Taxing soda won't end America's unhealthy obsession with sugary drinks. Better education might.
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 .
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."
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 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
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 !
Bravo, good sir. Bravo.
Haven't drunk a soda in many years. Still drink beer though.
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......
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.
Folk could get away with a less than healthy diet with a little more exercise.
Most Americans are doing neither.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly.
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 ?
We finally agree on something.
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.
That is a very good point Sandy! Quite 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.
Then they can pay more for their health insurance or pay their own medical bills.
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 ?
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 ?
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...
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 ?
Maybe we should.
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.
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?
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 ?
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") ?
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 ?).
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 ?
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.
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.
Tax 'em.
Sure. If "cheat day" is rare, they won't notice it.
Who has mentioned taxing something genetic? Did you have other fantasy arguments you want to pretend people have made?
The Supreme Court has already declared that your health is a matter of interstate commerce.
It's simply making them pay part of their additional drain on the nation's finances.
But they don't, do they?
Yes. I want to stop them spending my tax dollars and start spending some of their own.
I want them to bear the full costs of those decisions.
If they can't pay the Cheetoh tax, maybe they should stop eating the damn Cheetohs.
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.
Absolutely.
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.
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.
That is only true with individual policies. Most people who have private insurance are getting group, where the risk is spread out.
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.
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.
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 .
absolutely doesn't grow on trees ( but that'd be nice sometimes
)
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 )
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)
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
same thing applies to those with genetic conditions - like heart conditions. Why aren't you taxing them or proposing to tax them ?
and that happens to be their freedom of choice
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)
they bear as much cost as you do - since we all pay for each other.
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 ?
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 ?
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)
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.
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.
that's a very slippery slope
it's meant to look as silly as the original suggestion.
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.
My reassessment would be based on how you're presenting your arguments - with ridicule and dishonesty.
How about you argue about views I've actually expressed, rather than repeatedly trying to put words in my mouth?
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 ?
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.
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 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'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.
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.
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 ?
then you should apply the same thing across the board - so we should have a lot of extra taxes by that theory.
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.
well we obviously view it differently. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, words I've never typed on either count, so stop attributing them to me.
Except that they're not.
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 ?)
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
wait.. they aren't paying premiums ??.. this article from 2014 states they are certainly charged ( depends on the state ):
from:
now, all of them don't pay - even tho they are charged those premiums:
so i think we should just go after them, shouldn't we ?
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 ?
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.
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.
that's not my viewpoint - i'm not proposing this:
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.
again - it's the concept. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand - it's the same concept.
so then you should talk to the people in charge of Medicaid about raising the premiums, huh ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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?
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?
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!
Because they don't have a choice. Idiotic question.
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?
That not even smart enough to be "liberal math". Since when are tax burdens equal?
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 federal income taxes. Correct. This is a well established fact. What part of this has you befuddled?
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?
That's just ridiculous. Where did you come up with this??
Then you could stop your soft drink habit. The great thing about consumption taxes is that you have total control.
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.
Jack, if I recall correctly, doesn't your job involve actuarial science?
It's a "risk pool". People who are higher risk pay more into it. This is true for every form of insurance.
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?
Not directly, but we use a lot of their data.
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.
It is very much how insurance works, actually. Actuaries assess risks and determine a premium to reflect it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
replace soda with any unhealthy food - why aren't we taxing them all ? why are you specifically focusing on soda ?
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 ?
LOL you might want to rethink that statement. Everyone has a choice to procreate, to continue certain lifestyles etc - no one is forced .
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 .
did i state that tax burdens were equal ? nope. I didn't state that. try rereading the statement again .
as pointed out - even Medicaid ( depending on state ) pay premiums. insurance is a pool - risk and cost is spread out
wait.. i didn't specify ( and neither did you ) about a specific tax . Please try that question again .
so far you seem to be very enamored with taxes and government - and you also seem to be answering questions i haven't asked .
nobody seems to mind ?
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)
i've never stated my gender nor my age nor anything else, you do know what they say about "assuming" right ?
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.
Income tax on those of us who actually have to pay it.
Such as?
Great idea. But why does soda in particular bother you so much?
Correct. Why would that cause a re-think?
So we can count on you to oppose BerniCare or some other "single payer" nonsense?
So we agree that "as much as I pay for others, they pay for me" is nonsense. Excellent.
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.
I did specify. I specifically stated "income tax" and specifically referred to programs funded by income tax. Check it again.
So there is no need to guess. Good.
Please list all the states with no cigarette tax. Don't worry. It won't take long.
You would not be required to pay the soda tax. Just stop drinking the sodas.
You didn't need to.
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.
As I've said before, maybe we should be.
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?
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.
except that comment was in reply to Sandy and not Perrie... *sigh*
different topic for a different seed
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.
try again. ( you may get it right eventually or you can keep thinking you pay for everything yourself concerning you )
Medicaid isn't insurance ?
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 )
you are correct - my mistake. and it's true that many don't pay income tax - doesn't mean they don't pay taxes.
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.
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 really think a silly soda tax will take care of all the medical insurance problems ? seriously ?
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 )
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.
from:
( 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 insurance .
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.
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 drinkers .
* sigh * i'm well aware of what the comment was in reply to . please reread my reply again.
The same is true of smokers. But the probability is definitely increased.
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.
How do you suggest they get money out of people who don't pay?
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.
No worries. It was waaay up the page.
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?
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.
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.
Does
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.
i actually see more of a point with taxing smokers - especially due to second hand smoke etc. ( isn't that ironic ? )
so go after them specifically .
above my pay grade - i can't solve all the world's problems but i have a suggestion later.
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 :
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
from:
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 ...
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 )
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 ?
see above.
see above.
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)
the viewpoint is in the statement you referenced.
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.
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.
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.
please point out where exactly i stated such an absurd thing. Thanks
I do ? did you see this that i posted :
( 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 ?
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 .
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
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.
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 !
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 ) .
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 ?
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.
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.
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 ?
So you don't want those who can't afford health care to have access to it?
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.
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).
that depends on the situation - but your " logic " dictates that if they can't pay then they can't have it , right ?
you may need to see this and understand where your premiums go :
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 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 .
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" )
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.
Why would you think they're not?
Yet another straw man. One can choose not to pay consumption taxes by refraining from consumption. Consumption taxes aren't dictates.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL now that's cute, because we all know as you age - you get healthier , right ?
and we all know that medical care doesn't rise in price - it lowers all the time , right ? 
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 ?
absolutely is with the tax - as i pointed out already.
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:
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 ) 
And my premiums have, and will continue to, rise to reflect that.
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
. Ever tried helping a soda addict keep his/her teeth? It ain't fun, and it ain't cheap.
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 ?
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)
uhh...
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...
yea... she's the ABA too... did you even read the link ? really ?
and... then i stated:
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 
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. 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.
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
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 .
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 .
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 .
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
Those were your words. Yes I am covering my medical care.
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.
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.
You have, repeatedly throughout this thread.
That depends on the state.
What's ridiculous is the severity and emotionalism of your opposition.
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.
Yup.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
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 !
That's why you tax them.
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.
What about those that don't drink themselves into diabetes. Should those people pay the price too ?
They are already with higher premiums in group insurance, through hospitals who have to take in the ill and through Medicaid.
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 !
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.
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.
I remember that, too. Rat studies are no longer considered reliable for such studies.
I remember at the time that it was "settled science"!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here’s a visual on those statistics:
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 ?
You can't buy them with food stamps can you?
And frankly, maybe there should be a junk food tax. IDK, just spitballing here.
yes, you absolutely can - do some research:
from:
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 ?
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 ?
Read again:
I said maybe.. just throwing ideas out here.
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 ?)
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.
IMO, that is where education is needed.
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...
Of course you could say the same thing about crack Cocaine...
Yup.
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.
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.
May I ask your inclination regarding this topic in an imperfect world?
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,
I am for some form of this.
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.
Doh!!! Amnesia.
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.
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.
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".
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.
But this is not about morality...is about health!
Another soma will help us feel better.
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 ?
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.
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.
Americans, especially children, are degrees fatter than they used to be or what is healthy mainly due to sugary drinks...
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?
Nope.. good point Paula!
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).
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")
"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...
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.
Golly gee-- I wonder why?
(/sarc)
Sugar got cheaper and high fructose corn syrup.
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.
I totally agree.
I totally agree, LOL!
Nanny state bullshit. If people want to guzzle soda, enjoy.
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?
Because I cherish liberty. Sin taxes are regressive. What happened to your fiscal liberalism?
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.
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:
Increasing costs reduces demand. Econ 101.
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.
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.
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.
i agree - we've seen it repeatedly, yet some people feel giving the government more money will somehow solve the problem.
who are the BBW crowd ?
oh gotcha. I think that's another debate (their beliefs) for another article
So do I, but when you liberty steps on my toes, I have an issue with it.
Where is that in our constitution?
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.
"Where is that in our constitution?"
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...