all who pay for Tricare because some day I'm gonna cost you beaucoup bucks

No I don;t want to give you a list because frankly, I think the government has enough over reach in what they tell people to do.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.83  Phoenyx13  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.82    2 weeks ago
No I don;t want to give you a list because frankly, I think the government has enough over reach in what they tell people to do.

that's part of my point from earlier - why would anyone want to expand government reach into everyone's personal lives and give them more money to waste/misspend/lose etc ?

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.84  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.81    2 weeks ago
 if they can afford it, like everyone else, right ? everyone must pay their fair share - isn't that the point of your silly tax proposal ? so if that's the point - then charge those on Medicaid more money for their healthcare premiums and lock those out that can't pay, right ? 

So you don't want those who can't afford health care to have access to it?

plus, you do realize that $27 was only for Indiana and every state is different, right ? 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I doubt very much that premiums charged to people on Medicaid in any state cover the cost of the care received by people on Medicaid.  That's why they're on Medicaid.  If they could afford to pay premiums that actually approached covering the cost of care, they'd have insurance, not Medicaid.

From personal experience, I'm very well aware that many people on Medicaid can and do manage to buy soda.  And frankly, if they can buy soda (and they can, and often do), then they can pitch in just a little more than the paltry premiums they pay into Medicaid.  If they do so by way of a soda tax, so be it.

Outside of that, i do think some taxes are a "necessary evil", but that'snot the topic for this thread.

Why not?  Some of us are aware that medical care isn't free, and those who can't pay for it are provided with care paid for by our tax dollars.  Taxes to pay for medical care are a necessary evil.  You don't like this one.  Fine.  You can say so without the snark and absurd straw men (and doubling down on those straw men).

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.85  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.84    2 weeks ago
So you don't want those who can't afford health care to have access to it?

that depends on the situation - but your "logic" dictates that if they can't pay then they can't have it, right ?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I doubt very much that premiums charged to people on Medicaid in any state cover the cost of the care received by people on Medicaid.  That's why they're on Medicaid.  If they could afford to pay premiums that actually approached covering the cost of care, they'd have insurance, not Medicaid.

you may need to see this and understand where your premiums go:

https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/HealthCareDollar_FINAL.pdf

let me know how much you actually pay for your actual medical care - you may need to pay more and have a bunch of extra silly taxes too.

From personal experience, I'm very well aware that many people on Medicaid can and do manage to buy soda.  And frankly, if they can buy soda (and they can, and often do), then they can pitch in just a little more than the paltry premiums they pay into Medicaid.  If they do so by way of a soda tax, so be it.

from personal experience, i'm well aware that many people not on Medicaid can and do manage to buy soda. And frankly, since they aren't on Medicaid they shouldn't have to be taxed extra to pay for Medicaid since they aren't part of the problem, right ? why are you all for taxing people who aren't part of the problem ? It seems you surely love the government.

Why not?  Some of us are aware that medical care isn't free, and those who can't pay for it are provided with care paid for by our tax dollars.  Taxes to pay for medical care are a necessary evil.  You don't like this one.  Fine.  You can say so without the snark and absurd straw men (and doubling down on those straw men).

you can debate it honestly and research it first as well - most people know that group health insurance plans ask about tobacco use and charge extra for it. So far, i've only used your "logic" in other instances - bottom line, you love the government much more than i do and wish for them to dictate certain aspects of your life (ie: what's a "healthy decision")

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.86  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.85    2 weeks ago
you may need to see this and understand where your premiums go:

I'm fairly sure that the premiums I pay for private insurance come much closer to covering the costs of my healthcare than those paid by Medicaid recipients, who don't all even have to pay premiums.

i'm well aware that many people not on Medicaid can and do manage to buy soda. And frankly, sincethey aren't on Medicaid they shouldn't have to be taxed extra to pay for Medicaid since they aren't part of the problem, right ?

Why would you think they're not?

wish for them to dictate certain aspects of your life

Yet another straw man.  One can choose not to pay consumption taxes by refraining from consumption.  Consumption taxes aren't dictates.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.87  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.86    2 weeks ago
I'm fairly sure that the premiums I pay for private insurance come much closer to covering the costs of my healthcare than those paid by Medicaid recipients, who don't all even have to pay premiums.

still you aren't covering your medical care - isn't that what you are complaining about and want the tax for, because medical care isn't being covered ? you need to pay more.

Why would you think they're not?

because not everyone who consumes soda is not on Medicaid and not everyone who consumes soda becomes that extra burden for the cost of medical care - unless you can prove that 100% of people who consume soda are on Medicaid and become the extra burden for cost of medical care.

Yet another straw man.  One can choose not to pay consumption taxes by refraining from consumption.  Consumption taxes aren't dictates.

they absolutely are dictates - they dictate what is "healthy" (by not being taxed extra) and what is not "healthy" (by being taxed extra), basic logic.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.88  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.87    2 weeks ago

Actually, some years I more than cover it.  I pay high premiums, and have a high deductible.  I haven't met that deductible for the last 3 or 4 years, at least.  So most of my care is paid for out of pocket.

not everyone who consumes soda becomes that extra burden for the cost of medical care-unless you can prove that 100% of people who consume soda are on Medicaid and become the extra burden for cost of medical care.

Ah, but that's not how risk pools work, is it?  Of course not everybody who consumes soda becomes a burden on the system.  But they increase their chances of doing so.  That's why drivers who get caught speeding pay more for car insurance, even if they never have a wreck.

Government isn't "dictating" what is healthy.  Soda is unhealthy, no matter what government says about it.  If government said it was healthy, would that make it so?  Of course not.  But then, you're using a different sense of "dictate" than the one you started out with.  Consumption taxes aren't dictates.  They are quite easily avoided.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.89  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.88    2 weeks ago
Actually, some years I more than cover it.  I pay high premiums, and have a high deductible.  I haven't met that deductible for the last 3 or 4 years, at least.  So most of my care is paid for out of pocket.

LOL now that's cute, because we all know as you age - you get healthier, right ? jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif and we all know that medical care doesn't rise in price - it lowers all the time, right ?  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Ah, but that's not how risk pools work, is it?  Of course not everybody who consumes soda becomes a burden on the system.  But they increase their chances of doing so.  That's why drivers who get caught speeding pay more for car insurance, even if they never have a wreck.

so you are all about punishing anyone who isn't part of the problem, just so you can "feel" better about it. Well, get your list of taxes ready - there's a lot of "unhealthy" decisions people make every day about food/drink, so we're all in for lots of taxes thanks to your support, and we're all in for more government thanks to your support. I thought you were all about personal responsibility, yet you aren't making that specific group of people personally responsible - you want to make everyone you possibly can personally responsible, just as long as it isn't you, right ?

Government isn't "dictating" what is healthy. 

absolutely is with the tax - as i pointed out already.

Soda is unhealthy, no matter what government says about it.  If government said it was healthy, would that make it so?  Of course not.  But then, you're using a different sense of "dictate" than the one you started out with.  Consumption taxes aren't dictates.  They are quite easily avoided.

LOL consumption taxes aren't dictates - i can't wait to use that one in my next debate, that'll be great for a few laughs.

here's in interesting read: https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/sodas-and-your-health-risks-debated#1

maybe soda isn't the "end all boogie man" that you seem to think it is, huh ? regardless, i think our debate has run it's course. i'm not a fan of expanding government nor any useless silly taxes - and apparently you are, so we can agree to disagree. Thanks for the debate - i've learned a few things. I hope you did too :) have a great day (or night) :)

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.90  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.89    2 weeks ago
LOL now that's cute, because we all know as you age - you get healthier, right ?

And my premiums have, and will continue to, rise to reflect that.

so you are all aboutpunishing anyone who isn't part of the problem

No.  For example, I certainly wouldn't tax those wise enough to avoid soda a soda tax, just as I wouldn't tax those wise enough to avoid smoking a cigarette tax.  Do you even read what you type before you hit "post"?

Oh, good grief, your link.  Did you read it?  The source saying that soda doesn't contribute to obesity is none other than the American Beverage Association.  I'm sure they can be relied on for a nonbiased view jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif.  Ever tried helping a soda addict keep his/her teeth?  It ain't fun, and it ain't cheap.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.91  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.90    2 weeks ago
And my premiums have, and will continue to, rise to reflect that.

and you think the rise in your premium will help cover the cost of your rising medical care just like it does right now ? seriously ? were you not paying attention to the earlier link about where your health care dollars go ?

No.  For example, I certainly wouldn't tax those wise enough to avoid soda a soda tax, just as I wouldn't tax those wise enough to avoid smoking a cigarette tax.  Do you even read what you type before you hit "post"?

i sure do and i sure do know that your silly soda tax won't be enough as well - think ahead. (and in fact - that was stated by another poster much earlier in this thread too)

Oh, good grief, your link.  Did you read it?  The source saying that soda doesn't contribute to obesity is none other than the American Beverage Association.  I'm sure they can be relied on for a nonbiased view .  Ever tried helping a soda addict keep his/her teeth?  It ain't fun, and it ain't cheap.

uhh...

One such study, funded by the British sugar industry group The Sugar Bureau, examined sugar and soft drink consumption among 1,300 children in the U.K. The study found no evidence that soft drinks alone affected children’s weight.

yea... they are the ABA... (and make sure you read the entire sentence, they don't absolve soda of blame, they just point out that it's not solely soda, think about that) uhh...

Johnson says she does not believe the science linking sodas to obesity and other health issues has been misrepresented or over-reported. “I don’t think anyone would say that limiting sugar-sweetened drinks is the only solution,” she says. “But to me, it is an important step in the right direction.”

yea... she's the ABA too... did you even read the link ? really ?

and... then i stated: 

maybe soda isn't the "end all boogie man" that you seem to think it is, huh ?

as in.. there are probably many more factors than soda... (so right now you want to tax soda due to obesity and rising health care costs... yet it's not the sole culprit... so i'm quite sure we can expect more tax proposal support from you for anything else that you or the government deem "unhealthy" in the future...) can you follow the line of thought ? short of drawing a picture - i'm not sure what else to do to explain it... so i'm just going to end on a polite note :) have a great night :)

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.92  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.91    2 weeks ago
you think the rise in your premium will help cover the cost of your rising medical care

Believe it or not, my healthcare costs have gone down in the last 10 years.  No pregnancies.  No injuries.  Very few illness, and those minor.  I take no prescription meds on a regular basis.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I don't drink much soda jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png  Really, you're trying to speak about something of which you have no knowledge.  You don't know the details of my health insurance plan - not my premiums (high), not my deductible (also high), not my copays.  You also have no knowledge of my healthcare costs (mostly out-of-pocket).  You insist that others are paying more for my healthcare than I am, but the math doesn't work (I'm paying premiums in, but claims are not being paid on my behalf).  You recognize this, of course, which is why you're moving goalposts.

Nobody ever said taxing soda was going to cover all healthcare costs incurred by those who drink soda.  You seem to specialize in straw men.  They can help defray those costs, same as tobacco taxes defray, but don't completely cover, the costs of health issues caused by smoking.

And nobody is blaming soft drinks alone.  But your own link states that soft drinks are an important factor in obesity, and that limiting them is "a step in the right direction". Pretty much the only sources in that article saying "oh, soda isn't really all that bad" are the ones making money from the sale of soda.  The actual scientists (I thought you liked science?) say, essentially "yeah, soda is pretty bad for you, and anyone telling you otherwise is probably selling soda."

Did you see that the quote you supplied is from a group selling sugar?  To whom do you think they're selling sugar?  Think soda bottlers might be a pretty important group of customers?  Do you think they might be biased?

If you want to end on a polite note, you might try actually doing so, and not putting words in my mouth yet again.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.1.93  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.92    2 weeks ago
Believe it or not, my healthcare costs have gone down in the last 10 years.  No pregnancies.  No injuries.  Very few illness, and those minor.  I take no prescription meds on a regular basis.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I don't drink much soda   Really, you're trying to speak about something of which you have no knowledge. 

I have no knowledge ? even i knew that group health care policies ask about nicotine usage... yet i know nothing... riiiiiight...  if that helps you sleep better at night jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

You don't know the details of my health insurance plan - not my premiums (high), not my deductible (also high), not my copays.  You also have no knowledge of my healthcare costs (mostly out-of-pocket).  You insist that others are paying more for my healthcare than I am, but the math doesn't work (I'm paying premiums in, but claims are not being paid on my behalf).  You recognize this, of course, which is why you're moving goalposts.

of course i don't know details.. and i don't insist they pay more than you do - try reading comprehension sometime - i stated we all pay for each other, even you confirmed it with acknowledging it's a pool.

Nobody ever said taxing soda was going to cover all healthcare costs incurred by those who drink soda.  You seem to specialize in straw men.  They can help defray those costs, same as tobacco taxes defray, but don't completely cover, the costs of health issues caused by smoking.

exactly - it won't cover all those costs - so you'll just need more taxes and more taxes... i figured that out and stated that much earlier.. then it was confirmed by another poster. if you are upset with a particular group of people not paying enough for their health care - go after them.

And nobody is blaming soft drinks alone.  But your own link states that soft drinks are an important factor in obesity, and that limiting them is "a step in the right direction". Pretty much the only sources in that article saying "oh, soda isn't really all that bad" are the ones making money from the sale of soda.  The actual scientists (I thought you liked science?) say, essentially "yeah, soda is pretty bad for you, and anyone telling you otherwise is probably selling soda."

well i'm glad you figured out the point - that it's not all that evil soda so your tax is ridiculous. limiting soda is a good thing - i never stated otherwise. i haven't even stated that soda was healthy or anything of that nature - that strawman argument comment you made seems to apply to you.

Did you see that the quote you supplied is from a group selling sugar?  To whom do you think they're selling sugar?  Think soda bottlers might be a pretty important group of customers?  Do you think they might be biased? If you want to end on a polite note, you might try actually doing so, and not putting words in my mouth yet again

sorry for your luck - i haven't put any words in your mouth - i've been using your own words and statements. now i'll end this completely on a polite note and won't be returning. feel free to reply to the air, makes no difference to me. i have more important things to attend to than to keep replying to you about you loving the government and wanting to tax everyone to the poor house. have a great day (night). thanks for the debate :)

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.94  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.93    2 weeks ago
still you aren't covering your medical care

Those were your words.  Yes I am covering my medical care.

soyou'll just need more taxes and more taxes...

We're already paying for those folks.  I have no problem with more targeted taxes which focus on receiving more funds from those on whom those funds are more likely to be spent.

well i'm glad you figured out the point -that it's not all that evil soda so your tax is ridiculous.

Quote me ever saying that it's only soda.  You keep talking about being polite, then turning right around and making statements that are both rude and dishonest.

i haven't put any words in your mouth

You have, repeatedly throughout this thread.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.95  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.1.93    2 weeks ago
I have no knowledge ? even i knew that group health care policies ask about nicotine usage

That depends on the state.

that it's not all that evil soda so your tax is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is the severity and emotionalism of your opposition.

 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.96  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.95    2 weeks ago
That depends on the state.

I actually found and took a look at the application for my office's group insurance.  No health questions at all.  Premiums are based on number of family members covered, and their ages.

What's ridiculous is the severity and emotionalism of your opposition.

Yup.

 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.97  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.96    2 weeks ago
I actually found and took a look at the application for my office's group insurance.  No health questions at all.  Premiums are based on number of family members covered, and their ages.

It depends on the state and the insurance carrier.  

It's a long and boring explanation.  If there was a World Cup for boring people about the ACA, COBRA, HIPAA, and ERISA, I could captain the US team and we'd never lose.  Little kids would be wearing my replica jersey everywhere.  I'm that good/boring.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    3 weeks ago

I was still working as a teacher when the Mayor mandated elementary education to teach in health, dietary education. I was also head of the breakfast program. My school was one of the poorest in the city and although the bulk of the parents worked 2 jobs, most still qualified for breakfast. Being both the science teacher, which meant that I taught the kids about good eating habits and head of the breakfast program, meant that I officially became the food Nazi. I would make sure that the kids understood the importance of cutting back on sugary foods and low fat foods, and if they didn't show up for breakfast, then they could not bring food into the classroom. If I saw a kid eating pork rinds or sugar water in my homeroom, I took it away from them and threw it out. I always explained to them why. 

I know a lot of people think that Mayor Bloomberg was running a "nanny state", but to all those who also talk about fiscal conservativism, obesity, heart disease, and diabetes is a huge weight on our hospital system. What he ended up doing was creating awareness of this, and our hospital visits regarding these diseases started to drop, which saved the city a lot of money. Our children began to lose some weight, too. So I don't regret these measures at all. 

No, you can't tax people's behavior, but you can tax and teach. 

 
 
zuksam
4.1  zuksam  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4    3 weeks ago

Instead of the Government Taxing Soda why don't they just stop Subsidizing the Sugar and Corn Sugar ? It's not just soda making people fat, people have been drinking it for a hundred years but the Obesity problem hasn't been around anywhere near that long. The Food Manufacturers are putting corn sugar in everything so at least if we get rid of the subsidies every food that contains sugar and corn sugar will naturally become more expensive because the manufacturers will be paying the true cost of sugar production. Maybe if we stop subsidizing Junk Food then Heathy Food wouldn't always be the expensive option.  I like Coke but I limit myself to 1 12oz can a day and while I don't drink one everyday if I do I won't drink a second. I'd be fine with warning labels on soda advising moderation since some people can't understand that soda is a treat not a staple. I certainly support getting soda and sugary juice out of schools, when I was in school we had two kinds of beverages Milk and Water out of the bubbler. We also had two choices when it came to lunch Hot or Cold, you either ate what they were serving or brought your lunch from home and they didn't sell chips or other junk food at school.  While it's hard to control what kids bring from home you can forbid soda in schools and it seems like a no brainer since you don't want kids bouncing off the walls from sugar and caffeine.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  zuksam @4.1    3 weeks ago
Instead of the Government Taxing Soda why don't they just stop Subsidizing the Sugar and Corn Sugar ? It's not just soda making people fat, people have been drinking it for a hundred years but the Obesity problem hasn't been around anywhere near that long. The Food Manufacturers are putting corn sugar in everything so at least if we get rid of the subsidies every food that contains sugar and corn sugar will naturally become more expensive because the manufacturers will be paying the true cost of sugar production. Maybe if we stop subsidizing Junk Food then Heathy Food wouldn't always be the expensive option.

Another great idea. It also costs a lot to subsidize these foods. The obesity is tied to high fructose corn syrup used in sugary drinks. And in NY, most schools don't allow soda on the premises by choice. We got the parents involved and that went a long way. 

 
 
zuksam
4.1.2  zuksam  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

We can't forget that juice is just as bad as soda even if it's 100% natural      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/juice-as-bad-as-soda-docs-say/

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  zuksam @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
We can't forget that juice is just as bad as soda even if it's 100% natural  

That is very true, but soda drinking has far surpassed juice drinking. 

 
 
Phoenyx13
4.2  Phoenyx13  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4    3 weeks ago
No, you can't tax people's behavior,

that seems to be exactly what you are proposing. Education is great - but we all have the freedom to decide whether or not to learn, whether or not to listen to advice etc. We all have the freedom of choice, right ? do you support forcing people into certain behaviors that you deem to be "acceptable" through government intervention ?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Phoenyx13 @4.2    3 weeks ago

We do not have total freedom. If we did we would not have laws. In actuality, I have not decided whether a tax is good or bad, in this case. What I do know is that education helps a lot. But as Sandy pointed out, we already tax unhealthy behavior, like cigarettes. What is the difference?

 
 
MUVA
4.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

We should tax everything then from cup cakes to sweet Ice tea. Maybe people should be put through a turnstile and have a body fat checked and be given a tax  bill on the spot for being to fat as you can tell not a big fan of taxes.

 
 
Phoenyx13
4.2.3  Phoenyx13  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
We do not have total freedom. If we did we would not have laws. In actuality, I have not decided whether a tax is good or bad, in this case. What I do know is that education helps a lot. But as Sandy pointed out, we already tax unhealthy behavior, like cigarettes. What is the difference?

how much more government and taxes do you want ? how much more government intrusion into everyone's personal lives do you want in an effort to control everyone to conform to your set of behaviors that you feel are "healthy" ? Yes, education is great - do we have to go further or can we let people make their own decisions concerning their own health and bodies ?

 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
But as Sandy pointed out, we already tax unhealthy behavior, like cigarettes. What is the difference?

What has taxation of cigarettes actually accomplished? It has contributed to a reduction... along with a lot of other factors.

In general, prohibition is a poor tool, creating too many unwanted side-effects.

Eliminating over-consumption of sugar must be a national objective, with the implication of all adults having responsibility for children.

It would be nice to say "It's the parents' problem" and be done with it. But an overweight parent is rarely going to be strict on the topic, which is now very much inherited.

Teachers, social workers, cafeteria personnel, are often required to correct the parenting difficulties of overweight parents who abandon the field.

 
 
MUVA
4.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.4    3 weeks ago

I know we did give my children sugar my wife would even let them drink apple juice. 

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.6  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @4.2.5    3 weeks ago

Look, in a perfect world, education alone would do the job and maybe there should be some sort of national program about just good health. But something has to change. There is some reason that we are the fattest nation in the world, and the implications to healthcare system are huge. 

 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    3 weeks ago

If you tell folks they CAN'T......They "WILL".....just because.

"This is your Brain on Drugs" worked so well though. Seems we Have a Bigger problem in that department, even with the educational commercials.

Folks are just gonna do what they do...….PERIOD !

That's the effects of Freedom ! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Jack_TX
5.1  Jack_TX  replied to  It Is ME @5    3 weeks ago
If you tell folks they CAN'T......They "WILL".....just because.

That's why you tax them.  

 
 
It Is ME
5.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1    3 weeks ago
That's why you tax them. 

Now why in the heck would one want to do something like that.

 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.1    3 weeks ago
Now why in the heck would one want to do something like that.

Because if they're determined to fizzy drink themselves into diabetes and the raft of other problems that come with obesity, they should have to pay the costs for treating their fat asses.

 
 
It Is ME
5.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

What about those that don't drink themselves into diabetes. Should those people pay the price too ?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

They are already with higher premiums in group insurance, through hospitals who have to take in the ill and through Medicaid. 

 
 
It Is ME
5.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.4    3 weeks ago
They are already with higher premiums in group insurance

Then "THAT" is what should change. It's time to stop making others pay for THE indiscretions of those that don't give a hoot !

 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

I object to the characterization of America's relationship with soda as an "unhealthy obsession." That makes sound like some kind of insane radical behavior with no good reason behind it. It's a kind of character assassination. The reality is that soda is popular because it tastes good. 

And soda is not some kind of death drink. There's nothing wrong with drinking soda so long as you consume reasonable amounts. If you're having 7 or 10 sodas a day, that's probably unhealthy, and parents should be taking active control of what their kids consume. But if you have a soda with lunch every day, it's not going to radically change your life.

 
 
Texan1211
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago

I remember when they banned cyclamates in soda.

It was said to be proven to cause cancer in lab rats.

For a human to incur the same risk as the cancer-ridden rats, one would have had to drink a case of soda per day every day for 7 years.

Doing that much of just about anything is bad for you.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    3 weeks ago
Doing that much of just about anything is bad for you.

I remember that, too. Rat studies are no longer considered reliable for such studies. 

 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

I remember at the time that it was "settled science"!

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

It was never "settled science" and they still use mice for specific studies that we can't do to humans. Science is always evolving new techniques, and the mouse model is one of those. And don't forget, it was the mouse model that told us that smoking led to various disease. What we now know, is that you can't stuff a mouse with anything and expect reliable results. 

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago

Tacos,

You really need to educate yourself about soda and other sugar drinks. Sugar gets converted directly to fat. A can of coke contains 150 calories of a type of sugar, most of it high fructose corn syrup, not even sugar. 2 cans of coke is 300 calories. That is a huge hunk of your caloric intake. It also affects your insulin levels. 

I am not sure where you get "insane radical behavior' or that soda is a death drink from what is being said. But it is a well known fact that we are one of the most obese western countries in the world, and our love of sugar drinks is part of this.  

There are diet alternatives. 

 
 
Tacos!
6.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2    3 weeks ago
I am not sure where you get "insane radical behavior' or that soda is a death drink from what is being said.

It's right there in the title. We're not talking about consuming ordinary sweets in moderation. We're talking about ending an unhealthy obsession. Cutting yourself or throwing up after meals is an "unhealthy obsession." And yeah, drinking a 12-pack of coke everyday is unhealthy. One with lunch is fine.

It also affects your insulin levels. 

Sure, but for most people, a soda a day is not going to turn you into a diabetic. And there is sugar in lots of things, by the way. It's just more obvious in soda.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

One soda is fine. But that is not what is going on. Between soda and other bad eating habits, we have become the fattest nation in the world. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-obese-nation-in-the-world-just-ahead-of-mexico-2017-05-19

Here’s a visual on those statistics:

MW-FM801_obseit_20170519065202_NS.jpg?uu
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.3  Phoenyx13  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.2    3 weeks ago
Between soda and other bad eating habits,

so we should just tax the Hell out of anyone who exercises their freedoms to consume whichever food or drink they choose ? where are the extra taxes on all the unhealthy foods ? why aren't Cheetos taxed heavily since they are unhealthy ?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.2.3    3 weeks ago
why aren't Cheetos taxed heavily since they are unhealthy ?

You can't buy them with food stamps can you?

And frankly, maybe there should be a junk food tax. IDK, just spitballing here. 

 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.5  Phoenyx13  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.4    3 weeks ago
You can't buy them with food stamps can you?

yes, you absolutely can - do some research:

It does cover groceries that can be eaten without further preparation like fresh fruits, cheese sticks, or snacks. SNAP benefits will cover junk food like potato chips, pretzels, and ice cream. The EBT card will be accepted at a broad range of businesses including pharmacies, grocery stores, gas stations, and other small chains like convenient stores.

from: https://eligibility.com/food-stamps/what-kinds-of-products-cannot-be-purchased-with-snap-benefits

And frankly, maybe there should be a junk food tax. IDK, just spitballing here.

seriously ? you don't think we pay enough taxes already and you want more ? how about we just tax people who breathe too much and take up more oxygen than they should which takes away oxygen from everyone else ? that sounds good to you as well ? how much more government do you want ? 

 
 
sandy-2021492
6.2.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.2.5    3 weeks ago
how about we just tax people who breathe too much and take up more oxygen than they should which takes away oxygen from everyone else ? that sounds good to you as well ?

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.7  Phoenyx13  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.6    3 weeks ago

roll your eyes all you want - we can apply these new taxes to anyone who does something "unhealthy" or "wrong" - right ? what's going to stop us from taxing people who take up too much oxygen since you already want to tax people for making food choices ?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.8  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.2.5    3 weeks ago

Read again:

And frankly, maybe there should be a junk food tax. IDK, just spitballing here.

I said maybe.. just throwing ideas out here.

how much more government do you want ?

As little as possible. But how much do you think we should be paying for other people's bad behavior. Do you think that it doesn't cost you? It does. 

 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.9  Phoenyx13  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.8    3 weeks ago
As little as possible. But how much do you think we should be paying for other people's bad behavior. Do you think that it doesn't cost you? It does.

it absolutely does - that's part of being human and having freedom. Look, we all make bad choices and some of those choices lead to terrible consequences - that's part of life, being human and having freedom. They pay for you and your bad choices, you pay for them and theirs - that's how it's set up. it's a much more complex issue than a simple "soda tax" (having as little government as possible wouldn't necessarily involve instituting more and more taxes... would it ?)

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago
But if you have a soda with lunch every day, it's not going to radically change your life.

The reality is that many have just "one" soda with their lunch every day, but it's often a 64 oz big gulp which equals nearly 5 1/2 cans of soda. I rarely go to fast food restaurants but recently I went to a McDonalds and the kids size small soda was 12 oz. The medium was 16 oz and the large was 24 oz with a supersize option for the 32 oz plastic cup. Yes, we should be using self restraint to keep ourselves from the dangers of too much sugar, but sadly capitalism demands we make it easy to give people what they want even if it isn't in moderation. As long as people demand "more!" retailers are going to find a way to give it to them.

 
 
dave-2693993
6.3.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3    3 weeks ago
The reality is that many have just "one" soda with their lunch every day, but it's often a 64 oz big gulp which equals nearly 5 1/2 cans of soda

IMO, that is where education is needed.

 
 
Krishna
6.4  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago

I object to the characterization of America's relationship with soda as an "unhealthy obsession." That makes sound like some kind of insane radical behavior with no good reason behind it. It's a kind of character assassination. The reality is that soda is popular because it tastes good. 

Of course you could say the same thing about crack Cocaine...

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
6.4.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Krishna @6.4    3 weeks ago

No you can't, crack cocaine tastes like shit.

I do however like the way cocaine smells.

 
 
Krishna
6.5  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago
There's nothing wrong with drinking soda so long as you consume reasonable amounts.

Of course you could say the same thing about crack Cocaine...

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.5.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Krishna @6.5    3 weeks ago
Of course you could say the same thing about crack Cocaine...

Yup.

 
 
dave-2693993
7  dave-2693993    3 weeks ago

Not a soda drinker, but sometimes a Coke or Pepsi hits the spot. I would say I will drink anywhere from 0 to 4 or 5 a year. Not a snob of either brand, except for off brands.

Absolutely love lemonade. One track we had several events at annually used the local Amish community to provide the food and concessions. For a long time was recognized the the track with the best food on the NHRA circuit. 

The girls who made the lemonade knew me by sight. "2 large, crushed ice, no sugar" (or any sweetener). Downed them both in no time after working on a hot clutch between rounds.

That is me, but legislating conscience or morality is just too 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 for me.

I vote education.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @7    3 weeks ago
I vote education.

I agree in a perfect world. The issue is for some reason we have ended up being the fattest nation in the world. This burdens the health care system. 

 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    3 weeks ago
I agree in a perfect world.

May I ask your inclination regarding this topic in an imperfect world?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

Well, obviously to continue education. Maybe taxing specific foods, as Sandy pointed out earlier up the thread, or cutting subsidies to the corn industry, as Zuksam said. 

There are many ways to go about this, but as that chart showed you,

 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.3  dave-2693993  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    3 weeks ago
cutting subsidies to the corn industry, as Zuksam said. 

I am for some form of this.

 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    3 weeks ago
There are many ways to go about this, but as that chart showed you,

Maybe it was because of my parents and extended family, but I always thought everybody knew this stuff.

So I am a bit caught out in our societies insomnia in this area.

Based on some of these conversations, I asked Julia why she likes black bread. Answer: because it has less sugar.

Interesting answer.

 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.5  dave-2693993  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
So I am a bit caught out in our societies insomnia in this area.

Doh!!! Amnesia.

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
I always thought everybody knew this stuff.

Most do know it.  They eat stuff that's lousy for them, anyway.  I come from a family of type II diabetics - my grandparents and aunts and uncles on both sides are diabetic.  They know they shouldn't eat or drink this stuff.  They rationalize it with "I'm only having one soda (the Big Gulp size)" and "my doctor said chocolate is good for me (not the ounce or so of dark chocolate recommended, but one of those king-sized Hershey bars)."  They rationalize, but they know exactly what they're doing.

I watched my uncle with heart disease eat at an all-you-can-eat buffet until his shirt buttons came undone.  He called that "getting his money's worth".  He died young - a heart attack while eating dinner.

 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.7  dave-2693993  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.6    3 weeks ago
I watched my uncle with heart disease eat at an all-you-can-eat buffet until his shirt buttons came undone.  He called that "getting his money's worth".  He died young - a heart attack while eating dinner.

Sorry about this sad fact of reality.

Hope the rest of your family has developed a similar sense of cause and effect as you with regard to diet.

 
 
TTGA
7.2  TTGA  replied to  dave-2693993 @7    3 weeks ago
legislating conscience or morality is just too 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 for me.

I know exactly what you mean Dave.  There does seem to be a serious mental disease going on in this country (and many others), but it doesn't involve eating or drinking unhealthy food and beverages; or smoking, or a lot of other unhealthy behaviors.  It is the obsessive compulsion that many people have (particularly those with power) to control other people's lives..."for their own good".  Tell people what the risk is, then leave them alone.  If they choose to take that risk, that's their business. At the same time, we shouldn't be paying $250,000,000.000 a year to keep such people alive either.  Anyone who chooses to take such a risk must be prepared to pay the ultimate price.  I smoke and, when Queen Jennifer (Granholm) laid heavy taxes on cigarettes, I simply evaded them.  Not that hard to do.  When it finally gets to me, however, I do not expect other people to pay the bills to keep me alive.  What I expect is to die.  Trying to forcefully (and taxation is a form of force) change my behavior just to put that off for an extra year or so is exactly what Tacos was talking about under the heading of "insane radical behavior".

 
 
dave-2693993
7.2.1  dave-2693993  replied to  TTGA @7.2    3 weeks ago
There does seem to be a serious mental disease going on in this country (and many others), but it doesn't involve eating or drinking unhealthy food and beverages; or smoking, or a lot of other unhealthy behaviors.  It is the obsessive compulsion that many people have (particularly those with power) to control other people's lives..."for their own good".

It is as if the helicopter parent mentality is trying to take over society as a whole.

P.S, I am sorry, I didn't read Taco's post, so I hope I didn't confuse matters. Just spoke from the gut there.  LOL, not sure if the pun was intended or not.

 
 
Krishna
7.3  Krishna  replied to  dave-2693993 @7    3 weeks ago
but legislating conscience or morality is just too 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 for me.

But this is not about morality...is about health!

 
 
dave-2693993
7.3.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @7.3    3 weeks ago

Another soma will help us feel better.

 
 
Phoenyx13
7.3.2  Phoenyx13  replied to  Krishna @7.3    3 weeks ago
But this is not about morality...is about health!

where's the line ? how much more government do you want ? how many more taxes do you think we need ? shouldn't we tax Cheetos heavily since they are "unhealthy" ? how about other foods ?

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

IMO, another problem that adds to the obesity problem is the lack of exercise due to the gaming industry.  I can remember as a kid on Thanksgiving everyone going outdoors to play touch football or other games to work up an appetite and then after dinner to work the dinner off.  Now the kids glue themselves to their gaming systems, phones, or tablets.

 
 
MUVA
9  MUVA    3 weeks ago

I'm drinking a super big gulp Dr Pepper as I post one a day keeps the pharmaceutical manufacturers in business.

 
 
dave-2693993
9.1  dave-2693993  replied to  MUVA @9    3 weeks ago
I'm drinking a super big gulp Dr Pepper as I post one a day keeps the pharmaceutical manufacturers in business.

I am working on the worlds oldest grain based beverage. BEER.

 
 
MUVA
9.1.1  MUVA  replied to  dave-2693993 @9.1    3 weeks ago

I don't drink very much but we had a easy day I'm done 5.30

maybe sailor jerry and coke time.

 
 
Krishna
9.2  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @9    3 weeks ago

I'm drinking a super big gulp Dr Pepper as I post one a day keeps the pharmaceutical manufacturers in business.

Exactly! 

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
10  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    3 weeks ago

Government can't manage the people's money and they certainly can't manage our caloric intake or sugar consumption.

Its not government's job to keep you or your kids from being slobs.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @10    3 weeks ago
Its not government's job to keep you or your kids from being slobs.

Well then someone is not doing their job, since we have become the fattest nation in the world. 

 
 
Phoenyx13
10.1.1  Phoenyx13  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1    3 weeks ago
Well then someone is not doing their job, since we have become the fattest nation in the world.

i think that's part of badfish's point - the government can't do it (we've seen it) yet you are proposing to expand it and let them keep taking care of it with more taxes. (i could be wrong, just my interpretation)

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
10.1.2  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1    3 weeks ago

It's a choice and people are free to make poor choices.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @10.1.2    3 weeks ago

Here is a list of poor choices that people make and they are not allowed to make:

  1. Speeding
  2. Drunk driving
  3. underaged drinking
  4. drug usage
  5. smoking (which is taxed)
  6. buying more than 2 boxes of Sudafed
 
 
mocowgirl
11  mocowgirl    3 weeks ago

Eating sugar makes you hungry when in turn leads to overeating.

I am fine with taxing sugary products to the point of really making them a "treat" instead of a staple of a person's daily diet.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat#section1

Mechanism #1 of sugar-induced fat gain: Eating a lot of sugar chronically raises insulin levels in the blood, which selectively deposits energy from foods into fat cells.

Mechanism #2: Fructose makes the brain leptin resistant, which means that the brain doesn't "see" all the stored fat in the body and thinks that it is starving. This causes a powerful leptin-induced biochemical drive to keep eating even when we don't need to.

Mechanism #3: Fructose does not make you feel full after a meal in the same way as glucose, which leads to an increase in overall calorie intake.

4. Sugar Can Make Some People Addicted

Sugar causes opiate and dopamine activity in the reward centers of the brain, just like drugs of abuse like cocaine (6).

Mechanism #4: Sugar, due to its powerful effects on the reward system in the brain, leads to classic signs of addiction comparable to drugs of abuse. This activates powerful reward-seeking behavior that can drive overeating.

The Perfect Recipe for Fat Gain

Okay, so let's take a step back and review what we have covered about fructose and fat gain.

  1. Fructose causes insulin resistance and raises insulin levels in the body, which increases the deposition of fat in the fat cells.
  2. Fructose causes resistance to a hormone called leptin, which makes the brain not "see" that the fat cells are full of fat. This leads to increased food intake and decreased fat burning.
  3. Fructose does not make you feel full after meals. It does not lower levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin and it doesn't reduce blood flow in the centers of the brain that control appetite. This increases overall food intake.
  4. Sugar, with its powerful effect on the reward system, causes addiction in certain individuals. This activates powerful reward-seeking behavior that also increases food intake.

So, excess fructose consumption dysregulates short-term energy balance on a meal-to-meal basis and throws long-term energy balance out of whack.

The more sugar you eat and the longer this process is allowed to continue, the more powerful it becomes. Insulin and leptin resistance increase over time and the reward-seeking behavior becomes stronger.

This way, sugar sets up an extremely powerful biochemical drive to make you eat more, burn less and get fat. Trying to exert willpower over this powerful drive can be next to impossible.

I'd like to point out that this does not apply to whole fruits, which are real foods with fiber and a low energy density. Fruits are a relatively minor source of fructose in the diet.

kris3.png
Written by Kris Gunnars, BScon February 4, 2013
 
 
JBB
12  JBB    3 weeks ago

Americans, especially children, are degrees fatter than they used to be or what is healthy mainly due to sugary drinks...

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
12.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JBB @12    3 weeks ago

It is also due to a lot of the breakfast cereals these days.  Does the world really need 200 plus varieties of sugar laden cereals?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @12.1    3 weeks ago

Nope.. good point Paula!

 
 
Krishna
12.1.2  Krishna  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @12.1    3 weeks ago

It is also due to a lot of the breakfast cereals these days.  Does the world really need 200 plus varieties of sugar laden cereals?

And its not only the sugar, Hi-Fructose Corn Syrup, and other sweeteners. The are numerous other chemicals added to cereals-- often food colouring agents, preservatives, emulsifiers, etc, etc. Some time when you get a change, look at the ingredients label on a few boxes of breakfast cereal.

I usually eat Oats for breakfast (for health reasons but also because I like the taste). The breakfast cereal I eat has only one ingredient-- Oats! (I only eat Organic...and only Steel-cut).

 
 
Krishna
12.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @12.1.2    3 weeks ago
The breakfast cereal I eat has only one ingredient-- Oats!

A nutritionist I know wisely recommended this:

Never eat anything that has more than a fery few basic ingredients.

Another one gave this advice-- never eat anything that has any ingredient with a name you can't pronounce!

(Of course that only applies to those who decide to value "long term gratification" (Health) over "Short term gratification")

 
 
JBB
12.2  JBB  replied to  JBB @12    3 weeks ago

"Sweet Feed", Cereal grains sweetened with molasses, is what farmers feed to cattle to fatten them for market so that would plainly not be something healthy to feed children unless you plan on eating them. If you look at old newsreels and TV shows and even movies it is plain to see that Americans are a lot fatter in general than they used to be and that is not a good thing. I have battled my weight forever and one thing is plain, cutting sugar from ones diet is the surest way to increase energy and reduce weight. Sharing an occasional coke, one bottle between two people, was normal way back when but people did not consume soda by the two liter bottle either and obesity was not normal though we have mostly become blind to what happened. Obesity kills more people than smoking, so does alcohol, but unlike alcohol or cigarettes sugary products are marketed and sold to kids. A kid can't go into a store and buy whisky or cigarettes but they can sell candy to kids all day long. Childhood obesity caused lifelong problems and few children who are obese ever escape obesity. When I was a kind in the 60's it was normal for each class of about thirty students to have one or two obese children. Today about one in five kids in the US are officially obese according to the CDC...

Prevalence of Childhood Obesity in the United States

Childhood obesity is a serious problem in the United States putting children and adolescents at risk for poor health. Obesity prevalence among children and adolescents is still too high.

For children and adolescents aged 2-19 years1:

  • The prevalence of obesity was 18.5% and affected about 13.7 million children and adolescents.
  • Obesity prevalence was 13.9% among 2- to 5-year-olds, 18.4% among 6- to 11-year-olds, and 20.6% among 12- to 19-year-olds. Childhood obesity is also more common among certain populations.
  • Hispanics (25.8%) and non-Hispanic blacks (22.0%) had higher obesity prevalence than non-Hispanic whites (14.1%).
  • Non-Hispanic Asians (11.0%) had lower obesity prevalence than non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics
 
 
Krishna
12.2.1  Krishna  replied to  JBB @12.2    3 weeks ago
Cereal grains sweetened with molasses, is what farmers feed to cattle to fatten them for market

Actually cattle were designed by nature to eat grasses. But farmers feed them various types of grains instead. Why? Because grain fattens then up!

Its also much healthier to eat "Grass Feed" Beef-- as well as Bison.

 
 
Krishna
12.2.2  Krishna  replied to  JBB @12.2    3 weeks ago
Prevalence of Childhood Obesity in the United States Childhood obesity is a serious problem in the United States putting children and adolescents at risk for poor health. Obesity prevalence among children and adolescents is still too high.

Golly gee-- I wonder why?

(/sarc)

384

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.2.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Krishna @12.2.2    3 weeks ago
Golly gee-- I wonder why?

Sugar got cheaper and high fructose corn syrup. 

 
 
Ender
13  Ender    3 weeks ago

Not a big soda drinker. Might have one every once in a while, not very often.

The reason I don't think taxing them will do much good, even if soda was out of reach of some people, their sugar intake would not diminish. I have seen people make Ice tea with so much sugar it would gag you, same with Kool-aid.

People have to want to be healthy. Is it easier to sit on the couch or go to the gym. Then there is the stereotype of people that go to the gym as the bro, idiot, muscle worshiper. 

There are a lot of things wrong in/about society and personal responsibility is one of them.

Last note, when they took cocaine out of Coke, it kinda took the fun out of it.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @13    3 weeks ago
There are a lot of things wrong in/about society and personal responsibility is one of them.

I totally agree. 

Last note, when they took cocaine out of Coke, it kinda took the fun out of it.

I totally agree, LOL!

 
 
Cerenkov
14  Cerenkov    3 weeks ago

Nanny state bullshit. If people want to guzzle soda, enjoy.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Cerenkov @14    3 weeks ago

I hate the Nanny state bullshit, BS. We tax cigarettes because it's bad for you. You end up paying for people's health issues from drinking too much soda. What happened to your fiscal conservatism? 

How about finding a better idea to solve the problem of the worlds fattest country?

 
 
Cerenkov
14.1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.1    3 weeks ago

Because I cherish liberty. Sin taxes are regressive. What happened to your fiscal liberalism?

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
14.1.2  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.1    3 weeks ago

Taxing cigarettes has led to a vibrant black market especially in NY. I seem to remember a recent victim that lost his life for peddling black market cigarettes. A cop choked him to death.

Our prohibitions and sin taxes create unintended consequences.

Time to tax internet forums. There is sufficient data that we spend too much time online and it's unhealthy.

Oh and time for TV taxes to save the kids. Video games? 
Porn?
Why stop with soda?
 
 
Phoenyx13
14.1.3  Phoenyx13  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @14.1.2    3 weeks ago
Taxing cigarettes has led to a vibrant black market especially in NY. I seem to remember a recent victim that lost his life for peddling black market cigarettes. A cop choked him to death. Our prohibitions and sin taxes create unintended consequences.

those darn unintended consequences that many don't think about in advance - especially those who seem to feel having more taxes and more government is the solution.

Time to tax internet forums. There is sufficient data that we spend too much time online and it's unhealthy.
Oh and time for TV taxes to save the kids. Video games? 
Porn?
Why stop with soda?
great ideas ! and let's tax people who own internet forums for contributing to the unhealthiness of others by creating the forums in the first place - they should get extra taxes. (sidenote: that's said in jest - i don't like extra taxes and don't advocate for them)

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1.4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @14.1.2    3 weeks ago
Our prohibitions and sin taxes create unintended consequences.

What sin taxes? Only tobacco has a tax on it.

We all know what causes obesity. We are the fattest country in the world. This costs all of us. 

check out this interactive map of soda drinking:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/map_of_the_week/2012/07/map_of_soda_consumption_americans_drink_more_than_anyone_else_.html

 
 
Jack_TX
14.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @14.1.3    3 weeks ago
those darn unintended consequences that many don't think about in advance - especially those who seem to feel having more taxes and more government is the solution.

Increasing costs reduces demand.  Econ 101.

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
14.1.6  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.1.4    3 weeks ago

I don't need to see a soda map. 

I don't drink sodas but I want to have a choice without a silly tax.

Increasing costs will createt the soda black market.

Then some idiot will die peddling Ginger Ale.

Brilliant solution.

We just don't learn...the tax won't stop the glutton but it will empower our corrupt gluttonous government to waste more tax dollars.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @14.1.6    3 weeks ago

I'm glad you don't drink soda by choice. 

But that is not most people. 

Just like we still see people smoking. 

I am not worried about a soda black market. 

We could just use that money for education on better health. Or at least help people spend their food budgets wisely. 

 
 
Texan1211
14.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @14.1.6    3 weeks ago

One other bad side effect of taxes like these are that government becomes addicted to receiving those tax dollars, and when revenue diminishes because the program is working in the manner it was designed to, government will simply move on to some other new tax--- without end.

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
14.1.9  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.1.7    3 weeks ago

or Captain obvious says, "you could just choose not to drink soda.......!"

 
 
Phoenyx13
14.2  Phoenyx13  replied to  Cerenkov @14    3 weeks ago
Nanny state bullshit. If people want to guzzle soda, enjoy.

i have to agree. that's exactly where this road seems to lead. freedom of choice includes being able to make bad choices along with good choices - we all do it. 

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
14.2.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Phoenyx13 @14.2    3 weeks ago

Fat slob politicians don't care about obesity. They want our money so the can pander to special interests.

Not to mention this tax will disproportionately hurt the BBW crowd that believes unhealthy is not a choice.

 
 
Phoenyx13
14.2.2  Phoenyx13  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @14.2.1    3 weeks ago
Fat slob politicians don't care about obesity. They want our money so the can pander to special interests.

i agree - we've seen it repeatedly, yet some people feel giving the government more money will somehow solve the problem.

Not to mention this tax will disproportionately hurt the BBW crowd that believes unhealthy is not a choice

who are the BBW crowd ?

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
14.2.3  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Phoenyx13 @14.2.2    3 weeks ago

Big Beautiful women crowd. They believe fat is a protected class and its who they are and not that they are gluttons.

 
 
Phoenyx13
14.2.4  Phoenyx13  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @14.2.3    3 weeks ago
Big Beautiful women crowd. They believe fat is a protected class and its who they are and not that they are gluttons.

oh gotcha. I think that's another debate (their beliefs) for another article

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
15  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    3 weeks ago
Because I cherish liberty.

So do I, but when you liberty steps on my toes, I have an issue with it. 

Sin taxes are regressive.

Where is that in our constitution?

What happened to your fiscal liberalism?

I have never been a fiscal liberal. In fact, I would say that I tend to be a fiscal conservative. 

I am one of those pesky independents you know. 

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
15.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @15    3 weeks ago

I see a new branch of government. The Soda tax enforcement goon squad.

What's this moronic beurocracy going to cost?

People will still be slobs and now we will have another donut eating task force.

Wait, then we'll need to tax donuts....then we will need donut eating donut cops.

It's a vicious cycle of fat governed by fat.

 
 
Jack_TX
15.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @15.1    3 weeks ago
I see a new branch of government. The Soda tax enforcement goon squad.

What, the people who currently collect tobacco taxes turn to pumpkins if the product is liquid instead of leaves?

What's this moronic beurocracy going to cost?

Less than it collects.

People will still be slobs and now we will have another donut eating task force.

Yes.  But you and I will be paying less for their healthcare.

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
15.1.2  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Jack_TX @15.1.1    3 weeks ago

The tax revenue won't be spent on healthcare or the education system that can't teach them to count calories or avoid stuffing their pie holes.

It will buy more guns for al Qaeda rebels in Syria or new drapes in some government office with a fat soda drinking slob you vote for.

How about we implement a new progressive tax based on how fat people are.
Weigh more, pay more.
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
15.1.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @15.1.2    3 weeks ago
The tax revenue won't be spent on healthcare or the education system that can't teach them to count calories or avoid stuffing their pie holes.
How do you know that? Studies have shown the effect to be that people stop smoking from cigarette taxes.
How about we implement a new progressive tax based on how fat people are.
Weigh more, pay more.

Isn't that against everything you believe in? Seriously, no disrespect. 

 
 
Jack_TX
15.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @15.1.2    3 weeks ago
The tax revenue won't be spent on healthcare or the education system that can't teach them to count calories or avoid stuffing their pie holes.

It can be earmarked for healthcare in the bill.

It will buy more guns for al Qaeda rebels in Syria or new drapes in some government office with a fat soda drinking slob you vote for.

All that shit is going to happen anyway.  We'll just have more money coming in to offset it.

How about we implement a new progressive tax based on how fat people are.
Weigh more, pay more.

How about we let health insurers go back to assessing premium based on risk factors like obesity?

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
15.1.5  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Jack_TX @15.1.4    3 weeks ago
How about we let health insurers go back to assessing premium based on risk factors like obesity?

Or we could tax people based on their BMI percentage. Clearly those with unhealthy numbers cost us more.  We weigh trucks on the side of the roads so we do have scales for some of the bigger ones.

Actually smokers and people with horrible lifestyles such as obese should pay higher premiums for insurance. They are more risk.
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
15.1.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @15.1.5    3 weeks ago

I have advocated for a fat tax for bout 30yrs now.

I reckon even airline seats and health insurance should be sold by the pound. but your BMI tax sounds a bit more fair.. let's do that.

the problem is too many fat ass politicians and their fat ass constituents who would rather say being fat is beautiful.

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
15.1.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @15.1.5    3 weeks ago
Actually smokers and people with horrible lifestyles such as obese should pay higher premiums for insurance. They are more risk.

They do on individual policies. They don't on group, where the risk gets spread out among the members. Also, the same thing applies in hospitals. We pay for those who can't and most often they have the worst eating habits since they are the least informed and good food costs more money. They also have a higher rate of smoking, too. 

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
15.1.8  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @15.1.6    3 weeks ago

There you go!

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
15.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @15.1.8    3 weeks ago

ya know what's really weird...

we removed trans fat because "unhealthy"

removing trans fats made everything taste horrible

so they put sugars in everything to make it taste good again

our population's weight exploded,  (gee I wonder why?  LOL)

lets tax soda... that will fix it... LOL

basically, we traded a few strokes and heart attacks for a national obesity epidemic....

people crack me up :)

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
15.1.10  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @15.1.9    3 weeks ago

Once the tax goes into effect, I'm going to peddle pixie sticks and carbonated water. Dump grape in your carbonated soda water and enjoy. It's going to be called Soda Basing, no lighter or flame needed to mix.

Then Doctor Oz will have addicts on, Dr. Drew will have the pixie soda rehab reality show.

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
15.1.11  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @15.1.10    3 weeks ago

good plan...

I'm going to buy a few dozen soda stream machines and hide them before the damn gobermint, G-man, revenuers go round busting them up.

 
 
Jack_TX
15.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @15.1.5    3 weeks ago
Actually smokers and people with horrible lifestyles such as obese should pay higher premiums for insurance. They are more risk.

Currently, smokers pay a 50% premium on individual purchase policies.  But charging extra for obesity is prohibited by law. 

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
15.1.13  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @15.1.11    3 weeks ago

They will defame you and call you a Zionist.

 
 
Phoenyx13
15.1.14  Phoenyx13  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @15.1.7    3 weeks ago
They don't on group, where the risk gets spread out among the members

yes they absolutely do ! my job does it every year with their health care coverage which is - group policy ! they ask every year to every person - "do you smoke cigarettes ?" and they charge extra to those who answer "yes" (and also provide quitting smoking programs as well to those people - which i think is a good thing to help them quit and lead a healthier lifestyle). I thought everyone knew this ?

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), health insurance premiums are based on the following factors: plan category, the number of individuals on the policy, age, location, and tobacco use. When it comes to health insurance rates for smokers, many insurance companies can also factor in tobacco use in order to increase premiums. The practice of charging tobacco users more is called tobacco rating. The ACA allows for insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers through a tobacco surcharge. Although this is allowed, it doesn't mean that all states have decided to implement this charge. As demonstrated below, tobacco surcharges can vary from state to state

from: https://www.healthmarkets.com/content/what-you-need-know-about-smoking-and-health-insurance

 
 
Cerenkov
15.2  Cerenkov  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @15    3 weeks ago

"Where is that in our constitution?"

Are you kidding? The facts are incontrovertible. 

 
 
JBB
15.2.2  JBB  replied to  Cerenkov @15.2    3 weeks ago
Are you kidding? The facts are incontrovertible. 

Then you should have no problem at all pointing them out for the rest of us. Some links to the parts of the constiturion which you claim make Perrie's statement incontrovertibly untrue would be nice, too. Anything would help more than just a blanket denial. And, while you are at it please explain how it is that we have been taxing the hell out of tobacco and alcohol all these years with so called "sin taxes" meant to reimburse society for some of the societal costs associated with the use of those also legal products. So, please do proceed to do so or else concede...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online








44 visitors