Unintended consequence or deliberate attack on the poor and elderly?

[MasterJedi]

I've got an idea: don't buy cigarettes...

Of course this wasn't a "deliberate attack on the poor and elderly".  Don't be silly.

^^^^^^

And the government didn't screw up either.

[Nym90]

Look at the underlying rationale behind this tax: Government through medicaid is responsible for the healthcare costs of the poor, therefore government has the right to control unhealthy habits of all citizens. In this case the control is to apply extraordinarily high taxes on the unhealthy product, cigarettes. But couldn't the same argument be made for all products the government deems to be unhealthy? Foods that are high in saturated fat and cholesterol certainly contribute to health problems. Couldn't the government use the same logic to apply extreme taxes on those products as well. Today you can get a bacon and egg breakfast for maybe $5.00 at many restaurants. If you applied a similar tax to that it would raise the price to about $15.00. And how about cheeseburgers, french fries, pizza, tacos, ribs, fried chicken etc? Do you want government using the power of taxation to force you to eat only food the government deems OK? At what point do we stop calling this place "The land of the free"?

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

The reality is that you already pay for people's bad eating habits in the form of higher health care costs; it would seem to me that a health care system that focused more on prevention and less on cure would be far more cost effective.

I think that's one of the misconceptions that people have, that someone else's behavior doesn't really affect them unless the government is involved. It still affects you either way; the freedom to do whatever you want comes at a high price in other areas, and while it's legitimate to debate whether or not we are willing to pay this price, it's ridiculous to pretend that it's nonexistent in "free market" situations or any situation for that matter.

[??????????]

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

Please tell me you're joking.

[David S]

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

Please tell me you're joking.

Ditto!!!!

Its  shocking to me that people are so readily willing to hand over their rights. I'm not singling out NYM90. My own brother has expressed similar thoughts.  But it really makes me think that freedom in America is rapidly approaching its end.

[WalterMitty]

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

Please tell me you're joking.

that is actually a good idea!

why not a fast food tax.  1. it would raise reveues.  2. it would help to discourage teens (many of whom are obese) from eating there.

[John Dibble]

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

Please tell me you're joking.

that is actually a good idea!

why not a fast food tax.  1. it would raise reveues.  2. it would help to discourage teens (many of whom are obese) from eating there.

Then why not just outright ban fast foods if you're so concerned?

[??????????]

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

Please tell me you're joking.

that is actually a good idea!

why not a fast food tax.  1. it would raise reveues.  2. it would help to discourage teens (many of whom are obese) from eating there.

Why do you hate freedom?

[WalterMitty]

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

Please tell me you're joking.

that is actually a good idea!

why not a fast food tax.  1. it would raise reveues.  2. it would help to discourage teens (many of whom are obese) from eating there.

Why do you hate freedom?

freedom isnt free.

[David S]

BTW lest you guys think that old David S has slipped a cog and is in the advanced stages of geezer dementia by suggesting that government might want to tax fast food:

 2005 House Bill 5264 (Impose fast food surtax)

Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III on October 6, 2005, to impose an extra 2 percent sales tax on purchases made at fast food restaurants. The money would be deposited in a new state childhood obesity prevention program fund. The bill does not specify how that money should be used.
Source http://www.michiganvotes.org/SearchLegislation.aspx?CategoryID=40

[NewFederalist]

BTW lest you guys think that old David S has slipped a cog and is in the advanced stages of geezer dementia by suggesting that government might want to tax fast food...

(/quote]

We WERE worried there for a minute!

[David S]

BTW lest you guys think that old David S has slipped a cog and is in the advanced stages of geezer dementia by suggesting that government might want to tax fast food...

(/quote]

We WERE worried there for a minute!

LOL Thanks for the vote of confidence my friend.

[Nym90]

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

Please tell me you're joking.

Ditto!!!!

Its  shocking to me that people are so readily willing to hand over their rights. I'm not singling out NYM90. My own brother has expressed similar thoughts.  But it really makes me think that freedom in America is rapidly approaching its end.

As I explained, you are going to have to spend the money to support these people one way or the other. I'd rather pay a higher tax to help pay for government health care than have to pay more money to insurance companies for my health care coverage.

Whether or not this is the right way to do it is certainly debateable, and as I've said I don't really like this approach all that much, but overall the only real solution to the health care problem is to focus on prevention rather than cure.

[Nym90]

I would be open to the idea of an unhealthy food tax to help pay for the cost of health care.

Please tell me you're joking.

that is actually a good idea!

why not a fast food tax.  1. it would raise reveues.  2. it would help to discourage teens (many of whom are obese) from eating there.

Then why not just outright ban fast foods if you're so concerned?

Because that would be taking away far more freedom from people. At least this way people would still have the choice. It isn't a black-or-white issue.

This approach would at least promote responsibilty by letting people eat all they want as long as they are willing to foot the bill for their own health care costs rather than expecting someone else to pay for it later.

[dazzleman]

This approach would at least promote responsibilty by letting people eat all they want as long as they are willing to foot the bill for their own health care costs rather than expecting someone else to pay for it later.

Eric, you have perhaps unwitting touched on the achilles heel of socialized responsibility for things like health care.

Socialized responsibility, whether through the government or other means, like insurance, almost always leads to restriction of individual freedom, due to the reasoning that you used in this post.

If others are paying the cost of your choices, they will sooner or later assert the right to have some control over your choices.  We have seen this argument made with respect to welfare recipients, seat belt use, smoking, and now it's being extended to diets and the types of food people eat.

In some cases, it is reasonable, as in the case of direct subsidy from the taxpayers, particularly when the dependency is chosen, either through laziness or the making of stupid choices.  But this argument is really starting to push close to the edge.

[Nym90]

This approach would at least promote responsibilty by letting people eat all they want as long as they are willing to foot the bill for their own health care costs rather than expecting someone else to pay for it later.

Eric, you have perhaps unwitting touched on the achilles heel of socialized responsibility for things like health care.

Socialized responsibility, whether through the government or other means, like insurance, almost always leads to restriction of individual freedom, due to the reasoning that you used in this post.

If others are paying the cost of your choices, they will sooner or later assert the right to have some control over your choices.  We have seen this argument made with respect to welfare recipients, seat belt use, smoking, and now it's being extended to diets and the types of food people eat.

In some cases, it is reasonable, as in the case of direct subsidy from the taxpayers, particularly when the dependency is chosen, either through laziness or the making of stupid choices.  But this argument is really starting to push close to the edge.

As I've said, I don't really support this tax, but I can at least see some merit to it, as opposed to simply raising taxes on people who are making good choices to pay for those who aren't.

Regardless of the specifics of the solution, I think that ultimately health care does have to focus more on the prevention side, rather than on the cure. Obviously people don't like this because they want to be able to do whatever they want, but at some point someone has to articulate the unfortunate reality that responsible decision making is the only real answer to the problem.

[dazzleman]

This approach would at least promote responsibilty by letting people eat all they want as long as they are willing to foot the bill for their own health care costs rather than expecting someone else to pay for it later.

Eric, you have perhaps unwitting touched on the achilles heel of socialized responsibility for things like health care.

Socialized responsibility, whether through the government or other means, like insurance, almost always leads to restriction of individual freedom, due to the reasoning that you used in this post.

If others are paying the cost of your choices, they will sooner or later assert the right to have some control over your choices.  We have seen this argument made with respect to welfare recipients, seat belt use, smoking, and now it's being extended to diets and the types of food people eat.

In some cases, it is reasonable, as in the case of direct subsidy from the taxpayers, particularly when the dependency is chosen, either through laziness or the making of stupid choices.  But this argument is really starting to push close to the edge.

As I've said, I don't really support this tax, but I can at least see some merit to it, as opposed to simply raising taxes on people who are making good choices to pay for those who aren't.

Regardless of the specifics of the solution, I think that ultimately health care does have to focus more on the prevention side, rather than on the cure. Obviously people don't like this because they want to be able to do whatever they want, but at some point someone has to articulate the unfortunate reality that responsible decision making is the only real answer to the problem.

Maybe the answer is to make people of unhealthy habits pay a higher premium, rather than to try to regulate their behavior.  Kind of the way the guy with 4 speeding tickets pays more for his car insurance than the driver with a clean license.  When you have to pay for your choices, sometimes you make smarter ones (sometimes not).  Socialized responsibility destroys the incentive to make smarter choices.

I think that allowing people their freedom, but making them pay for the negative consequences of bad choices, is better than restricting freedom in the name of societal good and socialized responsibility.

[??????????]

How would an insurance agency prove that a person lives an unhealthy life Dazzle?

[Nym90]

How would an insurance agency prove that a person lives an unhealthy life Dazzle?

Well, auto insurance certainly does in terms of looking at your driving record, at least.

Of course, many private businesses are beginning to refuse to hire smokers due to the increased cost in their health insurance. I'm glad Dazzleman agreed earlier that this type of thing is by no means limited to government.

[??????????]

How would an insurance agency prove that a person lives an unhealthy life Dazzle?

Well, auto insurance certainly does in terms of looking at your driving record, at least.

Of course, many private businesses are beginning to refuse to hire smokers due to the increased cost in their health insurance. I'm glad Dazzleman agreed earlier that this type of thing is by no means limited to government.

So, driving records don't show all risky behaviors. People still speed, not wear their seatbelt, et al. Surely the insurance company doesn't want you doing such things.

[Nym90]

How would an insurance agency prove that a person lives an unhealthy life Dazzle?

Well, auto insurance certainly does in terms of looking at your driving record, at least.

Of course, many private businesses are beginning to refuse to hire smokers due to the increased cost in their health insurance. I'm glad Dazzleman agreed earlier that this type of thing is by no means limited to government.

So, driving records don't show all risky behaviors. People still speed, not wear their seatbelt, et al. Surely the insurance company doesn't want you doing such things.

Well if you get caught for those things it is obviously reflected, but yeah, it is far from a reliable way to say who is and who isn't doing something considered "safe". A lot of the time, speeding isn't really even dangerous and can often be used unfortunately as a revenue generator.

[dazzleman]

How would an insurance agency prove that a person lives an unhealthy life Dazzle?

BMI, perhaps.

I have no problem with DIRECTLY assessing people for the costs of their choices, through things like higher insurance premiums for risky behavior DIRECTLY related to what is being insured.

But I don't think the government should try to regulate legal behavior through taxes.

[dazzleman]

How would an insurance agency prove that a person lives an unhealthy life Dazzle?

Well, auto insurance certainly does in terms of looking at your driving record, at least.

Of course, many private businesses are beginning to refuse to hire smokers due to the increased cost in their health insurance. I'm glad Dazzleman agreed earlier that this type of thing is by no means limited to government.

So, driving records don't show all risky behaviors. People still speed, not wear their seatbelt, et al. Surely the insurance company doesn't want you doing such things.

Well if you get caught for those things it is obviously reflected, but yeah, it is far from a reliable way to say who is and who isn't doing something considered "safe". A lot of the time, speeding isn't really even dangerous and can often be used unfortunately as a revenue generator.

It's true that driving record is not a perfect indicator of whether a person drives dangerously, since one could drive dangerously without getting caught, and much speeding for which a person could be ticketed is not really dangerous.

I was more trying to illustrate the concept of risk-adjusted premiums than to argue that this example is necessarily a perfect, or even good, implementation of it.  It is highly imperfect, but I can't think of a really better way other than to revamp many of our traffic laws to increase speed limits, which isn't going to happen because the current system is far too lucrative.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BTW lest you guys think that old David S has slipped a cog and is in the advanced stages of geezer dementia by suggesting that government might want to tax fast food:

 2005 House Bill 5264 (Impose fast food surtax)

Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III on October 6, 2005, to impose an extra 2 percent sales tax on purchases made at fast food restaurants. The money would be deposited in a new state childhood obesity prevention program fund. The bill does not specify how that money should be used.
Source http://www.michiganvotes.org/SearchLegislation.aspx?CategoryID=40

I can go one better.  In South Carolina we have a local option "local hospitality tax" of up to 2% on sales of prepared food and beverages.  Granted it targets all restaurants, not just fast food restaurants, but we already have it.

[??????????]

How would an insurance agency prove that a person lives an unhealthy life Dazzle?

BMI, perhaps.

Perhaps, but some people are predisposed to being large (not everyone is meant to be skinny) or some people may have a thyroid condition. Are you going to punish them for genetics?

[David S]

How would an insurance agency prove that a person lives an unhealthy life Dazzle?

BMI, perhaps.

I have no problem with DIRECTLY assessing people for the costs of their choices, through things like higher insurance premiums for risky behavior DIRECTLY related to what is being insured.

But I don't think the government should try to regulate legal behavior through taxes.

Maybe they just make you take a physical before they insure you. They can easily check for health indicators like blood pressure, sugar, etc.