and anyone who's BMI identifies them as obese should be denied entrance.
.
maybe thats what we should have as a fat tax. Have body comp assemssments done and anyone with a body fat %age over X amount pay more. That way people who are just craving mcdonalds don't pay more if they are healthy, but those that clearly abuse food pay more. Granted i'm sure it would never happen, but wouldn't that be a bit more fair than just taxing sugar etc?
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
i'm all for it ... there is a lot of grey area - so, that could result in a bureaucratic nightmare ...
having said that - maybe the option is to make companies more transparent instead ... if there are known carcinogens in products - they have to be clearly labelled ... things like that ...
we clearly don't spend enuf money preventing illness mainly because the pharmaceuticals and such would get mad ...
Great point Polaris...some spend so much time flaming their fellow country-men and government when we should direct our attentions to those that hand out that harmful crap (which I guess are somewhat protected by the government).
Heaven forbid Big Pharm. losing profits to mask symptoms only to lead to other side affects....
Great point Polaris...some spend so much time flaming their fellow country-men and government when we should direct our attentions to those that hand out that harmful crap (which I guess are somewhat protected by the government).
Heaven forbid Big Pharm. losing profits to mask symptoms only to lead to other side affects....
exactly why they are too far gone in the US to do this ... everything is mandated by corporations down there ...
anyhoo - what is the burden on our health care for people with respiratory illnesses related to smog and air pollution ... do people know going to dry cleaners is a major source of air pollutants? ... not likely ...
we clearly don't spend enuf money preventing illness mainly because the pharmaceuticals and such would get mad ...
here's a good link that has some scientific basis for exercise and preventative medicine...but it's much harder to do this than pop a pill, so my guess is most would take the easy way out, which is too bad. http://www.wellsource.com/pdf/fitnessaspreventivemedicine.pdf
it's a pdf file, but it's packed with good info
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
if you're going to let government be in charge of our healthcare; then yes; they have to right to dictate how you live. after all; they are paying for your care. you shouldn't be allowed to smoke or drink because that increases illness which increases costs. by your own wants; government has to control spending. what a better way?
if you're going to let government be in charge of our healthcare; then yes; they have to right to dictate how you live. after all; they are paying for your care. you shouldn't be allowed to smoke or drink because that increases illness which increases costs. by your own wants; government has to control spending. what a better way?
Booze and cigarettes are taxed (mildly at that) therefore you make some change from people indulging in these activities....don't need to make them illegal...
Hey Jeanie don't for one second dismiss the idea that I don't think just like you said.
But I remain hopeful that my choices and actions are contributing to something (or someone) in the world that will make a difference....if I lose that hope then my life is the equivalent of a long vacation where nothing matters and I choose not to live that way. Without us at the bottom they have no legs to stand on.
I agree! It does all just get so bloody tiresome though!
These issues that we are facing in the world today, they really shouldn't be happening in my opinion. We're smart enough, we're wealthy enough, there's enough to go around.
I suppose because I'm still too bloody idealistic and won't be happy till there's a eutopia for all, I get pretty disenchanted with all the bullshit that goes on.
Just wish that these problems could be solved without "blaming" and "finger pointing" and that governments truly were concerned with the welfare of their citizens, the people who elect them, and not because there's money or power in it, but because it's the right thing to do.
here's a good link that has some scientific basis for exercise and preventative medicine...but it's much harder to do this than pop a pill, so my guess is most would take the easy way out, which is too bad. http://www.wellsource.com/pdf/fitnessaspreventivemedicine.pdf
it's a pdf file, but it's packed with good info
absolutely ... i know there are many who hate gov't interference and regulations ... but if we're gonna make people accountable - we should also make corporations and businesses as well ...
why spend so much money on cancer treatment drugs and nothing on removing carcinogens and toxins in the environment or getting people to eat healthier ...
exactly why they are too far gone in the US to do this ... everything is mandated by corporations down there ...
quote]
Agree 100% again.....
americans have freedoms. we have the right to do with our bodies as we choose. the government cannot protect us from ourselves. right or wrong; that's how it is. many states don't tax food at all. but it still comes down to: "live in my house and live by my rules". when you invite government into your personal life; you give them the right to dictate the rules concerning what they are paying for. maybe it hasn't been put in those words yet; but legally; that's what it comes down to.
americans have freedoms. we have the right to do with our bodies as we choose. the government cannot protect us from ourselves. right or wrong; that's how it is. many states don't tax food at all. but it still comes down to: "live in my house and live by my rules". when you invite government into your personal life; you give them the right to dictate the rules concerning what they are paying for. maybe it hasn't been put in those words yet; but legally; that's what it comes down to.
Coming from a civilian of a country where it has been proven illegal wire-taps have occured without no punishment to those that broke the law...taxing food would be my smallest concern at the end of the day....sorry friend but the government is already in your house (or easily can be)...something trivial as a food tax would not concern me compared to what else they have been doing...and doing it to no opposition.
absolutely ... i know there are many who hate gov't interference and regulations ... but if we're gonna make people accountable - we should also make corporations and businesses as well ...
why spend so much money on cancer treatment drugs and nothing on removing carcinogens and toxins in the environment or getting people to eat healthier ...
I agree with you, businesses and corporations should be held more accountable. There are already a lot of oversight committees, but i think we can do better at using the oversight committees. And we should better our environment to help promote the changes.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I agree with you, businesses and corporations should be held more accountable. There are already a lot of oversight committees, but i think we can do better at using the oversight committees. And we should better our environment to help promote the changes.
We should hold them accountable by spending or not spending our money with them.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I agree with you, businesses and corporations should be held more accountable. There are already a lot of oversight committees, but i think we can do better at using the oversight committees. And we should better our environment to help promote the changes.
the ironic thing is that it's ok to feed landfill waste to cattle which is full of carcinogens and that's ok. but once again; you can't put too many regulations on businesses. businesses employ people. when you make it hard to do business; it's not worth the effort. for example; years back there was a ruling that if management is offered insurance; everyone has to be. since this only applied to full time employees; we downsized 90% of employees to part time and hired more part time employees. this is only one example but the bottom line is; without business; the tax obligation falls on the people.
Why the hell not, in Canada there are huge taxes on cigarettes...so I guess I would not mind a "fast-food" type tax. My only logic is that people have a choice to smoke and therefore accept the burden of the smoking tax...so if we can choose another proven proven poor lifestyle decision it makes sense.
Plus it would not lead to increase of everyone's taxes which is a good thing.
The idea is not so weird, in economic terms it's a common pratice of government. Usually goods that are perceived to be "harmful", have high taxes i.e, cigarettes and alcohol. The thing with such taxes is how effective they really are. For instance, cigarettes' demand is pretty much inelastic: smokers don't reduce their consumption when cigs become more expensive. If a person has tight budget he/she might switch to a cheaper brand, but rarely a higher price will be a deterrent (sp?). Same goes for alcohol. From what I've learned, in the US, Canada and Europe, the most successful tool has been banning smoking in public areas and such. Also prevention campaigns have succeeded.
Anyways, it is very likely that fatty food is less addictive (except for chocolate, of course) than cigarettes so it could work. However, it must be taken into account that these kind of taxes tend to have a bigger impact on the poor, since healthier/organic food is usually more expensive.
One more thing to consider is the use of such tax collection, imho it should be earkmarked and poured into the healthcare system.
Whether it's fair or not, I guess it depends on ones conception of social justice and how pro or anti government one is...
Ok so in a country with socialized medicine if we say it's ok to apply a fat tax would this also mean that the government could decide what treatment you would have for other medical conditions?
For instance what if they decided that you must have particular tests for your condition? That in order to be treated you submit to the tests? Or if they decided that they would fund one kind of medication but not another would this be ok? Or what if they decided that because they were footing the bill that you must give up all rights to your DNA?
Because I'm not seeing how allowing this fat tax wouldn't eventually lead to all these other problems when the government is looking for a buck.
More effective at continuing the declining rate of smokers in this country has been the education programs and the fact that smoking is pretty much banned in any indoor area except for private homes.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
maybe thats what we should have as a fat tax. Have body comp assemssments done and anyone with a body fat %age over X amount pay more. That way people who are just craving mcdonalds don't pay more if they are healthy, but those that clearly abuse food pay more. Granted i'm sure it would never happen, but wouldn't that be a bit more fair than just taxing sugar etc?
Great point Polaris...some spend so much time flaming their fellow country-men and government when we should direct our attentions to those that hand out that harmful crap (which I guess are somewhat protected by the government).
Heaven forbid Big Pharm. losing profits to mask symptoms only to lead to other side affects....
exactly why they are too far gone in the US to do this ... everything is mandated by corporations down there ...
anyhoo - what is the burden on our health care for people with respiratory illnesses related to smog and air pollution ... do people know going to dry cleaners is a major source of air pollutants? ... not likely ...
here's a good link that has some scientific basis for exercise and preventative medicine...but it's much harder to do this than pop a pill, so my guess is most would take the easy way out, which is too bad.
http://www.wellsource.com/pdf/fitnessaspreventivemedicine.pdf
it's a pdf file, but it's packed with good info
Booze and cigarettes are taxed (mildly at that) therefore you make some change from people indulging in these activities....don't need to make them illegal...
I agree!
These issues that we are facing in the world today, they really shouldn't be happening in my opinion. We're smart enough, we're wealthy enough, there's enough to go around.
I suppose because I'm still too bloody idealistic and won't be happy till there's a eutopia for all, I get pretty disenchanted with all the bullshit that goes on.
Just wish that these problems could be solved without "blaming" and "finger pointing" and that governments truly were concerned with the welfare of their citizens, the people who elect them, and not because there's money or power in it, but because it's the right thing to do.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
absolutely ... i know there are many who hate gov't interference and regulations ... but if we're gonna make people accountable - we should also make corporations and businesses as well ...
why spend so much money on cancer treatment drugs and nothing on removing carcinogens and toxins in the environment or getting people to eat healthier ...
americans have freedoms. we have the right to do with our bodies as we choose. the government cannot protect us from ourselves. right or wrong; that's how it is. many states don't tax food at all. but it still comes down to: "live in my house and live by my rules". when you invite government into your personal life; you give them the right to dictate the rules concerning what they are paying for. maybe it hasn't been put in those words yet; but legally; that's what it comes down to.
Coming from a civilian of a country where it has been proven illegal wire-taps have occured without no punishment to those that broke the law...taxing food would be my smallest concern at the end of the day....sorry friend but the government is already in your house (or easily can be)...something trivial as a food tax would not concern me compared to what else they have been doing...and doing it to no opposition.
I agree with you, businesses and corporations should be held more accountable. There are already a lot of oversight committees, but i think we can do better at using the oversight committees. And we should better our environment to help promote the changes.
We should hold them accountable by spending or not spending our money with them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
that is one way, i agree.
the ironic thing is that it's ok to feed landfill waste to cattle which is full of carcinogens and that's ok. but once again; you can't put too many regulations on businesses. businesses employ people. when you make it hard to do business; it's not worth the effort. for example; years back there was a ruling that if management is offered insurance; everyone has to be. since this only applied to full time employees; we downsized 90% of employees to part time and hired more part time employees. this is only one example but the bottom line is; without business; the tax obligation falls on the people.
The idea is not so weird, in economic terms it's a common pratice of government. Usually goods that are perceived to be "harmful", have high taxes i.e, cigarettes and alcohol. The thing with such taxes is how effective they really are. For instance, cigarettes' demand is pretty much inelastic: smokers don't reduce their consumption when cigs become more expensive. If a person has tight budget he/she might switch to a cheaper brand, but rarely a higher price will be a deterrent (sp?). Same goes for alcohol. From what I've learned, in the US, Canada and Europe, the most successful tool has been banning smoking in public areas and such. Also prevention campaigns have succeeded.
Anyways, it is very likely that fatty food is less addictive (except for chocolate, of course) than cigarettes so it could work. However, it must be taken into account that these kind of taxes tend to have a bigger impact on the poor, since healthier/organic food is usually more expensive.
One more thing to consider is the use of such tax collection, imho it should be earkmarked and poured into the healthcare system.
Whether it's fair or not, I guess it depends on ones conception of social justice and how pro or anti government one is...
Just my 2cts
Caterina
For instance what if they decided that you must have particular tests for your condition? That in order to be treated you submit to the tests? Or if they decided that they would fund one kind of medication but not another would this be ok? Or what if they decided that because they were footing the bill that you must give up all rights to your DNA?
Because I'm not seeing how allowing this fat tax wouldn't eventually lead to all these other problems when the government is looking for a buck.
More effective at continuing the declining rate of smokers in this country has been the education programs and the fact that smoking is pretty much banned in any indoor area except for private homes.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
is that directed at anyone in particular?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift