Health Care

[James]

I'm sorry, but have you seen the price of McDonald's stuff lately? That shit is dirt goddamn cheap, I'm surprised they're able to even operate for the amount of shit they can load you up with for like 3 damn bucks. It's ridiculous. I hit up Jack in the Crack or Burger King or Sonic and spend anywhere from 8 to 12 bucks for a standard meal and maybe a snack, and go to McDonald's, supersize that shit, and walk out with a broken 5 dollar bill.

That's a deal on goddamn wheels, dude. There's no way you're going to be able to buy your own shit and even come close to that kind of food for that price. Maybe if you grow your own shit you might be able to, but even then that's pushing it.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Araxen

This board is just one big flip fop. Taxing fast food places is bad, but taxing cigarette's and booze is ok? All 3 are unhealthy for you and should be taxed as they are a sin tax. You do not need any of the three to survive. The "poor would suffer" excuses is retarded. You can buy alot more healthy food at Wal-Mart for the price of your normal super sized meal. You must be pretty fail at grocery shopping to say eating at McDonald's every day is cheaper.

Well, one big differentiating factor is that there isn't a "healthy" tobacco, or a "healthy" alcohol to not tax. The fact is also that the unhealthy nature of fast food is only partially in what the food is, but in reality it's also the serving sizes and gluttony the average American commits. A kid's meal from most fast food places is around the caloric level that an adult needs for a meal. So do you tax them if they're sold to kids, but not if they're sold for adults?

At one point in time I went on a "diet" and lost a lot of weight. The big change in the diet? If you get combo meal eat all the burger first, then only eat fries until you feel full. It actually worked. The point here is that using food unwisely causes obesity, unlike alcohol and tobacco where any serious use is detrimental.

The most important point is the first. Because it allows booze and tobacco to be taxed with a blanket tax. A "fast food tax" would be rather selective and very hard to actively enforce, for instance would a drive thru salad place pay it? It's fast food, but it's healthy food. Would it only apply to some and not all the items on the McDonalds menu? (As they do serve some things like salad and such which aren't all that bad health wise...)

And as James said, if you know how to play your dollar and value menus (Wendy's also has a nice dollar menu) you can eat pretty damn cheap.

[Knucklehead]

Can we just have a ridiculous tax? Say food items whose nutritional values could kill a polar bear? Or if that's not fair, maybe just a tax on food whose nutritional values are more exponentially out of whack than a Zimbabwean dollar?

[Snugglebear]

This is an oldie, but a goodie:

[Strifen]

If you actually want a healthy population that isn't weighing down the medical system nothing would go further then getting rid of MSG in our foods. MSG is put in all of our favorite fast foods and most foods you wouldn't expect for its addictive effect it has on the human body. The obese-fat people out there are to the point where they are chemically addicted to MSG, the food company's love it, the pharmaceutical companies love it, but it is the silent killer in the United States. Since it was added to the food supply 50 years ago the MSG amounts in our food have been increasing steadily and steadily to where we are today where its added into fast food at extreme amounts. The ironic part is the FDA has no ban or any sort of limit to the amount of MSG fast food restaurants can put into your food even though its proven to be chemically addictive along with having all sort of side effects most notably diabetes.

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Araxen

The "poor would suffer" excuses is retarded.

I think one of the meanest things our government ever did was to acknowledge that cigarettes are maddeningly addictive and then impose a large tax on them. It takes a special class of son of a bitch to generate (extra) revenues off an addiction.

By the way, who smokes more, the rich or the poor? I'll give you a hint, it's the poor. So, if a tax is placed on a good that is consumed more per capita among the poor than otherwise, it is completely not-retarded to say that the poor suffer more. Factor in that the poor can ill afford to pay any extra taxes, and it's a no brainer even most of the forum goers here can understand.

[Araxen]

The poor just can quit smoking if it's too expensive. They aren't going to die if they can't afford them.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by James

I'm surprised they're able to even operate for the amount of shit they can load you up with for like 3 damn bucks.

They are making a lot of money selling poison. I am sure they have lobbyists that will prevent any tax on their food. Taxing the shit out of fast food companies would do more for Health Care Reform than the bill the Democrats are proposing.

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Araxen

The poor just can quit smoking if it's too expensive. They aren't going to die if they can't afford them.

Except they don't just stop. Do you know what an addiction is?

[Kiroy]

Originally Posted by Haus

At one point in time I went on a "diet" and lost a lot of weight. The big change in the diet? If you get combo meal eat all the burger first, then only eat fries until you feel full. It actually worked.

1. Worst diet idea ever
2. Diet book
3. ????
4. Profit!

[Araxen]

Originally Posted by whatsamattau

Except they don't just stop. Do you know what an addiction is?

It's not my fault they are going bankrupt continuing their addiction. It took me 5 tries to quit smoking but I did it. Heck, my dad quit smoking just two years ago because they kept making it harder and harder to smoke anywhere in public so he finally said fuck it and the doctor gave him some drugs to help him quit and he quit. He's been smoking since high school so taxing it more, restricting it more does work. Eventually people just get sick of all the bullshit and quit. Some people just have a higher tolerance of the bullshit than others but there is a point for everybody.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by whatsamattau

Except they don't just stop. Do you know what an addiction is?

So why do studies show that people smoke less when the tax on cigarettes goes up? More importantly than that, fewer young people start smoking. The effect is immediate and I'd be extremely surprised if it were just coincidental correlation.

It's like banning smoking in restaurants and bars. There's a good argument that this shouldn't be a state mandate, since anyone can choose to go to whatever bar or restaurant they want to. If there's demand for non-smoking bars, they'll open up and be very profitable. Turns out, people don't select them voluntarily. But there's also clear evidence about the health benefits: a significant drop in heart attacks. (one study I read a while ago found a decrease of 40%) Coincidental correlation is also unlikely, because it happens everywhere where smoking gets banned and not in neighboring places that don't ban it.


There's nothing wrong with pigouvian taxes hitting the poor. They need to hit the people who consume the stuff and cause the costs - whether they're rich or poor is irrelevant. Actually, since the poor benefit from medicaid, there's a good argument that you should even focus on them. Since that's paid directly by taxpayers and not just subsidized by your insurance premium.

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Soriak

So why do studies show that people smoke less when the tax on cigarettes goes up? More importantly than that, fewer young people start smoking. The effect is immediate and I'd be extremely surprised if it were just coincidental correlation.

I've never argued that a tax will not act to disincentivize a behavior. If cigarettes are more expensive, less people will purchase them. That is, in fact, the type of social engineering I've spoken out again. However, you can't convince me that people won't make bad decisions in their life in order to feed an addiction. That is one of the many reasons addiction are bad, and that most people will seek help to break the harder ones (like smoking).

There's nothing wrong with pigouvian taxes hitting the poor.

In your world where economics is king there may be no problem, but most people would find this unethical. And besides, not every poor person (not even close) is on medicaid, so your argument is largely invalid.

[Gurgeh]

Again, cigarette cost should factor their cost in healthcare, hence the taxes. You're free to smoke, but you have to foot the bill.

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

Again, cigarette cost should factor their cost in healthcare, hence the taxes. You're free to smoke, but you have to foot the bill.

Most people (smokers) do pay up on their private health insurance through the form of higher premiums. You only need a tax to hit the people without private insurance, and, imho, those people don't have the money. So they shouldn't smoke you say? Well, I'm sure soriak, with all his pretty charts and graphs, could conjure you up a great slideshow demonstrating how young people (particularly the poor) are targeted by cigarette companies at a young age in order to have a lifelong customer who is addicted to their product.

It's not a fair fight, in other words, and I'm not going to tax them for being addicted to cigarettes.