ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[thegreekdog]

Oh, come on, it's just sugar, water, and purple.

Sugar in excess contributes to 100+ different heath problems including most of the main natural killers. (Common diet today is many times too much sugar)

"Is it fair to tax the shit out of my grandfather and not my wife? No." Is it fair to prevent drinking and driving despite some people who get drunk and manage not to kill anyone?

Diet is many times cheaper way to improve heath than "tax the shit" out of everyone to pay for universal health care. Health care currently can be 1/3 or more of entire tax bill. Overall *less* tax by motivating people to eat better.

Eg you are often paying 2000 dollars a day for hospital because someone ate too much sugar and fat. Healthy diets and 90% of the heart disease may disappear.

I agree with everything you just typed. However, I believe what you still fail to consider is that food is addicting and people will not stop eating bad food just because they have to pay an additional 5 cents for their cheeseburger or milkshake. Therefore, the only upside to your plan is that the government gets some more of our money and gives us nothing in return. At least, that's my incredibly well reasoned, and not humble at all, opinion.

Let me put it another way. People know that eating red meat all the time will give them heart disease. People still eat red meat all the time. So, if the government taxes red meat to help people control their eating, what the government says is, "Hey, you know that red meat will kill you, but you won't stop eating it, so we're going to make you pay an additional 10 cents... THAT will stop you!"

[Snorri1234]

I agree with everything you just typed. However, I believe what you still fail to consider is that food is addicting and people will not stop eating bad food just because they have to pay an additional 5 cents for their cheeseburger or milkshake.

Indeed. The huge taxes on cigarettes for example are still less effective than the education about the negative affects. People don't stop smoking because it's expensive, they stop smoking because they know it's really bad for them. (Ok, some people stop for both reasons but that isn't statistically significant.)

Anyway, that's not really that important.

Healthy diets and 90% of the heart disease may disappear.

And will be replaced by cancer.
Also that's a ridiculously inaccurate statement.

Health Care will be expensive. People will get sick and die, no matter how hard we try to prevent it. It's certainly a noble goal to ensure the average quality and lenght of life increase but it's not going to cut costs.

[multilis]

I suggest 3 things,

1) let them pay an extra 10% for unhealthy food
2) let stores pay an extra 10% tax if they *don't* promote healthy food over unhealthy. (Eg make real juice more accessible, brown bread easier choice than white).
3) good labeling so obvious which foods are unhealthy.

Money would help cover the government health care costs, which reduces burden on regular taxes covering these.

"And will be replaced by cancer."

Cancer is diet related. Healthy foods have been shown to significantly improve our immune system ability to fight cancer, and reduce instances of cancer. Some studies name specific foods, eg blueberries, cranberries and certain green/red veggies.

"ridiculously inaccurate statement" - some cultures with different/healthier diets have 1/10 the rate of heart disease as ours.

[thegreekdog]

Snorri's point is that we're going to die of something; and we're going to consume healthcare before we die of something. So, for the sake of argument, let's say a 10% tax will eliminate death by "eating bad food." We'll still have death by "smoking cigarettes" and death by "getting into a car accident" and death by "brain aneurysm." You see where I'm going with this...

In any event, the point of the cigarette taxes and the soon to be enacted bad foods taxes are not to improve health; the point is for the government to raise money without inciting rebellion. So, the government says (and they are right), "Cigarettes are bad for you, so we're going to tax it so people stop" and they have support for it because everyone thinks smoking is bad for you (even smokers). But smokers don't stop smoking because of the tax and the government gets a load of loot.

[Phatscotty]

Oh, come on, it's just sugar, water, and purple.

Sugar in excess contributes to 100+ different heath problems including most of the main natural killers. (Common diet today is many times too much sugar)

"Is it fair to tax the shit out of my grandfather and not my wife? No." Is it fair to prevent drinking and driving despite some people who get drunk and manage not to kill anyone?

Diet is many times cheaper way to improve heath than "tax the shit" out of everyone to pay for universal health care. Health care currently can be 1/3 or more of entire tax bill. Overall *less* tax by motivating people to eat better.

Eg you are often paying 2000 dollars a day for hospital because someone ate too much sugar and fat. Healthy diets and 90% of the heart disease may disappear.

I agree with everything you just typed. However, I believe what you still fail to consider is that food is addicting and people will not stop eating bad food just because they have to pay an additional 5 cents for their cheeseburger or milkshake. Therefore, the only upside to your plan is that the government gets some more of our money and gives us nothing in return. At least, that's my incredibly well reasoned, and not humble at all, opinion.

Let me put it another way. People know that eating red meat all the time will give them heart disease. People still eat red meat all the time. So, if the government taxes red meat to help people control their eating, what the government says is, "Hey, you know that red meat will kill you, but you won't stop eating it, so we're going to make you pay an additional 10 cents... THAT will stop you!"

I don't think the gov't is trying to stop anything. They just want their cut and will say anything to get it. You know how anti-tax I am. However, if a tax is levied on a consumption level, and that tax money goes directly to fund/fight some of the problems that very item causes, well I don't think it can get much fairer than that. Goverment has doubled the cost of a pack of cigarettes in the last year (my state anyhow), and they didnt raise the price to get people to quit.....they just want their cut. I would buy into "discourage" use

[Snorri1234]

"And will be replaced by cancer."

Cancer is diet related.

Not all that much. Breast cancer for example (the biggest one for women) isn't. Skin-cancer (which is also rather common) isn't either.

Healthy foods have been shown to significantly improve our immune system ability to fight cancer, and reduce instances of cancer. Some studies name specific foods, eg blueberries, cranberries and certain green/red veggies.

Seriously, not all that much. Certainly, diet can influence the rate of certain cancers. 3rd generation Japanese Americans for example have far higher rates of colon and rectal cancer than the japanese in japan and that's because of diet/environmental factors. (However, the americans have lower rates for cancer in their stomach)

But a lot of cancers aren't affected in the slightest. Almost half the cancers are in reproductive organs (unsuprisingly), breasts and lungs.

And the thing is that cancers tend to fill up for other cancers when those are gotten rid of. I could quit smoking and I'll die off liver-cancer because I drank too much, I can quit drinking and I'll die of skincancer because I went outside too much and I could quit going outside and die of a heartattack in the end.

We do not live forever. Eventually things will be the cause of our death. I am saying cancer will replace the rate of heart-diseases because it occurs later usually and we have no good treatment for it. But it could be any other cause.

"ridiculously inaccurate statement" - some cultures with different/healthier diets have 1/10 the rate of heart disease as ours.

Yes but our societies will never achieve that. Like, never. A lot of it is culture, i.e. we will eat things because we have always eaten them. I could go and eat a lot of fish but my whole society is built around the fact that we like meat more.

[Phatscotty]

Oh, come on, it's just sugar, water, and purple.

Sugar in excess contributes to 100+ different heath problems including most of the main natural killers. (Common diet today is many times too much sugar)

"Is it fair to tax the shit out of my grandfather and not my wife? No." Is it fair to prevent drinking and driving despite some people who get drunk and manage not to kill anyone?

Diet is many times cheaper way to improve heath than "tax the shit" out of everyone to pay for universal health care. Health care currently can be 1/3 or more of entire tax bill. Overall *less* tax by motivating people to eat better.

Eg you are often paying 2000 dollars a day for hospital because someone ate too much sugar and fat. Healthy diets and 90% of the heart disease may disappear.

I agree with everything you just typed. However, I believe what you still fail to consider is that food is addicting and people will not stop eating bad food just because they have to pay an additional 5 cents for their cheeseburger or milkshake. Therefore, the only upside to your plan is that the government gets some more of our money and gives us nothing in return. At least, that's my incredibly well reasoned, and not humble at all, opinion.

Let me put it another way. People know that eating red meat all the time will give them heart disease. People still eat red meat all the time. So, if the government taxes red meat to help people control their eating, what the government says is, "Hey, you know that red meat will kill you, but you won't stop eating it, so we're going to make you pay an additional 10 cents... THAT will stop you!"

I don't think the gov't is trying to stop anything. They just want their cut and will say anything to get it. You know how anti-tax I am. However, if a tax is levied on a consumption level, and that tax money goes directly to fund/fight some of the problems that very item causes, well I don't think it can get much fairer than that. Goverment has doubled the cost of a pack of cigarettes in the last year (my state anyhow), and they didnt raise the price to get people to quit.....they just want their cut. I would buy into "discourage" use

Let me put it this way. If the gov't controls health care, than the gov't can and will eventually control EVERYTHING that effects your health. (Even the best Ponzi schemes come to an end eventually)

[Snorri1234]

Snorri's point is that we're going to die of something; and we're going to consume healthcare before we die of something. So, for the sake of argument, let's say a 10% tax will eliminate death by "eating bad food." We'll still have death by "smoking cigarettes" and death by "getting into a car accident" and death by "brain aneurysm." You see where I'm going with this...

This also.

[Titanic]

I don't see anything wrong with taxing bad foods, but I think it should be complemented with other things especially lowering or removing tax for healthy foods. Also one of the ideas that I really like that has been implemented here is that all supermarkets have to display the nutritional information on the front of the packet and state the % RDA of each nutrient (theres the 5 key ones on the front, with a full list in the back) and each nutrient is color coded in red/yellow/green to show how healthy the product is (in some supermarkets, other dirtier ones use a blue/purple/orange system which makes no sense except to stop you know just how unhealthy the food is). Also I think stopping companies like McDonalds and co advertising, especially during kids programmes to stop the companies getting the cult following they have with the younger generation.

On cigarette taxes, I don't know the nationwide/worldwide statistic on it, but on a personal level I know of a couple of my friends (both from abroad) who have cut down on their daily amount when they are at university because they cannot afford the amounts that are charged here but smoke much more when back at home (Russia and HK) because they can afford more. Of course this is not the same as someone living in the UK cutting down or stopping with the price rises. Adding onto this, another good thing the government has done here is to make stuff like Nicorette VAT free so it is much cheaper to buy, and I think this should be extended to health products (like treadmills) and gym memberships. The only way that the obesity and bad health epidemic that will hit us in the coming decades can be stopped it to change peoples attitudes, and in this world money speaks greater then anything else.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, okay, I'll try to be calm here. Deep breaths.

Let's say a Big Mac costs $3.00. Let's say the US government puts a tax on all bad foods of 10% (extremely high). Now, instead of paying $3.00 for your Big Mac, you're paying... $3.30. OH NOES! I AIN'T EATING NO MORE BIG MACS MA! THEY ARE WAY TOO EXPENSIVE NOW!

The tax would have to be like 1000% to get anyone to stop buying Big Macs.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, okay, I'll try to be calm here. Deep breaths.

Let's say a Big Mac costs $3.00. Let's say the US government puts a tax on all bad foods of 10% (extremely high). Now, instead of paying $3.00 for your Big Mac, you're paying... $3.30. OH NOES! I AIN'T EATING NO MORE BIG MACS MA! THEY ARE WAY TOO EXPENSIVE NOW!

The tax would have to be like 1000% to get anyone to stop buying Big Macs.

that was chris rock's thesis on ammunition taxes.....

Id pop a cap in your ass, IF I could afford to! I'm gonna save some money, put some bullets on law-away, and then watch your back!

[Snorri1234]

Okay, okay, I'll try to be calm here. Deep breaths.

Let's say a Big Mac costs $3.00. Let's say the US government puts a tax on all bad foods of 10% (extremely high). Now, instead of paying $3.00 for your Big Mac, you're paying... $3.30. OH NOES! I AIN'T EATING NO MORE BIG MACS MA! THEY ARE WAY TOO EXPENSIVE NOW!

The tax would have to be like 1000% to get anyone to stop buying Big Macs.

Indeed. We are not rational about these things. Small taxes only increase the revenue of the government, they do almost nothing to influence habits. That's why the government raises the tax on cigarettes by 20 cents each time instead of 5 dollars at once.


Incidentally, the way to make people buy healthy food like crazy is making it free. We fucking love free things, irrationally. We'd rather pay 15 bucks extra to get a free shipping than paying 5 cents on shipping. (Even though that means you spend 14,95 extra!)

[Titanic]

Okay, okay, I'll try to be calm here. Deep breaths.

Let's say a Big Mac costs $3.00. Let's say the US government puts a tax on all bad foods of 10% (extremely high). Now, instead of paying $3.00 for your Big Mac, you're paying... $3.30. OH NOES! I AIN'T EATING NO MORE BIG MACS MA! THEY ARE WAY TOO EXPENSIVE NOW!

The tax would have to be like 1000% to get anyone to stop buying Big Macs.

So its costs 10% more which means that demand will be reduced by some amount (depending on its elasticity). But this should not be the whole tactic in fighting peoples health, reducing the cost of healthy foods (which will increase their demand and also reduce the demand for bad foods as well), educating people, raising the awareness of how unhealthy some foods are etc...

[Snorri1234]

So its costs 10% more which means that demand will be reduced by some amount (depending on its elasticity).

Greekdogs' point is that it probably won't. For someone who eats big mac's that very small price-increase will not make a difference.

[thegreekdog]

So its costs 10% more which means that demand will be reduced by some amount (depending on its elasticity).

Greekdogs' point is that it probably won't. For someone who eats big mac's that very small price-increase will not make a difference.

Yes, we can all point to micro- and macroeconomics and show how this might work; but it won't.

[Titanic]

So its costs 10% more which means that demand will be reduced by some amount (depending on its elasticity).

Greekdogs' point is that it probably won't. For someone who eats big mac's that very small price-increase will not make a difference.

Yes, we can all point to micro- and macroeconomics and show how this might work; but it won't.

It will make a difference when combined with the other changes. If big macs are 10% more expensive and healthy foods are 10% cheaper, then there will be a change in purchasing habits, albeit small, but a start and when combined with other actions it will slowly make the difference needed.

[Snorri1234]

So its costs 10% more which means that demand will be reduced by some amount (depending on its elasticity).

Greekdogs' point is that it probably won't. For someone who eats big mac's that very small price-increase will not make a difference.

Yes, we can all point to micro- and macroeconomics and show how this might work; but it won't.

It will make a difference when combined with the other changes. If big macs are 10% more expensive and healthy foods are 10% cheaper, then there will be a change in purchasing habits, albeit small, but a start and when combined with other actions it will slowly make the difference needed.

Perhaps, it's unlikely though if you don't put a lot of effort in telling people how bad it is for them.


This is a culture where they wrap a snickers-bar in dough and then fry it, dude.

[thegreekdog]

So...

Big Mac - regularly $3.00; now $3.30
Healthy alternative that takes like dog shit - regularly $3.00; now $2.70.

Hmmm.... what to do, what to do.

Apologies for being an asshole, but I'm just miffed that people buy into the idea that small price adjustments will result in a change in behavior such that healthcare will cost less.

[pimpdave]

Actually, I'm pretty sure healthy alternatives generally taste better. The problem in marketing them is the portions are smaller to remain competitively priced. And Americans want large portions, apparently.

I'm no expert on that industry though, I just remember reading that somewhere. Maybe Fast Food Nation?

[Snorri1234]

So...

Big Mac - regularly $3.00; now $3.30
Healthy alternative that takes like dog shit - regularly $3.00; now $2.70.

Hmmm.... what to do, what to do.

Apologies for being an asshole, but I'm just miffed that people buy into the idea that small price adjustments will result in a change in behavior such that healthcare will cost less.

I think Terry Pratchett said it best:

"There are theoretical sausages made of actual identifiable parts of meat, there are sandwiches made out of real meat and fresh salad instead of chemical stuff, the thing is that you can make people prefer the latter one."

Or some such. Anyway, people are actually liking Big Macs and other such fast food more than real meals. It is dumb but I know people here who like McDonalds better than home-made hamburgers.

[pimpdave]

It is dumb but I know people here who like McDonalds better than home-made hamburgers.

Are they stoners? Isn't one of the side effects of reefer craving fatty substances? Kind of like how alcohol makes people crave salty substances or heroin addicts crave sugar?

Something about how reefer stores in fat cells, or something. Or maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Anyway, maybe try making high fat home made burgers and see how that flies. If my assumptions are true.

[Titanic]

So...

Big Mac - regularly $3.00; now $3.30
Healthy alternative that takes like dog shit - regularly $3.00; now $2.70.

Hmmm.... what to do, what to do.

Apologies for being an asshole, but I'm just miffed that people buy into the idea that small price adjustments will result in a change in behavior such that healthcare will cost less.

It's not a huge change, no, and won't solve the issue by itself but it will help if done with a variety of other policies to promote healthy eating and put people off from having the bad foods.

[Snorri1234]

It is dumb but I know people here who like McDonalds better than home-made hamburgers.

Are they stoners? Isn't one of the side effects of reefer craving fatty substances? Kind of like how alcohol makes people crave salty substances or heroin addicts crave sugar?

Something about how reefer stores in fat cells, or something. Or maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Anyway, maybe try making high fat home made burgers and see how that flies. If my assumptions are true.

They are not stoners, at least not much more than I am. (They also like it when they're not stoned.) ((Okay, they're stoners but hell I am not averse to the sticky green myself but would still rather eat nice meals than fastfood))

I mostly blame it on them (my brother and his friends) not being old enough. I know my taste for McDonalds got less over the years, but that was also mostly due to being confronted with really good meals. (one and two star restaurants)


But my brother went to them too. I think the environment has more to do with it than mere taste. You will like what your environment will like.

[notyou2]

Most pot heads I know would rather make a home cooked meal and save their money to buy more pot.

[Snorri1234]

Most pot heads I know would rather make a home cooked meal and save their money to buy more pot.

THIS IS THE NETHERLANDS MOTHERFUCKER!