Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare

[BethFromVA 5]

When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.

As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."

In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.

If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)

"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows.

Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.

If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.< /p>

And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says.

Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area.

And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.

That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.

There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."

Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare (Fixed) | Booster Shots | Los Angeles Times

[KartMan 58]

I don’t know about taxing all food based on fat content – it seems like it would be hard to judge what is and what isn’t. I would be in favor of a percentage tax on fast food that goes directly back into health care or prevention programs. It would be like the federal gas tax, added right into the cost of the purchase. Fast food is definitely a prime contributor to obesity (it certainly was for me).

Full disclosure:

I still go to fast food joints, but I eat way differently. For example in the past if I got Breakfast at McDonalds, it would be two value meals (which means 2 sandwiches, two greasy hash browns, and 2 drinks). Now I get a single Egg McMuffin and a fork. I can barely eat the one egg and the piece of ham – no cheese and no English muffin – oh, and no drink:biggrin:

[Headhunter 6]

I'm thinking that, based upon that logic, perhaps we should Tax Congress on every stupid decision they make.

This would, of course, eliminate the national Debt in a matter of weeks.

HH

[BethFromVA 5]

I'm thinking that, based upon that logic, perhaps we should Tax Congress on every stupid decision they make.

This would, of course, eliminate the national Debt in a matter of weeks.

HH

Hehehe, perfect! :biggrin:

[Kristine73 1]

Well, I have to laugh at this. I'm an obese vegetarian. Yup, we exist. My mother, an overweight vegan. I've heard of the caw 'fart-tax.' This is where legislators want to measure and tax the amount of gas a cow farts. Because theirs farts contain methane and other gasses. It's being pushed as 'going green.' They didn't even research enough to find out the cows belch these gasses, not fart. I've recently seen commercials on tv about how eating a vegetarian lifestyle is good for the earth. Let me say right now that I became vegtarian for health reasons. NOT ethial or 'green' reasons.

My point to all this, since carnivores contribute to the greenhouse effect be keeping the demand of farming, lets put a 'fart tax' on ALL animals farmed for onsumption. Then, since animal fats (saturated fats) are a major contributer towards clogged arteries, lets put a 'health tax' on all animal products sold, from butter to veal.

Maybe, when we go to the doctors, there should be a 'carnivore tax' to offset heath costs.

Once the government starts taxing 'this' what is to keep them from taxing 'that'.

It's rediculous!

An artical on the 'fart tax' I just googled it and grabbed an artical at random to post here

Congressman Warns of 'Cow Fart' Tax Causing Beef and Dairy to 'Disappear' from Supermarkets

[KartMan 58]

I'm thinking that, based upon that logic, perhaps we should Tax Congress on every stupid decision they make.

This would, of course, eliminate the national Debt in a matter of weeks.

HH

Well no, that’s not the logic at all. Congress is there on our behalf. They should be held accountable to what they do. If they are failing in our expectations, we should vote them out - period. It certainly doesn’t help that we have an apathetic electorate that would rather complain about the shortcomings of government rather than actually go out and vote on Election Day. In my opinion elected officials should only be paid a stipend, cut “fact finding junkets” drastically, not be allowed to lobby for 10 years after leaving office, and be held to reasonable term limits.

Smoking is bad and cost the nation billions of dollars to address the health care costs. Taxes are applied to cigarettes to help curb those costs and to reinforce anti-smoking education. The same thing occurs with liquor and gambling (and should for prostitution and marijuana (oops, totally different topic)). I think Sin Taxes are a good thing, but only if the tax collected is actually paid back into the system where the “sin” is occurring. As I said in my previous post, I am and have been a loyal customer of fast food chains. I have no problem putting my money where my mouth is (pun intended).

[plain 12]

As a confirmed pessimist, I should point out that this will go way beyond an increased tax on junk food. We'll eventually see government "incentives" and penalties based on BMIs, much like smoking (except unlike smoking, obesity doesn't pose a health risk for another citizen based on proximity).

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little torn. I understand that obesity-related illnesses contribute to everybody's healthcare costs.........but damn, don't we still live in America? Like KartMan alluded, one should be able to choose how he lives his life: What he eats, how long he exercises (if at all), how many hours he sleeps, etc.

I don't like the vibe I'm getting from all this increased government control.

[BethFromVA 5]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little torn. I understand that obesity-related illnesses contribute to everybody's healthcare costs.........

So does covering illegal aliens to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars each year. But instead of doing anything about THEM, they are all too happy to punish those of us who belong here.

but damn, don't we still live in America?

Not for long, Plain. Not for long.

I don't like the vibe I'm getting from all this increased government control.

What I love is my mom sent me an audio clip of a radio interview where Betsy somebody was talking about the proposed plans that are tucked away in this monstrosity of a health care bill, ones where assisted suicides will become mandatory, among other things -- YET SHE AND MY DAD VOTED FOR THIS BASTARD!! I'm so mad I could spit. I almost wrote her back and snarkily thanked her for her contribution to this mess.

[lml32937 65]

If every recipient who was on any type of government assistance program was required to go thru random drug testing and lost benefits the moment they tested positive- thre would be a jazillion xtra dollars able to be spent elsewhere...

[BethFromVA 5]

If every recipient who was on any type of government assistance program was required to go thru random drug testing and lost benefits the moment they tested positive- thre would be a jazillion xtra dollars able to be spent elsewhere...

BINGO!! That too!

Why is it that your average layperson can figure it out, but somehow Washington can't -- or won't? Or is it the FACT that so long as they keep handing it over, they have secured a voter base?

Which reminds me, didn't 'Bama promise no new taxes except on those who are "rich"?

[KartMan 58]

If every recipient who was on any type of government assistance program was required to go thru random drug testing and lost benefits the moment they tested positive- thre would be a jazillion xtra dollars able to be spent elsewhere...

Some on here may be surprised to hear that I would not necessarily be opposed to this concept. I don’t think I would make it quite as cut and dry as you stated it, but I could see that as a reasonable option. Just like I have no problem with the government exerting board pressure on the Auto Companies after we essentially bought them. If the government is subsidizing an individual by way of public assistance, then I think that invites the government to set some ground rules on how that person chooses to live their life. I may not cut assistance immediately after a positive test, but I think being forced into rehab would be totally appropriate.

[BethFromVA 5]

I may not cut assistance immediately after a positive test, but I think being forced into rehab would be totally appropriate.

But who would pay for rehab, the taxpayers... again?

Sorry, but if they can find the money to pay for their drugs, then they don't need assistance. Cut 'em loose.

[KartMan 58]

But who would pay for rehab, the taxpayers... again?

Sorry, but if they can find the money to pay for their drugs, then they don't need assistance. Cut 'em loose.

Or… We could think outside of the box. Lets just say for example that we are paying somebody $600 a month in assistance and they are found to be a chronic drug user. We could reduce their assistance by the amount necessary to rehabilitate them. Once they have shown improvement or success with the drug problem they are able to claim the full benefit.

Why does every idea form the right have to be so harsh sounding and every idea from the left so wimpy? Think from the middle people!!!. Come up with ideas that help people and make society better. Is the concept really that hard to grasp?

[BethFromVA 5]

Or… We could think outside of the box. Lets just say for example that we are paying somebody $600 a month in assistance and they are found to be a chronic drug user. We could reduce their assistance by the amount necessary to rehabilitate them. Once they have shown improvement or success with the drug problem they are able to claim the full benefit.

Why does every idea form the right have to be so harsh sounding and every idea from the left so wimpy? Think from the middle people!!!. Come up with ideas that help people and make society better. Is the concept really that hard to grasp?

My idea is to get them the EFF off my dime! I don't care if it soulds harsh or not. There are TOO MANY people being given MY hard-earned money who don't deserve it and, frankly, don't need it if they would get off their effin' asses and get a job. :juggle:

My frustration is not necessarily at you, btw, unless you really support using my tax dollars to pay for this bullshit.

[KartMan 58]

I don’t disagree with you in principal, just in tactic or maybe in timing. If we have people on assistance, there should be a path to get them off the assistance – I think most people would agree with that. My point is that if people go on the dole for legitimate reasons (and yes, there are legitimate reasons whether you choose to believe it or not) we should find appropriate ways to get them off. That way may be in training, work incentives or even drug treatment. Poverty is an illness of society, not just of the person that is poor.

I support using your (and mine, BTW) tax dollars for the good of society. We may have a difference of opinion of what those needs are, but that is the purpose of tax dollars.

Edited July 29, 2009 by KartMan