TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Nanny Statism Obama style: Fat Tax???
Nanny Statism Obama style: Fat Tax???
And this douchebag wants it in canada too. Its amazing how willing people are to give up their freedoms. Perhaps we need a decade of dictatorship for folks to understand what freedom means?
So where does this end? People who sleep around and get too many STDs dont get treatment? People who do sports and get injuries dont get treated? Using public health care as a reason to restrict or change behaviours is the best arguement you could ever come up with AGAINST public health care.
| quote: |
| An item for the "Did Not See That One Coming" file: In the oft-complex debate over U.S. health care reform, there's a growing call for something considered even too nanny-state for many Canadians. Even most right-wing policy wonks are giving serious consideration to a national junk food tax. It's estimated publicly- funded health care for the 50 million Americans with no coverage will cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Somebody has to pay for it, so why not hit up the lard-butts who put the most pressure on the system by showing no regard for health until needing a coronary bypass? That wouldn't have to impact the largest sector of obese North Americans, those too poor to access and afford nutritious food, because we tax according to income level. That would be self-defeating. But it would give pause to those who are just too lazy to eat reasonably responsibly. Congress is already considering a tax on sugary drinks to help pay for new health benefits, and some are urging the politicians to take it further. The Urban Institute think tank, for example, is calling for a 10% tax on "fattening food of little nutritional value," which it claims could pay for up to one-third of the total cost. In the past three decades, the rate of obesity in the U.S. has doubled, from 15% to nearly one-third of the entire population. "Obesity," argue the authors of the Urban Institute's report, "is widely recognized as one of the country's leading public health problems. The obese and overweight experience chronic illness, poor health, and more than 100,000 preventable deaths each year. For the average affected individual, obesity has a much greater impact on health status and health care costs than either smoking or heavy drinking." In fact, the institute calls for "aggressive public policy initiatives" similar to those piled onto the tobacco industry. Aside from a punitive tax, the institute also wants "graphic, simple labels" on junk-food packages spelling out the products' nutritional value. It also wants nutritional info on restaurant menus, including at fast-food joints and marketing limits on fattening food. But along with corrective sticks, the institute is proposing some carrots, too. The report suggests some of the money collected be used as subsidies to lower the price of healthy foods like fruits and vegetables, an impediment to reducing obesity among lower-income classes. The institute acknowledged it would cut into the money allotted to health care, but argued it would also take pressure off the system by keeping more people healthy. Of course, if the U.S. government decided to go that route, it would have to devise a way to define what's nutritious. If a hamburger kept warm under heat lamps by a fast-food joint is junk, what about the made-to-order burger in a sit-down restaurant? Would a baked potato be exempt from the tax on french fries? Another think tank, the RAND Corporation, which was originally formed to give advice to the U.S. military, says taxing calories will help drive down obesity rates. Critics of the fat tax argue it won't do much to deter the consumers, just as liquor and tobacco taxes haven't stopped smoking and drinking. But that's not the point. The reality is, people who don't take proper care of themselves will end up being the biggest burden on the health-care system. They're more likely to get heart disease, diabetes and all manner of other chronic and costly conditions. It's only fair that they pay more to support something they're going to make more use of. Maybe a fat tax could help save public health care in Canada. [email protected] |
I am waiting for the breathing tax....if you want our air you gotta pay for it
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I am waiting for the breathing tax....if you want our air you gotta pay for it |
Don't tax the food, just tax the fatties, at a flat rate of $50 per pound per day, and watch how quickly those "genetically obese" people manage to lose weight.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut Don't tax the food, just tax the fatties, at a flat rate of $50 per pound per day, and watch how quickly those "genetically obese" people manage to lose weight. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut Don't tax the food, just tax the fatties, at a flat rate of $50 per pound per day, and watch how quickly those "genetically obese" people manage to lose weight. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jayx1 We could call it the Rita McNeil Tax Deal |
Ridiculous.
So what about people who are on private health care sources? Now they're forced to pay into the public system.
The food manufacturers will probably figure out a way to cut corners to offset the cost of the tax, which will make the food even more unhealthy, lol.
Id like to know which government butthole is going to be the one who gets to decide what is and isnt healthy?
What a world we are creating for ourselves!
if we gave them free double seating on airlines, we must recoup the costs elsewhere
Wall st can be for their crimes
www.actindependent.org
1% tobin tax on all securities transactions. Tax the speculators at Goldman Sachs and Jp morgan chase. Problem solved.
Re: Wall st can be for their crimes
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tonybologna www.actindependent.org 1% tobin tax on all securities transactions. Tax the speculators at Goldman Sachs and Jp morgan chase. Problem solved. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.