Health Care Thread II

[Zitar]

Originally Posted by Arative

Putting a 10% tax on food with little or no nutritional value could $530 billion over the next 10 years. Also, states that already tax junk food and soda are much less likely to rank among states with the highest growth rates in obesity. Lobbyist for the snack food industry however already killed a provision that would have added a tax to their food that could have raised $50 billion over 10 years.

Taxing the fat in your food

The problem is it doesn't use that money to lower the cost of healthy alternatives so you just end up with a poor tax. 10% tax also isn't likely to be enough of an increase to actually make people pick a healthier food instead.

[jcdent0n]

It would incentivize healther food by disincentivzing junk food.

[Draegan]

Fast Food tax would be a good thing.

[Arative]

Originally Posted by Zitar

The problem is it doesn't use that money to lower the cost of healthy alternatives so you just end up with a poor tax. 10% tax also isn't likely to be enough of an increase to actually make people pick a healthier food instead.

As part of the plan, they would use $180 billion or so to provide subsidies for the poor to purchase healthy food.

By 2015, 40% of Americans are going to be obese. Something needs to be done because obesity related health problems cost $200 billion last year. We can no longer be a nation of "Whatever its my body, I'll do what I want"

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Arative

By 2015, 40% of Americans are going to be obese.

You don't know that and neither do the people who told you it in the first place.

[Malaki]

Some points-

Healthcare is a good just like any other good, including essentials like food and clothing and non-essentials like TVs. There is a certain supply and a certain demand for all medical procedures dictated by who needs and can perform said procedures. It can be priced just like anything else.

Second, health insurance is an insurance policy and should be bought in advance and thus can be shopped around for. You don't buy car insurance when you realize you're going 60 into a tree - you buy it beforehand. No reason that this shouldn't be the case for health insurance.

Third, the public option will either be worthless or just be an easing step into a single-payer system. If it has no backing by the federal government in terms of bankruptcy guarantee or taxpayer support in any way, it will just be another non-profit health insurance company. If it has a government guarantee, that gives it a competitive advantage that no private firm can reasonably match, and we will in a moderate length of time see the public "option" become the national healthcare plan.

Fourth, if we're talking about limiting costs, then government intervention is never going to be the option. All government can do is shift money around. It can make things cheaper for some people by taking money from others. Markets (competitive ones at least) operate at the most efficient point they can - regulation only makes things more expensive on the whole. Not saying all regulation is bad, and almost all of it is good in spirit, at least, but regulation does not make savings. Stability, even distribution, access, yes. Savings, no.

Finally, the role of government. If you want to say that the government should play a role in social welfare (which I agree with, some rightists perhaps not), there are still different ways they can go about it. Say a man is so poor he can't afford food. Rather than let him starve, the government takes a collection and gives him money so he can buy some. It doesn't start its own grocery store chain at which he can shop for free. And yes, I can argue that medicare and social security are ponzi schemes that I am paying into, which will go bankrupt before I see any benefit (and by me I mean my generation). Robbing the future for the present, sounds good unless you plan on living in the future.

I am all for giving a subsidy to the chronically ill. Whenever there's a fundraiser for the cause, I throw in what I can, and I wouldn't mind that process being simplified by the government forcing me to donate. I don't think that the government can "fix" the system, and I don't think that a government system is better than the current one. I also think that a subsidy for the chronically ill should be labeled as such rather than calling it "health care reform", since it is a completely separate issue.

Also, whatever happened to securing the blessings of liberty? Mommy state says drugs bad, mommy state says fat bad, mommy state says run 30 min a day, mommy state puts you in time-out otherwise... How about I decide how I value my health and I pay for it? Is that too much to ask?

[Draegan]

You are wrong on your first two points. The first completely because I can't shop around for doctors and hospitals to do MRIs for me. I also don't have time to shop around for a cheap doctor to perform emergency heart surgery for me either. The second because in some states you can't shop around. There are some states with only one health insurance company in them.

Third point is only true if you consider it the extreme case scenario. Turning into a national health care system would be better for all of us as a whole. In my opinion anyway.

Your fourth point doesn't really make sense at all. The government can negotiate for better prices. It would of been even better if it was Medicare +5%.

You're also confused with your last point. To make that analogy apt, you would have to have the government setting up their own hospitals and hiring their own doctors. The public option is merely a way to pay for hospitals and doctors that are running their own businesses.

[Arative]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

You don't know that and neither do the people who told you it in the first place.

Yeah, its an estimation based on previous increases in obesity rates of Americans.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by jcdent0n

It would incentivize healther food by disincentivzing junk food.

Why don't we fix the totally fucked incentive system currently in place first? After giving it a decade to shake out, then we can start worrying about further incentives for healthy eating. A fast food or fat tax will basically be a tax to raise the price of already subsidized products. Why not just get rid of the subsidy first to get at least partway to the goal?

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Most of the people who buy junk food are on EBT anyway. They should have a weighting system, so that when you swipe your foodstamp card, if you've loaded up on Hostess and Oreos, you pay 1.x times the amount. And if you've got organic products for healthier choices, you pay 0.x the price.

[MagicNumbers]

The House is going to vote on their version of the Health Care bill in about 10 minutes.

Correction: Debating the 'no money for abortions' amendment at the moment.

Update: Final vote around midnight eastern.

[Lleauaric~EW]

They have the votes in the house...

[MagicNumbers]

Originally Posted by Lleauaric~EW

They have the votes in the house...

Yep.

Edit: They passed the abortion amendment 240 to 194

Edit2: They reached 218 and passed the full healthcare bill with 1 GOP vote (Joseph Cao from Louisiana) for good measure. Final vote was 220 to 215.

[Zeste]

Typically don't these things just die in the senate?

[MagicNumbers]

It's certainly possible. It would be a huge failure for the democratic leadership in the Senate (Harry Reid) and considering they will definitely be losing seats in the 2010 elections, they better pass something.