"Fat tax?"

[razorback831]

That's because those kinds of studies are so gosh-darned fuzzy, prone to be manipulated for political ends, and hard to design because of confounding factors.

Then, once you discover something, what do you do with it? It's one thing to discover, as if it wasn't obvious, that obesity is running rampant, it's another thing to propose a realistic solution.

Totally off the subject here (which may be good), but did you see that Pepsi and Coke are pulling all their products out of schools "in order to fight the nations obesity"...no more colas after 2010 I think.....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted87716]

Totally off the subject here (which may be good), but did you see that Pepsi and Coke are pulling all their products out of schools "in order to fight the nations obesity"...no more colas after 2010 I think.....

It's a start. A "Fat Tax" on high-calorie/low-nutritional-value foods is another good idea, IMO. Use the proceeds to subsidize cheaper, healthier alternatives.

But yes, we're digressing.

 

[razorback831]

It's a start. A "Fat Tax" on high-calorie/low-nutritional-value foods is another good idea, IMO. Use the proceeds to subsidize cheaper, healthier alternatives.

But yes, we're digressing.

Again, to distract from the FP vs. PA/NP argument...how about income tax incentive based on BMI, or better yet, a year to year incentive based on total weight loss.....nothing motivates like money

 

[iatrosB]

Again, to distract from the FP vs. PA/NP argument...how about income tax incentive based on BMI, or better yet, a year to year incentive based on total weight loss.....nothing motivates like money

Yeah, we definately need more government control and intervention in daily living habits. I say educate people and allow them to make their own decisions...now free healthcare for these lifestyle related pathologies is another debate all together and approaches a slippery slope very quickly

 

[iatrosB]

Besides, this thread could use a de-rail.

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

Again, to distract from the FP vs. PA/NP argument...how about income tax incentive based on BMI, or better yet, a year to year incentive based on total weight loss.....nothing motivates like money

yeah, and a tax on STDs, cavities, cholesterol levels, and BP and we could have mandatory government exercise in the morning. Like in China! Yeah! And we could tax people who say the President is bad...

 

[8744]

It's a start. A "Fat Tax" on high-calorie/low-nutritional-value foods is another good idea, IMO. Use the proceeds to subsidize cheaper, healthier alternatives.

But yes, we're digressing.

See? People who want to impose a tax, the proceeds from which will be diverted, like most revenue, to other agenda-driven activities will finesse the statistics to prove that a fat tax will help solve the problem.

 

[deleted87716]

See? People who want to impose a tax, the proceeds from which will be diverted, like most revenue, to other agenda-driven activities will finesse the statistics to prove that a fat tax will help solve the problem.

I just don't think it would be a bad thing if Twinkies cost way more than apples.

I also don't think it would be a bad thing if cigarettes cost $20 a pack.

There's no single "solution" to the problem. But personal responsibility sure isn't working...

 

[sophiejane]

The problem with this (although I agree with the premise) is, where do you draw the line?

Tobacco is bad for pretty much everyone. True, some can smoke for 50 years and never get cancer, but most will have some kind of morbidity, COPD, emphysema, or cancer.

But...there are people who exercise and diet and stay healthy who occasionally want to indulge in a Twinkie. Why punish them because some people don't have any self control?

What I think should be regulated is advertising. Kids are the object of an onslaught of ads by tobacco, junk food, and soda manufacturers. This would be easier to regulate than taxing junk food, I think.

Don't even get me started on drug ads.....

 

[Mr. McDuck]

There should be a scale at the checkout line. If you're overweight, the price doubles.

 

[SoCuteMD]

The problem with this (although I agree with the premise) is, where do you draw the line?

Tobacco is bad for pretty much everyone. True, some can smoke for 50 years and never get cancer, but most will have some kind of morbidity, COPD, emphysema, or cancer.

But...there are people who exercise and diet and stay healthy who occasionally want to indulge in a Twinkie. Why punish them because some people don't have any self control?

What I think should be regulated is advertising. Kids are the object of an onslaught of ads by tobacco, junk food, and soda manufacturers. This would be easier to regulate than taxing junk food, I think.

Don't even get me started on drug ads.....

Well, if they only indulge OCCASIONALLY, then doubling the price of a twinkie won't disrupt their budget too much!

 

[DropkickMurphy]

There should be a scale at the checkout line. If you're overweight, the price doubles.

Amen.

 

[razorback831]

Holy cow, this it's own thread now??? For those who care about being PC, I would like to state that I did not coin the term "Fat Tax." If however, this idea somehow makes it to Congress, then I will take credit (from KentW of course ). On the serious side, I like sophie's idea of tightened government control on advertising these unhealthy items. As far as cigarettes go, I'd prefer they either be outlawed or their use restricted to designated "smoking rooms" with uncirculated air flow whereas all smokers would have to choke on their own second hand smoke while sparing my lungs and the lungs of other non-smokers.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

If you think this "fat tax" is un-PC, I'll be happy to elaborate on my plan for controlling the AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa......

 

[razorback831]

If you think this "fat tax" is un-PC, I'll be happy to elaborate on my plan for controlling the AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa......

I can only imagine...my guess is that it probably involves miniature guillotines or something of the sort.

 

[flighterdoc]

The problem with this (although I agree with the premise) is, where do you draw the line?

Tobacco is bad for pretty much everyone. True, some can smoke for 50 years and never get cancer, but most will have some kind of morbidity, COPD, emphysema, or cancer.

But...there are people who exercise and diet and stay healthy who occasionally want to indulge in a Twinkie. Why punish them because some people don't have any self control?

What I think should be regulated is advertising. Kids are the object of an onslaught of ads by tobacco, junk food, and soda manufacturers. This would be easier to regulate than taxing junk food, I think.

Don't even get me started on drug ads.....

How about limiting food stamps to non-prepared foods only? No twinkies, no sodapop, no icecream, no chips.....

You want to eat saturated fats? Work for it.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I can only imagine...my guess is that it probably involves miniature guillotines or something of the sort.

No, no......guillotines involve too much risk of bloodborne pathogens exposure!

I advocate what basically amounts to continental quarantine. You test everyone, anyone who tests positive is quarantined from society to allow the disease to take its inevitable course and prevents them from further spreading the virus. This is the ONLY course of action that will have any true impact (short of just prolonging the lives of the patients so they can continue to spread the disease because of refusal to change societal "norms" (rampant prostitution, rape, etc) that prevent our current approaches from making much headway.

*dons flame-proof suit and sits back and waits for Nazi analogies to be drawn*

 

[deleted6669]

How about limiting food stamps to non-prepared foods only? No twinkies, no sodapop, no icecream, no chips.....

You want to eat saturated fats? Work for it.

I like it!

problem is folks already trade food stamps for cigarettes and alcohol......

 

[Miami_med]

The problem with this (although I agree with the premise) is, where do you draw the line?

Tobacco is bad for pretty much everyone. True, some can smoke for 50 years and never get cancer, but most will have some kind of morbidity, COPD, emphysema, or cancer.

But...there are people who exercise and diet and stay healthy who occasionally want to indulge in a Twinkie. Why punish them because some people don't have any self control?

What I think should be regulated is advertising. Kids are the object of an onslaught of ads by tobacco, junk food, and soda manufacturers. This would be easier to regulate than taxing junk food, I think.

Don't even get me started on drug ads.....

Has anybody ever heard of the first amendment? Something about the freedom of speach?

 

[sophiejane]

Has anybody ever heard of the first amendment? Something about the freedom of speach?

Anybody ever heard of truth in advertisting?

There are black box warnings on cigs and alcohol. Is that a violation of free speech?

People who think we truly have free speech in the US crack me up. Everything is regulated. Everything we get fed by the media and advertising machines is filtered and spun.

Not to digress...but I see nothing wrong with holding junk food advertisers accountable for disclosing the fact that overconsumption of their products may lead to diabetes, renal disease, loss of limb, blindness, stroke, and heart attacks.

I'm sure Phillip Morris Company would have some choice words about "freedom of speech" for you....

 

[Doc Oc]

How about these:

1) All couches have a meter, so if you want to sit around all day, it'll cost you.

2) Cars have to drive at least a mile. If you haven't gone a mile, you can't stop the car. That way, people walk places.

3) When you walk into a store to browse, they hand you weights to pump while looking.

4) Junk food only by prescription.

Allow me to say I'll be the first to just shoot myself if it comes to all this, and the above suggestions!

 

[deleted87716]

For those who care about being PC, I would like to state that I did not coin the term "Fat Tax."

The term "fat tax" is in common usage. It's also worth pointing out that it refers to taxing high-calorie products, not obese people.

 

[Miami_med]

Anybody ever heard of truth in advertisting?

There are black box warnings on cigs and alcohol. Is that a violation of free speech?

People who think we truly have free speech in the US crack me up. Everything is regulated. Everything we get fed by the media and advertising machines is filtered and spun.

Not to digress...but I see nothing wrong with holding junk food advertisers accountable for disclosing the fact that overconsumption of their products may lead to diabetes, renal disease, loss of limb, blindness, stroke, and heart attacks.

I'm sure Phillip Morris Company would have some choice words about "freedom of speech" for you....

Um.... I don't think that the 2/3 of our population that is overweight don't know that excessive consumption of junk food doesn't help. Overconsumption of anything is bad. Let's be realistic here. People can and will make their own decisions. I for one do not need SophieJane or anyone else telling me what I am allowed to eat.

There is no false advertising. I have never seen a commercial stating that eating junk will not make you fat or give you diabetes. This whole thing is a slippery slope. Make sure to stick a giant sign on your car that if you hit someone, it might hurt them. Just in case someone didn't know.

The fact that everything is already over-regulated is not an argument as to why we should over-regulate even more.

 

[Mr. McDuck]

Over-regulation doesn't work anyway. What happens when you raise the price of cigarettes? Joe and Jane Smoker forego their kids' asthma medicine for a carton of Camels or let a few bills sit a few weeks for a few boxes of Marlboro. Milky Ways are too expensive? Healthy food doesn't taste good anyway. People will do bad things to themselves whether it's expensive, illegal, or taxed.

 

[Faebinder]

Over-regulation doesn't work anyway. What happens when you raise the price of cigarettes? Joe and Jane Smoker forego their kids' asthma medicine for a carton of Camels or let a few bills sit a few weeks for a few boxes of Marlboro. Milky Ways are too expensive? Healthy food doesn't taste good anyway. People will do bad things to themselves whether it's expensive, illegal, or taxed.

No that's not true...

Studies show that everytime the price of cigarettes goes up, more people quit smoking. Here are some pubmed articles.


Access to low-taxed cigarettes deters smoking cessation attempts.
The continuum-of-addiction: cigarette smoking in relation to price among Americans aged 15-29.
Response to increases in cigarette prices by race/ethnicity, income, and age groups--United States, 1976-1993.

 

[Mr. McDuck]

That's funny. I didn't bother to look up studies, I just went by what I see. That is a little encouraging, but weird since you never see that (at least I don't) in "real life". When prices go up, it seems like people just complain more, but they don't stop smoking. Maybe they do after all.

 

[Faebinder]

You can't rely on what you see and hear (which is why clinical research is important)....

The results from the studies are strongly indicating that when the price goes up people stop smoking... it seems that people notice when the amount they are paying on cigarettes is getting more and more, they try to save money by quiting (after they complain of course)... .and the ones who are starting are less likely to continue because they dont want that growing dent on their budget.

 

[deleted87716]

The results from the studies are strongly indicating that when the price goes up people stop smoking... it seems that people notice when the amount they are paying on cigarettes is getting more and more, they try to save money by quiting (after they complain of course)... .and the ones who are starting are less likely to continue because they dont want that growing dent on their budget.

It also gets easier to cost-justify cessation aids, like nicotine patches. For a typical pack-a-day smoker, the patch is usually cheaper than cigarettes.

 

[Miami_med]

I think everyone missed my original point. Why is it the business of the government to make you healthy? We all do things that are unhealthy or dangerous. We can't tax everything, nor should we. Should we outlaw motorcycles, skydiving, scuba diving, skiing, alcohol, open toed shoes, MEDICAL SCHOOL.

Information is fine. I believe that the public is quite educated as to the fact that eating lots of junk is bad for you. People have to make their own decisions.

 

[deleted87716]

Why is it the business of the government to make you healthy?

Because we're bankrupting our country, for starters...

 

[DropkickMurphy]

The term "fat tax" is in common usage. It's also worth pointing out that it refers to taxing high-calorie products, not obese people.

I think we should tax obese people. Hit them where it hurts.....nothing else seems to work.

 

[Miami_med]

Because we're bankrupting our country, for starters...

We're only bankrupting the country because we insist on paying for people who make stupid decisions. If you have a BMI of a zillion, perhaps we shouldn't tax other people to give you a whole host of benefits (Disability, SS, Medicaid). This idea of: I'll tax people to give benefits, oh no, people are taking advantage of the benefits, I'll tax them into submission, has no end. Fat people are not bankrupting the country; politicians who give money away like its candy and then have to find new sources of revenue (like a fat tax) are bankrupting the country.

 

[razorback831]

I think everyone missed my original point. Why is it the business of the government to make you healthy? We all do things that are unhealthy or dangerous. We can't tax everything, nor should we. Should we outlaw motorcycles, skydiving, scuba diving, skiing, alcohol, open toed shoes, MEDICAL SCHOOL.

Information is fine. I believe that the public is quite educated as to the fact that eating lots of junk is bad for you. People have to make their own decisions.

This is why I suggested (jokingly-but we see where that has gone) going the opposite way...give tax breaks/incentives for those who are "healthy," giving incentive for people to lose weight/live healthier lives.....

 

[deleted87716]

We're only bankrupting the country because we insist on paying for people who make stupid decisions.

In part, yes.

Fat people are not bankrupting the country; politicians who give money away like its candy and then have to find new sources of revenue (like a fat tax) are bankrupting the country.

It's no coincidence that most politicians are lawyers.

 

[deleted87716]

give tax breaks/incentives for those who are "healthy," giving incentive for people to lose weight/live healthier lives.....

Insurance premiums are the ideal way to do this. However, it would have to be voluntary in order to avoid the appearance of penalizing the unhealthy.

 

[Doc Oc]

Never mind, I feel better now

 

[Noyac]

Your absolutely right Doc Oc. It is inconsiderate the way these posts seem to think that everyone that is overweight is that way by choice. What's next an ugly tax, a short tax?

The bigger problem is the mentality of this nation.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

It is inconsiderate the way these posts seem to think that everyone that is overweight is that way by choice.

Being a fat ass is most often due to a choice- albeit an unconscious act of omission. It's as much their choice to not curb their eating or start exercising when they start to put on weight (and I'm sorry, an extra 50, 100, or 200 lbs doesn't just "sneak" up on you.....). Now the small percentage who have a diagnosable condition (Cushing's, etc) that actually CAUSES weight gain, yes, that's another story. Note: I said causes for a reason, not predisposes, because technically then you could claim that being a ravenous NASCAR fan is a disease because there seems to be a predisposition if you regularly attend these events for weight gain, tooth decay, and partial thickness radiation burns.

 

[Noyac]

Being a fat ass is most often due to a choice- albeit an unconscious act of omission. It's as much their choice to not curb their eating or start exercising when they start to put on weight (and I'm sorry, an extra 50, 100, or 200 lbs doesn't just "sneak" up on you.....). Now the small percentage who have a diagnosable condition (Cushing's, etc) that actually CAUSES weight gain, yes, that's another story. Note: I said causes for a reason, not predisposes, because technically then you could claim that being a ravenous NASCAR fan is a disease because there seems to be a predisposition if you regularly attend these events for weight gain, tooth decay, and partial thickness radiation burns.

Listen, I train with many people. Most are very fit looking. Others are not. They can do perform better than anyone would imagine by looking at them. Some of my training partners are over 250lbs and not because of pure muscle mass. They eat right, train hard, workout and still can't get out of the clydesdale class. They don't have Cushing's. They have genetics. They are in the obese BMI range. I don't know what your experience is but as a pre-med student I hope you learn some compassion before you enter the medical workforce, assuming that you get there.

In case you are wondering about the me and if I am defending these people because I am overweight myself, well your wrong. 5'11" 185lbs and <8% body fat.

 

[deleted87716]

I don't know what your experience is but as a pre-med student I hope you learn some compassion before you enter the medical workforce, assuming that you get there.

Argue the point, not the poster, please.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Listen, I train with many people. Most are very fit looking. Others are not. They can do perform better than anyone would imagine by looking at them. Some of my training partners are over 250lbs and not because of pure muscle mass. They eat right, train hard, workout and still can't get out of the clydesdale class. They don't have Cushing's. They have genetics. They are in the obese BMI range. I don't know what your experience is but as a pre-med student I hope you learn some compassion before you enter the medical workforce, assuming that you get there.

In case you are wondering about the me and if I am defending these people because I am overweight myself, well your wrong. 5'11" 185lbs and <8% body fat.

Yeah, that's muscle. I'm talking about someone whose knees are shot because of the load on them, that can't breath because of the extra 100 lbs of fat they're bearing, and not someone who is packing around a lot of extra muscle. An athlete with extra muscle is one of them.

By the way, I have compassion and I'm already in the medical field. I just believe people need to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings or outright failures in life.

 

[Noyac]

Argue the point, not the poster, please.

A persons experience is part of the argument. This is someone speaking in general terms of something that is not general. You wouldn't want someone arguing about tax reform if they had no experience in the field, would you? I'm just pointing out the experience at hand.

 

[Noyac]

Yeah, that's muscle. I'm talking about someone whose knees are shot because of the load on them, that can't breath because of the extra 100 lbs of fat they're bearing, and not someone who is packing around a lot of extra muscle. An athlete with extra muscle is one of them.

By the way, I have compassion and I'm already in the medical field. I just believe people need to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings or outright failures in life.

So then can you explain their body fat at >30%? The point is that you can not generalize.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Like I said, athletes are an exception, even if they are carrying around extra fat, they are still in good CV condition overall.....I'm talking about the couch commandos we all have dealt with.

 

[Miami_med]

In part, yes.



It's no coincidence that most politicians are lawyers.

I have to say we agree on this .

 

[Mr. McDuck]

Dammit, if raising the price of cigarettes gets people to quit, why do none of my patients stop smoking? 30-yo guy with Buerger's disease already has a TMA with a BKA soon to follow; tells me he just wants the whole leg taken off. 60-yo guy with iliac occlusions, basically nothing going down the right leg, and now a subclavian occlusion, and he doesn't want a fem-fem or any surgery, but he doesn't want to quit smoking.

These people piss me off.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Same here.....they piss me off too....but what are you going to do about it?

 

[Mr. McDuck]

Cut off their pain meds.

 

[Faebinder]

I betchya if it was 50 dollars per cigarette they would think about stopping.

 

[Mr. McDuck]

I'd like to think so, but somehow, I think people would still buy them. It would become one of those things rich people do to show off how much money they have (i.e., holy ****, look at the Camel that guy's puffin!). Poor people would kill rich people for their cigarettes to sell on the street for 100 bucks. It would be chaos.