The Fresca Rebellion

theodp writes "They can ban the Marlboros, tax the Cokes, and zone the Whoppers, says Slate's William Saletan on the subject of today's morality cops. But it's time to put the brakes on the paternalistic overreaching of the food police, Saletan argues, when they come after his editor's beloved Fresca ('there are concerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumption by justifying consumption of other caloric foods'), which will have to be pried from his cold, dead hands. '40 states have enacted special taxes on soda or junk food. And the soda taxers are becoming ever bolder. Their latest manifesto is an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, co-authored by the health commissioner of New York City, the surgeon general of Arkansas, and several others. It declares soda fair game for government intervention (PDF) on the grounds that "market failures" in this area are causing "less-than-optimal production and consumption."' Where do we draw the line?"

Comments

taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

As an avid soda drinker, I don't have any problem with a 'soda' tax. I have much more of a problem when the government outright bans something. Keep it legal and tax it, I say. I would much rather the government got income through 'sin' taxes than through the income tax.

I'm not in favor of higher taxes in general, but I would like to shift taxes. Carbon taxes would be much more efficient than income tax, for example.

Re:taxes

[KDR_11k]

Sin taxes are stupid. They allow rich people to "sin" more.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

A true sin tax will be on tobacco, alcohol, and the other things kids aren't allowed to consume. You can even put a hefty tax on gambling, something else kids aren't allowed to do, while calling it a sin tax.

But, to place a sin tax on soda and other junk food, just seems sort of stupid. One can argue you want people to smoke less, drink less alcohol, and gamble less, as there are ills associated with those things. But, soda, well, it's in a grey area.

If the government is increasing the tax to fill in budget shortfalls, what happens when people cut down on consumption? Would someone's lack of consumption necessarily save the government money? I'd rather see an across the board income tax hike, depending on whether we're talking about the feds or the state government. If the feds, well, that's fine, since a sin tax tends to tax the poor more proportional to income I believe, meaning a slight proportional income tax probably grabs more from the rich.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Please, since I may be wrong.

Re:taxes

[Jurily]

I would much rather the government got income through 'sin' taxes than through the income tax.

Except they do both. You know, in the land of freedom, adults over 18, etc.

Re:taxes

[selven]

A high enough tax is a de facto ban.

Re:taxes

[squiggleslash]

It's more of a "cost tax" than a "sin tax". The consumption of certain products (most obvious example: tobacco) has costs far beyond that of the production and selling of the item (consumer much more likely to die earlier and require expensive health treatment before he or she dies. Being coldly clinical for a moment: death has costs. People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function. Meanwhile the health issues leading up to death are also a major problem, as we've seen discussed in the healthcare debate: people who contract expensive to treat diseases are more likely to have their paid-for insurance revoked on technicalities, and roughly 50% of bankruptcies in the US are due to insurance not covering critical healthcare treatments.

How do you deal with it while maximizing liberties? Answer: you try to have people responsible for the costs of their actions. And that's where cost taxes come in.

Re:taxes

[Ironsides]

As an avid soda drinker, I don't have any problem with a 'soda' tax. I have much more of a problem when the government outright bans something. Keep it legal and tax it, I say.

So, how do you like paying $50 per 12oz can of soda?

Re:taxes

[KeithJM]

Sin taxes are stupid. They allow rich people to "sin" more.

We're also talking about taxing the sins of the lower class instead of the upper class. It's fine to eat prime rib and tira misu with some cheese-coated appetizer, but a coke, fries and grilled chicken sandwich from McDonalds is a sin? Unless we're actually going to apply a "calorie density" tax (which would be a horrible idea, by the way), we're really taxing poor people sins and not rich people's sins. It's like if we had much harsher penalties for things like crack than for powdered cocaine, just because poor people tend to go with crack. Oh, wait, never mind.

Re:taxes

[stoolpigeon]

Do you have a source for the bankruptcy number?

Re:taxes

[nycguy]

Sin taxes are stupid. They allow rich people to "sin" more.

Pretty profound, except that having more money allows the rich to do many things moreso than others.

"Sin taxes" should be used only when the consumption of a product has an indirect, substantial cost to society. For poor people in particular, there is a cost to society from their consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and high-calorie, low-quality food. That cost comes about when they expect society to pay for medical treatments to remedy the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle. That expectation will only grow if plans for universal heathcare come to fruition.

Of course, the rich take actions that have societal costs, too, such as driving large luxury vehicles and flying private jets, which damage the environment disproportionately relative to the transportation modes of their less-wealthy fellows. Those products and actions are also legitimate targets of sin taxes.

And as far as the "magic of the market" folks who oppose something like sin taxes, there's only one thing to say: Grow up. The market does not magically give you what you want just because you have the money to buy it. Companies sell you whatever they see to be in their interests to sell you. If a company sees a new product (like a "healthy drink") being detrimental to its existing cash-cow product lines (perhaps because the new product is less profitable due to higher production costs relative to its viable price of sale), they simply won't offer that product or will limit its distribution to "upscale" markets where they don't see it cannibalizing their core profits. Of course, some "scrappy start-up" could try to offer the new product, but such a company may be too small in scale to produce and/or distribute it widely and profitably. And that's when you have a market failure: When the existing companies in a market do not see it in their interest to offer new products, and when new companies cannot viably compete or can do so only marginally, the market has failed. Of course, whether a sin tax will actually remedy that favor is another question entirely.

N.B. As far as "market failures", they can also result when a new product has a very high R&D cost that an industry in unable or unwilling to bear. For example, the development of alternative fuel automobiles has largely stalled because automakers had no interest in producing them, even though consumers had an interest in buying them. An automaker had two alternatives: It could fund a development cycle in some new area (e.g., fuel cells). That might fail expensively and entirely. If it did produce a viable product, the cars would initially be very expensive and have a limited market due to high production costs, low yield (new assembly lines), etc. If the new cars found an enthusiastic consumer base, the costs could be brought down, production ramped up, until such vehicles could be real alternatives to current automobiles. Or, the manufacturers could just shrug, say its not worth the risk, and keep doing what they're doing. New car companies could try to produce the alternative fuel vehicles, of course, but they'd lack the budget to fund the R&D and the distribution network (dealers) for the products. This example becomes even more complicated when one considers that in order for such a vehicle to be viable, energy companies must actually distribute the fuel for it. They may have no interest in doing so for the same reasons I outline above. When you get such an interplay in established industries where each has enormous self-interests and little, perhaps conflicting incentives to innovate, the market is not going to "sort itself out."

Re:taxes

[EsbenMoseHansen]

So, how do you like paying $50 per 12oz can of soda?

I'd buy beer instead. But only if the bottle was properly measured in a sane unit, such as centiliters :P

Re:taxes

[russotto]

For poor people in particular, there is a cost to society from their consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and high-calorie, low-quality food. That cost comes about when they expect society to pay for medical treatments to remedy the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle. That expectation will only grow if plans for universal heathcare come to fruition.

Or we could, you know, deny those expectations and preserve freedom. Sure, that means an obese two-pack-a-day smoker in need of medical treatment for liver failure and emphysema isn't going to get it, but we can't have personal freedom and socialized responsibility at the same time.

Re:taxes

[Afforess]

"First they came for the Marlboros, and I did not speak out; because I was not a smoker; Then they came for the Trans-Fats, and I did not speak out; because I liked healthier foods; Then they came for the Coke's & Pepsi's, and I did not speak out; because I was not a fan; Then they came for the Whoppers, and I did not speak out; because I was not a fast-food person; Then they came for my Fresca's; and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Re:taxes

[nycguy]

My argument pre-supposed that we continue to move down the road of entitlements, because that's apparently what the majority of voters want (and will continue to remain that way as long as the majority of voters benefit from the entitlements and a minority bear the costs). As far as preserving freedom, most people are only in preserving freedom from responsibility and freedom from thought.

So, I actually agree with you entirely--in theory. As a practical matter, though, who is going to determine whether a particular medical condition is the result of lifestyle choices or simple misfortune. In extreme cases (the two-pack-a-day fat-ass vs. the 5-mile-run-a-day vegan), it will be clear, but for a person with "average" sins and virtues, it will be less clear and fodder for bureaucrats and lawyers.

Re:taxes

[chrb]

"Sin tax" is a politically loaded term that implies the consumer is doing something morally wrong and should therefore be punished through taxation. The term itself encourages people line up on one side or the other of an imaginary dividing line in politics and argue from those perspectives. The economics term for taxes that charge back the negative indirect costs of a transaction is externalities. Economically speaking, it is a totally legitimate thing to associate the externality costs with the original transaction - people who argue against such taxes on the basis of economics are usually motivated by a political ideology rather than a sound understanding of economics. Another common claim from the economically illiterate is "taxes don't work to lower consumption, people will just spend more!". Right, so if the tax on a packet of cigarettes were $100, everyone would just pay that, rather than switching to some other vice?

Re:taxes

[DarkOx]

I still think the fairest thing is state sales tax with a very narrow classes of products and services exempt. The Federal government is to be forbidden to impose any taxes except on the states, and may only tax states based on population and or total revenue. The Federal government would be barred from taxing based on any other metrics so as to prevent the abuse of the tax code for social engineering.

The federally required tax exempt classes should something along the lines, with states premited to add other classes at their own discression:

Public transportation
motor fuel for use in passenger vehicles only
passenger vehicles up to %20 of the median income, any amount over that subject to tax
foods that is less than 30% water and do not classify primarily under fats and sugars on the food pyramid
Residential rent equal to the median rent payment, amounts over subject to tax
Residential property up to two times the media income anything over that subject to tax
Medial non cosmetic care by a licensed pysician

If you do that the system is not regressive because the lower income population spends a disproportionate amount of their income on those things. It would be up to the states to set a tax rate, as well as add or subtract additional commercial classes so as to produce enough revenue to pay their obligations to the federal government, and run their own government.

Re:taxes

[seededfury]

first link on google searching for "cause of bankruptcy in usa"

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Re:taxes

[atriusofbricia]

A high enough tax is a de facto ban.

Just look at the effect the National Firearms Act of 1934 had on the sales of Machine Guns, Suppressors and Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns. A $200.00 tax at that time was effectively a ban for all but the rich. This was admitted at the time and was the stated goal. Congress cannot outright ban the sale of such items, so they simply used their taxing power to ensure that only the well off, or more importantly a smaller portion of the population, could continue to buy and sell such items. Of course, this had pretty much the same effect on crime as all gun control laws. Nearly zero.

As the man said "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy"

Re:taxes

[chrb]

Or we could, you know, deny those expectations and preserve freedom.

What freedom would that preserve? You realise that people in countries with universal healthcare still have the freedom to eat and drink whatever they want? Or if you were implying that paying taxes makes you less free, does it really? Would you argue that, say, Swedish people don't have freedom because they pay taxes and have universal healthcare? Or that Afghan people are more free, because they have few taxes and no healthcare?

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function.

Pardon me but so fucking what? You're going to charge me to kill myself? That's idiotic.

Answer: you try to have people responsible for the costs of their actions.

I'm sorry if my death is an inconvenience to the rest of the planet but really, so fucking what?

Re:taxes

[sosume]

> Right, so if the tax on a packet of cigarettes were $100, everyone would just pay that, rather than switching to some other vice?

Let's take an extreme example and say the government added $100 tax to a bottle of water. In the short run it would lower the sales, but the end would cause either massive inflation, or a massive black market, or both. Either way, you just punish the poor and hurt the economy.

Re:taxes

[ShieldW0lf]

What do you think about capping production of milk and legislating minimum pricing for it? If that practice were to stop, I doubt you would see children drinking sugar water purchased at a 10000% markup.

Re:taxes

[ceoyoyo]

I've never really understood that - here poor people (and I should know, I was a grad student for six years) go to the grocery store, buy food and prepare it themselves because they can't afford the luxury of having someone, even a minimum wage sixteen year old, prepare it for them. I can grill some chicken and make a salad far more cheaply than I could buy anything close to that at McDonalds, and far more quickly than the trip to Mickey D's too.

Re:taxes

[ceoyoyo]

Sure you can. For example, smokers actually contribute a net amount of money to society, even in places with universal health care like Canada. The high taxes they pay more than make up for the increased costs of their medical treatment (at least they did in 1998 when I did the research). You simply have to make sure that the prices of things reflect their real cost.

Re:taxes

[El Torico]

Although I agree with most of your post, this statement is wrong.
"People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function."
Some (very few) people yes, but everyone? Of course not. The vast majority of the populace, myself included, have skills that are neither unique nor critical. Everyone is replaceable.

Re:taxes

[Torinir]

Sorry, but I have to disagree here.

Americans already pay for the consequences of their actions.

Medical bills, insurance premiums, prescriptions, etc. all add to the cost of a person's mistakes. I could see adding a tax if the government were the one forking over the majority of health care costs, but they are not. And bans/restrictions are not the way to go either when dealing with public health. It didn't work during Prohibition, so what makes them think it'll work now?

Maybe the government should concentrate on actually educating the public instead of saying "you can't do this" or "we're making you pay more for that." That is one of the biggest problems in the US right now. The education system has been in a decline since the 50's. THAT is a much greater cause for concern than whether little Johnny is drinking juice or soda today.

My 2 cents on this.

Re:taxes

[SanityInAnarchy]

And I'd buy coffee. Or tea.

But we did just prove the point -- that $50 is effectively a ban, with all of the same results, including an underground market.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

As a richer than most person I must stand up for them and say they smoke, drink and yes they even eat McDonalds sometimes!!!

BTW, crack cocaine is powdered cocaine. Usually cut with nasty crap to make it cheaper and should deserve a worse pentality.

Re:taxes

[stoolpigeon]

thanks

Re:taxes

[chrb]

$100 tax to a bottle of water. In the short run it would lower the sales, but the end would cause either massive inflation, or a massive black market, or both.

Or, more likely, people would just drink tap water. The options are more complex than people consuming or not consuming a product. There's a whole world of vices - if drugs cost more, people spend money on hookers instead, if soda costs more, people will drink cordial or fruit juice.

Re:taxes

[__aagmrb7289]

And that's where we start seeing the problems of the nanny state. If we are going to take care of the people, with our taxes and income, who have damaged themselves - those who consume too much food, resulting in extensive health care costs, etc. - then we have to manage those costs. Therefore, if we are providing health care for everyone, we need to make sure that people are taking care of themselves. We need mandatory exercise programs and diets - because that is the only known way to make sure people stay at a healthy weight. And we'll need to pay for oversight and enforcement of those programs. And while that'll be cheaper than paying for "obesity care" - the cost, in money and liberty, is going to get higher. Slippery slope arguments are usually ridiculous, but this one isn't so far fetched.

Re:taxes

[Khyber]

"but we can't have personal freedom and socialized responsibility at the same time"

I know several LARGE groups of people who at this moment are doing EXACTLY what you say is not possible, and have been doing so for well over two decades.
One is called the Radical Faeries, and they own HUGE swaths of land, have their own communes, and they operate much more smoothly than any other government system I have seen. Everyone knows their role and they perform it to sustain the community. The personal freedom is there as well, as I could go into any of those communes, strip naked, and walk around, and nobody would care or say anything. But then again, these people have much more sense than 90% of the world population. No race barriers, no ethnic or religious barriers, no gender identity barriers, none of that bullshit that stupid religious nutjobs worry about and use to cause chaos and overall drop down the efficiency of the governing body.

Re:taxes

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function.

Pardon me but so fucking what? You're going to charge me to kill myself? That's idiotic.

Answer: you try to have people responsible for the costs of their actions.

I'm sorry if my death is an inconvenience to the rest of the planet but really, so fucking what?

I know the GP is not a communist. But I am nevertheless going to accuse him of collectivist thinking, which makes it perfectly clear. You damage the collective by committing suicide, for obvious reasons.

And no collectivist will ever forgive anyone for appearing to damage the collective. Well, they will never forgive almost anyone : they will, obviously, forgive themselves. It baffles the mind but collectivists actually elected tax-evaders.

Re:taxes

[Belial6]

It gets worse when the diet that the nanny state recommends is really bad for you, and the weights that they claim are normal can outright kill you.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you deal with it while maximizing liberties? Answer: you try to have people responsible for the costs of their actions. And that's where cost taxes come in.

And where will we find these angels in DC to enact this plan? We've already had a cigarrette tax with the same stated goals. Did that money go to health care? Largely no, they spent it on whatever they pleased. This is how government has worked for centuries. Prey upon people's sense of morality or fairness, and spend that money on something that increases their power and / or their particular morale viewpoint. In any case, the people's morality and opinions are supplanted by the will of the legislator. The growth of the US Federal Government into all areas of our lives causes divisions in the population and increasing polarization.

This idea that people live for society is a notion that history shows leads to economic stagnation, statism, and arbitrary control. Jefferson among many others have stated that the natural course of things is for liberty to reced and be replaced by government power. If the New York City relied on Iowa farmer's charity and fealty to mankind, the stock broker would likely starve. There is no system yet discovered that matches the productivity and freedom afforded all when everyone does what they think is best for their families and themselves. Whenever we try to correct something we percieve to be unfair with the hand of government, government inevitably corrupts that ideal with politics and back room deal-making.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why paying part of the healthcare costs for your bad lifestyle up front is necessarily bad for freedom as long as at least providing emergency care is required by law. Someone will have to pay for the health problems associated with excessive sugar intake sooner or later. I guess the laissez-faire solution would be to allow hospitals to deny emergency treatment, and to allow insurers to set premiums based on soda drinking habits, but I don't think I would feel more free if my insurer had people investigating what my preferred beverage is. I just don't think corporate oversight of my personal life is that much better than government oversight. However, I suppose I would have the choice of not getting health insurance, if I wanted to opt out of that oversight.

In general, I think paying for what you use is a conservative cause. With a sugar tax, the people who will be using tax payer money at the emergency rooms make a down payment every time they buy a soda. Therefore, from a moral perspective, I have no problems with a sugar tax. In the same way, if research shows that people who drink diet beverages are also likely to cost tax payers money by getting sick, tax it, if it seems like the costs outweigh the latent costs of increased regulation.

Costs for increasing regulation are of course a completely different issue, with a completely different set of moral decisions associated with how high you set them. I don't think a soda tax will increase the societal costs of regulation too much compared to how much society would save by not having people stopping work because of heart failure, so economically it probably makes sense. However, I realize that costs to society are quite irrelevant to the libertarian argument about loss of personal freedoms that you make.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron. Try living in a world with no socialized responsibility and tell me how far your 'freedoms' go when the poor are even MORE dependent on the whims of the rich.

Re:taxes

[RightSaidFred99]

This argument assumes the "purpose" of the people in the society affected exist for the benefit of society.

They don't. And this is why taxing on this basis is a stepping stone to evil. If I exist to provide for the economy, to prevent health care issues for the govt, etc... then for what other purposes am I beholden to the government? Shit, I guess I also exist to contribute "according to my abilities", huh? And I exist to consume no more resources than "I need".

Re:taxes

[symbolic]

I personally do not feel that Americans pay enough of the cost associated with their choices. Insurance is not the answer, because you can still have a group of people making stupid choices, the consequences of which are paid for other policy holders. If I tell you that, "hey smoking this junk can give you cancer," and you ignore me, and you get cancer, should you then expect me to pay for ANY of it?

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

What freedom would that preserve? You realise that people in countries with universal healthcare still have the freedom to eat and drink whatever they want?

Really ? I'd visit holland if I were you, and check the food prices. By the way, the obvious result of "sin taxes" is a very, very unbalanced and monotonous diet for the poor, which, to put it mildly, has it's own healthcare concerns.

Or if you were implying that paying taxes makes you less free, does it really? Would you argue that, say, Swedish people don't have freedom because they pay taxes and have universal healthcare? Or that Afghan people are more free, because they have few taxes and no healthcare?

Obviously freedom has more requirements than merely no taxes, but equally obvious more taxes = less freedom.

You're pulling a reductio ad absurdum here. If you quadruple the price of meat, obviously less people have the freedom to eat meat. You can, however, rest assured that every government committee meeting will have ample supplies of it.

There are natural limits to freedom and there are unnatural limits to freedom. The most obvious natural limit to freedom is death. The most obvious unnatural limit to freedom is islam ("the taliban", call it what you will, but in English "taliban" means "muslim students"), and other types of government.

Re:taxes

[exi1ed0ne]

And that's where cost taxes come in.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but unfortunately those taxes very rarely, if ever, go towards covering the costs society bears for that activity. Take smoking taxes. Here in Wisconsin there is a $1 per pack extra tax on the stuff. If your theory held true, that extra money the state collects on behalf of society should go to fund hospitals and prevention programs. Instead it is a bait and switch - tax something unpopular to make an attempt to close a very large budget hole. That is the real reason for all these new exotic taxing schemes, and the politicos know which buttons to hit to bring the useful idiots out in droves to support it.

Re:taxes

[shentino]

Rich people can "sin" more because they have more money to spend on sinning.

That is true for almost all taxes, really. Money is money.

Re:taxes

[ravenshrike]

Here's the REALLY interesting question. How much of the 'sin tax' revenue will go towards corn subsidies? This being the primary cause of soda in the US being so bad for you.

Re:taxes

[zach_the_lizard]

Much of the sugar-water is not actually sugar water, at least here in the States. We have tariffs and import restrictions that essentially mandate using sugar replacements in soft drinks. Let's not even mention the fact that we have a country that produces sugar nearby that we are absolutely forbidden from trading with.

But I do agree, the minimum pricing (for any imaginable good) is ridiculous.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function.

That's why I believe everyone should be hooked up like a battery in Matrix. I'm sure you will agree.

Re:taxes

[ravenshrike]

How many people born into that society stay in it, and more importantly, how MANY people are participating?

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.
It makes perfect sense for the government to let people to die right after 65th anniversary to reduce load on the SS system. Thus it is quite stupid for the country with aging population to an tobacco or anything which will help to remove the stupid unproductive part of the population earlier. The smart people who recognize the danger of tobacco and coke and Whooper are most like healthy and productive and they make themselves to live longer.
I think that knowledge of what is good and what is bad for your body should be publicly and easily available but it is up to people to decide where to go from that. By letting dumb people to die earlier we also improving our gene pool.

Re:taxes

[russotto]

What freedom would that preserve?

The freedom to engage in any activity which might incur a health care cost, and the freedom to refrain from engaging in activities which might reduce health care costs. Once you've socialized health care, the claim of "I'm not hurting anyone but myself" goes away; each individual's well-being becomes the business of everyone in general.

We're already hearing calls to restrict (whether directly or through taxation) certain foods and certain intoxicants. But that is the tip of the iceberg. Once it's been established that an individual's health care costs are the governments business, there's no logical stopping point. Government restrictions on total calories consumed? Quotas on "good" foods and limits on "bad foods"? Government exercise requirements? All can be justified based on the idea that health care costs are socialized and therefore each individual's health is everyone's business.

Re:taxes

[RighteousRaven]

Whether a person deserves what they get is never so clear-cut. You picked an extreme example, and many people would agree that we shouldnt have to pay for an obese two-pack-a-day smoker's health bills from a common pool... but who is going to decide whether he lives or dies? That sounds like a a death panel to me... one that is much, much worse than the so-called death panels that were recently proposed. So, stop thinking through your arguments half-way. Complete personal freedom doesnt work. You dont have the freedom to kill, cheat, abuse, or pollute. Accept that, and lets try to make the best of it from there.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Except poor people are generally more obese. The goal isn't to tax poor people more, the goal is to make them shift towards better alternatives. Taxing rich people wouldn't make them change. Taxing foods that tend to be consumed by poor people might make them shift their habits.

(Besides, hands off my prime rib, dammit.)

Re:taxes

[TheRaven64]

WTF? The poor drink bottled water? I don't know what the prices are where you live, but here bottled water costs around 3,000 times more per unit volume than tap water. No poor people are going to be spending 3,000 times as much on something than they need to; if they can afford to then they are not poor.

Re:taxes

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Every single one of those groups is still around and quite free to speak out against the extra taxes that have been set on their favoured products. You'll find that victims of Nazi persecution retained no such rights of appeal.

Re:taxes

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

While everyone can be replaced, their premature deaths are still going to be a net loss. All they could have done is lost to us and it will take time to get a replacement. Essentially, this is a human version of the broken window fallacy.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

That don't make no sense.

The main thread of smoking tobacco is lung cancer. Lung cancer patients usually kick off pretty quick, and I suspect the total medical cost to be cheaper than for a longer-living non-smoker who lingers on with diabetes, hypertension, broken hips, alzheimers, all other cancers, etc.

Furthermore, even if medical cost is the main issue, why fleece them for your arbitrary and sanctimonious "morality" to stuff the general coffer? You can simply increase the insurance premium instead.

Re:taxes

[Stradivarius]

Any of these items consumed in moderation is not imposing costs on society, unlike your tobacco example. It's the consumption in excess of practically every food item out there (except maybe brussel sprouts) that's making the country fat and driving up health care problems and costs.

There's no use punishing the people who enjoy soda but don't drink a gallon of it a day. If we insist on going down this route, why don't they propose taxing the actual problem - obesity? If you had to pay a tax for every pound overweight you were, that would incentivize the desired behavior far more than a "sin tax" on various products.

The irony is that in many states, food purchases are tax-exempt because we used to worry about poor people not being able to afford food. Now we're worried about poor and rich alike eating too much.

Re:taxes

[Stradivarius]

You're correct that we are paying the consequences, but it's so indirectly that nobody feels the linkage and thus nobody's motivated to change their behavior.

If I rack up reckless driving tickets, my insurance premium then skyrockets. I can easily see the cause and effect, and the prospect of not paying so much money is motivation not to drive like an idiot. If however I eat recklessly, my insurance premium doesn't change noticeably as a result.

The health premiums do go up a lot each year, but that's (mostly) from *everyone else* eating recklessly too. Even if I become a health nut my insurance costs won't change. Now, if everyones' insurance companies gave discounts for safe eating, like car companies do for safe driving, maybe you'd start to see a change.

Re:taxes

[quarterbuck]

People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function.
Your line of reasoning would mean that unemployed people should be taxed more than employed people, because by not working they remove skills from society. Taking this line of reasoning further, people who earn less must be taxed more to induce them to work harder for the "society".
Basically you are advocating 2 things
1) A person owes something to society. This is just plain stupid. No one owes anything to society. If society can take something from you, they will, but it does not necessarily make it right.
2) A retrogressive tax system. This might arguably be beneficial economically, but nevertheless will never be implemented in a democracy.

And the biggest problem of all -- Since when did the government become the enforcers of insurance companies ? And even if it was, I would think that people who die faster have lower costs overall compared to people who keep lingering on. I don't think making people live longer actually reduces health care costs.It probably increases it.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you deal with it while maximizing liberties? Answer: you try to have people responsible for the costs of their actions. And that's where cost taxes come in.

That's such a ridiculous circular argument. If you big-brother loving, nanny-state favoring assholes would just get the fuck out of people's business, it wouldn't be a problem at all.

You're claiming the government should tax some people extra so it can afford to give them extra health care that it shouldn't be providing in the first place.

Know how you can make people responsible for their actions? By leaving them the fuck alone and not baby sitting them.

You socialists disgust me.

Re:taxes

[a whoabot]

From The Cost of Smoking in Canada, 1991:

"According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes."

From Canadian Council for Tobacco Control - Tax Revenues:

"Governments are often accused of making money from the sales of cigarettes. While taxation revenues on cigarettes are quite high, as is shown in the table below health care costs are always higher."

And they include 2001/2002 numbers. Where are your 1998 numbers?

Re:taxes

[apoc.famine]

Same here. I'm an oddball, and spent nine years in the "real world", making decent money, before I went back to grad school. I was used to buying nice liquor in moderate quantities, upgrading on a 2 year cycle, and eating out on a whim.
 
The last two years before I went back to school, I realized that I'd be losing well over 50% of my income by doing so. I got my ass in gear, and started churning out cheap dinners which could turn into "lunch for two days", and collected a bunch of good and cheap ideas for eating in.
 
So far, I'm +$400 on my first month of grad pay, despite spending in the area of $200 on beer, booze, and bar hopping. My food budget is in the same neighborhood, and I'm eating like a king. I found a bunch of frozen single-serving salmon fillets, on sale for $1 each. Pair those with some fresh vegis and some nice rice, and you've got a fantastic meal. On-sale boneless chicken breasts and thighs, some peppers and onions, and a cheap wrap -> spicy chicken fajitas. Cheap pork, a $2 box of rice pilaf, some fresh vegis, and a crock pot, and I've got 3-4 meals for all of $7-8, done in the time it takes me to drink a few beers while doing homework.
 
I really think poverty around here is tied to a lack of education. If I didn't know how to cook delicious stuff, on the cheap, I'd go eat fast food all the time. And by doing so, I'd be poorer. I think this ties nicely into smoking as well. I'm educated enough to understand that spending $5 a day on cigs is the same as paying $150 a month, $1825 a year for cancer. I'd rather save that $5 for a few days, and spend it going out with friends. That's a luxury that addicts don't have.
 
I idly wonder what would happen if you educated poor people on the basics of cooking. I've made some pretty good dinners with nothing but a cast-iron pot and a campfire. Cheap, easy, tasty meals are entirely possible. How much does education play into that?

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Re:taxes

[Shihar]

It depends upon WHY you consider it a sin over whether or not the tax makes sense. If for instance it is a sin to drink soda because you might be killing yourself, than surely the tax is 'unfair' in that it harm the poor far more than the rich. If I make 500k a year, I am not going to notice a jump in soda prices no matter how much I drink. It won't change my behavior.

On the other hand, if the sin is consuming medical resources without paying for them, then the tax makes sense. A guy doing 500k a year probably has insurance and probably pays for himself. Someone making 15k a year with 5 fat kids is almost certainly not paying for themselves. When they get sick a tax payer is going to have to step in and pay the cost. Hence in this case, the 'sin' tax is targeted more or less correctly. The sin of failing to cover your health costs and making yourself ill is a sin that an impoverished person can make, but a rich person likely doesn't.

I'm not commenting either way. I honestly find the whole debate over health care troublesome and without good answers. That said, keep in mind that as you use more tax payer money to cover people's ill health, 'sin' taxes and the like are going to become more appealing. If we lived in a society where we let people die in the street if they can't afford care, it is unlikely we would care much what people do with their bodies. When we pay for everyone though, we suddenly care a whole lot more what people do with their bodies. Right now we inhabit a middle ground where we both offer emergency care to all and extract as much money as humanly possible out of them before dipping into tax payer money. Hence, we have the middle ground interest in sin taxes. Interest in sin taxes and other methods of behavioral modification is going to jump once insurance is freely available and you don't run the risk of extreme debt for going to the hospital. Just consider it food for thought.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until the *inflation* tax starts kicking in. You're going to love your government for that!

Re:taxes

[SocratesJedi]

A 1997 article in the New England Journal of Medicine even seems to indicate that the cost of having a mixed population of nonsmokers and smokers (like we do now) costs less (strange as that sounds to me) than a completly non-smoking population in the long run due to the exact way in which the following factors balance out: (a) smokers do not live as long, but (b) smokers consume more health care resources while still alive. The taxes against smoking has everything to do with promoting a public health policy (the wisdom of which can be supported or denied individually) and not much to do with somehow forcing smokers to pay for the (non-existent, according to NEJM) additional long term social costs of smoking.

Just to be clear though: Smoking cessation is the number one positive thing a smoker can do for their health and I wholeheartedly encourage any smokers to seriously think about if they're ready to quit and speak with their family physician about it.

Re:taxes

[Attila Dimedici]

It's more of a "cost tax" than a "sin tax". The consumption of certain products (most obvious example: tobacco) has costs far beyond that of the production and selling of the item (consumer much more likely to die earlier and require expensive health treatment before he or she dies. Being coldly clinical for a moment: death has costs.

The problem with your logic is that several studies have shown that cigarette smokers actually cost society less in health care costs than non-smokers. Why? because they tend to die younger. Those who live longer tend to incur significantly more health care costs than those who die "young" (young is a relative term in this context).
The reason for these taxes is because politicians intend for people to perceive them as applying to "someone else", and hoping that the group that clearly pays them is small enough (and feels enough guilt) to not impact the votes in the next election. Reading your post, you appear to have fallen for this strategy.

Re:taxes

[MrHanky]

Or you could look at it as a sales tax instead of a 'sin' tax, denying the sellers some of their high profits when their products have enormous external costs. After all, society has to pay for that two-pack-a-day smoker in some way or other anyway. Obviously, socialised responsibility won't go away just because you choose to give people unlimited freedom.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

I would much rather the government got income through 'sin' taxes than through the income tax.

But who defines the "sin"?

Re:taxes

[ZosX]

In a lot of states you are already paying sales tax on soda. In my state they specifically tax carbonated beverages, but not drinks without carbonation. If you think more taxes are the answer to things then you need to get a grip and realize how out of control goverment spending has become. The city I live in, the city of pittsburgh spent $25 million on the G20 summit. They spent millions on law enforcement alone, so they could get to gas a bunch of university students, while letting the anarchists that smashed windows and destroyed property get away. The year katrina hit, we spent like $80 billion on Homeland Security and our response was to let those people swelter in the superdome without food or water for days amongst dead rotting corpses. Its pretty sad that Tsunami survivors in Asia got better response with air drops, etc than our own people.

The last thing we possibly need is more taxes.

Re:taxes

[Eternauta3k]

What do you think about capping production of milk and legislating minimum pricing for it? If that practice were to stop, I doubt you would see children drinking sugar water purchased at a 10000% markup

Here we have subsidies and fixed milk prices, which led to milk producers going bankrupt, protesting, dumping milk, etc.
Individualism, collectivism, free market, socialism? I think the real solution is to curl up and die.

Re:taxes

[SoftwareArtist]

It's fine to eat prime rib and tira misu with some cheese-coated appetizer, but a coke, fries and grilled chicken sandwich from McDonalds is a sin?

Think of this as a direct solution to an engineering problem. You identify a serious problem (widespread obesity leading to increased heart disease, diabetes, etc.). You study the problem and identify the major factors contributing to it (junk food, sodas, food advertising to children, etc.). Then you find ways to directly address those contributing factors. No one is talking about a tiramisu tax because, frankly, tiramisu has a negligible impact on public health. Sodas have a huge impact on public health, and that's why it makes sense to target them.

Re:taxes

[coaxial]

Clearly, you've never heard of "food deserts." In the US, there are large areas of cities, predominately in the poor parts of town, where there are literally no grocery stores. If you don't have a car, and the bus system either doesn't go, or makes it very arduous to get to a grocery store in richer part of town, you simply don't go. Instead you head down to Mickey D's or the 7-Eleven and buy something to eat. No one believes that it's healthy, but you do what you've got to do. The NYT and the NYC Dept of City Planning reported on this phenomenon, complete with maps overlaying income, food availability, and obesity and diabetes rates.

Re:taxes

[ceoyoyo]

I'd have to dig that out. I don't have it with me. Here's the FULL quote from your first link though:

In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.

I agree that it's very useful to figure out the future earnings lost due to premature death, but I don't think it's fair to tally that up as a "cost" to society for the purposes of this discussion. Otherwise we really should seize the estates of suicides and anyone who doesn't live to at least their statistical life expectancy because they have cost society. That puts the total real costs at 2.5B for health care, 1.5B for residential care, 2B for absenteeism (whoa, shouldn't count that one either!), and 80M for fires. Total is $4.08 billion versus 7.8 billion that they contributed in taxes.

From what's shown in your first link I'm a little skeptical of the second. It appears they count secondary smoking damages, which should certainly be counted but I have trouble believing they currently (since every province now bans indoor smoking in public places) cost as much as primary smoking.

Even if you want to the original figures are perfectly fine, just double the tobacco tax and you've got it covered. The point is that you can have public health care (and fire departments, and residential care, and pay businesses for employees who don't come to work, etc.) and also allow people to do stupid stuff. You just have to tax the stupid stuff appropriately.

Re:taxes

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, perhaps it's a cycle - someone's parents don't teach them how to cook and it just cascades down the generations.

I knew a guy who figured out that if he invited everyone over for a pot luck dinner on the weekend he'd have more than enough leftovers for lunches and suppers for the whole week. He basically got to eat (and drink, but he and his roommate made their own wine), for about $10-$15 a week. The rest of us didn't do quite as well but we got a good meal and socializing on the weekend plus as much $2 a bottle wine as we wanted (it was pretty good, even - his roommate was a chemical engineer).

Re:taxes

[JohnRoss1968]

I would like to disagree with you.
But I cant.
All I can do is sit here smoking my perfectly safe Ecig and laugh.

Whats that you say they are going to raise taxes on cigarettes? Hell yeah stupid smokers ! what gives them the right to live free and enjoy themselves ? Who cares if the Constitution says you cant tax groups as punishment. Tax em Tax those smokers to the poor house.

Huh? Whats that ? there after my diet sodas ? Oh Noos. Must group together. Stop The Evil government . I have the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And soda makes me happy.

I would put something about how what comes around goes around but I think the post above puts it best.

FUCK YOU.
ps If you think the Government is going to stop at taxing your soda Think Again.

Re:taxes

[ceoyoyo]

I have trouble believing that people eat at fast food places because they don't have any grocery stores available. I find it much more likely that there aren't any grocery stores close by because people don't use them much, preferring to go with fast food instead.

If not, there's an excellent business opportunity. I've heard capitalist societies are supposed to be very good at responding to demand of that kind.

Re:taxes

[KingAlanI]

We can do that.

Here's your 35-euro 35-centiliter soft drink.

Re:taxes

[modecx]

Absolutely. To put that in perspective for everyone: In 1934, that $200 tax would have been worth nearly $3200 in today dollars. This was at a time that a really fancy, very nice brand new Plymouth cost about $700, and for about $500 you could drive an early 1930's style Ford deuce-coupe cost off the showroom floor. No working man of the time could have hoped to legally own any of the NFA regulated items without significant planning or sacrifice... And because of the great depression, normal folk would have just been happy to feed and cloth themselves.

In 1986, when lawmakers realized the antiquated $200 tax had become much less significant, they conjured another law which up further effectively banned legal machine guns for poor folk. No new machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986 could be owned by a civilian. Not only did it effect new machine guns, but simply due to supply and demand (which instantly became non-existent and very high respectively), the prices of obtainable machine guns skyrocketed, and has had the effect of making a registered machine gun worth %1000 or more than a nearly identical, semi-auto only copy.

Just to make it clear to everyone out there: legally owned, federally registered machine have never even been a blip on the radar, as far as homicides and crimes are concerned. There have been fewer than 15 murders proven to have been committed with NFA weapons in the 75 years this harsh regulation has existed. There was no sound justification to ban the items again in 1986.

If anything, this 'tax' on the market restored the real effect of the 1934 $200 tax. You can't get into the hobby of owning and using machine guns for under $4000 these days... And that might get you a used up, prone to malfunction Mac-10 or beat up UZI... Which just happens to be about $3200 more than a quality semi-auto Mac-10 clone.

Re:taxes

[fireball84513]

you can pry my soda from my cold fat hands!! ill die young, but ill die happy!

Re:taxes

[Naturalis Philosopho]

We currently pay in a socialist way. Laws like these, while crappy in execution, are based on the capitalist ideal that the people who use a service more should pay more for that service. If you eat crap, smoke, and drink to excess, your health will suffer in the long run. Right now I use about $100 a year in insurance (not a typo). How much does someone with lung cancer use? I'm willing to socialize the cost to an extent, but there's nothing wrong with a direct tax on the items that cost others more money down the road. I shouldn't have to pay for your bad habits, just mine.

Re:taxes

[Omestes]

It's fine to eat prime rib and tira misu with some cheese-coated appetizer, but a coke, fries and grilled chicken sandwich from McDonalds is a sin?

I'm not rich, but I manage to eat prime, tiramisu and such from time to time. The difference here is the "time to time", a lot of people eat fast food crap as a staple of their diet, instead of an indulgence. I eat fast food around once a month (or less if I can help it), but some people eat it daily. Same with snack foods and soda. I might go months without drinking a single soda, but some people go through a six pack a day, or those obnoxious 100oz 7-11 tankers.

Its about moderation. Which, further, is about education. Eating healthy isn't much more expensive than eating badly, and generally it tastes much better. Go price healthy foods (not organic, but just plain healthy) over fatty, empty, foods, you'll find that there isn't much of a price difference. I can go to McDonalds for roughly the same price I can go to my local Pita/Gyro restaurant, one is somewhat good for you, the other isn't really food at all.

Its more of a stupid tax, which is something I'm fine with.

Re:taxes

[Errol backfiring]

Around here, the cheapest food is probably the deep frozen pizza in the supermarket. With fake cheese and fake anything. And enough conservatives to prevent your body to decompose if you die of malnutrition...

Re:taxes

[hedwards]

That's just the thing, taxing soda and things of that nature is just stupid. Alcohol and tobacco make sense as far as things to tax go. They cause huge unwanted consequences beyond the individual who uses them and are poison. Soda, sure it's not healthy, but it's not poisonous.

The goal may be honorable, but the methodology stinks. I'm not obese, and I don't drink a lot of soda, so why on earth should I have to pay a tax on something that's of minimal negative health consequences? It just seems like there might be a better way of going about this which wasn't so paternalistic. At some point we really do have to draw a line as to what's important and what's not important. There's any number of other things that are of similar health risk or marginally better.

OTOH, if it were a relatively small tax that went towards providing everybody with health coverage, I wouldn't necessarily mind that. I just think it's way over the line as far as reasonable public policy goes.

Re:taxes

[hedwards]

Generally what has to happen is the original law that institutes the tax has to designate that the tax will got to a specific item only. I'm not sure how it happened specifically, but around here any taxes on gas have to go to roads by law they may not be siphoned off for anything that isn't transportation related.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lie.
You think you can go to the store and buy some hamburger, buns, lettuce, mayonnaise, pickles, mustard, ketchup, and cheese for less than a dollar? No, you sure as shit cannot.
Poor people buy cheap fast-food because it's absurdly cheap.
Walk into a grocery store and spend two dollars - will it be as much food as two 'Mc Doubles'? I highly doubt it.
Now that you've been shown to be wrong there, it's time face the fact that these 'sin taxes' ARE a tax on the poor. Rich people do not eat at mcdonalds, poor people DO.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

"here poor people (and I should know, I was a grad student for six years)"

Oh hell, are you kidding me? This is the thinking higher education puts out? WTF

You weren't poor. You had a stipend, you didn't live on food stamps, and you had greater job opportunities even as a grad student. Sounds like you worked in a university setting, which is far and beyond that of many industrial job places.

What part of "You had a place to cook" in your own example didn't you understand? Many poor people don't have kitchens. Worse off, like the homeless, certainly don't have kitchens. Many homeless (and homeless is not necessarily poor) after they panhandle, for example, often might get more to eat by going to McDs. I used to live in DC, and I forget the McDs in the NW section around L Street, homeless would always stop in late to grab more food paying with change.

The parent was talking, after all, about fairness in taxation. Soda and the like is unquestionably a tax on the poor.

"I've never really understood that"

You're a moron, and so are all the mods that have your post at +5 Insightful. Where the hell is consideration and common sense these days?

What don't you understand about comparing potential places and meals if people went out to eat? Even the rather poor every so often do eat out.

"I can grill some chicken and make a salad"

Many true poverty areas lack grocery stores moron. They often only have convenience stores and fast food joints. Again, evidence that you didn't even live in a poor section.

Your choice to eat healthier is a reflection of education more than economics. Good for you. You exercised what led to your degrees. Wonderful.

Curious, are you telling me in 6 years of grad school, you NEVER ate out? When you did go out, did any of your meals consistent of a soda, milkshake, alcoholic beverage, or something similar to a hamburger? Those items would be taxed in this world we are discussing here on /.

Anyways, your post in itself is evidence of the failure of grad school thinking and /. moderation. If you are an American, which for some reason you come off as, no wonder we're so fucked up when the grad students don't understand the fundamental, simple arguments presented because they lack life experience or are so short-sighted.

btw, I worked in a research lab for years with grad students. I've also have been homeless (but not dirt poort). I've also been to medical school. I'm even a Republican. I've lived in 2 major cities, spent significant time in at least 4 others volunteering, and you have no god damn clue the life you live, you self-pitying bastard. A grad student = poor? Unbelievable. I guess the standard these days is if you aren't high the hog, you've got to self-identify yourself as a near underclass.

Re:taxes

[phantomfive]

As one person said,

The graveyard is filled with indispensable people.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more of a "cost tax" than a "sin tax".

What I never understood about the so-called "sin tax" is the exclusive focus on Gluttony. Why is the government completely ignoring the other potentially lucrative income streams from sin taxes on Lust, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride?

People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function. Meanwhile the health issues leading up to death are also a major problem...

Perhaps the government should also tax you for contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Call it a Lust tax. Got an STD you obviousy weren't practicing safe sex, have the potential for infecting others, thereby selfishly driving up the cost of health care for everyone. Makes about as much sense as taxing soda.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Canadian government issued a study on this recently. It found that dieng is universally expensive, whether you're a 40 year old lung cancer or an 87 year old complications from age. The 40 year old death, however, saves old age medical costs from routine checkups and (occasionally) home care.

Bottom line: smokers die cheaper. It sucks for the smoker, but not for Medicare.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Most smokers that die from diseases for which there's a strong correlation with cigarrete consumption, die after their age of retirement. So, first we have to prohibit retirement, and THEN chase after the smokers because they are refusing to work by dying early.

Re:taxes

[Tynin]

Not defending a McD's eating lifestyle, however it is VERY hard to beat them on the price for a meal. $.99 double cheese burger, and $.99 side salad with vinaigrette is a filling meal that has about 700 calories in it. For right at $2 it is hard to do better.

Re:taxes

[ShieldW0lf]

The real solution is to stop destroying wealth just because it's convenient for the operation of an abstract system for managing resources.

What MUST be done and CAN be done by the individual for themselves, SHOULD be done by the individual for themselves, and they should be systematically provided the tools necessary so they remain self-reliant rather than becoming another persons pawn.

What MUST be done and CAN ONLY through the co-operation of many other people SHOULD be done in co-operation with your fellows WITH your own two hands. To do otherwise is to make entire societies into the pawns of a few administrators, and to be unable to replace those administrators because of your own ignorance, and to be unable to identify when they need to be replaced, again, because of your own ignorance.

Determining which is which should be controlled through direct democracy, and the infrastructure that provides for peoples needs should be publicly controlled, with no exceptions whatsoever.

And, of course, it's in the best interest of all men and women to use whatever technology can be devised to shift needs from the second category to the first.

This is the way a free society of well informed and responsible people is constructed. Examples of this sort of society would include the Athenians, the Anarchists of Spain, and so forth.

Contrast this with the society we have now, which is full of compartmentalization and the ignorance it brings, corporate and government secrets, bureaucrats who cannot be displaced, oligarchs who rule essential services with an iron fist, and so on, and so forth.

In such a society as I've described, you could render money obsolete. Look at the amount of injustice and hardship our current economic systems have created. For the sake of justice and liberty, isn't it time to stop?

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, that 50% number is utter bullshit. Read the report and check out the criteria.
Gambling problem -- medical bankruptcy
Drug addition -- medical bankrupty
New kid -- medical bankruptcy
Two weeks of unpaid sick time in two years (like FMLA) -- medical bankruptcy
$2000 in unpaid medical bills -- medical bankruptcy

In addition to such lax criteria, there was no weighted attribution. If you had run up $150K in unsecured debt
and then you had a (relatively) minuscule $2K in medical debt, well, it's all good, that's a medical bankruptcy.
Furthermore, when people are close to declaring bankruptcy, they will frequently strategize: You continue to pay
down your non-dischargeable debt, but if something can be discharged (like medical bills) you are frequently advised to
ignore it. So someone circling the drain could have potentially paid off that medical debt, but they used the money
to pay off student loans.

IIRC, only about a third of the people categorized as bankrupted by a medical condition agreed with
the results of the study. Similar studies have put the real rate of medical bankruptcies at about 15%.
Here's an interesting bit of trivia about that 15%. Canada, with their Greatest. Healthcare. System. EVAR. has a similar
15% medical bankruptcy rate. You see, one of the other things that happens is people run up debt that they _can_ afford and then
they get so sick that they can't work. It's one thing to have a new car, a nice house, and a 50" TV when you've got a job, it's
another thing to try and make those same payments when you're on 60% disability pay.

Re:taxes

[arkane1234]

oh please.
it's a known carcinogen and it hasn't been taken off the market yet because of $$$ pressure. Diet soda isn't exactly on the same realm in any way.

Re:taxes

[proxima]

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but unfortunately those taxes very rarely, if ever, go towards covering the costs society bears for that activity.

This actually isn't necessary. Raising the cost of goods with negative externalities tends to reduce their consumption, bringing the market closer to the efficient consumption point (given some assumptions about social costs versus private costs). The general idea is that if you have to get tax revenue from somewhere, get it by taxing things we don't like.

Thus one proposal for a carbon tax is to actually rebate the money to individuals lump-sum, without regard to their income or energy usage. This way bad behavior (using carbon-emitting energy) is discouraged, but the each person receives the average tax collected. Of course, politics and government revenues being what they are, I wouldn't expect any climate change bill to really rebate all the money collected. But depending on your views, a carbon tax can be a lot better way to obtain revenue than an income tax, for example.

See Pigouvian tax.

Re:taxes

[Shane dot H]

Sin taxes are stupid. They allow rich people to "sin" more.

Prostitution is stupid. It allows rich people to have sex more.

Re:taxes

[Just Some Guy]

Now, if everyones' insurance companies gave discounts for safe eating, like car companies do for safe driving, maybe you'd start to see a change.

My company started a wellness program earlier this year that does exactly that. Our insurance premiums were going up, and my boss decided to offset them by rewarding healthy behavior. We get something like $20/month for not using tobacco, and they cover the costs of programs to quit smoking. We get another $20 for having an appropriate body mass index or body fat measurement; a consultant measures both values and you only have to meet at least one of those standards. The awesome part is that they also count it if you don't currently meet the goal but are closer to it than you were at the last quarterly measurement. I still have a few pounds to shed, but I'm making progress so I still get the money.

My boss is taking the long-term position that healthier employees will translate into lower premiums, and is directly paying us to become healthier. As a result, almost every single employee is participating in some way or another.

Re:taxes

[shirotakaaki]

Should they start taxing pedophilia then? They could rake it in!

Re:taxes

[Khyber]

Most born into it will leave and return. ow many people? Well, there's sanctuaries all over the globe, from Thailand to Oceania to Canada to Africa. Event gatherings can see upwards of ten+ thousand people, and that is certainly not representative of the whole group as these events are held almost simultaneously across the globe, some sanctuaries go completely empty for a week or so while the festivities happen at other sanctuaries.

All in all, I'd estimate around a million people identify with the group and participate globally. There might be many more, they just haven't made themselves known, yet.

And more people join the ideal every day.

Re:taxes

[mwvdlee]

From the article you linked:

However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

How can you lose health care coverage?

p.s. We have social health care in my country (Netherlands), so citizens are always insured.

Re:taxes

[dirkdodgers]

And you, sir, illustrate perfectly the author's point.

The green, organic, and healthcare moral majority is no better than the last moral majority.

By your very own stated principle of indirect cost to society, a different moral majority could tax services, establishments, a products associated with homosexual sex, a practice that has a demonstrable indirect cost to society in the form of HIV/AIDS care.

But that would have you hollering up a storm, and with good reason.

You can take your majority and shove it, so long as you stand against individual liberty.

Re:taxes

[Moridin42]

Actually.. you could, in totally legit fashion, tally the "lost" (never earned) income as a cost to society of smoking. But, if you were to make such an inclusion, you'd also need to include the total costs of healthcare not incurred because of the early death. I'm pretty sure that number would be much larger than the lost income, which would still make your point valid. Being old is costly. Being dead, less so.

Of course.. those sorts of numbers mean that "cost taxes" are being imposed in the wrong areas, to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

Re:taxes

[arkane1234]

If there's no open land, there's no stores being built.
Pretty much in a gridlocked environment, one thing needs to disappear to gain another. A food store would need to fight for that spot.

Re:taxes

[dangitman]

I idly wonder what would happen if you educated poor people on the basics of cooking. I've made some pretty good dinners with nothing but a cast-iron pot and a campfire. Cheap, easy, tasty meals are entirely possible. How much does education play into that?

I think, as another poster hints at, that it's habitual and cyclical. If you want to see some of the psychology and socio-economic factors at work, I recommend watching the Jamie Oliver series "Ministry of Food" where he tries to educate people in a working class/high unemployment town how to cook good food and make ends meet. It's quite eye-opening in parts, some of the people just don't know what non-fast-food is, and literally have no idea what to do with a vegetable or piece of meat.

Re:taxes

[timeOday]

Because when you lose your health, you lose your productivity, and thus your job. And in the US, losing your job means losing your insurance, because it's a job benefit. At that point, you are too broke to buy insurance, and anyways could not buy it at almost any price because you're sick so the insurance companies don't want you.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

As an avid soda drinker, I don't have any problem with a 'soda' tax. I have much more of a problem when the government outright bans something. Keep it legal and tax it, I say. I would much rather the government got income through 'sin' taxes than through the income tax.

I'm not in favor of higher taxes in general, but I would like to shift taxes. Carbon taxes would be much more efficient than income tax, for example.

Regressive taxes are bad because it costs regular people more.

Carbon taxes are also bad because not everyone buys into junk science and the pseudo-religion that climate change has become. (notice how they don't call it global warming anymore? New name, same scam.)

Re:taxes

[ceoyoyo]

You live in a fascinating country.

Re:taxes

[Culture20]

"First they came for the Marlboros, and I did not speak out; because I was not a smoker; Then they came for the Trans-Fats, and I did not speak out; because I liked healthier foods; [...]

I approve of smoking bans. If eaters of transfats vomited all over me in every restaurant, I'd probably approve of transfat bans too.

Re:taxes

[jcr]

I would much rather the government got income through 'sin' taxes than through the income tax.

I would much rather see the government's power to tax limited to raising revenues for the government's legitimate operations, not for social engineering. We are not the government's property, we are not the government's children, and it's not the government's job to try to influence our personal choices.

There was a time when "it's a free country" was a very common saying in the USA.

-jcr

Re:taxes

[cyphercell]

"Diet soda isn't exactly on the same realm in any way."
Looks like denial to me. Tax the junkie G-Man.

Anyways, me, I'm quitting smoking and I'm all for going after people that eat mcdonalds and drink too much fucking soda pop and sit on their fat asses for hours watching tv every day. I have to, to mitigate the insurance liability that you bastards have made out of smoking. Your fat lazy ass life style is fucking dead and if it isn't you're going to fucking pay for it if I have anything to say about it.

Rah rah morality police state rah rah rah.

Hell, while we're at it let's draw a correlation between IQ and car accidents, obesity and car accidents (fast food ya know, it's technically illegal to eat behind the wheel in many states), fuck it, by the time I'm voting yes on nanny state bullshit I'll be able to afford to smoke again.

Re:taxes

[cyphercell]

Oh yea, fuck saletan and his fresca.
Fuck you and your diet soda.

You are living in a fucking DREAMWORLD if you think there isn't sufficient correlation between soda consumption and ill health.

Re:taxes

[CodeBuster]

Once it's been established that an individual's health care costs are the governments business, there's no logical stopping point

Bingo. Give the man a gold star. This is a consequence of socialized medicine that is much less frequently discussed and often willfully ignored by single-payer boosters. Socialized health care IS the nanny state incarnate. If your life is to be preserved at cost by the state then the choices you make that effect that life (which is just about everything worth doing if we take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion) are the de-facto business of the state. Want to eat that cheesburger? Forget about it. How about a beer? No way! Like to mountain bike or bunjee jump or how about alpine skiing or skateboarding? All banned by the cost-conscious nanny state health system as "unnecessary risks which result in increased health care costs". Socialized health care makes children of us all, constantly being reminded to eat our vegetables, go to bed early, and avoid dangerous sports and activities. Some people, may be willing to trade many freedoms away as long as someone else picks up their health care bills, but only dishonest socialists, terminal cancer patients and ignorant people would do so willingly.

Re:taxes

[JesseMcDonald]

Where are all these "negative indirect costs" coming from, I wonder? Oh, that's right--the government. They create the externality by forcing non-practitioners to subsidize the self-imposed costs to the practitioners (in the extreme case, universal health care), and then "solve" the problem they created by instituting a tax (which won't really solve the problem anyway, even if it does have some influence on the proscribed behavior).

Why not just re-institute personal responsibility, and thus eliminate the externality entirely? It would be ever-so-much more effective than a tax. Moreover, such an approach would actually reduce the scope for corruption, rather than increasing it as any new tax or regulation must.

Re:taxes

[cyphercell]

So, what's your vote on cigarettes or is it just your soda pop you care about?

Re:taxes

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

... and breathe.

Re:taxes

[newhoggy]

"We need mandatory exercise programs and diets - because that is the only known way to make sure people stay at a healthy weight. And we'll need to pay for oversight and enforcement of those programs"

No we don't. You've changed the question from how do we make sure *most* people stay at a healthy weight to how do we make sure *everyone* stays at a healthy weight.

The law of diminishing returns is a well known economic concept, and your example of mandatory activities is an example of diminished returns.

It is where initial steps that are taken to address a problem give huge gains, but each additional step taken gives smaller and smaller gains until eventually it is no longer economically viable to go further.

Your example is not a valid way of 'managing costs' as you put it. We are at the stage where taking small measures produces large gains. And your example is an invalid slippery slope argument because it assumes we need to and will take these measures to the extreme without explaining how each step of the slope is inevitable.

Re:taxes

[russotto]

Whether a person deserves what they get is never so clear-cut. You picked an extreme example, and many people would agree that we shouldnt have to pay for an obese two-pack-a-day smoker's health bills from a common pool... but who is going to decide whether he lives or dies?

I would sidestep that issue by making it his responsibility -- whether he's an obese smoking alcoholic or an athletic vegetarian health nut -- to pay for his own health care. Thus, no death panels required; in fact, this is only one of two systems which can avoid having death panels or their equivalent (the other being a socialized system where costs are unbounded).

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Death panels?

Re:taxes

[MCSEBear]

If the purpose of a cigarette tax was to reduce smoking, then why weren't the proceeds of the tax used to provide free nicotine patches and treatment to those still addicted?

Re:taxes

[newhoggy]

One thing that's always absent from these libertarian type arguments is that that many costs are socialised without government intervention.

Someone dumps their waste into the river: that's a socialised cost. Everyone chooses to drive to work and clogs up all the roads and increases air population: that's a socialised cost. People smoke in the workplace, giving others a dose of second hand smoke and increases premiums on the building insurance: that's a socialised cost. Speeding drivers putting innocent drivers, passengers and pedestrians at risk: that's a socialised cost. When someone gets misses work because for health reasons: that's also a socialised cost.

All of these happen *without* government intervention.

So let me put the argument in libertarian terms. When all these people are socialising their costs onto me, they are impinging on my freedom and I expect that the government do something about it.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.

If this were the case, I wouldn't have been to able to just purchase a brand new HK MP5 variant.

Re:taxes

[An Onerous Coward]

You are so right. Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, and it's illegal to buy beer there.

Show me the European country that has banned any of the activities you listed.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Crack is not just powdered cocaine, it is a fat soluble form that can stay in your body much longer than the regular water soluble form. Regular cocaine is often mixed with dangerous substances as well, although crack is usually just put into a mix with more baking soda to lower the amount of cocaine in the rock, making it more cost effective.

Re:taxes

[Jason Pollock]

Re: Medical Bankruptcies.

I recommend digging out the paper and reading it. If you read it, you see it isn't the medical costs that cause bankruptcies, it's the loss in income. The paper was extremely poorly written, and considers an instantaneous death where the spouse then goes bankrupt to be a medically related bankruptcy.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we cut the military instead of curtailing freedoms?
I'd rather subsidize a few fat people than Lockheed Martin.

Re:taxes

[MightyMartian]

Whenever we try to correct something we percieve to be unfair with the hand of government, government inevitably corrupts that ideal with politics and back room deal-making.

That's just the type of attitude the British government had as a million Irishmen starved and another million fled the isle.

Despite your Libertarian voodoo nonsense, the most basic function of any society is the protection of its members. Just because you're a greedy bastard with anti-social tendencies doesn't mean that's how a society should function, or could even survive.

Re:taxes

[PachmanP]

so what you're saying is that somewhat less than .02% of the world's population are able to identify (not live on) happily with a hippy commune. How exactly does that help the rest of the world?

Re:taxes

[BitZtream]

Thats pretty funny ... you think the tax slowed anyone down? The only people it slowed down were the people that weren't really all that interested in the first place.

All a $200 tax on something like a machine gun does is make it more of a dangerous situation because the sale goes underground.

Arms dealers don't pay taxes and they have no problem not reporting anything going on.

The more you go out of your way to 'ban' or 'tax' things like this, the harder it becomes for the government to monitor because they people will ALWAYS take the easiest/safest path for themselves, which won't be the legal one ... which instantly means they can no longer be honest.

You can't 'ban' something a significant portion of the population wants, well you can, just won't be very effective.

Re:taxes

[Monsuco]

It's more of a "cost tax" than a "sin tax". The consumption of certain products (most obvious example: tobacco) has costs far beyond that of the production and selling of the item (consumer much more likely to die earlier and require expensive health treatment before he or she dies.

Putting a modest tax on tobacco and using it to cover lung cancer patients makes sense. Putting a 50% tax on tobbacco and using it to fund head start makes no sense whatsoever. The expense has no relation to the tax (if we wish to create a head start program we should do so using the general funds rather than punishing an unrelated group). The same goes with fuel taxes being used to fund roads, liquor taxes being used to fund DUI checks, but soda is different. Diet coke contains essentially no calories. It has slightly negative health effects (it can sap calcium from bones), but not enough to justify singling it out for taxation. Even regular junk food is completely harmless if consumed as an occasional treat and not as a primary source of food. Taxing soda with the hope of changing peoples habits is little more than nannyism.

Being coldly clinical for a moment: death has costs.

Soda != Death.

people who contract expensive to treat diseases are more likely to have their paid-for insurance revoked on technicalities

This is actually quite rare. The majority of non-payment issues are from the uninsured, not the under-insured. They won't let you join if your already sick, in the same way car insurance companies don't let you join to cover an accident you had yesterday. It's just a simple risk pool. The health insurance industry has a decent record of following through. I have personal experience with this, as my insurance company covered an expensive surgery I needed (though I looked it up, it would simply have not been covered in Britain or Canada). They kept their end of the deal and paid for their part of it.

50% of bankruptcies in the US are due to insurance not covering critical healthcare treatments.

This is true in one sense. Though Americans have a culture of carrying large amounts of individual debt. A big expense like an unexpected surgery can tip the balance. Being the most regulated industry in the country doesn't exactly help make things cheaper.

How do you deal with it while maximizing liberties? Answer: you try to have people responsible for the costs of their actions. And that's where cost taxes come in.

At what point does it end. First sodas need more taxes to cover their "health effects", what next? Chips? Beer? Loud headphones? Non-ergonomic keyboards? Computers? Cars?

If you really want to maximize liberty then give people real choice. Allow hospitals to turn down people in non-life threatening situations, ban states from discriminating against out of state insurance (as we do with car insurance and life insurance), get rid of laws requiring all insurance companies to cover specific things promoted by disease activist groups (in the same way you can buy collision only car insurance), and have insurance be something that is purchased by individuals rather than regulating employers into buying it (employers still could, and there are some situations where the employee and employer may prefer to do so, but our employer-purchase driven system drives up cost for small businesses and people paying out of pocket), and expand health savings accounts (or better yet adopt a tax code like FairTax, the negative tax, or the flat tax and keep inflation under control, then we wouldn't be discouraging savings and investment and wouldn't need special accounts, we could save on our own).

Re:taxes

[AK Marc]

For incorrect values of "socalist" maybe. If the hospitals are privately owned, it matters not whether they are paid by the person seeking treatment, the insurance company or the government, it is a capitalist system. If the hospitals are owned by the government, it doesn't matter if they require payment for the services and who pays.

Capitalism means the production is owned by people, whereas socalism means production is owned by The People. Taxes and payments are irrelevant. Congress and the military receive socailized medicine. Medicare is capitalized medicine. Every proposal by Obama's administration is 100% capitalistic, with absolutely no socalism at all. Funny how the people receive socialized medicine vote to continue to receive socialized medicine, yet deny it to everyone else (other than the military).

Re:taxes

[CodeBuster]

Show me the European country that has banned any of the activities you listed.

First off, it would be more fair to use either France or England as a comparison for a "socialized medicine" system than Germany, which retains essentially a private practice and hospital medical system; albeit with price controls (Germany was one of the health systems featured in Sick Around the World on Frontline). Take the English system, which is heavily socialized, as the example (not an unfair comparison since England and America enjoy the "special friendship" and are closer as two peoples than the French and other European systems). In Britain one sees high taxes on alcohol and tobacco use in addition to public advertising campaigns by the National Health Service against unhealthy activities and lifestyles, all promoted using public money (since the public is ultimately footing the bill for the NHS after all). The doctors also receive bonuses if their patients meet health statistic targets (BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc) AND if they quit smoking. As you might suppose, such campaigns and incentives create intense pressure on people to conform to the state messages concerning too many fast food cheeseburgers, smoking, drinking, etc in addition to the taxes. It may not be a ban in force of law, but it could be considered abusive or at least bothersome to have the government constantly saying that you are a baaaad person for not giving up smoking or eating too many cheeseburgers or being overweight etc. Frankly, I don't think most Americans want the government that much into their personal business, especially when it comes to their lifestyle choices and health care. For all the history that we share in common with the English, we Americans are different when it comes to appropriate amount of and intrusiveness of government into the lives of ordinary citizens.

So is it an outright ban? Not yet, but the first step to ultimately banning some substance or activity is to start beating it down in the public debate until one thing leads to another and the substance or activity in question really is banned (or effectively so through regulations and taxes). We see this here in the United States in the abortion debates where each side fights vehemently against any further restrictions on one side and any further expansions on the other (each side views the loss of an INCH to the other side as an absolute loss and a move towards outright permission or a complete ban). Personally, I would prefer not to get started down that road myself with health choices here in America.

Re:taxes

[JohnRoss1968]

Your right its a better way to die

People who drink diet soft drinks don't lose weight. In fact, they gain weight, a new study shows.
The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.
"What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."
In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.
"There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day," Fowler says.People who drink diet soft drinks don't lose weight. In fact, they gain weight, a new study shows.
The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.
"What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."
In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.

"There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day," Fowler says.

Tell ya what You let me smoke myself to death and Ill let you get fat and die of a heart attack.

Re:taxes

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Please mod parent up. This is absolutely correct. The government has zero business in trying to influence our behavior by continuously taxing us on every activity that it deems unfit. We already have enough taxes to pay, there is no reason why we should also face taxes on our behavior.

I don't think that the government should do anything at all, but if they absolutely MUST do something, why not reward those that make healthy choices, as opposed to penalizing those that do not?

Re:taxes

[colinrichardday]

But what if one produces less than one consumes? People, unlike windows, require a lot of maintenance.

Re:taxes

[Quothz]

I've never really understood that - here poor people (and I should know, I was a grad student for six years)

Being a grad student is not poor; that's having little disposable income. Being poor is riding the bus home from a near-minimum wage job for an abusive boss who screws you out of minutes' pay every day, only to find a 3-day notice on the door when you get there, and inside your unemployed spouse is already drinking something bought with money that was supposed to go to the gas bill, while your kid, who needs braces and new shoes, complains that the old computer your cousin gave you crashed again.

Poor is when your feet hurt and your stomach hurts every day when you get a letter from a creditor demanding money you don't have plus another late fee, so you just throw it unopened on the pile. Poor is when bank fees matter because that could have kept your phone on. Poor is when your parents try to borrow money from you and you can't help them. Poor is hoping the toothache goes away on its own.

Poor is not eating ramen in grad school, working part time and occasionally hitting the folks up for money.

Re:taxes

[camg188]

As an avid soda drinker, I don't have any problem with a 'soda' tax.

I do, because it's not about the health, it's about the money.
Health issues are just an excuse to make tax increases more palatable.

Re:taxes

[camg188]

Being coldly clinical for a moment: death has costs.

Not smoking, not drinking alcohol and not drinking soda does not exempt you from death or from requiring expensive health treatment before you die.
Being coldly realistic for a moment: everyone is going to die and most people will die of a condition requiring medical treatment before death. The whole premise of "sin" tax is BS.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor people often aren't just lacking money.; they're often even more lacking in TIME. If I'm working two or three part time jobs trying to earn enough money to support my family, I don't have time to go to the grocery store and hen cook a nice healthy meal. I'm cramming a Big Mac down my throat on the bus between my shift folding clothes and my evening busing tables. Meanwhile, I'm hoping my kids got home from school okay and found the money I left so they can order a pizza for dinner.

Re:taxes

[RightSaidFred99]

Same with cigarettes. Personal choice. The only caveat is insurance companies should be able to charge smokers more.

Re:taxes

[definate]

How do you measure externalities?

They haven't been committed. They extend for an uncertain time horizon.

Additionally, the externalities you're talking about, are generally due to the socialization of some other service.

So you've 1 of 2 directions, you regulate, and increase taxation, and regulation, ad infinum, or you deregulate, and decrease taxation, and deregulate, ad infinum. Resulting in minimal (or no) government or huge government.

However, thank you for trivializing the field of economics.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you've socialized health care, the claim of "I'm not hurting anyone but myself" goes away; each individual's well-being becomes the business of everyone in general.

NO, NO, NO! What you fail to understand is that everything you do affects everyone else. Socialized health care is there to help fix this problem. The person who can't afford new glasses but must drive to work now gets those new glasses instead of causing a car accident that kills people. That manic depressive gets the drugs he/she needs before going on a killing spree. Or the burger eater goes on cholesterol lowering drugs instead of getting that emergency triple bypass surgery later that we end up paying for because that person has no insurance. Why don't people get this???

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore, if we are providing health care for everyone, we need to make sure that people are taking care of themselves. We need mandatory exercise programs and diets - because that is the only known way to make sure people stay at a healthy weight.

What?? You are being completely absurd. The Nordic countries are as nanny as it gets, but we don't have forced excercise or diets (unless you count sports class and school food).

Slippery slope arguments are usually ridiculous,

No shit.

but this one isn't so far fetched.

Oh yes it is.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

It may not be a ban in force of law, but it could be considered abusive or at least bothersome to have the government constantly saying that you are a baaaad person for not giving up smoking or eating too many cheeseburgers or being overweight etc.

Yeah, because the Free Market sure never makes anyone feel bad or unattractive or inferior.

So is it an outright ban? Not yet, but

"Not yet BUT". Funny how you raged in your previous post on how horrible it is to live in a country with socialised medicine because it means you'll have all these bans. OMG, do they really have bans like that?! Well, no BUT.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Do these bad eating habits begin in childhood or as adults?
If the former, do these eating habits get started by the parents or by the school system, or perhaps a combination of them both?
The question is, what can be done to ensure children eat healthier while young, so they don't develop bad habits to begin with?

Re:taxes

[uninformedLuddite]

at least we now know who the one person is who drinks it

Re:taxes

[uninformedLuddite]

In most countries the additional taxes payed by smokers more than offset the extra costs smokers put on the health services. Unless you are in the USA then it doesn't matter at all.

Re:taxes

[uninformedLuddite]

In total agreement. Including the loss of future earnings is disingenious and just a little bit ridiculous. Doesn;t dying a little early help get some poor sod off the dole and into employment. they should be paying for smokers funerals they owe us all big time.

Re:taxes

[mpe]

Arms dealers don't pay taxes and they have no problem not reporting anything going on.

Nor do they have "background checks" and "awaiting periods".

The more you go out of your way to 'ban' or 'tax' things like this, the harder it becomes for the government to monitor because they people will ALWAYS take the easiest/safest path for themselves, which won't be the legal one ... which instantly means they can no longer be honest.
You can't 'ban' something a significant portion of the population wants, well you can, just won't be very effective.

Which is something governments never apper to learn. Otherwise the only place you'd be able to find out about drug prohibition would be a history book.

Re:taxes

[mpe]

You've changed the question from how do we make sure *most* people stay at a healthy weight to how do we make sure *everyone* stays at a healthy weight.

Assuming that we can first work out what is a "healthy weight".

The law of diminishing returns is a well known economic concept, and your example of mandatory activities is an example of diminished returns.
It is where initial steps that are taken to address a problem give huge gains, but each additional step taken gives smaller and smaller gains until eventually it is no longer economically viable to go further.

There can also come a point where things actually become counter productive.

Re:taxes

[mwvdlee]

Wait... it's legal in the US to be fired for being sick?

Re:taxes

[mpe]

WTF? The poor drink bottled water? I don't know what the prices are where you live, but here bottled water costs around 3,000 times more per unit volume than tap water.

Quite a few bottled waters are regular tap water anyway.

No poor people are going to be spending 3,000 times as much on something than they need to; if they can afford to then they are not poor.

Down to the power of marketing with people being convinced that the bottled stuff is somehow better. Unless you happen to live in somewhere like Iraq this simply isn't the case.

Re:taxes

[geminidomino]

All right then. If my skills to the collective justify the 50% surcharge on cigarettes, my fees just went up 50%.

Because I'm so important.

Re:taxes

[geminidomino]

There are studies that drinnking diet soda can lead to weight gain (as mentioned) as well as insulin resistance, "pre-diabetes", etc...

So why should the soda drinkers not also be charged more? Were you not aware of this, or is your position of personal choice conditional on choosing things that you personally care about?

Re:taxes

[geminidomino]

... $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death.

Holy shit! If I get plowed by a cement mixer on the way home from work, every penny I would have made for the next 50 years is going to wink out of existence?! And here my dumb ass thought they'd just hire someone to replace me. Wow, I'm glad I learned this. I'm going to go hold myself hostage unless the government gives me 20% of my future wages to protect the economy.

Seriously, how do people actually swallow this shit? If I had a family, yeah, they'd be fucked if I suddenly snuffed it. "Society"? Not so much.

Re:taxes

[ceoyoyo]

Oh yes, of course, someone pipes up with "that's not poor!"

Well, I can top you, no problem. Poor is when you don't have a phone and can't imagine having a phone. Poor is when there is no computer, second hand or otherwise. In fact, there is no food either, and you can't just buy some with the gas bill money because there is no gas bill money. Or gas.

Feel better? Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

Re:taxes

[geminidomino]

WTF? The poor drink bottled water? I don't know what the prices are where you live, but here bottled water costs around 3,000 times more per unit volume than tap water. .

You'd be surprised. Sibling post points out the power of marketing. Combine that with the sort of person I know that buys and parrots all the moon-landing conspiracy crap (but doesn't understand a whit of it), and yeah... they do.

Re:taxes

[jonadab]

> Sin taxes are stupid. They allow rich people to "sin" more.

But if they do, they bear a proportionally higher percentage of the tax burden. So such a system penalizes them for the "sin", in a directly fiscal way (which, typically, is a form of penalty that rich people are more worried about than poor people, though of course there are exceptions).

I'm not in favor of replacing all legal restrictions with taxes. I would not, for instance, want murder to be legal and taxed. But we're talking here about the "smoking is bad for you" sort of thing, an excise tax.

Re:taxes

[Cro Magnon]

Many of the areas without grocery stores also have high crime, which tends to discourage businesses from moving in, or drives them away if they were there to begin with.

Re:taxes

[yamfry]

Discussion?! I'd be a rich man if I could afford such a luxury!

Re:taxes

[NiteShaed]

Many jobs in the U.S. are "at will employment. While there are exceptions, an employer can fire you "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all".

Re:taxes

[rho]

I don't think any smoker would be bothered by a restaurant banning smoking.

It's the bans that force restaurants or bars to ban smoking even if they want to allow smoking that's a problem.

Re:taxes

[Civil_Disobedient]

Google RESCISSION.

For fun, google rescission health insurance and notice how the search results don't change much. That's because the health insurance industry is one of the worst and most shameless practitioners of rescission.

Re:taxes

[NiteShaed]

Another common claim from the economically illiterate is "taxes don't work to lower consumption, people will just spend more!". Right, so if the tax on a packet of cigarettes were $100, everyone would just pay that, rather than switching to some other vice?

I'll take option C, the black market. Even without taxes at an absurd $100/pack, we're seeing violent drug dealers moving into the tobacco trade, taking what was a perfectly normal, legitimate business and turning it into a new criminal enterprise. This ends up denying the state its tax-money, increases costs (and risk) for law-enforcement and adds the risk of physical violence towards people who would otherwise not be in harms way.

High "sin-taxes" are just prohibition-light.

Re:taxes

[rho]

Since you're interested in cheap cooking, investigate a pressure cooker. It's very hard to beat dried beans on a price-per-calorie basis. Going largely meatless also saves a bunch of dough. Curries are cheap, cheap, cheap with beans and veg, especially if you buy whole spices and grind your own. Fresher, too.

Re:taxes

[Civil_Disobedient]

Official answer: it depends.

Read up on at-will employment law. The long-and-short of it is: yes, Virginia, they can fire your ass for any reason they like.

Of course, they might not say it's because you're black. Or disabled. Or gay. But they can just as easily make up any "acceptable" excuse to work around employment law (e.g., "Oh, Bill just wasn't fitting in with our corporate culture..." or "The Company was disappointed with Sue's attitude...")

Re:taxes

[NiteShaed]

Maybe at least one bottled water companies thinks it's customers are naivE. Purely the product of backwards thinking I suppose......

Re:taxes

[gad_zuki!]

>There have been fewer than 15 murders proven to have been committed with NFA weapons in the 75 years this harsh regulation has existed. There was no sound justification to ban the items again in 1986.

Cause and effect. If it wasnt for the ban that number would be higher.

Re:taxes

[iamhigh]

And worse... they are making it cool again. In a water-cooler talk, someone said they heard that cigarettes are now so expensive it is considered a status symbol among kids. It's like the kids are saying "Yeah, I'm cool. I can afford 6 bucks a day".

Re:taxes

[commodore64_love]

>>>I would much rather the government got income through 'sin' taxes than through the income tax.

You would change your tune if they started taxing gaming, tv watching, and internet surfing.

Re:taxes

[Kashgarinn]

I'm more in favor of taxes which are directly linked to what they're used for.

Taxing gasoline for road repairs and infrastructure work is a good idea. Taxing gasoline for medical stuff, nomral governmental stuff, or anything else not related to what gasoline is used for.. not a good idea.

- it's basically a "republican" minimalist thinking, except "republican" today equals corruption of ideals for blackmailed wealth so I'd never call myself a republican or anything of that ilk, it would be the same as calling myself an evildoer, or ironically a Communist.

Re:taxes

[NiteShaed]

I approve of smoking bans. If eaters of transfats vomited all over me in every restaurant, I'd probably approve of transfat bans too.

I don't approve of either, but that's because I don't like legislation telling business owners how to run their places in circumstances like this. As long as I know what I'm in for (smoking, barfing transfat eaters, whatever), it's my choice whether or not to go into that place. Hell, if you want to open a bar where people piss on the floor, go crazy, I just won't go there. If I don't want to go to a smokey bar, I'll go somewhere else, but I don't feel I have the right to tell the bar-owner that he can't decide whether to allow smoking or not.

Re:taxes

[chrb]

The black market will always exist to exploit differences in taxation policy between national and international markets. But that is not an acknowledgement that the $100 tax would have failed - taxes are only meant to manage externalities in the legitimate market, because obviously the black market doesn't pay taxes. In this case, if every person switched supply source to the black market, then consumption in the legitimate market would indeed have fallen as expected. Taxes regulate the legal market, law enforcement regulates the illegal market. As I said, the argument isn't really about "sin taxes", it's about who pays for the externalities.

The cigarette import scams, the largest being Montenegro's cigarette smuggling trade run by the legitimate government to finance the nation, cost the EU hundreds of millions of Euros every year in lost taxes. However, if the cigarettes had been taxed at manufacture source, rather than being marked for export and therefore 0% tax, the scam wouldn't have been possible.

You could argue that in this case, the black market would begin to grow it's own tobacco in illegal farming operations akin to cannabis cultivation now. That would only happen if the tax were substantially higher than the associated costs of running illegal tobacco farms - even with the high taxes on cigarettes in EU nations, there are no illegal farming operations - so far this has only happened when the product is completely prohibited like cannabis. There are also high taxes on distilled alcohol, and yet there are no illegal distilleries operating on a commercial basis. The legitimate market, even with the inefficiency of tax, is more economically viable than the black market. Obviously there is a point where this would no longer be true, but we are not at that point yet (indeed, alcohol by measures of affordability has actually become many times cheaper over the last few decades).

Re:taxes

[Kashgarinn]

sorry, didn't really give a good example perhaps as an extra.

For instance I would be in favor of taxing smoking for the extra cost the public has to pay to deal with the diseases of the smokers, and I would want it to be as fairly done so that people who like to smoke, they then accept the cost of their own disease, and the normal public doesn't have to later pay extra for what is a self-inflicted medical cost.

The medical statistics would have to be gone over carefully as to measure the real burden smokers are adding to a society, so not to overblow it completely (again me being a conservative, I'd like things to be taken in babysteps towards a better future, although I wouldn't call myself a conservative because of the stigma).

So to me, if you'd tax something like sugar products, or cola products, that tax should be there to help better dental care and make sure there isn't a detrimental cost to society (or to help combat problems which arise because of them), not to pay for other parts of government.

That would of course mean we'd have to pay a big lump sum in taxes for all the miscellaneous things government does which can't be directly taxed, and with more transparency you should be able to see better what you're paying for in that lump sum, but it would still be a lump sum and you'd have more knowledge at your fingertips on what you're really paying for.

Re:taxes

[darkshadow]

Except, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided it was OK to raid segregated funds, included the transportation fund.

Re:taxes

[CodeBuster]

"Not yet BUT"

Don't be so naïve. Long term taxes and other anti substance or activity laws have a way of escalating into a ban. Look at the times when things have been banned in American history. The ban creeps up on us gradually over time until suddenly, one day, the ban is in effect. It happened with alcohol (repealed) and with drugs and it is in the process of happening with abortion right now. That is why it is never good to give, even a little bit, in politics because only a fool fails to recognize the power of momentum in government policy or doing things in stages gradually rather than all at once (the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water).

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

If I don't want to go to a smokey bar, I'll go somewhere else

What will you do when there's nowhere else to go to? The number of smokers + the number of non-smokers who will tolerate smokers is much larger than the number of people who will not (or cannot, due to allergies and such) tolerate smokers. If there are no regulations on smoking, then it simple makes good financial sense to allow smoking in your restaurant, and that leads to practically every place you would want to go to being full of smoke.

Re:taxes

[NiteShaed]

However, if the cigarettes had been taxed at manufacture source, rather than being marked for export and therefore 0% tax, the scam wouldn't have been possible.

That might work for the EU, but in the US the taxes most noticed are state taxes, not federal. New Jersey is not able to tax all of the cigarettes made in South Carolina.

You could argue that in this case, the black market would begin to grow it's own tobacco in illegal farming operations akin to cannabis cultivation now.

In the US, I don't have to argue any such thing. Currently, as in right now, not in theory, organized crime is getting heavily involved in the cigarette business. This is creating violence and law enforcement problems that would not exist with a more reasonable state sales tax.

Re:taxes

[NiteShaed]

What will you do when there's nowhere else to go to?

Then it's off to the liquor store, where I buy beer and a few bottles of wine for a fraction of what it costs me at the bar, and invite people over.

The number of smokers + the number of non-smokers who will tolerate smokers is much larger than the number of people who will not (or cannot, due to allergies and such) tolerate smokers. If there are no regulations on smoking, then it simple makes good financial sense to allow smoking in your restaurant, and that leads to practically every place you would want to go to being full of smoke.

You pretty much just said it yourself, what you like isn't popular enough to sustain a business (smoke free bars/restaurants), so you want a law to get your way. I'm not buying it. There are plenty of things I like that aren't profitable enough to sustain a business on. I'm not going to demand a law that creates those businesses just 'cause I like'em.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

I think personal motivation is a part of it too. My mother is a good cook, but never taught me or my sisters to cook. Fast-forward to where we are all graduated and living on our own for 6, 8, and 18 years and we have all picked up the skill on our own, in our own way. My girlfriend, on the other hand, never learned to cook in the 6 years since she moved out of her parents'. Thank you, as well, for the food suggestions. My girlfriend and I bought a house, but now she is entering a nursing program so her ability to work is pretty impacted, so we have been trying to find economical and tasty recipes.

Re:taxes

[RightSaidFred99]

If insurance companies want to use limited, incomplete "science" to claim diet soda is unhealthy they can do so. The "studies" you refer to are at best questionable and indicate more work needs to be done. I have a simple explanation for the diet soda findings - fat people tend to drink more of it, so there's a correlation (but no causation) between diet soda and the findings.

Can I do a study indicating eating too much Tofu (soy protein is estrogenic) is harmful even in slightly elevated amounts and then tax hippes more for eating it?

Re:taxes

[atriusofbricia]

Thats pretty funny ... you think the tax slowed anyone down? The only people it slowed down were the people that weren't really all that interested in the first place.

All a $200 tax on something like a machine gun does is make it more of a dangerous situation because the sale goes underground.

Arms dealers don't pay taxes and they have no problem not reporting anything going on.

The more you go out of your way to 'ban' or 'tax' things like this, the harder it becomes for the government to monitor because they people will ALWAYS take the easiest/safest path for themselves, which won't be the legal one ... which instantly means they can no longer be honest.

You can't 'ban' something a significant portion of the population wants, well you can, just won't be very effective.

You are, of course, 100% correct. I didn't say it slowed down ownership by the criminal element. In fact, I said it made no difference in crime. As is always the case with any such law, as you pointed out, only the law abiding were harmed by it. The criminals went right ahead and did what they wanted anyway.

Of course, this is the problem with any type of ban, no?

Re:taxes

[atriusofbricia]

>There have been fewer than 15 murders proven to have been committed with NFA weapons in the 75 years this harsh regulation has existed. There was no sound justification to ban the items again in 1986.

Cause and effect. If it wasnt for the ban that number would be higher.

Not necessarily. Machine guns are a terrible choice of weapon for almost any situation, outside of a battle field. They're expensive to run, hard to control, and usually large (outside of machine pistols of course). Aside from all that, even were the 1986 ban not passed could you really see your neighborhood gangbanger filling out NFA paper work and paying a tax? If criminals don't have machine guns, it isn't because of the law. It's because even illegal ones aren't practical for crime.

Re:taxes

[modecx]

Cause and effect. If it wasnt for the ban that number would be higher.

Of course. I think we understand that *heavy regulation* (not truly a ban) of NFA items has made it extremely improbable for them to be a cause of death. The point is, despite estimated 200,000 registered machine guns owned across the US, it's likely that more people are killed by choking to death on vitamins *every year* than all of the slayings involving federally regulated, legally owned NFA weapons throughout the years.

That's why it didn't make sense to finally ban new machine guns back in 1986. The "problem" was literally so insignificant to be a non-issue, outside of the obvious political pandering which was Mission Accomplished.

Re:taxes

[theCoder]

That may be true, but the people in charge will usually take the equivalent amount of money from the general fund that would have been spent on roads and spend it on something else. So, in effect, the hypothetical gas tax increase does pay for something else. Kind of like how many states have lottery systems that help pay for education. Except that then they lowered the amount of money that comes from the general fund, so that the amount of money going to education remains the same.

Note: I'm not arguing that any money is being mis-spent. Only that dedicated funding doesn't always mean an increase in the amount of money to spend on that item.

Re:taxes

[dyingtolive]

How do you deal with it while maximizing liberties? Answer: you try to have people responsible for the costs of their actions. And that's where cost taxes come in.

You're completely right. Let's start by stringing the politicians up by their balls for enacting regulations under coercion (bribes) by the corn lobbyists to make HFCS artificially cheaper than cane sugar. We can also string up the politicians that let the cigarette companies hide the actual ingredients in their products. Finally, we can string up the politicians who allow insurance to be so expensive through regulation (or in some cases, lack of regulation). Lets then string up the politicians who inflict other costs upon society, monetary and otherwise, though their collusion with both corporate and their own self-interest. There were not these problems 100 years ago. They have occurred though self-interest over the good of the people. If we're going to make people responsible for their actions, then we should make the people who are ACTUALLY responsible be the ones who are held responsible.

Re:taxes

[geminidomino]

Can I do a study indicating eating too much Tofu (soy protein is estrogenic) is harmful even in slightly elevated amounts and then tax hippes more for eating it?

I don't know, can you? It's your logic. I find the entire concept repugnant.

Re:taxes

[Naturalis Philosopho]

It's socialized to the extent that when someone goes into a private hospital right now, and doesn't pay, I wind up paying more for my few simple services to make up the hospital's shortfall. Likewise, when someone goes into the hospital and my insurance company does pay, then I pay more in premiums to cover their costs. Medicare is socialized to the extent that everyone pays but only the old get to partake. There's a big difference between "socialized" and "socialist". Likewise the "big S" versions. Also, even if the gov't "owns" the hospitals, it still very much does matter who pays. In the end, we all do. No matter how doctors and hospitals are paid (for the record I back Obama's attempt at reform), true reform won't come until we begin to account for who uses what service, how much, and why. Once that accounting is made, then we can concentrate on reducing the cost through efficiencies, "incentivising" people to use only what they need, and working to make sure we all need less overall health care through preventative measures.

Re:taxes

[AK Marc]

It's socialized to the extent that when someone goes into a private hospital right now, and doesn't pay, I wind up paying more for my few simple services to make up the hospital's shortfall.

Then language has failed us. Socialism and Capitalism count one and only one thing, who owns the means of production. The government paying someone is irrelevant to who owns it. Taxes are irrelevant to who owns it. Every capitalist country has/had a tax rate above 0%. Every socialist country has/had a tax rate below 100%. So, the presence or absence of taxes is irrelevant, and no one has, that I know of, drawn some like of tax that determines who's socialist and who's capitalistic. And, of course, the reasons that isn't used is because it, too, is irrelevant to who owns the means of production. Since all capitalist countries have the government buy, sell, and provide services and distribute money to people and companies, then those activities must be capitalistic or there has never existed a capitalistic country and we can just drop the false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism.

But I honestly don't understand how the dictionary definitions of Socialism and Capitalism are relevant to what you are talking about, let alone applicable to any particular statement.

Re:taxes

[shambalagoon]

This encroachment of freedom you describe is fearmongering. It doesn't need to happen. Has this happened in any other country with universal healthcare? I think I would have heard of it if it had. This is a classic slippery slope argument that has no basis in fact. Come back when the government is seriously considering food-control collars that measure your food intake.

Here's a little additional perspective on that as well. Why do people eat junk food? Why are foods filled with nasty preservatives and thick with sugars? Why do people eat and eat and eat? Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people keep coming back to foods that make them sick? Why do people become alcoholics? All of these are results of some weakness or lack of education. Do you think this is the state people want to be in? Do you think someone wants to be a fat smoking alcoholic? Do you think someone wants to be drained of energy and feel sick all the time?

Government should step in with education and industry control. Just look what happened with trans-fat. It was unhealthy but cheap and so all these food makers used it. But eventually the FDA recognized as being terrible for your health and the government mandated labeling. Instantly the food makers switched to other kinds of fats that didn't affect your health poorly. What did you lose? Did you lose your freedom there? And if you say YES, are you really sad that you're not getting more sick eating the same foods?

Is it a violation of your freedom that there's no arsenic in your food? Please.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

There were stiffer penalties on crack because crack or at least the effects of the crack epidemic were a whole lot worse than cocaine ever was or is. I will grant you that it might have been due to cracks comparable low cost verses cocaine; although I from what I saw of both cocaine and crack addicts and crack was definitely worse. The results of the rise of crack destroyed entire neighborhoods, families, and cities and caused violent and property crimes to skyrocket. Of course the penalties that arose in respond to the rise in crack were going to be much more harsh.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you have been cooking but even cooking for yourself its pretty hard to compete with McD's, or other cheap eateries, prices. Their economics of scale beats you almost every time, granted the $50/plate steak or lobster house is a different animal for there you are paying a premium for the name and level of service. Sure you can feed your family rice and beans, ramen noodles (a steal at $20/package and over 400 calories per serving), the occasional chicken leg quarters or backs (usually the cheapest cuts), and other similar cheap foods. However once you try to raise the taste level a bit, even if just adding flavor enhancers to the previous list, your cooking costs skyrocket. Add in the costs related to spoilage or age, especially to vegetables/herbs/spices which you can usually only buy in a unit that is too big for a single use and may times you will not use it all before its too late, and the average cost of a home cooked meal skyrockets some more. Add in cleaning and the total cost of ALL related materials and time and that savings falls some more.

Cost comparisons:

Fried chicken:
~$5 = single person meal (cheaper for family pack)
>$5 = ~$2 for a couple of leg quarters, ~$1-$2 buttermilk, ~$0.50-$1 for cooking oil, ~$0.50 in flour used, ~$0.50-$1 in various herbs and spices, $? for side dish(es), $? waste, $? related costs including time

And that is a simple meal to prepare with the commercial one likely being the tastier version. Many dishes will use a much long list of ingredients (many of which you may not be able to use any remainder in something else before it spoils), many of which could be on the average more expensive than the ones chosen above.

I do cook at home frequently but it is not done to save on food costs, instead for the pleasure of doing and creating something myself. In my area, if I wanted too I could eat out the entire day for about $10-$20 and that includes non-fast food restaurant level dishes.

Re:taxes

[An Onerous Coward]

So, you agree that no industrialized country with universal health coverage has actually banned any of the activities and products you listed?

Let's say that universal health care will pass, that it's relatively expensive, and that it must be paid for. What would you rather tax to raise the necessary revenue? A) junk food, B) green, leafy vegetables, C) the products of your labor and investments, D) heart attacks and cancer?

Moving on. You think that any messages a person receives that makes them feel bad about their current lifestyle are "abusive, or at least bothersome?" Sit down to any hour of network TV, and tell me what you see in the commercials. Your house is filthy. You need to lose weight. You are unappealing to the opposite sex. You should live in constant fear of body odor. Your acne makes you repulsive. Your job sucks. Your car sucks. Your Internet is too slow. You're out of shape. Your hair is insufficiently silky and/or lustrous. Ladies, your makeup is of inferior quality, and makes you look like a whore. Your hair is the wrong color. Your dishes are coming out of the washer with stains. You are throwing away your money by not shopping at Big Box. You should be eating more cheeseburgers. You should quit smoking. You're paying too much money for your car insurance. By not choosing our cellular plan, you're telling everyone you love to leave you the hell alone. Your restless leg syndrome could be fatal.

Did I leave any out? Yes, by the thousands.

And you want to kvetch about government PSAs? Molehill, meet mountain.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new rice-cake-and-green-tea overlords.

Re:taxes

[mjpaci]

Silly you. This is America. The tobacco companies will pay for your mistakes. After all, they're the ones that provided the product that caused the cancer. They even told you it could cause cancer -- therefore it's their fault!!

Re:taxes

[nycguy]

I'm actually quite for individual liberty, but I'm also for individual responsibility. As others have pointed out, a "sin tax" is a far preferable alternative to banning something outright. That way, when the exercise of a liberty has an indirect cost, that cost can be attributed and recouped. Liberty doesn't mean something has to be costless, and responsibility dictates that you should cover the costs that the exercise of your liberty imposes on others. I believe you should be able to do whatever you want so long as you don't impinge on the rights of others nor impose unpaid costs on others in the process.

Your point is well taken, though, that what is considered a "sin" will change over time. I was merely trying to point out that if a "sin tax" were considered valid in one case, there are other cases where it would also be valid.

Re:taxes

[Quothz]

Well, I can top you, no problem.

Maybe so, but I'm not the one who claimed to be poor. Equating minor inconvenience in the lap of privilege with real poverty takes a special arrogance. You haven't shared the pain of hunger because you once missed a meal, you don't feel the pain of torture victims from stubbing a toe, and attending grad school didn't teach you the plight of poverty. Believing otherwise is shockingly narcissistic, and it does not reflect well upon you.

Your point that the poor should just grill some chicken and make salads is fine for some. It may've been true that it was faster for you, in your horrible plight, to drive the car mommy gave you to the grocery store to buy your organically-produced chicken breast, but many folks must walk miles to buy groceries, and they'd have to do it every day since they don't have refrigeration, with sore feet from working and after figuring out what to do with the kids.

There's no shame in affluence and no virtue in poverty, but there's something to be said for understanding the difference between them.

Re:taxes

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, where I went to grad school, graduate students came in under the poverty line before they paid tuition, so yes, by definition, graduate students were poor. Destitute? Perhaps not. But poor, yes, by definition.

So there. :P

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more in favor of a high calorie tax,
  especially at the fancy French Restaurant
you just ate at today....let them tax cake.

Re:taxes

[crucini]

The power to tax is the power to destroy

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

first link on google searching for "cause of bankruptcy in usa"

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html [consumeraffairs.com]

A few years back, the CC companies got to their Holy Grail -- they bought enough legislators to make CC debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

They spent years trying to convince everyone that they were being taken advantage of by people who maxed out all their cards on extravagant living, then declared bankruptcy, leaving the poor, sniveling CC outfits holding the bag.

In fact, it was well established, but shouted down by the meretricious CC snakes, that medical expenses were the chief reason for bankruptcy.

When people have their lives saved or extended by medical treatment, they are grateful and tend to want their doctors or hospitals not to be stiffed for months on end. The medical establishments also took advantage of this loyalty by encouraging patients to roll their bills onto a CC.

In many cases, huge medical bills could have been negotiated down to something a person would have a chance of paying off -- it's well-known that there is a hell of a lot of air in the prices published for medical procedures and accomodations. But with a CC, just racking up a large balance in the first place automatically sets you up for predatorily high interest rates. Miss a single payment, even to another creditor, and it can only get worse.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Being from the UK, I never even considered putting the words 'medical and bankruptcy' in the same sentence until I started looking into the US healthcare 'scheme'. In fact I find the idea beyond reprehensible.

Health is not a commodity or a luxury, it's a fucking human right. The fact that people get financially destroyed for their health is shocking to me.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Preservatives, maybe?

I lolled though.

Re:taxes

[rrvau]

Hey, this is all a lead up to getting us to accept the governments taxation of the air we breathe (CO2 tax). They have to service loans that will increase to 114% of GDP in 3-4 years.

Re:taxes

[Psyborgue]

This encroachment of freedom you describe is fearmongering. It doesn't need to happen.

It sort of does. What mechanism prevents it. The very argument you claim is implausible is being made by several govt officials as outlined in TFA.

Has this happened in any other country with universal healthcare? I think I would have heard of it if it had. This is a classic slippery slope argument that has no basis in fact. Come back when the government is seriously considering food-control collars that measure your food intake.

Not collars, but they can influence the social behavior of people by affecting prices. It's almost worse since it's a gradual process and people don't realize how and to what extent they're being influenced.

Here's a little additional perspective on that as well. Why do people eat junk food? Why are foods filled with nasty preservatives and thick with sugars? Why do people eat and eat and eat? Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people keep coming back to foods that make them sick? Why do people become alcoholics? All of these are results of some weakness or lack of education. Do you think this is the state people want to be in?

It's irrelevant. It's their choice and/or consequences of their choices. It's not the state's job to coach people to make "better" (determined by the state) choices. So what if a person want's to mess up their body. They own it. They have to live with the consequences and if they didn't work to prepare financially or otherwise for those consequences... well that sucks, but don't expect a bailout. All it does is encourage others to be lazy and irresponsible, just as bailouts for banks encourage them to continue bad practices. Without real consequences there is no incentive for change.

Do you think someone wants to be a fat smoking alcoholic? Do you think someone wants to be drained of energy and feel sick all the time?

Hey. It's Darwin in action. Not the state's job. If you want to do something "good" (short term) for those people, start a diet program, but leave my tax-dollars out of it. I shouldn't have to pay for the bad decisions of other people who choose to misuse/abuse substances when I can handle them responsibly.

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

This encroachment of freedom you describe is fearmongering. It doesn't need to happen.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the US. We don't do such things by half measures here. We're willing to waste billions of dollars on a War on Drugs(TM) that is clearly failing by any objective measure. We have public service announcements which paint non-violent drug users as supporters of terrorism and the murder of DEA agents. We have so much love for Zero Tolerance(TM) policies, that middle school officials are willing to force a 13 year old female student to strip down to bra & panties, then pull those undergarments away from her skin so that the school officials could verify that she wasn't hiding ibuprofen; she's lucky they didn't traumatize her further with a cavity search. Examples like this aren't confined to the context of the nation's drug problem, but these are especially illuminating.

You're right - it doesn't need to happen. But there are an insufficient number of sensible people here to prevent it from happening.

Why do people become alcoholics? All of these are results of some weakness or lack of education.

If by "weakness" you mean some moral failing or lack of self control, then most of your examples might be OK, but you are being unfair to the significant subset of alcoholics for whom a physical response to alcohol is the crucial component of their addiction. And if you don't know why people eat salty/fatty/sugary things, you need a refresher on human physiology. None of those things are a problem in moderation; it's lack of moderation where weakness and poor education come into play.

Just look what happened with trans-fat...What did you lose? Did you lose your freedom there?...Is it a violation of your freedom that there's no arsenic in your food? Please.

Apples and oranges. Regulating the food industry to prevent unhealthy (trans fat) and poisonous (arsenic) contents in foodstuffs is not the same situation. Nobody is stopping you from adding trans fat on your own (although I cannot imagine why one would want to), nor is anyone preventing you from adding arsenic (an even worse idea). So, no freedoms are encroached in this way, but your point is orthogonal to the matter at hand. If you were arguing that the food industry should drop HFCS in favor of cane sugar (or beet sugar, etc.), you'd find a lot of support in this forum. But you're arguing in favor something quite different, and obviously dangerous to anyone with any recognition of the foolishness our government is capable of inflicting on us to save us from ourselves.

- T

Re:taxes

[Khyber]

The same way anythign else changes the world - SLOWLY.

Great!

[xmarkd400x]

Instead of people choosing their foods based on preference, we'll have politicians picking our foods based on how much money is contributed to their campaigns!

I, for one, welcome our politician overlords.

Wait...

Re:Great!

[pla]

Instead of people choosing their foods based on preference, we'll have politicians picking our foods based on how much money is contributed to their campaigns!

Clearly, then, we need to ensure Food Neutrality to prevent exactly that problem!

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that's the politics interpretation of the ellipsis in those list:
1.
2.
3. ... = TAX
4. Profit!

Re:Great!

[maxume]

Nothing new, most of the sweeteners used in soda are derived from corn, resulting from a combination of sugar tariffs and corn subsidies.

(I think sucrose and HFCS are equally unhealthy, I just think sucrose tastes better, so would prefer to see it used more in soda)

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

People continue to vote in big goverment control freaks like Obama (and Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Waxman, Pelosi, et al) and they get what they asked for. Liberals are not happy until they can tax and regulate every aspect of your life.

Re:Great!

[ShieldW0lf]

If he made his own soda, he wouldn't have to worry about it. But, he isn't self reliant. The factory isn't his, he has no involvement in it's operation, and he doesn't even know what goes in the things he likes to drink. So, anything and everything can be taken from him. Talking about prying things from peoples cold dead hands sounds very dramatic, but it's not necessary. He needs to stop being lazy and address his needs himself.

All this talk of that control freak Ayn Rand is similarly ridiculous. The people who espouse her vile philosophy have been actively working to keep us estranged and ignorant our whole life. It's because of the actions of people like her that so many people managed to develop a lifelong habit of consuming something when they have no idea how to make it. And it's because so many have allowed themselves to slide into such a pathetic state that these assholes are making $2 for less than a penny's worth of sugar and water and using that economic power to make the situation even worse.

Maybe he should look into OpenCola, and see if he can acquire a taste for that...

Re:Great!

[fermion]

This isn't really about taste. It is about consumers having confidence so that minimum time is spent making spending decisions to maximize the velocity of those transactions, and as a result the velocity of money. If we had to think about purchases, for instance if consumers actually took the time to read labels, then costs would increase and drive inflation and wages in the same way that many claim a forced health care regime would. This is a real threat. A coalition of food product manufacturers, for instance, has created the "Smart Choices"program to encourage shoppers to buy based on a check mark. In this way they do not have to read the label and realize that Froot Loop has the first ingredient as sugar, but can simply buy it based on the check mark.

If taste is the issue, lets take the example of ethylene glycol. It is sweet and would probably be a useful item in food products. In small quantities it is probably not that harmful. Yet we do not use Ethylene glycol. Likewise, alcohol tastes really good. In saner and more free market based countries, nobody is going freak about a kid having a bit of alcohol. Yet in the US we do, but seem to not freak out when a kid eats junk food every day, or when a parent provides 50% of the calories from sugar and fat. In one case we think of the children at the expense of free choice and free market, in the other we let the free market run rampant at the expense of the children.

I am not for politicians picking food, which is why the current situation is so wrong. Farm subsidies promote food not based on what we need, but what will make the politicians friends rich. A screwed up system where a bag of chips costs less than a piece of fruit. A salad costs more than a hamburger. The real issue is that government intervention has created a system where calories are cheap, but nutrition is expensive.

Which is why anyone who talks about government conspiracies is just silly. Oh one hand, we talk about how stupid the government is. On the other, we grant they the hyper intelligence to run a conspiracy. Just look a this example. One part of the government, the subsidies, the money that is forcefully taken from the tax payer and gives it to the corporation for doing nothing, supports the food we want. The other side,the side that suggests that we might want eat more healthy, does nothing but print propaganda. In other words, the politicians are already picking and perverting our food based on campaign contributions and kick backs. What most people want is a free market system where we get to choose our food based on preference.

Re:Great!

[sexybomber]

I wish I had mod points to give this a boost. The revolution won't be televised, it'll be DIYed. I like it.

Re:Great!

[c_sd_m]

Not necessary, they can just provide larger incentives (tax breaks) to the biggest contributors. Then those foods can be sold cheaper than other food and we'll all save money by living on a mixture of corn, sugar, and processed white flour.

Wait...

Re:Great!

[hao3]

do you know how to make the computer you're using? the network equipment? your own car? house?

Re:Great!

[hao3]

If we had to think about purchases, for instance if consumers actually took the time to read labels, then costs would increase and drive inflation and wages in the same way that many claim a forced health care regime would. This is a real threat. A coalition of food product manufacturers, for instance, has created the "Smart Choices"program to encourage shoppers to buy based on a check mark. In this way they do not have to read the label and realize that Froot Loop has the first ingredient as sugar, but can simply buy it based on the check mark.

what utter crap. taking a few seconds to read a label increases cost and inflation? the time the consumer takes to read the label has no affect on the price of the good. furthermore, the time is pretty much negligible. labeling schemes are designed to make it easier and quicker to get all the information. it has nothing to do with costs.

Re:Great!

[phantomfive]

In addition, it doesn't work. Compare the differences in the push to stop cigarette smoking in the US and in Europe. In Europe, they basically taxed it so much that there is now a thriving black market for cigarettes. And consumption hasn't really dropped all that much. In the US, we've had public health campaigns and removed cigarettes from TV, movies, and advertising aimed at kids, and cigarette consumption has dropped dramatically.

Moral of the story: you can't fix everything by taxing it. Especially if your true motive is just to make more money.

Re:Great!

[ShieldW0lf]

No, I don't have infrastructure to make computers, or network equipment. Yet.

Can I make a car from scratch? Well, I'm studying the works of David Gingery and teaching myself the theory and using a friends land to build my first forge, crucible and lathe, and I think I should be able to build my own engines within a couple of years. Though my priority is to build Sterling engines from scrap aluminum rather than cars, because I don't think the roads or the fuel are going to last.

Can I make a house from scratch? Yes, and as soon as I get land, I intend to do so.

I'm a member of my local Urban Garden Society, and I grow all my own vegetables. Soon, I will be adding tilapia fish and shrimp to my hydroponic system and removing the necessity for external fertilizer, at which point I'll be producing my own white meat in addition to the vegetables growing here in my apartment.

I make my own beer from scratch. I make my own wine from scratch. I make my own vinegar from scratch. I grow my own medicinal herbs. I grow my own tobacco.

I'm working on getting a RepRap set up, at which point I will begin doing my own manufacturing. I know how to grow corn and make PLA and be in control of my raw materials where that is concerned. I've been chatting with friends and family in the genetic engineering industry investigating the practicality of making similar plastics out of cellulose rather than starch, so I'm not building with food. Hopefully that will pan out.

I'm also researching hardware design with an eye towards building my own decentralized communications infrastructure, and working together with friends doing their Phd in Comp Sci and Math towards that end.

That is just a brief glimpse of my agenda... the sort of thing you throw off the cuff when some smart ass gets you riled up. Once I get these structures into place, I'll teach others, and I'll build more such tools out of nothing and give them away for free. Or, I'll die still struggling with the task half finished. Either is fine.

So, no, I don't live my life entirely according to my ideals. But I get closer each day, despite the fact that the mightiest men on earth would sooner shoot me dead than ever help such a way of life become commonplace, and the average middle class person would rather make smart ass remarks like your own and go play on his X-Box than actually get off his ass. Just like spoiled little children.

But really, that's ok. The spoiled and idle aren't the people that need to be convinced... it's the people whose hard work makes their spoiled life practical that need to be convinced, and that is not nearly as difficult a task. When that happens, wave your dollars around as much as you like. No one will come. No one will want them.

If anyone feels inspired by this, hit google and look for things like factor e farm, the RepRap project, the Farm Fountain project, the works of David Gingery, and maybe take a breeze over to opendemocracy.net and see an example of a democratic system that wasn't designed not to work.

Re:Great!

[lennier]

"Instead of people choosing their foods based on preference, we'll have politicians picking our foods based on how much money is contributed to their campaigns!"

And this would be different to the current situation, where giant agribusiness / retail / media conglomerates pick our foods for us based on how much profit they generate via their ad compaigns - how exactly?

Re:Great!

[lennier]

"Once I get these structures into place, I'll teach others, and I'll build more such tools out of nothing and give them away for free. Or, I'll die still struggling with the task half finished. Either is fine."

I admire your dedication, and I too share some of these ideals for self-sufficiency. I'm a member of a local Hacker Space group, run a neighbourhood association, know people in a local community garden, and have been involved in a complementary currency (Green Dollars) market. I'm tinkering with my own from-scratch programming language design.

However, my experience in this has taught me so far that there are very definite limits to how self-sufficient I can be. My time and brain just fill up. I can't keep a garden running. I can't write my own OS from scratch. I'm actually moving in the other direction now: I want to learn how to be interdependent with my neighbours, and realise how to efficiently delegate the skills I'm not good at.

I think we need to find a medium between the ideals of self-sufficiency and 'letting the market do it'. At some point, we do have to create social structures and trust them; otherwise we'll spend all our time sharpening adzes rather than writing code. We only need to reinvent what's actually broken, not the whole deal.

The problem is sorting out what *is* broken and what can be recycled.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

on the order of 30000 people shop at a Wal Mart each week. That means that each person uses an average of 3 minutes in the store, assuming a store never closes. Given that a store lives or dies on traffic, any increase in that time can be catastrophic. Another example of this is fast food, where the entire process is designed to minimize the time the customer spends in the store.

Back to Wal Mart. The customer growth is a couple percent a year. If new space is not be built, and the stores are not to become overcrowded so people to not want to shop there, wither would hurt profitability, then the only thing is to have people spend less time. A few seconds extra is a 2% increase in time not buying, which means that 4% more space is taken up for a 2% growth. Walmart already has issues with increased profitability being only a fraction of over revenue growth. If people begin to read and not buy, they become a bookstore, not a profitable grocery store.

Re:Great!

[Rhys]

How is this different than corn and the megafarms now?

makes sense

[stoolpigeon]

the more the government becomes responsible for taking care of us, the more motivated they are to regulate our behavior to keep the costs of said care down.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If government doesn't take care of the unwashed masses, corporate interests will step up to the plate. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the nanny be the one without the profit motive.

Re:makes sense

[d3ac0n]

Yep.

Which is why people are up in arms over health care "reform" here in the States. Pretty much all of the leftist ideas being pushed currently on health care reform are little more than thinly disguised socialized medicine.

People are pissed off about it because they know that once bureaucrats run health care, they run your life. What you can eat, when you can eat it, how much you can eat, when, where and what kind of exercise you will do, when you get up, when you sleep. and (if all that wasn't frightening enough) Who lives, who dies, and when they die.

Sounds like Slavery to me. All that's missing is the whip.

But hey, they're doing it "For The Children!"(tm) and "For The Poor!"(tm) so all of us Eeeevil "Rethuglican Neocon Racists" should just shut up and go away. Riiiiight?

(Remember, "-1 Troll" and "-1 Flamebait" do not equal "I disagree with you." If you disagree, post your disagreement. Don't hide behind mod points like a coward.)

Re:makes sense

[vlm]

People are pissed off about it because they know that once bureaucrats run health care, they run your life.

Who runs healthcare now? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:makes sense

[mcornelius]

Yes, it makes so much more sense when you take out the profit motive in name. Take money from people you think harm society, in order to help with the needs of lobbyists. That is such a bullshit argument. Just because government does something, does not take out the profit motive out of it; it makes it compulsory.

Re:makes sense

[westlake]

the more the government becomes responsible for taking care of us, the more motivated they are to regulate our behavior to keep the costs of said care down.

The same applies to everyone who shares the burden and cost of your health care.

Your boss will listen when the HMO tells him to ditch the cigarette machines and sugared sodas.

Your wife will have even more to say when the next physical exam threatens to put you and your family in the high-risk pool.

Re:makes sense

[jcnnghm]

Hooray! Liberal utopia. Take care of me, I can't handle myself.

Re:makes sense

[d3ac0n]

People run their own health care and make thier own free choices.

The whole "Insurance bureaucrats control people's lives" is a strawman argument based on a lie.

Research how private insurance works from someplace other than a Michael Moore approved source and you will begin to understand. I don't intend to waste the time explaining it to an obvious Troll.

Re:makes sense

[d3ac0n]

You can change jobs and divorce your wife.

What do you do about a power hungry out of control government bent on controlling as many aspects of your life as possible?

Re:makes sense

[MightyYar]

but I'd rather have the nanny be the one without the profit motive.

That's pretty naive... everyone has a profit motive.

Re:makes sense

[JaredOfEuropa]

If government doesn't take care of the unwashed masses, corporate interests will step up to the plate. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the nanny be the one without the profit motive.

The choice is between the government forcing us to eat healthy, or corporations offering us a selection of food ranging from healthy to junk food. I know which one I'll pick... I enjoy good food but I do want to indulge in a burger and fries every now and then; it does makes sense to advise me not to overdo it. But I see very little justification for anyone ordering me to...

By the way, if you are looking for purity of motives in politicians, you'll be sorely disappointed. How about we let the unwashed masses take care of themselves, and stop all this nanny crap? Treat people like infants and they will start behaving like infants.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Slavery to me. All that's missing is the whip.

It sounds like slavery to you because you're an idiot. According to you, Canadians and most citizens of first world countries are slaves.

Re:makes sense

[zippyspringboard]

To each his own... I'd much rather interact with those who DO have a profit motive: it gives them some incentive to cater to *my* interests ...

Yet we allow the food chain to be driven by profits - no one worries about the immorality of Kroger making a profit off of hungry people - and the overall system works pretty damn well.

Give the food industry the same sort of controls that the current health care system has, and you will witness immoral profits being made off hungry people. Our health care system (U.S.) is hardly operating on a market as free as the food industry currently is. And our food industry is trending towards more consolidation and controls.... Speaking as a us citizen I find the statement " I'd much rather interact with those who DO have a profit motive: it gives them some incentive to cater to *my* interests" Pretty laughable viewed in the light of health care. They certainly have a profit motive, but I see no incentive to cater to my interests.

Re:makes sense

[doshell]

The difference is that you vote for government, but you don't vote for Coca Cola's board of directors.

Re:makes sense

[dragonsomnolent]

People made the same argument to the Supreme Court of the US when they were discussing workplace random drug testing. The businesses said "We should be able to do this, after all, they can always go work for someone else". That's all fine and well, until everyone else does it. Please do not take this as a rant for or against anything. I'm merely pointing out that once every employer practices something, it doesn't matter who you work for. Government or Boss man, it's all the same. Insurance costs you money, and someone is going to tell you what to do with yourself.

Re:makes sense

[JD770]

The difference is that when it comes right down to it: fail to pay your taxes and the nanny-state liberal government can enforce their will at the point of a gun; whereas, *YOU* make a knowing, willing choice whether or not to buy a coke and add to Coca Cola's revenue stream. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. Don't lay down and cede that responsibility to the govt.

Re:makes sense

[stoolpigeon]

That isn't correct. We probably have the same amount of say in both cases - and one could say that in many way the board members of the largest corporations run our government to a high degree.

Re:makes sense

[skine]

All of the ideas being pushed in the health care reform are leftist because nobody on the right is offering any positive ideas. Their only contribution is in screaming DEATH PANELS! and SOCIALISM! and NAZIS!

And it's "little more than thinly disguised socialized medicine" because it is being promoted as including a socialized medical option. There is no disguise.

There is an enormous gap in your reasoning when you say "once bureaucrats run health care, they run your life."
Socializing health care won't allow them to run your life any more than socialized education, socialized postal services, socialized military, etc.

And for some reason we don't hear about the governments of Western Europe telling people "[w]hat [they] can eat, when [they] can eat it, how much [they] can eat, when, where and what kind of exercise [they] will do, when [they] get up, when [they] sleep. and (if all that wasn't frightening enough) Who lives, who dies, and when they die," despite the prevalence of socialized programs, especially socialized medicine.

Re:makes sense

[DarkOx]

Right and the other difference is you can decide to use cokes products or not and the only consequence of selecting not is you don't get to enjoy a nice sugary beverage. Last time I checked if I decided to say not go along with some government regulation I get fined or go to jail.

Hmm, I will take Coke of my Uncle Sam any day.

Re:makes sense

[doshell]

I find it funny that, being the United States the land of the free and all, most Americans just can't warp their heads around the fact that they've been brainwashed for the past 70 years into thinking that anything even remotely resembling socialism is evil. This is especially obvious considering the fact that a lot of Americans regard Obama as a dangerous socialist. Those who actually know what socialism is cannot help but laugh at such an idea.

But I digress. We've had what you call "universal health care" in Europe (and I don't mean the left bloc countries; I mean western and northern Europe as well) for decades, and in general it has worked acceptably, thank you very much. I've never seen the governments of any of those countries pushing to regulate what people eat and drink, how much exercise they make, when they go to sleep, or when they die. I don't know where you get the idea that universal health care implies that, but keep in mind that saying so does not make it true.

Sadly, the real question behind the universal health care debate really is the one most often forgotten, because you're too busy discussing how much control the government will have over you, and how much money the rich will have to fork over for universal health care to work. The real question is what should we do about people who absolutely cannot pay for health care or health insurance, because they are unemployed and have no savings; because they were marginalized and no one will give them a job; because they have become permanently disabled and cannot work. Should we let them live a miserable life and even die in the name of small government and the right to be rich? Until the "no universal health care" camp gives an acceptable answer to that question, their arguments are all moot to me.

Re:makes sense

[roystgnr]

The difference is that you vote for government, but you don't vote for Coca Cola's board of directors.

The difference is:

When I vote against government, there's a 1/100,000 chance that my vote will change government to "the lesser of two evils" from "the greater", and a 99,999/100,000 chance that the same guy will end up in charge anyway, by a negligibly smaller margin. Even if the guy who seems like the lesser evil during his advertising campaign does get into power, there's always the chance that his promises will turn out to be lies and I won't even be able to change my vote for 2 to 6 years.

When I vote against Coca-Cola, there's a 1/1 chance that my vote will stop them from taking any of my money (except, ironically, what they've convinced the government to take for subsidizing their corn syrup supplies). If their advertising campaign turn out to be lies, I can change my mind and watch the change take effect immediately.

Granted, there are such things as "market failures", and I'd rather have a government monopoly than a natural monopoly... but freaking soda? No. When people don't enjoy what you think they should enjoy, that's not a failure of the market, that's a failure of your authoritarian worldview.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have the nanny be the one without the legal right to use force to accomplish their gains.

Re:makes sense

[Rydia]

Haha, really? I am self-employed. I have the options for . . . two different insurance networks in my area (one of the largest cities in the country). Both are so expensive, because as an individual I cannot get onto a group plan, so as to be infeasible to carry. There is no competing low-cost plan that will let me on. Where is my choice?

Fortunately, my spouse is employed at a large company, and is therefore given entry into the pearly gates of a group plan, which I am covered under. That employer was able to survey the vast field of roughly three or four possible providers, only two of which (the two with the largest presence in our area) were really viable choices. HR then chose a provider for everyone in the company, and selected which plans (two of a dozen or so) which they would allow its employees to select.

So, let's look at the choices involved. I had the choice between two plans that were impossible to afford, due to the way the insurance industry has organized itself (treating large-group insurance as a separate pool from individual or small-group). There's no meaningful choice when neither choice is feasible.

My spouse did not have any choice as to which provider the company offered, or any say in the selection process. The same goes for deciding which particular plans would be available. The choice was essentially from 2 options, presented by the employer, out of a universe of (a rough estimate) 40 or so plans. That's essentially the choice, picking between two options presented to you by your employer, without any real say in the process. In our experience, the limited options they give are usually just between one plan and another, more expensive plan with better coverage. Again, the employee has no say in what the baseline (the lower of the offered plans) is, no real say in what the more premium plans are. This is like sitting down to a full meal and being told that the only thing you have control over is what dressing you get on your salad. Yay, there's choice! But it's superficial and pretty much meaningless.

The only real "choice" involved is the "choice" to essentially ditch your comfortable employment for the uncertain prospect of getting a new job with better insurance. That requires you to first find another, similar job that will provide something roughly on par with the income you were earning before. This employer, for this to be any sort of real choice, should be somewhere where it would be easy to move. And, finally, before even employment, you would have to extract the exact details of the (again, limited) insurance options the employer has decided to make available for you, which may or may not be available before you begin your employment. What wonderful and free choice we all have!

This isn't even getting into how much of our earning power is destroyed by the crippling and rising price of insurance. But hey, it's easy to wave your hands, shout "free choices" and pretend that everything is a-ok.

Re:makes sense

[doshell]

I wonder if it's me being the child, or those who think a perfect market is more than an idealized abstraction...

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Which members of the FDA did you vote for?

Re:makes sense

[obarthelemy]

Stop the hysterics. Universal healthcare = slavery ? take a chill pill !

Healthcare in France has been "socialized" from times immemorial. Everybody has basic state-funded health insurance, with doctors and clinics allowed to charge more than a sometimes very stringy "basic" rate. People are allowed to contract additional insurance to cover more treatments, and not at all pay the customary small % of treatment cost.

There hasn't really been any impact on our right to eat/drink anything we want, nor on our right to not exercise at all.. The overall cost of health care (as % of GDP) is lower than in the US.

On the contrary
- life expectancy is better
- obesity is much less of a problem
- the drinking age is lower
- the food is much better :-p

You need to brush up on the slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). You'll sound less like a lunatic with absurd rants.

Re:makes sense

[El Torico]

Both are being children; a perfect government and a perfect market are both idealized abstractions.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

We vote for congress but their approval rating is about 20%.

Re:makes sense

[Schmorgluck]

People are pissed off about it because they know that once bureaucrats run health care, they run your life. What you can eat, when you can eat it, how much you can eat, when, where and what kind of exercise you will do, when you get up, when you sleep. and (if all that wasn't frightening enough) Who lives, who dies, and when they die.

I've often read this argument in the debate about health care in the USA, and it doesn't cease to fascinate me. There must be something pretty fucked up about your country if what you state is really to be expected while this isn't happening anywhere else. The Country of Freedom, really?

I'm covered by a universal health care system. I'm currently smoking a cigarette and having a glass of wine, and no one ever suggested to forbid it to me. Of course on both of these I've paid taxes, and also contributions that go directly to health care funds (distinct from government funds). The tax money serves, among other things, to fund ad campaigns to promote healthy food habits (disputable efficience, but hey, it's pretty bening), a free assistance program for people who want to quit smoking (I'm considering going for it), subsidizing AA-type organizations, etc. Not much intrusion intrusion in people's choices, now is it?

What the hell is wrong with the USA that would make them drift away from the sensible policies that are at work pretty much everywhere there is that kind of health care system? This perplexes me.

Re:makes sense

[mcornelius]

Both are being children; a perfect government and a perfect market are both idealized abstractions.

Very true. Fundamentally, this is about taking money away from someone through force and coercion because you don't agree of their diet.

Re:makes sense

[ceoyoyo]

"Should we let them live a miserable life and even die in the name of small government and the right to be rich?"

Interesting you should mention that. I haven't run the numbers for anywhere in Europe but Canada's government, in terms of budget per capita, is considerably smaller than that of the US even though we have universal health care and are frequently held up as the "socialist" bogeyman to Americans.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Coca Cola is opt out.

Government has no such option.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we let them live a miserable life and even die in the name of small government and the right to be rich? Until the "no universal health care" camp gives an acceptable answer to that question, their arguments are all moot to me.

I do not accept that some else's misery gives them (or any intermediary) a claim over the fruits of my labor.

Re:makes sense

[d3ac0n]

I'm merely pointing out that once every employer practices something, it doesn't matter who you work for.

I understand where this is coming from, but I think you are leaving out a critical choice.

You can always work for yourself.

Start your own company. Be an entrepreneur. Stop assuming that you have to work for someone else.

Also, people need to stop thinking that they are entitled to everything under the Sun, HEALTH CARE INCLUDED. You are entitled to your Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT (no guarantee!) of happiness.

Anything else you have to pay for.

Re:makes sense

[drsmithy]

People are pissed off about it because they know that once bureaucrats run health care, they run your life. What you can eat, when you can eat it, how much you can eat, when, where and what kind of exercise you will do, when you get up, when you sleep. and (if all that wasn't frightening enough) Who lives, who dies, and when they die.

Ah. You mean like it has in all those countries where universal healthcare has been around for decades, if not longer ?

Oh, wait, nothing like that has happened anywhere except the fantasies of crazy right-wingers...

Re:makes sense

[drsmithy]

What do you do about a power hungry out of control government bent on controlling as many aspects of your life as possible?

a) Find enough people who agree with you to vote them out.
b) Relocate to a country with more people that agree with you than don't.

You might not like the idea of everyone else dictating to you, but, guess what ? Everyone else around you feels the same way, and when most of them disagree with you, you either need to live with it, or leave. That's the nature of a democratic society.

If you want an anarchic society, where everyone just does whatever the hell they want, you might want to look at places like Somalia.

Re:makes sense

[MightyMartian]

Not to question your hyperbole, but could you please state with nation with a public health care system where anyone tells you what to eat or drink? Please, just one example.

Re:makes sense

[SanityInAnarchy]

The one problem is that Coke and Pepsi pretty much have the restaurants covered. That is, any given restaurant is going to have Coke or Pepsi -- there really isn't a third party there.

So, probably a market failure. Not enough of one to care -- alternatives probably aren't farther than your local gas station -- but a failure nonetheless.

And people do enjoy what I think they should enjoy -- in particular, I don't think I've met anyone who wouldn't prefer imported Coke, from countries where they use real sugar instead of corn syrup. What they don't enjoy is paying $3 for maybe a 16oz bottle -- but I'd call that a market failure, that there isn't a real competitor who offers a cola flavored with actual sugar...

No, I think the real point is here:

freaking soda?

It's just hard to actually care about this. Worst case, the competition does exist, and a can or bottle is portable enough that I can bring it into a restaurant with me -- or wherever I need to go.

Re:makes sense

[MightyMartian]

Since the fruit of your labor, to a very large extent, is due to the wider society, yes you do. Besides, it's a democracy. Your will is not absolute, and providing the Constitution is not defied, you have to accept the will of the majority. Don't like it, move to a Libertarian paradise like Somalia.

Re:makes sense

[SanityInAnarchy]

Move.

Which you'd have to do anyway if you're changing jobs or divorcing your wife.

Oh, and you can also vote.

Re:makes sense

[d3ac0n]

Ok, without digging into this very long rant let me make just a few salient points:

1) Health care is not an entitlement or a right. You have to buy it, just like everything else. That means that there is no guarantee that there will be enough choices to suit your taste or budget available.

2) Because of the second half of point one, I do agree that we need to open up the market for more choices. Among the major options that many right-leaning politicians in America have been pushing is tearing down regulation that has prevented insurance companies from offering low-cost catastrophic-only insurance, and removing regulation that prevents cross-state offerings for insurance. Those two items alone would greatly expand the choices and lower prices across the board for insurance. (IE: more people could afford insurance for the big ticket items, and because of increased competition, prices across the board would drop for all plans.) Please note that the reason these plans and options aren't already out there is because of GOVERNMENT interference in the Market. These kinds of plans used to exist. They were regulated out of existence by the very government you claim can save Health Insurance.

3) Just because it is a choice you don't like doesn't mean you don't have a choice. You ALWAYS have a choice, even if it's a tough one. by saying "I don't have a choice" all you are really saying is "I don't like the choice I have, I'd rather get the government to force YOU to pay for the choice I want." And really, what is that other than a form of theft?

4) In America over 85% of people are fully insured. Of that, 95% are satisfied with their insurance and choices. 10% of the population is VOLUNTARILY uninsured (mostly young people that still think they are immortal) and about 4-5% genuinely are unable to get insurance, mostly because of the lack of low-cost plans.

And yet, ANY PERSON, regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status, is able to walk into an emergency room in America TODAY and receive full treatment without concern over the final cost.

Sounds like an imperfect, but otherwise pretty good system to me. Why trash it?

Re:makes sense

[Yokaze]

> People are pissed off about it because they know that once bureaucrats run health care, they run your life.

Name a country with universal health care, which has a tax on fatty or sweet foo. Japan has universal health care and the tax for tobacco has been recently increased: To less than a cent per cigarette.
Banning smoking in public places started in continental Europe about a decade after it has been enacted in U.S. states.
In many European nations, smoking marijuana is legal or tolerated, you can drink alcohol starting with 16. In Italy, wine probably even doesn't eve count as alcohol, like beer in Germany.

The only thing I can think of, in which most of Europe has been more strict on food than the US has been the labelling on the origin, and genetically modified food.

So, I'd say it isn't inherent in the system, but rather in the Banning smoking in public places started in continental Europe well a decade after it has been enacted in U.S. states.

I blame your protestant heritage on laws, on both, the laws concerning "public moral", the proper (austere) way of life (No sex, no drugs).

Strangely enough, I've heard the same about the US-populace rejection of health care, as it promotes the conviction, that everyone is responsible for his/her own fate (health).

Re:makes sense

[FooAtWFU]

Oh, sure, there are perfectly good reasons to want socialized health care, in the abstract. You're perfectly right, in the abstract. But in reality over here, not only are proposed health-care reforms less than the ideal of abstract perfection, we are also dealing with a variety of things on the political agenda, including a recession, and:

• a couple of overseas wars
• climate-change / CO2 reform
• massive healthcare reform
• labor relations reform
  (less of a priority just now it seems)
• a laughably huge budget deficit

Implementing all of these is a real drain on the economy (whether through taxes or borrowing... or impeding the efficiency of businesses). At some point, we have to realize that we are faced with the fundamental problem of economics: Our resources are scarce, and we can't have everything. Well, maybe we can try, but don't expect it to help the recession much.

In any event, we already have basic socialized medical care for the poor in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Perhaps those programs should be expanded or restructured or improved! But if we're going to undertake a massive reform for a system which is somewhat effective for well over half of the US population, we should take care that it doesn't become less effective. And blanket assertions from Mr. Obama notwithstanding, the current health-care reform bills are pretty dubious by that metric.

Re:makes sense

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah...about that.... No.

There are ideas from Republicans. I agree most of them just hate the current President, and some smallish number of them it's clearly just thinly veiled racism. But they have proposed some ideas and they're a lot better than a complete overhaul.

Our system isn't that bad. First, contrary to one of the many lies going around, there aren't 40 million uninsured. The number of completely uninsured people is far less. But regardless, we can come up with a plan to extend medicaid, add tax breaks for health care, increase competition across state borders, and put in a time bomb law that if the cost and coverage of health care doesn't improve by X amount in 5 years, the government steps in with harsher regulations on the industry.

We don't need a complete overhaul, we need patches.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Free choice??!?? The fucking shitstain troll in this thread is you, fag.

Re:makes sense

[symbolic]

Less effective than what? Than it already is? I believe that one of the primary obstacles we face when any reform of such a large system are those groups who have a vested interest. After all is said and done, if you took all of the health care dollars currently being spent on insurance, co-payments, and items not covered by insurance (non-elective), legal, etc. and re-channeled that money into a fully government-run health care system, what would be the net result? Everyone is trying to protect their piece of the pie, which is one reason that the "public option" has been replaced by "mandatory coverage" - to protect the current insurance racket.

Re:makes sense

[SmilingSalmon]

It's not like the right isn't offering any positive ideas, they're just being ignored by the left. Senator Baucus's panel took up 61 amendments this week. They accepted 4 from Republicans and rejected 28. They accepted 20 from Democrats and rejected 1. source

The reason you don't hear much about this is obvious to me. If you're a news director or editor, which do you think will play better among your news consumers -- "DEATH PANELS" or a list of 28 rejected Republican amendments?

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Government policies come and go but Coca-Cola and McDonalds will still be operating on the basis of maximising profit at any cost long after we are dead, whether you choose to patronise them or not.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting you should mention that. I haven't run the numbers for anywhere in Europe but Canada's government, in terms of budget per capita, is considerably smaller than that of the US even though we have universal health care and are frequently held up as the "socialist" bogeyman to Americans.

Something about how Canada doesn't have a massive government funded complex dedicated to supporting the most expensive armed service in the world.

It's all a question of priorities.

Re:makes sense

[ravenshrike]

Except YOU DON'T VOTE for the people making the actual regulations and enforcing this asininity. That's not how it works. Instead we'll get the Bureau of Soda Control, whose workers exist to expand their feifdom.

Re:makes sense

[geekboy642]

There's two problems with American health care: Everything is too god-damned expensive, and everybody expects their insurance to cover everything. The latter has largely caused the former. The best replacement concept is car repair. We absolutely need medical care to be like going to a mechanic. Preventative care--biopsies, mammograms, yearly physicals--should cost roughly the same amount as what it costs to have your car's yearly maintenance needs serviced, and you should pay for it all yourself. Things like simple broken bones, the flu, basically any simple treatment that you don't get put into an ICU for, you should pay for yourself, and it should cost about the same as replacing a minor part in a car. Then you add a catastrophic insurance plan on top of that. It'd be cheap, mandatory, and cover only the stuff that would otherwise bankrupt you.

How can we get to that ideal? I have to say I doubt it's at all possible. Between the trillion-dollar health-insurance industry (scam) and the maniacs in charge of reform, you'd need an entirely new country to make it happen.

Re:makes sense

[ravenshrike]

Blame .gov regs for that one. If the gov didn't have the fucked up per state insurance company regulations that they do now, this wouldn't be an issue.

Re:makes sense

[Vellmont]

Health care is not an entitlement or a right.

Maybe it isn't for YOU, but it is for people in many countries. In the United States it actually is an entitlement for people over 65, Veterans, the extremely poor, (and I think recently children?). So except for the majority of people in developed countries, and a significant portion of Americans, you're right.

Among the major options that many right-leaning politicians in America have been pushing is tearing down regulation that has prevented insurance companies from offering low-cost catastrophic-only insurance, and removing regulation that prevents cross-state offerings for insurance.

His point wasn't that he couldn't get catastrophic only insurance, his point was that because of the way the insurance pools work, he had to pay a LOT more for as a self-employed individual than he and a large employer would pay when you join a much larger pool that large businesses can get into. For all we know catastrophic insurance was an option.

Just because it is a choice you don't like doesn't mean you don't have a choice. You ALWAYS have a choice,

Talk about bending over backwards to try to fit your own viewpoint into a word definition, sheesh. So using your definitions, if Charles Manson escaped from jail and kidnapped you and gave you the "choice" between strangling you, and shooting you, you shouldn't really complain about being murdered because Charlie is "nice" and gave you a "choice"? It seems you can't see the forest through the trees.

And yet, ANY PERSON, regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status, is able to walk into an emergency room in America TODAY and receive full treatment without concern over the final cost.

Hahahah! Wow.. do you really believe that emergency rooms are really a good form of healthcare? The truth is that treating people in an emergency room is far more expensive than it would have been to treat someone BEFORE the problem got so bad they had to go to a emergency room. Your statement just astounds me in its ignorance. From a vaccination and public health standpoint and spread of disease standpoint ALONE it's idiotic to have an underclass of people with limited access to healthcare. Ever heard of herd immunity? Vaccines aren't 100% effective and never will be. Much of the protection you receive from life threatening illness is from other people being immunized against the disease. Having un-vaccinated people in the population is like having dry kindling in a forest. It only encourages disease to start and spread like a wildfire. There's a ton of reasons why Emergency only healthcare is simply idiotic. Do you really think that all illness is emergency only? You don't even have to be compassionate here. Your own greed and self interest can guide you away from this very stupid form of healthcare, if only you'd be a bit less ignorant.

Sounds like an imperfect, but otherwise pretty good system to me. Why trash it?

Spoken by someone who's obviously in the 95% of the 85%, and has never had a life threatening illness. Did you understand that many people covered by health insurance go BANKRUPT who when they get a major illness like cancer and the health insurance provider cancels their policy?

Re:makes sense

[ravenshrike]

Compensating for the higher accident rate and homicide rate(it should be noted that neither of these things have ANYTHING to do with the health care system) as well as the vastly different definitions used for infant in our health care systems, the US not only has the highest life expectancy in the world, but we also have the lowest infant death rate. As for being better, look up France, heat wave, and old people.

Re:makes sense

[TheRaven64]

The one problem is that Coke and Pepsi pretty much have the restaurants covered. That is, any given restaurant is going to have Coke or Pepsi -- there really isn't a third party there.

Really? It's been a couple of years since I visited the USA, but I don't remember there being many restaurants that only served Coke or Pepsi products and no fruit juices, wines, beers, and so on...

Re:makes sense

[ravenshrike]

*sighs* Let the socialized systems run for another 50 to 100 years. Assuming they don't collapse entirely, that is their inevitable end. None of the systems currently in place have been around for more than 70 years and they're already cracking at the seams.

Re:makes sense

[slimjim8094]

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your points, but I love the line about anybody being able to go into an ER and get treatment. It turns out that's a pretty significant percentage of ER visits. I'm an EMT in a very wealthy town (though we often go into much poorer neighboring towns) and about 10-20% of the people I pick up are uninsured.

Who pays? Well the answer is everybody with insurance has higher costs, which means that insurance companies have higher costs, which means that they charge more, which means that people are excluded - some of which will need to go to the ER.

Unless you would say that somebody having a heart attack, and standing in an ER, shouldn't get treatment because there's no money there - in which case I'd say you were a jackass - it's obvious that if everybody was insured, then there wouldn't be any offsetting of costs onto the insured, so prices should fall for everyone.

And ERs will stabilize and release. That guy with the heart-attack gets all the treatment he needs, then they kick him out without any follow-up or rehab, so he inevitably comes back with another one. Pregnant mothers who can't get to prenatal health care end up being significantly more expensive to deliver - in our same ER.

Taking primary health care out of the ER would do an outrageous amount to defray costs to everybody currently with insurance, and unless you can convince doctors, nurses, techs, and administrators to do the work for free, the only way that preventative care can happen is by insuring everyone.

I think it's willful ignorance on the part of the right. This ER business seems too obvious to be a simple overlooking.

Re:makes sense

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

His point wasn't that he couldn't get catastrophic only insurance, his point was that because of the way the insurance pools work, he had to pay a LOT more for as a self-employed individual than he and a large employer would pay when you join a much larger pool that large businesses can get into.

That's misleading. The primary reason that we have such "insurance pools" in the first place is because of legislation that gives a favorable tax break to employers who provide health insurance coverage versus individuals purchasing them on their own. I would never have voted for McCain, but his proposal to eliminate that tax break and thus level the playing field was one of the few things that he actually got right.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Our current health care system is far from an open market. Both in the heavily gov't incentivized domination of employer provided health care as basically the only option, and the resulting disincentivizing of preventative care, and increasing likelihood of a switch during your lifespan (raising the "pre-existing condition" problem that didn't exist if you stuck with one plan covering your health care bets with negotiated life-time rates) but also the limits on types of plans and offering plans that span states, further increasing likelihood of a switch or getting a plan unaffordable for you.

So. Yeah. Choice has definitely fallen off over time.

Re:makes sense

[Vellmont]

everybody expects their insurance to cover everything. The latter has largely caused the former.

Uhh.. Maybe. You can try to blame consumers here, but consumers generally are the ones with the least amount of power. The power brokers here are the insurance companies and the health care industry itself. One driver in the health care industry is doctors get paid more when they do more things. They don't get paid more when they provide better outcomes.

On a personal story, early this year my father was continually sick over much of the winter. He's retired and spends a winters in Florida. He went to his doctor in FL complaining of tiredness, his voice was weak, and a raft of other symptoms. He was checked into the hospital, they did a long series of tests (MRI, heart function tests, etc), and arrived at a diagnosis of diverticulitis and sent him home with a prescription for Cipro (an anti-biotic). He improved slightly. He later went to visit my sister in California, but soon was back in the hospital in California. They did more tests, and somehow found out he had been on Cipro several times years before (and his intestinal bugs had built up an immunity to Cipro). They sent him on his way with a prescription for a different anti-biotic and he went back to Florida. He still didn't improve and was sick most of the winter. Finally he came back to home to the Twin Cities, MN after 3 months in FL and dealing with two different medical systems in two different states. He went to see his doctor here. Within a week the doctor comes up with a diagnosis of hyper-thyroidism and gets him in to see an endocrinologist. The hyper-thyroidism was likely causes by a heart rhythm drug he was on. He got put on a drug to lower thyroid function (short term), and is doing much better, though not fully cured.

So.. a few months ago he gets the bill for his hospital stays in FL and CA. He spent a total of 3 days in the hospital, had no invasive procedures (though several tests). The total bill? $75,000, and they didn't really do anything that wound up finding out what was wrong. I don't know what his doctor visits in MN cost, but they sure as hell weren't anything near $75,000!

My conclusions about the health care system are that:
Doctors aren't rewarded for outcomes, but are rewarded for procedures.
Quality of health care varies greatly within the country.

My story is anecdotal of course, but it's also backed up by what "experts in the field" have been saying for years.

Re:makes sense

[evilviper]

Among the major options that many right-leaning politicians in America have been pushing is tearing down regulation that has prevented insurance companies from offering low-cost catastrophic-only insurance, and removing regulation that prevents cross-state offerings for insurance. Those two items alone would greatly expand the choices and lower prices across the board for insurance.

Look up recision. In the private health insurance market (ie. not through your employer) if you start racking up significant medical bills, you have a ~50% chance that your insurance company will find some excuse to cancel your insurance coverage on any technicality they can come up with.

THAT is what an unregulated health insurance industry will get you. It's cheaper to only insure people who won't get sick, so everyone will find some way to eliminate those with any chance of major bills, or worse, discontinue their insurance for no reason when they actually start to need it.

Re:makes sense

[Vellmont]

The primary reason that we have such "insurance pools" in the first place is because of legislation that gives a favorable tax break to employers who provide health insurance coverage versus individuals purchasing them on their own.

The primary reason people get insurance through their employer is because of the tax breaks to employers. That really has little to do with the way the insurance business puts together pools of risks.

McCain's plan was extremely risky. (The guy IS a craps player after all, so he enjoys taking enormous risks. Just look at the Palin decision in that light for a minute). It MIGHT have worked if everything behaved the way we want it to. But it also could have failed catastrophically and we'd be worse off than we were before.

Re:makes sense

[hxnwix]

And yet, ANY PERSON, regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status, is able to walk into an emergency room in America TODAY and receive full treatment without concern over the final cost.

How does this work? If you receive treatment from a hospital, they will bill you. If you don't pay, they'll send bill collectors. I've read that hospitals charge far more for procedures given to uninsured patients due to the fact that an individual does not have the bargaining power of a large insurance company - so not only is an uninsured person who visits the emergency room out of desperation liable, their liability is typically enormous and unfair.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

You need, to learn, where not, to put commas.

Re:makes sense

[IndustrialComplex]

Ah. You mean like it has in all those countries where universal healthcare has been around for decades, if not longer ?

Oh, wait, nothing like that has happened anywhere except the fantasies of crazy right-wingers...

Really? How about looking at TFA that this very thread was spawned from? These taxes are proposed based on the exact premise that it puts a cost on healthcare and therefore the government should regulate it.

Re:makes sense

[rantingkitten]

Wow.. do you really believe that emergency rooms are really a good form of healthcare? The truth is that treating people in an emergency room is far more expensive than it would have been to treat someone BEFORE the problem got so bad they had to go to a emergency room.

The whole "ERs will treat anyone, so shut up about not having insurance!" argument has never, ever made sense to me.

For one thing, it just isn't true. Yeah, they'll treat you, but if you think you can just waltz out of there and not pay a dime, you're wrong. When I broke my wrist a few years ago I was making next to nothing and had no insurance. The ER doc splinted the wrist, took an Xray, and sent me on my way. They later billed me for some insane amount -- I forget what, but I sure as hell didn't have it.

Second, ERs are for, well, emergency treatment. They'll make sure the situation is under control for the time being, but any followup care you need is not going to get done there. My wrist incident is a fine example -- okay, now I'm splinted, now what? Leave the splint there and try to remove it myself in six weeks and hope my wrist healed properly? No, I had to go to another doctor, get a cast, which didn't work -- ultimately to make sure my wrist didn't "heal" into a mutated club appendage I required surgery, costing twelve grand.

But hey. At least I got a splint and an Xray at the ER! Praise be!

Now, I am fortunate in that I have parents with money who were willing to help me with that whole mess, but most people are not in such a position. What exactly do the "Go to the emergency room, they'll always treat you!" proponants think happens after the ER sends you on your way?

Re:makes sense

[PCM2]

Health care is not an entitlement or a right. You have to buy it, just like everything else.

Huh. So not you, nor I, nor anybody else is entitled to any kind of health care. Tell me: Are you, as a U.S. citizen, entitled to have the bodies hauled off the streets? Do you have a right to see them buried? Or should you have to buy that service, just like everything else?

Re:makes sense

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The primary reason people get insurance through their employer is because of the tax breaks to employers. That really has little to do with the way the insurance business puts together pools of risks.

No, it really does have a lot to do with it. The pools directly correspond to the employees within each company. Companies with a lot of gray-hairs have higher insurance premiums for their plans than companies with a lot of 20-somethings.

McCain's plan was extremely risky. (The guy IS a craps player after all, so he enjoys taking enormous risks. Just look at the Palin decision in that light for a minute). It MIGHT have worked if everything behaved the way we want it to. But it also could have failed catastrophically and we'd be worse off than we were before.

That's nice and all but adds zero information content to the discussion.

Re:makes sense

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The whole "ERs will treat anyone, so shut up about not having insurance!" argument has never, ever made sense to me.

Plus it sure seems like the same group of people making that argument are also the ones arguing that illegal aliens are responsible for putting hospitals out of business for not paying for their ER treatment. Both false, as you pointed out - ERs are only legally required to provide enough treatment to stabilize, not cure.

Re:makes sense

[MightyMartian]

They have their strains, by and large because the demographic shifts after WWII that produced the baby boom. Once that artificial hump is out of the way, they'll be fine.

Or us folks living in countries with public health care could always emulate the states, spend more per capita on health care, have life and death decided by insurance companies, and still have over 7% of our population left to basically go bankrupt if they have a serious illness.

Your system sucks, fails 40 million people, costs an absolutely astonishing amount of money, and then I see guys like you going "It's not so great." Well, my wife had thyroid cancer at about the same time I got laid off, and south of the border we would have been rendered destitute. Here, the system saved her and we got to keep our house, and not be saddled with massive debt. So screw your expensive and stunningly inadequate health care system.

Re:makes sense

[Hubbell]

Tieing health insurance to employment was a monumental fuckup, everyone knows that.

Re:makes sense

[Roger W Moore]

Health care is not an entitlement or a right.

I believe that your founding fathers disagree: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". Without healthcare your life will be shorter, you may have your liberty restricted by curable conditions and pursuing happiness becomes impossible.

...And yet, ANY PERSON, regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status, is able to walk into an emergency room in America TODAY and receive full treatment without concern over the final cost.

If that is true why was my Canadian insurance required to pay when we took my son to a US emergency room a couple of years ago? It is true that they have to treat you and the accountant does not get set on you until it is time to leave but if you cannot afford it they can certainly make you bankrupt. So I would hardly say that this qualifies to "without concern over final cost". In fact the only exit from the emergency room was through the account's office.

Re:makes sense

[phantomfive]

Sadly, the real question behind the universal health care debate really is the one most often forgotten, because you're too busy discussing how much control the government will have over you, and how much money the rich will have to fork over for universal health care to work. The real question is what should we do about people who absolutely cannot pay for health care or health insurance, because they are unemployed and have no savings; because they were marginalized and no one will give them a job; because they have become permanently disabled and cannot work.

This is not currently the debate, we have programs such as welfare, medicare, and medicaid to cover those issues. In addition, many state governments provide their own welfare programs.

Re:makes sense

[Omestes]

Pretty much all of the leftist ideas being pushed currently on health care reform are little more than thinly disguised socialized medicine.

Odd... it looks to me like the government is forcing people to give money to corporate entities. This, at least in my opinion, isn't "socialized medicine", its flat out corporatism. Sure, the mythical "public option" gets a bit closer to it, but it still isn't really close to "socialism", at least not in the strange ultra-right-wing way of speaking, since there still is competition.

Can we please drop this argument now? IT ISN'T SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. I am your enemy, I'm a raging socialist lefty who wipes my ass with copies of Atlas Shrugged. If it was socialized medicine I would be FOR it. I am not, since its nothing but thinly veiled fascism (in the original definition of the term). If we must employ a socialism moniker, we can call it "corporate socialism".

Can we all at least be against it for the right reasons?
   

Re:makes sense

[value_added]

I blame your protestant heritage on laws, on both, the laws concerning "public moral", the proper (austere) way of life (No sex, no drugs)... Strangely enough, I've heard the same about the US-populace rejection of health care, as it promotes the conviction, that everyone is responsible for his/her own fate (health).

If a great percentage of Americans owned passports (more than the current 20-22%) and travelled outside their country, it would be redundant to suggest they would have a better understanding of the country they live in. Regrettably, that won't happen any time soon. That leaves us with "foreigners" such as yourself to offer any real insight.

As for your comments, I'd add suggest they're pretty much spot on, but it's worth noting there's two additional factors at play.

First, there's also a fierce culture of independence that plays a role. Mostly mythic, of course, as the days when people lived on isolated farms and relied on guns to protect their family and property from Indians, redcoats and assorted threats are long gone. Regrettably, that culture of independence translates into an irrational fear of government which, in turn, leads to a government of the kind they deserve (dsyfunctional and with competing interests), and a general distrust of foreigners and their ideas. Why can't the US have a Canadian-style, for example, health care system? Simple. It's not American enough.

Second, there's the Constitution. An inspired document that balances competing interests but engages everyone in a perpetual fight about the nature of that balance. Americans, as a result, want things both ways. Instead of addressing real world problems and forming coherent and sensible policies, most devote their efforts to fighting an idealogical war of words, pausing every few years to complain about all the fighting.

Re:makes sense

[Sinbios]

the US not only has the highest life expectancy in the world

...What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Not even close to the highest.

Re:makes sense

[Omestes]

It because Canada hasn't decided that the military is the single most important thing in the universe, over the health, and education of its citizens. Canada, dare I say, is somewhat sane. My fair country, on the other hand, is completely batshit crazy, and about as corrupt as many 3rd world dictatorships.

I always find the "socialized whatnot" debates to be hilarious. The reasoning is generally "But we are America, and we're #1, so anything we're currently doing is the best in the world!"... American Exceptionalism. Which basically is political and historical myopia. There are tons of countries doing much better than us, on just about every measurable metric. But being that they aren't America, they must be doing worse than us, because... well... we're #1.

Sadly, outside of our huge superfluous military, we're damn far from #1 in any valuable metric. By valuable metric I of course mean those criteria that directly effect the citizens of the US, such as health, mortality, and education. Hell, we're even not as wealthy (on a per capita basis) as most of the developed word any more.

But for some reason its a terrible thing to say "there is something TERRIBLY wrong here". All you get for saying that are shrill cries of "you hate America" and "socialism", by a bunch of morons who don't even know what socialism is. I haven't even quite grasped where the actual implied ad hominem lurks in being called a socialist yet. I've pissed off a lot of right-wingers by saying "yep." when called a socialist. Like I'm missing some terrible fact, or haven't gotten the memo that socialists eat babies. While all the Capitalists (aren't we all, like socialism and capitalism are opposed to each other), Randroids, Rightwingers, and Libertarians (in the capitalized sense) think that the solution is doing MORE of what put us in this place already. "So a little bit of poison made you sick, perhaps a shit-ton of it will cure you then!" This is just more myopia.

We're so blinded by flawed ideologies and unthinking nationalism that we can't even think that perhaps we are wrong.

Whats worse is that the right has decided that democracy is 100% wrong when it doesn't serve them. Hence them trying to make the term "liberal" a slander, when in fact a majority of the people has decided that it isn't, at least so far as to vote them into being the majority party in national politics.

We forgot that the government is here for us, the PEOPLE, not the corporations, not your wallet, not your silly religion-based morality, not your exclusive reading of what a "right is" and your psychic premonition of what the founders actually wanted (generally a religious, corporate state, it seems). The government is here to benefit me, and you. Not just you. The government should enable us as individuals, protect us, nurture us, and allow us to develop to the maximum of our abilities. No, they don't exist to make sure you make money at the expense of others, they actually were created to PROTECT us from that.

Sorry for the rant... American politics have been pissing me off lately (in a bipartisan way). Needed to vent.

Re:makes sense

[Omestes]

As for being better, look up Chicago, heat wave, and old people.

Re:makes sense

[ceoyoyo]

Interestingly, I believe if you omit the military from the US government spending (it's about 50%), the US federal budget STILL comes in slightly higher than the Canadian federal budget, per capita (and that's still counting Canada's military expenditures).

It's been a while since I did the math, so I may be remembering wrong, but perhaps someone will check it.

The US government certainly isn't as small as you'd expect from all the hype about capitalism.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

***Spoken by someone who's obviously in the 95% of the 85%, and has never had a life threatening illness. Did you understand that many people covered by health insurance go BANKRUPT who when they get a major illness like cancer and the health insurance provider cancels their policy?***

I'm Canadian, so I don't really have a position in this truly American debate over health care reform, but I am an investor and let me tell you, it astonishes me that 25% of personal bankruptcies in the US are the result of health related costs. Pregnancy is one of the largest ones, as complications result in unexpected bills, loss of insurance, and finally bankruptcy. As an investor, it's lead me to make some incredibly lucrative forays into the medical field in the US, where profit is the motive,and they do incredibly well at it.

One of my investments is a Canadian lab company which was profitable in my home country. They bought imaging labs in the US, modeled them after their Canadian counterparts...and now generate 4x as much revenue as a comparable Canadian lab. Mind you, the Canadian labs are ridiculously profitable...the US labs are four times that amount. I LOVE that investment play.

So, please, continue with your existing model. I look forward to many more years of hyper inflated profits on the backs of the American sick.

Re:makes sense

[Just Some Guy]

I haven't run the numbers for anywhere in Europe but Canada's government, in terms of budget per capita, is considerably smaller than that of the US even though we have universal health care and are frequently held up as the "socialist" bogeyman to Americans.

What are the odds of America allowing anyone to invade Canada unchallenged? What are the odds that your government realizes this and allocates military spending appropriately? You're welcome.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one of those "insured". I have COBRA. It costs me over $1200/month. When COBRA expires, I expect that to go up to $1500-$1800/month for LESS coverage.

In contrast, my monthly mortgage payment, on a 30-year mortgage, for a 4-bedroom 4-bath 2-car-garage 3000 square foot home in the best neighborhood in the city is just over $1200/month.

Do you see the problem?

That mortgage payment is tax-deductible. Health insurance is only deductible after 2% AGI (Adjusted Gross Income).

Without Health Insurance, a single hospital visit can bankrupt me. Bills of $50,000 to $100,000 or more can be racked up overnight at the drop of a hat. Any hat.

Re:makes sense

[ceoyoyo]

Per capita, Canada is one of the biggest military spenders in the world. We only look cheap (militarily) in comparison to the US, but then everyone does.

Anyway, if I remember correctly Canada's federal government spends less per capita overall than the US federal government spends even without the military budget.

Re:makes sense

[lennier]

"Even if the guy who seems like the lesser evil during his advertising campaign does get into power, there's always the chance that his promises will turn out to be lies and I won't even be able to change my vote for 2 to 6 years."

So don't just vote.

Get involved in the organisation of the party of your choice. Become an activist. Articulate your political philosophy. Find others of your viewpoint and network. Blog. Start a think tank. Push for reform within the party ranks. Attend conferences. Go back to school and get a law degree. Start an innovative social business. Test out your ideas. Write papers. Attend a discussion group. Refine your philosophy in the crucible of real life. Talk to strangers. Start a petition. Create a movement. Go door to door.

Support friends who want to enter politics. Research and identify the small-time, passionate, heart-led activists who are stepping into a political career. Meet with them regularly. Keep them honest. Fight with them, work with them, argue with them, cry with them as they move up the party ranks. Keep involved every step of the way. Wrestle out the planks of your platform. Debate. Study. Identify the causes which are achievable and those which are impractical. Prioritise. Form a long-term game-plan. Don't hide your agenda but find ways to sell your ideas, honestly and simply, to the public. Consider everyone you meet not only as a potential ally, but as a friend and a person with sense and conscience. Trust your heart. Trust others. Live your dream.

Do any or all of these and you'll end up with a movement and a political party that's not 'the system' but is yours, inside and out, and which can step onto the national stage with its conscience intact.

Do the same within the business system.

And then you won't have to choose between 'government' and 'market' and 'people' and 'self'. It'll all be good.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans just can't warp their heads around the fact that they've been brainwashed for the past 70 years into thinking that anything even remotely resembling socialism is evil

The idea is not evil. In fact it is an awesome idea. Everyone gets their fair share. But let me let you into the secret of why it sucks. Do you drive? I do. Ever run into a jerk on the road? Every day huh? Think of this this is the same people that will be in the system and running it. They are greedy and want more than their fair share. They want more 'because dont you know who I am?!'. It really is that simple. People are greedy selfish animals. You could have 100 people and 99 acting good and all it takes is 1 douche bag to ruin it for the rest. Because MOST socialism models do not take into account the douche bag factor. At first it is wonderful and good. But slowly it devolves into everyone just doing the absolute minimum they can do to 'just get by in the system'. 'Why should I do better? There is no extra reward' People get beaten down by the douche bags and become the douche bag themselves. Why? Because the reward is in becoming more of a douche bag instead of helping others.

If you think it is all roses go into an old soviet block area. Ask west Germans what they think of east Germans. Ask an Englishman what he thinks of a pole.

The idea of universal healthcare is an awesome one. But the practice will not be as good. Originally social security was an optional tax. Now it is mandatory (see how that works). Now they tell me that it will be bankrupt by the time I am ready to use it (like most ponzi schemes are). Let me ask you (and I have been racking my brain on this one maybe it is too hard), Name 1 government program aside from wars as sweeping large and costly in the past 100 years that would be considered 'successful'?

Re:makes sense

[ravenshrike]

Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension. I was discussing HEALTH CARE. Thus, I removed accident and homicide rates(the two biggest contributors to our lower life expectancy), along with standardizing infant death classifications, to arrive at my conclusion.

Re:makes sense

[ravenshrike]

You mean the one where the death toll was over an entire ORDER OF MAGNITUDE smaller? That heat wave? And was confined to a single rabidly Democrat city, not the entire damned country?

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The alcoholic beverages are a fair point, but for the most part the company that puts out the fruit juices is owned by the same parent corporation as coke and pepsi.

Re:makes sense

[BeanThere]

Wrong, bureaucrats make money from creating as many as possible jobs for bureaucrats, not from minimizing the number of jobs for bureaucrats.

Re:makes sense

[Attila Dimedici]

The reason there are no competitors that offer cola sweetened with sugar is because of government imposed price supports for sugar. The U.S. government keeps the price of sugar in the U.S. significantly above the world price in order to protect U.S. sugar producers. The lack of a major company selling cola sweetened with actual sugar is not a market failure, but a product of government intervention in the market.

Re:makes sense

[dkf]

Really? It's been a couple of years since I visited the USA, but I don't remember there being many restaurants that only served Coke or Pepsi products and no fruit juices, wines, beers, and so on...

Remember, those two companies sell many drinks other than cola. You've got to look past the logo and branding to the actual real information on who is making and selling you that drink.

Re:makes sense

[lennier]

"DEATH PANELS! and SOCIALISM! and NAZIS!"

Personally I prefer death trapdoors to death panels. They can be elegantly covered with a nice rug. I use panels for walk-in weapons closets, secret control rooms, and the always practical escape pod tunnel. Cliche perhaps, but functional and discreet.

If you must use a death panel - and for some lairs it can give you that extra touch of chic - make sure you get the interior decorator to cover it with something that washes down easily. A hinged or rotating frame is best. There are many options for the actual mechanism: guillotine, laser, portal to nameless dimension... use your imagination, but remember to work with gravity, not against it. And stay practical. A giant shark in a piranha tank that explodes outwards toward your guest is dramatic, but hardly suitable if you have carpet or expensive furnishings.

Don't forget to think 'outside the box', so to speak. Have you considered a death ceiling? Tasmanian drop bears make delightful companions and can be trained to attack on command.

Re:makes sense

[BeanThere]

That's why you have a right to unionize, duh ... collective bargaining. If enough employees unionized and then went on strike to protest things they didn't like, like random drug testing, the companies' hands would be forced.

Re:makes sense

[JD770]

It is the liberal-left that aspires to the idealized abstraction of a perfect society where everything down to the individual is tightly controlled and regulated by a centralized, beneficent govt.There are no winners and no losers -- everyone is perfectly equal.

In actual practice, neither a perfect market nor a perfect government is possible.

Generally speaking, there is only the seemingly endless struggle between the liberal-left which demands "equality in outcome" through govt-control over individuals with a heavy intolerance for self-responsibility/self-sufficiency -and- the conservative-right which promotes "equality in opportunity" through limited govt-control with a high expectation for self-responsibility/self-sufficiency.

You places yer bets... you takes yer chances... Choose wisely.

Re:makes sense

[inhuman_4]

Seriously guy, the Cold War is over. The Ruskies aren't coming.

I am constantly amazed by people who think that the USA is the only thing standing between the western world and the apocalypse.

You know who would invade Canada is the USA just vanished? No one. It would be just like Australia.

While I am sure spending the big bucks to protect the world sounds great on Fox News. In the real world most people don't spend their days living in fear.

There is no need for the USA to have a military budget any different from the rest of the western world (in terms of spending vs GDP).

Re:makes sense

[Sinbios]

Is better reading comprehension supposed to help me magically work out your unsourced statistics and thereby find myself in agreement with your conclusion?

By the way, not counting the opinions of political criminals and radical dissidents, the PRC has the highest citizen satisfaction rating, and is therefore obviously the best place in the world to live.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Health care is not an entitlement or a right.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

Re:makes sense

[Omestes]

You mean where the population is an order of magnitude smaller? Also places where the average temperature doesn't get very high, very often, and thus most people don't have air conditioning (damn liberals, and their lack of air conditioning).

Oh wait... your slandering people based on their differing opinions than your own... Sorry for the interruption.

Re:makes sense

[uninformedLuddite]

All of the ideas being pushed in the health care reform are leftist because nobody on the right is offering any positive ideas.

If the parody of a socialised health care system being proposed in the US is viewed as leftist then I shudder to think what a radical right wing agenda might look like.

You aren't getting a decent health care system you are being swindled by politicians who's campaign funding comes from the very same industries that are going to make out like bandits if the abortion you believe is socialist health care is ever born.

Why don't people in the US look at a few other systems in place in the world and try and join the dots. They might then see that in these other socialist systems hard earned tax payers money doesn't just get pumped into the coffers of insurance companies that will give nothing in return but an even lower standard of service.

I am sure that if the US government brought slavery back in that there would be lines of morons miles long just dying to get in on the ground floor.

SUCKERS

Re:makes sense

[uninformedLuddite]

Should we let them live a miserable life and even die in the name of small government and the right to be rich?

Most US consumers would think that the above is perfectly OK. I watched a video on youtube of a single mother with three children and two jobs who couldn't afford health insurance vehemently arguing against a national health system.

All I could think of was a quote I heard once that "No one is so hopelessly enslaved than someone who falsely believes that they are free" - that's a terrible paraphrasing of it and I have no idea who it comes from so corrections gladly accepted.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

... due to the way the insurance industry has organized itself (treating large-group insurance as a separate pool from individual or small-group)....

Hmmm. There's this little something that's called statistics that caused the organization. You know, with a statistically meaningful sample size one can make a mathematical projection as to what the probability of an event occurring to an individual might be. That's how insurance is designed. No hocus pocus. No malevolence. Simple numbers. An individual is not a statistically meaningful sample size. A "small-group" (a vague term at best) is probably not a statistically meaningful sample size either.

The only real "choice" involved is the "choice" to essentially ditch your comfortable employment for the uncertain prospect of getting a new job with better insurance.

Or buy your own. On your own. My current employer pays 100% of the health insurance for its employees. But, I preferred the plan that I'd had through multiple employers over the years. So, I purchased my own plan at about USD $620 / month which covers only myself. No tax breaks. No subsidies. 100% out of my own pocket.

Now here's a fun piece of fact. The Fortune 50 company I used to work for had one of those "cafeteria" plans and each year you got so many "dollars" to spend on whatever various benefits you thought important. Each year the benefits cost more but our "funny money dollars" didn't increase. One day I decided to go looking for a plan on my own. Guess what I found out? A personal plan with the SAME provider cost me less than the amount my employer was paying on my behalf and it even had better coverage (lower co-pays, added dental and vision)!

How could this be? Well, the company broke out insurance coverage by employee, employee/spouse, employee/spouse/family. Not family with one kid, two kids, three, .... Just family. So it turned out it's because us singletons were subsidizing families.

This was not an isolated incident. A previous Fortune 100 employer had done the very same thing (apparently it costs too much to track how many kids are in a family).

So, before you assume that health care plans cost less if you can get into a large company plan you'd do yourself a world of good to actually check. If you don't have a pre-existing condition (yes, that sucks but until EVERYONE is required to get health coverage, self-selected populations (meaning young and healthy don't bother) will distort the meaningful sample sizes and make premiums impossible to predict) and are younger you may actually save money by getting your own policy. And here's the neat part. You can take it with you. At my previous employer any "benefit dollars" that weren't used just went into your paycheck.

Re:makes sense

[doshell]

You're bipolarizing the question. There is a continuum of scenarios between the two extremes you describe. Our position within that continuum is the choice you and I have to make.

The fallacy of communism is assuming that people will not become parasites if they don't have an incentive to work. The fallacy of capitalism is assuming that anyone can be as successful in life as they can, as long as they put in enough effort. I think neither are true.

Re:makes sense

[doshell]

The fallacy of communism is assuming that people will not become parasites if they don't have an incentive to work. The fallacy of capitalism is assuming that anyone can be as successful in life as they can, as long as they put in enough effort. I think neither are true.

I meant to say "as successful in life as they want". I'm sorry.

Re:makes sense

[JD770]

doshell wrote: "...I meant to say "as successful in life as they want"..."

Perhaps it would be more accurately phrased as, "as successful in life as their personal capabilities and motivations allow, with no guarantees." Rather, that has always been my perception. Capitalism encourages and motivates one to aim high. Even if one never reaches one's ultimate pinnacle of success (or even gets close to it), the chances of improving one's situation in the process are far better.

Communism motivates... um... I'm at a loss here. You have little to no control over your own success and on the chance that you do excel at something, the reward for your efforts is that your productivity is divided up, against your will, with whomever the central controlling authority decides is next in line -- but it does equalize "fairness", albeit arbitrarily.

But you are absolutely correct! Neither is a perfect system. As I said before, everyone has a choice to make, up to a certain point, ie:
Those in a capitalist system are generally free to migrate into a communist system if they so choose. Those in a communist system generally are not allowed the choice to migrate to a capitalist system (or any other system) without the permission of the central controlling authority.

Hopefully, they choose what's best for their situation.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, I have had the same experience living in Canada for the last 25 years. Sure, the healthcare system has its problems, but overall it is a much better experience than the US alternatives. I grew up in the US and had good quality employer-paid health plans. The interesting thing is that from an entrepreneurial perspective it as easier and much less costly for me to establish and run a small business than it would have been in the US. Rather underscored how much of an illusion the issue of freedom from government intervention is in the US.

But back to the topic of regulating behavior, I am not sure if any of the prohibitions that have been put in place were beneficial to anyone but the supply chain and regulatory bureaucracy. How much of a moral difference is it from forcing Coke to take cocaine out of their drinks and this nonsense about regulating diet drinks? But it was a huge boon to the producers and distribution networks and created billions of dollars of new expenses for the 'war on drugs'. Will the war on diet pop be far behind?

Re:makes sense

[Eli Gottlieb]

Well what was in all those amendments?

Re:makes sense

[pays-vert]

Two words: Military spending.

Re:makes sense

[ceoyoyo]

So we pay taxes to give people medical care and you pay taxes to build the world's largest military. I guess we all have to have goals. It doesn't make your government any smaller.

Incidentally, (this is from memory, so I might be off slightly), the US government is still bigger per capita even when you don't count military spending.

Re:makes sense

[iamhigh]

I saw on some news program that SS won't be broke in the sense you claim. They will be able to pay over 70% of what they will owe in 2030 (or exactly whenever) and from there on out. And I would posit that it has been "our", as in the citizen's, fault that it is now facing these problems; when enacted it was intended to cover the last few years of your life and we have changed that to make it a retirement plan. We finally upped the age for benefits, but not in time (medicine advanced far quicker than the ages did).

Re:makes sense

[FiloEleven]

Whoa, hang on there, cowboy. The point you've responded to states that two kinds of regulation (preventing companies from offering catastrophic coverage, and preventing companies from offering policies across state lines) are bad. Your response is that there's this entirely different problem, and that a generally unregulated health insurance industry causes it, so we had better leave these regulations in place.

Your straw man is showing.

A) If these regulations are in place, it's obviously not a wholly unregulated market. There are hundreds of thousands of regulations that the health industry has to comply with, so it is in no way generally unregulated, either.
B) The point you responded to was talking about two specific regulations that are harming the market.
C) These problems exist currently, the two classes of regulation in the quoted point have nothing to do with recision, and I can see no reason why it would cause recision to increase if those two classes of regulation were removed. If you can find one, state it and it'll be worth discussing.
D) If you think that more regulation is needed to combat recision, then say as much, but keep in mind that regulation is targeted. You can't just point to something and say, "well, this is only 62% regulated, and this is 87% which is obviously better." There is such a thing as bad regulation.

Recision is a problem, and I personally think it's only fair that if you've paid premiums into the system and then require health care, the insurance company must be liable to pay some sizeable percentage of what you paid--a starting point for discussion would be (TOTAL_PREMIUMS_PAID - TOTAL_INSURANCE_PAYOUTS_TO_DATE)--before dropping your policy. I'm sure it gets messier the more you dig into it, and I'm no fan of regulations myself, but I would be pretty comfortable with something like that.

Re:makes sense

[Yunzil]

1) Health care is not an entitlement or a right. You have to buy it, just like everything else. That means that there is no guarantee that there will be enough choices to suit your taste or budget available.

So tell me, what's it like being a complete failure as a human being?

Re:makes sense

[kthejoker]

Does "without concern" over the final cost also include a lack of concern for being hounded by collection agencies and driven into bankruptcy for failure to pay? Good luck buying a car to drive you to the ER next time!

Does "receive full treatment" mean waiting 12 hours and then dying in the ER lobby waiting for attention? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/02/national/main4227468.shtml)

Do you go to the ER for cervical cancer screenings? No? So you arrive there with advanced treatment, they offer you no hope, and you go home to die, for want of some affordable-on-insurance preventive visits?

Are there both cheaper and more humane ways of getting health care? Holy fuck are there ever, my friend.

Re:makes sense

[kthejoker]

First off: Coke and Pepsi own most fruit juice brands, too.

Secondly: Do you think giving your money to Anheuser-Busch, Guinness, or Ernest Gallo is some big improvement over Coke and Pepsi?

New boss, meet the old boss.

Re:makes sense

[Magius_AR]

And for some reason we don't hear about the governments of Western Europe telling people "[w]hat [they] can eat, when [they] can eat it, how much [they] can eat, when, where and what kind of exercise [they] will do, when [they] get up, when [they] sleep. and (if all that wasn't frightening enough) Who lives, who dies, and when they die," despite the prevalence of socialized programs, especially socialized medicine.

Oh?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml

Re:makes sense

[Magius_AR]

I've never seen the governments of any of those countries pushing to regulate what people eat and drink, how much exercise they make, when they go to sleep, or when they die.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml

Maybe it simply hasn't hit critical mass yet. When funding becomes unsustainable (which may be imminent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/8091427.stm), I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of it.

Re:makes sense

[doshell]

Your example is one of not providing equal access to healthcare for everyone, not one of enforcing habits through legislation.

Providing incentives to be healthy, on the other hand (e.g. taxes on tobacco and alcohol) are fine with me, though, as long as smokers and drinkers can still have access to healthcare.

Re:makes sense

[doshell]

Perhaps it would be more accurately phrased as, "as successful in life as their personal capabilities and motivations allow, with no guarantees." Rather, that has always been my perception. Capitalism encourages and motivates one to aim high. Even if one never reaches one's ultimate pinnacle of success (or even gets close to it), the chances of improving one's situation in the process are far better.

I realise it's a debatable matter, but I still have a problem with people with less personal capabilities (physical, mental, social, etc) having a tougher life; it feels inhumane to me. That's where I see an advantage in communism.

But you are absolutely correct! Neither is a perfect system. As I said before, everyone has a choice to make, up to a certain point, ie: Those in a capitalist system are generally free to migrate into a communist system if they so choose. Those in a communist system generally are not allowed the choice to migrate to a capitalist system (or any other system) without the permission of the central controlling authority.

Hopefully, they choose what's best for their situation.

Fair enough. But I think you still missed my point: the choice doesn't have to be between communism and capitalism (which, as we've agreed, both have their problems). You can have a system combining aspects of the two. I think that's where the real debate lies.

Re:makes sense

[evilviper]

The point you've responded to states that two kinds of regulation (preventing companies from offering catastrophic coverage, and preventing companies from offering policies across state lines) are bad.

The parent was an anti-regulation shill. Nothing more. It's a shame you can't see that.

C) These problems exist currently, the two classes of regulation in the quoted point have nothing to do with recision, and I can see no reason why it would cause recision to increase if those two classes of regulation were removed. If you can find one, state it and it'll be worth discussing.

One of the two was "low-cost catastrophic-only insurance". The very idea is LAUGHABLE. The fact of recision directly counters this idea. Even the "high-cost" general-coverage insurance plans face serious issues with recision. There's no way a lower-cost option is going to somehow do better.

the insurance company must be liable to pay some sizeable percentage of what you paid

If so, you're undeniably better off NOT getting insurance. Put that money in a savings account and earn interest on it. Then you get more than 100% of the money you put in. AND for the 99.9% of the population that never needs it, you also get all your money BACK.

Health insurance ONLY WORKS if the health insurance company will be required to pay your medical bills, no matter how expensive they get. That's exactly why you're paying them... for INSURANCE against the very unlikely event that you end up with astronomical medical bills.

Re:makes sense

[Yokaze]

> Why can't the US have a Canadian-style, for example, health care system? Simple. It's not American enough.

You will laugh, but guess how Canada (or at least Quebec) got its health care system. I was told by a former M.D., who worked there for some time, that it was enacted against fierce public opposition. There were a lot of strikes, which simply ended, because most M.D. had such a large debt, that they couldn't afford striking anymore.

Re:makes sense

[FiloEleven]

You made known your opposition to catastrophic insurance, and it is reasonable. Your response to my suggestion makes sense as well. In fact I've thought about looking into health savings accounts because insurance is such a racket, but I don't know enough about them yet to see their trade-offs.

You have still failed to address the issue of letting companies offer plans across state lines and instead chose to try and attack d3ac0n as a shill. Just because the post you responded to is clearly from an anti-regulation perspective doesn't mean you can write off everything inside it as bunk.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

But I digress. [...]

That's not digressing.

Market Failure

[Darylium]

I fail to see what market failure has to do with this. People want big hamburgers with fries and a diet coke, and they get it. Seems like a healthy market to me. Its the people that are less then healthy, not the market.

Re:Market Failure

[memnock]

i wanted to write the same exact thing.

instead of the disennguous "market failure" call it what it really is. it's not a market failure, it's a market success. the problem is the consumer. they should probably start taxing people according to weight, taking into account height, age, and other factors, for their impact on health care resource use or something.

they could still tax the soda makers, but call it what it really is.

Re:Market Failure

[uuddlrlrab]

Read this...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure ...then, just to make sure, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities Basically, the premise is that because of indifference from both the drink manufacturers and consumers overall on the possible* negative impact on health nationwide of softdrinks & similar items, the government should step in. *qualifier in b4 everyone screams "IT'S NOT PROVEN!" at me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#Health_effects

Re:Market Failure

[NotBornYesterday]

[rant]
The problem isn't the market, or even necessarily the food. The problem is that there are a lot of people who shove more in their mouths than they should. I can't believe that such a simple equation like "what you eat, minus what you burn, is what you wear on your ass and thighs" doesn't make sense to people. More likely, it makes sense, but they still can't or won't force themselves to change.

To whom is may concern, a few words of wisdom:

"You are what you eat" - The government shouldn't have to tell you what you can and can't eat any more than it should have to wipe your ass for you. Grow a brain stem and stop ruining things for those of who manage to eat right, but still enjoy the occasional culinary sin. Which brings me to my next point:

"All things in moderation" - There is nothing wrong with having a Whopper, fries, and soda. There is everything wrong with doing it often. Oh, and moderation applies to sitting on your ass, too. Get out there and walk some.

And finally: "Monkey see, monkey do" - Parents, exercise some judgment and self-control. If not for your own health, for your kids. Teach your kids to live with some healthy discipline in their lives. Get some exercise in with them. Kill the TV every now and then. Keep the McD's to a minimum, and make them drink juice, milk, and water at home. It's not that hard, trust me. If a numskull like myself can do a halfway decent job at it, so can you.
[/rant]

None of this is new. We all know it because it's common sense, and it's been said over and over. It's bad enough some people can't do their own thinking. It gets worse when the government believes that gives them the duty to think for all of us.

Re:Market Failure

[MightyYar]

But that has nothing to do with the market. That is just consumers placing a greater value on flavor, quantity, and price than on their long-term health. Haven't you ever eaten a doughnut? Is a doughnut shop a market failure?

Re:Market Failure

[d3ac0n]

Market Failure: A term coined by the Utilitarians which were part of a larger body of thought that was related to and gave rise to modern socialism and communism. The term has been used most prominently by the progressive movement of the late 19th century and early 20th century and is used widely by socialists, neo-communists and communists to excuse massive government intervention in the Market.

In other words, it's bullshit.

The only time The Market fails is when the government gets in the way. ANY OTHER RESULT is a market success. Period.

Re:Market Failure

[Chibinium]

The rationale isn't to limit consumer choice, but to reduce the healthcare costs associated with certain consumer choices. For example, a person's choice of hamburger and soda diet has externalities, namely resulting from the quadruple bypasses some of them require. These costs are not internalized; rather, most likely their health insurance (that is, rest of us) will foot the bill. --Apparently some of us do not want to foot quite so much of that bill. Hence, this. I do not think the government should step into food matters, though. I'd much rather see a more decentralized approach, such as making fun of people.

Re:Market Failure

[JaredOfEuropa]

Rubbish... Even someone like Friedman subscribes to the idea of market failure; in his book "Free to choose" he gives a clear explanation of what it is and when it can occur. Yes, it is used as an excuse to have the government step in and make a bigger mess, but the problem exists, and a competent government can sometimes fix it. The real problem is that we have so little competent government.

Re:Market Failure

[stoolpigeon]

They are talking about diet soda which does not contain high fructose corn syrup.

Re:Market Failure

[Darylium]

I agree with you, but shouldn't people who have an unhealthy diet pay for the medical consequences of that diet themselves? I know it sounds a bit hard, but everybody knows that eating a lot of fat food everyday is very unhealthy. Yet some people choose to do it anyway. And they get away with it from a financial point of view because government externalises those costs to you and me. I just think that people should pick up the bill of their own voluntary, informed, unhealthy lifestyle.

Re:Market Failure

[Ironsides]

Basically, the premise is that because of indifference from both the drink manufacturers and consumers overall on the possible* negative impact on health nationwide of softdrinks & similar items, the government should step in.

Tell me, how much of that problem originates from the soda companies being unable to buy sufficient quantities of sugar cane due to federal regulations and quotas on sugar imports? Is it really a market failure when the government is the source of the problem?

Re:Market Failure

[slim]

I fail to see what market failure has to do with this. People want big hamburgers with fries and a diet coke, and they get it.

The PDF explains their angle.

ECONOMIC RATIONALE
Economists agree that government intervention in a market is warranted when there are "market failures" that result in less-than-optimal production and consumption. Several market failures exist with respect to sugar-sweetened beverages.

First, because many persons do not fully appreciate the links between consumption of these
beverages and health consequences, they make consumption decisions with imperfect information. These decisions are likely to be further distorted by the extensive marketing campaigns that advertise the benefits of consumption. A second failure results from time-inconsistent preferences (i.e., decisions that provide short-term gratification but long-term harm).

The classic market failure is that some participant (it could be a firm, it could be consumers) is making decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate information. They're arguing that in this case, it's the consumers.

I'd argue that they're right about the failure, but that taxation is not the solution. Those failures can be addressed directly through education and through controls on advertising.

Re:Market Failure

[slim]

I can't believe that such a simple equation like "what you eat, minus what you burn, is what you wear on your ass and thighs" doesn't make sense to people.

I think that working with such a simple model is a good way to approach weight loss. Eat less, or do more exercise and you *will* lose fat.

However, it's not actually true. Some people excrete surplus calories instead of storing it as fat. Lifestyle affects this. I am not a biochemist, and the complexities of this are beyond me.

Re:Market Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Free market cheerleaders such as the GOP and their libertarian lapdogs will always blame the victim and embrace the elimination of all regulations. Eliminating regulation and taxes are a great idea for those who want the US to imitate the libertarian nation of Somalia. Only the truly educated and not those who attend the outdated trade schools(Community Colleges) and listen to talk radio will know regulations and taxes are needed for any nation to function. Come back and post once you get away from Rush Limbaugh and get a real education.

Re:Market Failure

[NotBornYesterday]

You're absolutely right that the actual equation is more complex, but the basic truth of it is still perfectly valid.

On a side note, despite the fact that I generally hate so-called "reality" shows, I have found myself hooked on "The Biggest Loser" for the past couple seasons. I like it because a) it actually helps those on the show, b) it offers something worthwhile for those who see it. On the show, they talk about some of the metabolic challenges and apparent paradoxes (for example, you have to eat at least a certain amount to lose weight properly) that my overly simplistic equation left out.

Re:Market Failure

[RighteousRaven]

"stop ruining things for those of who manage to eat right, but still enjoy the occasional culinary sin." The problem is that things are already ruined. Medicare and Medicaid pay billions of dollars of your money to pay for the externalities of culinary sins. The proposal to tax the culinary sins directly, instead of paying for it through income tax, simply puts more of the tax burden on the sinners instead of spreading it equally across all tax payers. The added bonus is that the increased cost of sinning will deter a handful of people, so our GDP can be spent on something other than healthcare. Of course, you could argue that the real problem is medicare and medicaid... and that's a valid argument if that's the kind of world that you want to live in, but I certainly don't want to live there.

Re:Market Failure

[Belial6]

I can't believe that such a simple equation like "what you eat, minus what you burn, is what you wear on your ass and thighs" doesn't make sense to people.

That would be because most of us are talking about HUMAN weight and diet. Humans have some big factors that make your equation completely useless. For example, most humans have an anus. It's an orifice that expels things your body isn't going to be using.

What I have a hard time believing is that even with all of the empirical evidence shoved in their face every day, that they still deny that "what you eat, minus what you burn, is what you wear on your ass and thighs" is a ridiculous idea to applied to humans. Go to your local mall. Watch for the fattest person that walks by (or drives by on one of those little scooters). Then ask yourself. Could you get that fat if you tried? Likely the answer is on. Even if you put an honest effort into trying to gain as much weight as possible, you probably couldn't get close to 350 or 400 pounds. If your 'simple equation' were even close to accurate, we could all get to 400 pounds easily.

Re:Market Failure

[misexistentialist]

There is nothing wrong with having a Whopper, fries, and soda

Yes there is. That meal is only within the range of acceptable moderation for someone like Micheal Phelps. For the rest of us, it will measurably decrease our level of health, just like moderately smoking an occasional cigarette (and yes, fast food has addictive effects that will negatively affect all of your food choices).

Re:Market Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

we could just do both. you know, don't spend any of our GDP on healthcare and not tax fucking food

Re:Market Failure

[ravenshrike]

The only reason HFCS is in widespead use at all is BECAUSE of government intervention. Remove the thrice damned tarriffs on sugar and the corn subsidies and HFCS would be a miniscule amount of the average Americans diet.

Re:Market Failure

[NeutronCowboy]

You really should actually study some Economics. You know, not make up shit, but actually learn from those who know more than you. Wikipedia is a handy start. You'll find that market failures and externalities are common terms in any economic discussion, including those by and with various Nobel Prize winners.

Re:Market Failure

[TheRaven64]

There is nothing wrong with having a Whopper, fries, and soda

You mean, apart from it being a capital crime against good taste?

Re:Market Failure

[NotBornYesterday]

My bad.

"Eating the occasional Whopper, fries, and soda probably won't kill you, if you can stay 1 step ahead of the good taste police"

Better? ;)

Re:Market Failure

[Trepidity]

Capitalizing The Market like a God is fitting, I think.

Re:Market Failure

[NotBornYesterday]

Er, no, I disagree. The Whopper, fries and soda can be worked off in a workout regime that is less than Olympic gold caliber. If enjoyed only occasionally, the impact on overall health of an active person with proper vitamin intake and overall good nutrition is minimal.

Re:Market Failure

[NotBornYesterday]

Yes, it's an oversimplification. In no way did I intend to imply that metabolism has no role in weight gain or loss, or that we lack a mechanism to eliminate solid waste.

By "what you eat", I am referring to caloric intake. Our bodies are pretty good at squeezing all they can out of the food we take in. What gets shat out is mostly water, stuff we can't readily absorb, plus a lot of bacteria. Perhaps there are those rare few who magically poop out calories they don't need that day. Sounds like a problem, if you ask me.

If your 'simple equation' were even close to accurate, we could all get to 400 pounds easily.

Are you saying that I couldn't? Is there a magic switch in my body that sweats out calories if I go over 200 lbs? I doubt it.

I am reasonably fit and trim, but I know that I gain weight if I eat or drink more than a sensible amount. I know that as I get older, that tendency will increase as my metabolism slows, but the basic principle still applies.

If I decide to eat 1 whopper w/cheese (760 kcal) and 1 medium Coke (200 kcal) per day for a year on top of my normal diet, I would be taking in about an extra 960 kcal per day, and will likely add about 1.5 to 2 pounds of body fat per week. Oh, wait, I forgot the fries. That's an additional 400 kcal per medium serving. At that rate, given my current weight of 185 - 190lbs, I'd probably be at 400 lbs within 2 years, tops. Even if by some peristaltic miracle my digestive tract eliminated half the calories I was taking in, I would only be delayed in getting to 400 by a couple years.

Of course, that's assuming that my metabolism stays the same, and that my muscle mass doesn't change. If I were heavier, perhaps I'd avoid strenuous activity, my muscles would atrophy, and my ability to burn calories would be diminished, accelerating my weight gain.

After we adjust for different metabolic rates, hormonal imbalances, bad genes, how much we poop out and every other variable that we'd like to include, it still comes down to thermodynamics and the conservation of energy. If you do exercise that requires about 3600 kcal of power, you have burned the caloric equivalent of 1 pound of fat. That power came from either a) stuff you just took in, or b) your body breaking itself down to feed its own engines. If you are doing it right, your body breaks down fat instead of muscle.

Conversely, no human can create a pound of fat out of only, say, 1200 kcal food input. People don't get fat just breathing air. It comes from somewhere.

Re:Market Failure

[NotBornYesterday]

I know of no special tax like this that was not eventually misappropriated to pay for something else, leaving the original need poorly filled. If we tax this stuff, all we are doing is giving the government more money. Hell no.

Medicare and Medicaid are wasteful and fraud-ridden, however I will not deny the good they do, or the need for it to be done.

The problem isn't the government, and there is damn little the government could or should do about it. It's the people. Those who wish to feed that lifestyle will do so regardless of a tax. It may even create a sense of entitlement.

Re:Market Failure

[d3ac0n]

You should stop studying socialist economics and start studying people who actually DO understand it. I recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell as a start. You should start with "Economic Facts and Fallacies", and then move on to "Applied Economics". You might learn something.

And don't even waste my time with "Nobel Prize winners". Al "I invented the Internet and the world is going to burn in 10 years (said 12 years ago)" Gore won a Nobel prize for crying out loud! The only qualification for winning a Nobel is being leftist enough.

Re:Market Failure

[Belial6]

If your math actually worked, 400lbs would be down right common. It isn't. Thus we have empirical proof that you are full of it. While fat is not produced out of air, if you don't get enough calories, you starve. Your body stops USING the calories and starts storing them. All sorts of bad things happen to your body, one of which is weight gain. So, yes, you can certainly gain weight by taking in less calories. I know that I would be willing to bet hard cash that I could gain weight by eating a 2500 cal per day diet, and then loss that same weight on a 3200 cal a day diet with absolutely no extra exercise. And in fact, I have done that. Not for cash, only for the right to say I told you so, but I can do it at will.

Doing bad math doesn't refute the physical evidence that is in front of you on a daily basis.

Re:Market Failure

[Omestes]

In other words, it's bullshit.

I didn't notice you actually backing up that statement with proof anywhere in your post... And no, "I don't like these people." doesn't count as proof, nor does "zomg socialism", since then you must prove how socialism is bad, or a failure (which you'll find it isn't).

Its like saying, and pardon my Godwin, "Hitler liked dogs, therefore dogs are evil.", obviously this is a fallacy, and more-so, dumb. Though I'd think that the "zomg socialism!" arguments are just as bad as the typical Godwin ones. X was bad, X liked Y, therefore X; is bad is just sloppy thinking, and doesn't really have any relevance on the utility or truth value of Y.

No, your opinion isn't fact.

Re:Market Failure

[Darylium]

"The classic market failure is that some participant (it could be a firm, it could be consumers) is making decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate information. They're arguing that in this case, it's the consumers." I'm sorry, but doesn't everybody know that you get fat and unhealthy if you eat too much unhealthy food and exercise too little? I don't see how anybody is uninformed about this. So I would say that their angle is false.

Re:Market Failure

[NotBornYesterday]

If your math actually worked, 400lbs would be down right common. It isn't.

Dude, I didn't come up with this on my own. It's basic science that has been demonstrated over and over. A (relative) lack of 400-lb people is not proof that the laws of thermodynamics cease to exist inside your body.

Furthermore, I outlined an extreme case of a crash weight-gain diet. Most people people that large don't get there in a couple years. They get there over 2 or more decades of bad habits. As far as "common" ... look around you. I see obese people on a regular basis. They are becoming common. Read some statistics on childhood obesity, and realize that we are raising a generation of fat kids.

... if you don't get enough calories, you starve. Your body stops USING the calories and starts storing them.

I'm not talking about putting your body in starvation mode. I'm talking about taking in way more calories than your body uses.

A body cannot "stop using" calories unless it is dead. It can, however, reduce the number of calories it uses, and it can use them more efficiently. Also, it can start breaking down muscle tissue for fuel instead of fat cells, which I assume is one of the "all sorts of bad things happen" you refer to.

Re:Market Failure

[Belial6]

Dude, I didn't come up with this on my own. It's basic science that has been demonstrated over and over. A (relative) lack of 400-lb people is not proof that the laws of thermodynamics cease to exist inside your body.

No, in fact the lack of 400 pound people doesn't prove that thermodynamics ceases to exist, but it does prove that your theory is wrong, and you fundamentally misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics. Your theory is disprovable. Good job on that part. Where your fail is that when your theory is disproven, you just ignore the results. If your theory was correct, and this was simply a case of applying the laws of thermodynamics to the calories being eaten, and the calories burned, then one single instance of a high calorie dieter who doesn't exercise would disprove the laws of thermodynamics. We see this happening every day. So, to maintain a semblance of intelligence, we need to choose. Do we declare the laws of thermodynamics to be incorrect, or do we declare that you are just wrong about what you think is happening when someone eats food?

I'm not talking about putting your body in starvation mode. I'm talking about taking in way more calories than your body uses.

Yes, you are. Starvation is exactly what happens when your body when you body gets less calories than it thinks it needs, and in many (most?) cases where people try to limit their calorie intake for weight loss. This is why people who exercise and reduce their calories, more often than not, fail to lose weight over any significant period of time. Again, there is plenty of evidence, everywhere you look, to support this.

A body cannot "stop using" calories unless it is dead. It can, however, reduce the number of calories it uses,

What?!?!? You are directly contradicting yourself. Any calories that your body reduces are calories that it stopped using. This is a serous case of congative disassociation.

Also, it can start breaking down muscle tissue for fuel instead of fat cells, which I assume is one of the "all sorts of bad things happen" you refer to.

Yes, it is one of the "bad things". It can and does happen to fat people that starve themselves.

You Acknowledge the physical evidence that proves your theory wrong; you acknowledge the logical evidence that proves your theory wrong; and yet you still maintain your conclusions. What appears to be the case is that you are one of the many people who believe that fat is caused by immorality, and you are trying to rationalize the irrational by using the word 'thermodynamics'. You sound like the witch trial scene from Monty Python, claiming "If she weighs the same as a duck, she is made of wood, and therefor, a witch".

Re:Market Failure

[NotBornYesterday]

Ah, I see. The signs were there, I just didn't recognize them. The hostility, the ad hominem attacks, the alleged mountains of empirical evidence for which you don't have a reference, the apparently deliberate misunderstanding of everything I've said, the poor spelling. I should have figured out awhile ago that you are a simple troll.

Goodbye.

Re:Market Failure

[Chibinium]

It's tricky to give just enough insurance that risk is properly diffused, but not so much that you create a moral hazard. The inflection point, it seems, is where effort stops and circumstances overtake. Until we can get into each other's heads and put an exact number on one's effort, we are dealing with truly Knightian uncertainty. If we had a marketing campaign disparaging people whose diet consists of soda and burgers, we could bring the American fat distribution more in line with the Japanese or Scandinavian. Imagine how many children we could send to school with the health savings!

Drink now, Citizen!

[SEWilco]

It declares soda fair game for government intervention (PDF) on the grounds that "market failures" in this area are causing "less-than-optimal production and consumption."

So the government thinks that soda companies are too important to fail? And they think that government soda five-year plans will certainly cause optimal production and consumption. I don't really want the government to ensure that I am consuming soda optimally.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[slim]

The economist's big idea is that the "invisible hand" of market forces will lead us to an ideal world. In this case, someone's idea of an ideal world is one where you can drink soda in moderate amounts, but not to the extent that you ruin your health.

When letting the market decide things doesn't result in the desired effect (who's desire?), instead of saying that this isn't something markets solve, economists call it a "market failure", and suggest ways that the state could intervene to make the market work again.

This isn't always stupid. Commodity markets with healthy competition do tend towards a fair market price. Insider trading can break that system (market failure). Laws against insider trading allow the market to work properly.

But sometimes it is stupid. Sometimes if you want to control people, you just have to grit your teeth and admit that it's your aim.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[mcornelius]

They're not arguing this from an economist's view. A healthy market is one that responds to needs and wants. They're saying people's wants are cheaper than their needs leading them to unhealthy habits. It is not an economic argument for junk food/soda tax.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[drinkypoo]

The economist's big idea is that the "invisible hand" of market forces will lead us to an ideal world. In this case, someone's idea of an ideal world is one where you can drink soda in moderate amounts, but not to the extent that you ruin your health.

Yes, the invisible hand of market forces possibly could lead us to an ideal world, in which people's needs and desires are solved efficiently by those who are most capable; it could only do this if you virtually eliminate government intervention. In the process, a lot of people will die, which is the only way the free market can work; the people who engage in self-destructive practices must be permitted to destroy themselves, and we must stop propping up corporations that we like and terminating those we don't. The government's role in this type of economy is transparency; they report on the activities of corporations so that you can make an informed purchase decision.

Since this is not how our system works, the invisible hand spends half its time masturbating and the other half squashing people like ants.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[slim]

They're not arguing this from an economist's view. A healthy market is one that responds to needs and wants. They're saying people's wants are cheaper than their needs leading them to unhealthy habits. It is not an economic argument for junk food/soda tax.

Actually the New England Journal of Medicine is attempting to do exactly that (from the PDF):

ECONOMIC RATIONALE
Economists agree that government intervention in a market is warranted when there are "market failures" that result in less-than-optimal production and consumption. Several market failures exist with respect to sugar-sweetened beverages.

First, because many persons do not fully appreciate the links between consumption of these
beverages and health consequences, they make consumption decisions with imperfect information. These decisions are likely to be further distorted by the extensive marketing campaigns that advertise the benefits of consumption. A second failure results from time-inconsistent preferences (i.e., decisions that provide short-term gratification but long-term harm).

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[couchslug]

"The economist's big idea is that the "invisible hand" of market forces will lead us to an ideal world."

The invisible hand of Wall Street just recently squeezed our collective invisible nuts quite smartly.

Regulate The Hand.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[maxume]

I'm not opposed to regulation, but every idiot who bought a house they couldn't afford is also partly responsible. Hell, at least there is a chance that the government will actually profit on the Wall Street bailout, as opposed to the money that was given away to try to prop up the housing market.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[Anonymous Coward]

Professional economists understand there's no such thing as an "ideal world."

Markets don't "fail" because a market isn't a thing which has goals and aspirations. A market is nothing more than a matrix of transactions, an environment. PEOPLE have goals which they can succeed or fail at, not markets.

The big question is, WHO failed, and WHO succeeded? And what are the failures going to do about it, and who is going to succeed and fail due to these actions? When HMOs failed in the market, they went to congress for help. Now we're probably stuck with them forever until we get that single-payer system certain individuals have been fighting so hard for.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[slim]

The invisible hand of Wall Street just recently squeezed our collective invisible nuts quite smartly.

Regulate The Hand.

I agree. My limited understanding of the crash was that bad loans were being bundled up and sold to agencies acting on incomplete/inaccurate information. If they'd had the right information, they wouldn't have bought the debts, or they'd have bought the debts for a sustainable price.

The classic economist's view is that the government's duty is to regulate so that this information flows properly. Secrecy impedes market forces.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[mcornelius]

They distort the language of economics, but "less-than-optimal production and consumption" means something different to a them than it means in economics. Economically, optimal is what best responds to wants and needs, not some fuckheads' social agenda.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[slim]

Professional economists understand there's no such thing as an "ideal world."

I see what you mean, but I think there's a fairly strong consensus that the equilibrium reached in a classic commodities market (prices pushed down, efficiency pushed up, nobody making excessive profits) is a desirable outcome.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was ACORN's success in making the government require bad house loans that caused the mess in Wall Street. If the government hadn't provided guarantees for the bad loans, the bad loan paperwork wouldn't have been floating around for financial shenanigans.

Re:Drink now, Citizen!

[Omestes]

Since this is not how our system works, the invisible hand spends half its time masturbating and the other half squashing people like ants.

Your words are like poetry to my ears... Thank you for that, if I had mod points you would have them, sir.

Diet sodas

[Kokuyo]

Diet sodas make your body expect energy. That energy does not arrive. Therefore your body makes you feel hungry to provide for the already ramped up production.

Sugarfree gum and diet soda is therefore something that will never find their way into my hands.

Re:Diet sodas

[TheCowSaysMooNotBoo]

Sounds interesting: any links to back that up?

Re:Diet sodas

[Cyberax]

"Therefore your body makes you feel hungry to provide for the already ramped up production.'

So do not eat more, even if you are a bit hungry. What's the problem?

I've lost 20 pounds during the recent 4 months, just by eating less (i.e. limiting calories intake). And as a part of eating less energetic food I've switched to diet Coke. Read the 'Hacker's Diet', it's enlightening.

Re:Diet sodas

[clang_jangle]

"Sugar substitute" is an oxymoron.

Re:Diet sodas

[pla]

Diet sodas make your body expect energy.

Why?

I could accept the same argument for just about anything else, but a liquid?

Evolutionarily, our bodies "expect" exactly one substance to enter our bodies when we drink - Water. And water has no calories.

That does segue into one of my own objections to the topic, however...


"there are concerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumption by justifying consumption of other caloric foods"...

Well, yeah! I started drinking diet soda (despite a preference for real sugared sodas) primarily because I don't prefer the sugared version enough to give up literally one meal a day to offset the calories. What next, will they regulate going to the gym because of "concerns" that people might actually exercise solely so they can have an extra serving of dessert after dinner?

I don't eat more as a result of diet sodas... I just don't have to eat less.

Re:Diet sodas

[DirePickle]

I'm suspecting that the reasoning comes from the taste. Artificially sweetened thing enters mouth, activates omg-here-come-the-calorie taste buds, the body gears up for it... and waits... and waits... and there are no calories to be had.

Re:Diet sodas

[MightyYar]

I don't eat more as a result of diet sodas...

Are you sure? Research on rats suggests that diet sodas throw off the body's ability to judge caloric intake from flavor, and so you eat more other food in response. Unless you are carefully counting calories, you very well might be eating more as a result of that diet soda.

I know that I've replaced soda and juice with flavored seltzer water and seen my own weight drop.

Re:Diet sodas

[stoolpigeon]

This sounds like those cigarette commercials from the '50s. Please introduce facts into this discussion not strange theories based on 'reasoning'.

Re:Diet sodas

[canajin56]

The wonderful thing about artificial sweetener is that it's sweet. The thing about your body is, it's not magic. It tastes sweet, it starts up insulin production in anticipation of all that sugar you just guzzled. But, there's pretty much no sugar for it to break down. That's a bad thing to happen, high insulin levels with 0 sugar in your system. Your body doesn't like that. It's why you should never have a diet pop on its own. That part I knew from years and years ago. The new research I just saw recently, is that repeated abuse of your insulin in this way makes your body learn that sweetness isn't a good indicator of sugar level. In other words, your body starts making you eat more, because just because it tastes like high energy food, your body doesn't know anymore, so just eat eat eat, to be sure. But that's rats. The thing about people is that we are introspective. We know how much we eat, without relying on our body to tell us. So yeah, if you're thinking about it, you won't eat any more. If you're not, you'll be like "Man I'm still hungry, better have another slice."

Re:Diet sodas

[Muckluck]

Diet sodas make your body expect energy. That energy does not arrive.

Hmm. Diet sodas make your body expect energy? Odd. I am a diabetic and have been for the past 35 of my 39 years of existence. I have always consumed diet cola - even when crappy "Tab" was the only choice other than crappy "Diet RIte". My body does not expect anything from a diet cola other than a need to urinate (solely to balance my body's need for water - the base of all cola - and the effect of receiving it). I drink caffeinated and decaffeinated colas. I am neither over weight nor underweight and @ 5'11" my BMI is 24 - "normal" (although my wife says that I could actually stand to gain a few pounds). Statistically, you can correlate anything you want to if you manipulate the scale.

I smell manipulation...

Re:Diet sodas

[Anonymous Coward]

I drink a lot of beer. I consume perhaps 16 litres of beer per week.
Then when I have some longer periods when I don't drink beer or or other alcohol at all, I get very tired and cranky before I realize that I'm hungry!
Alcohol is fuel and when you are used to having lots of your calories come from it, it's strange to get into habit of eating multiple times a day.

Re:Diet sodas

[ravenshrike]

As you said, you're a diabetic. This means the thing that diet sodas do in normal people, namely, change insulin production rate, they CANNOT do to yours.

Re:Diet sodas

[TheRaven64]

The general form of this is the reason a lot of people are fat. Your body learns over time what things provide what nutrients and stimulates a craving for these when you are shot of these nutrients. If you just eat junk food then when you are low on, for example, vitamin C, you will want to eat junk food and keep wanting to junk food until your body has collected enough vitamin C (which will take a lot). If you also periodically eat fruit, then you will feel hungry for fruit when you are short on vitamins and eating a small amount will stop you from being hungry (unless you are also short of other things you need, of course). This is part of the reason why it is important to eat a varied diet.

Re:Diet sodas

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first switched from sugar to diet sodas I felt a curiously empty sensation about 30 minutes later. My belly was full of sweet fizzy liquid but there was no sugar rush. After about 6 months that went away and my body doesn't look for the sugar any more. I'd probably be better off drinking water but bottled water still costs more than pop does!???!

Re:Diet sodas

[ZorbaTHut]

Tap water, however, costs a whole hell of a lot less. Even if you run it through a filter.

Re:Diet sodas

[Macgrrl]

Evolutionarily, our bodies "expect" exactly one substance to enter our bodies when we drink - Water. And water has no calories.

When you are born, your body expects you to get 100% of your nutritional needs from drinking breast milk.

I'll tell you where

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

when we hang the last burocrat with the intestines of the last congressman.

sorry for the shocking opening statement, but the matter of fact is that as a whole, the western societies are slowly forgeting who actually wields the power and giving carreer politicians and burocrats on the government too much leeway. it's time to take it back and let those people know where the limits are.

left unchecked, these government institutions won't stop untill we're back in the dark ages, withe high taxation, no representation and no freedom at all.

disclaimer: I'm an anarchist.

Re:I'll tell you where

[d3ac0n]

While I may disagree with you on the whole "anarchy" thing, I think we can find common ground in our healthy dislike of Big Government.

About the only thing Big Government is good at is enslaving people and destroying wealth and value.

I prefer Limited (as in limited powers) Representative government that does NOT try and take care of (and thus control) everyone.

And yes Lefties, we can still have fire departments and police and roads and a military with a Limited Representative government. Those things are considered part of the duties of every government, Limited or otherwise.

But we need to stop putting so much faith in governments and bureaucrats to take care of all of us like children. That's the road to slavery, pure and simple.

Re:I'll tell you where

[Anonymous Coward]

Your posting is the road to slavery.

Re:I'll tell you where

[Derosian]

Well said... This practically incorporates all my political beliefs in seven sentences.

Re:I'll tell you where

[Hatta]

If your limited government has police, aren't you still putting faith in government and bureaucrats to take care of you?

Re:I'll tell you where

[ravenshrike]

No, because guns would be perfectly legal. They're primarily there to help provide a relatively impartial justice system for after the crime has been committed, not primarily there to stop crimes in progress. A rather large difference.

Re:I'll tell you where

[hao3]

apparently, your anarchy extends to disregarding spelling also..

Re:I'll tell you where

[BeanThere]

That's the road to slavery, pure and simple.

More likely, the road to mass third-world poverty.

Re:I'll tell you where

[BeanThere]

No, police help defend your essential liberties, not take them away. Police help enforce things like private property rights and your right not to be murdered by your neighbor. "Take care of us all like children" implies a system in which police also make sure you wear a helmet and knee-pads while cycling, that you eat your greens and exercise right, and so on (things which, if you really think about it, are infringements of liberties, not defense of liberties).

Re:I'll tell you where

[Hatta]

No, police help defend your essential liberties, not take them away.

Tell that to the 800,000 people arrested for marijuana each year.

Re:I'll tell you where

[mlund]

And yes Lefties, we can still have fire departments and police and roads and a military with a Limited Representative government.

You know what else is good for a laugh? I keep running into nanny-staters who think that the Police Officers and Fire Fighters have a primary roll of directly defending the individual citizen from violent crime or fire-related death and property loss. Police and Fire services protect the community from the spread of crime and fire incidents. In most cases the initial individual victim's life, his/her property, or his/her family is forfeit in the incident with or without the Police Officer or Fire Fighter.

If someone breaks into your house and robs you, kiss your stuff good-bye. The Police aren't bringing it back. Unless the perpetrator is committing serial crimes in the same area he or she isn't getting brought to justice either. If someone comes to kill you, the police will probably actually investigate the crime post facto, but your survival in an isolated incident isn't something their going to be able to influence. The obligation to protect your life and property (and that of your family) from any given incident rests squarely on you, citizen. The Police don't install home security systems. The Police don't stay in your home with a firearm to repel intruders.

Likewise a fireman isn't responsible for putting in smoke detectors. He doesn't provide you with Fire Insurance for your home and property. He doesn't come to your house and set up an evacuation plan. Count yourself lucky if he comes to a school to encourage your kids to learn basic safety that you are supposed to be teaching and reinforcing yourself.

Nope, Police and Fire services don't protect the individual from crime and fire. They protect the community from the spread of crime and fire from individual incidences. The survival and safety of your family on the individual unit level is your responsibility and the nanny state can't fix that and let you retain your liberties. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

Re:I'll tell you where

[__aarzwb9394]

Police and Fire services protect the community from the spread of crime and fire incidents.

If you can manage to remove your loonybin libertarian spectacles, wipe the foam from your mouth and pause to consider for a moment:

You will find that fire officers/fighters do put a very great stock in rescuing people from house and other fires. Never really heard of them preventing the spread and leaving the people inside to choke.

It would of course be next to possible to distinguish between putting out a fire because it might spread to "the community", and putting out a fire in your house because house fires are a bad thing. I suspect you probably wish fire services could only stop the spread because you see government (any larger than the minimum possible) as an intrinsic evil. "We must set the example, self-reliance is the only way, etc.etc."

Regarding possible taxation of things that are bad for you; you are following a fairly typical libertarian fundamentalist tactic - wilfully conflating banning things and putting taxes on them.

Re:I'll tell you where

[mlund]

If you can manage to remove your loonybin libertarian spectacles, wipe the foam from your mouth and pause to consider for a moment:

Suuuuure.

You will find that fire officers/fighters do put a very great stock in rescuing people from house and other fires. Never really heard of them preventing the spread and leaving the people inside to choke.

What I'm gathering there's a problem here with either Reading Comprehension on your part or Clear Writing on my part. Either that or you fetish for Straw Men.

While rescues of initial victims are a happy event often made possible by the personal heroism of Police Officers and Fire Fighters they are not the primary function of Police and Fire Departments in most towns and counties. Property recovery isn't the main focus of burglary investigations either. Most rescues from burning buildings don't involve single-family homes, but rather extricating people from neighboring apartments to where fire is spreading. If the fire breaks out in your apartment and you're still in there by the time a fire fighter could rescue you then you're most likely dead. That's why fire escapes can be so important.

We have too many people that do not understand even the most basic personal responsibilities in large part because of idiotic, romanticized, and sheltered notions of what emergency service personel can do. I meet people who expect cops to run forensics on smash-and-grabs. I see people pointing fingers when the Fire Department didn't arrive in time to save somebody's kid from a home where that someone didn't replace their smoke-detector batteries. I read people who are utterly horrified at the idea of any citizen carrying a licensed firearm for self defense because "that's what we have police for!"

Police Officers are not your personal bodyguards or home security personel. Fire Fighters aren't psychic, can't fly, and their trucks don't teleport. CSI-[Insert City Here] is fictional. The person who has the primary responsibility for the safety and property of an adult of sound mind and body is that adult. I'd like to think the folks that pretend otherwise fell of the back of a turnip truck, but they usually come from dense urban areas, suburbs, or college campi.

I suspect you probably wish fire services could only stop the spread because you see government (any larger than the minimum possible) as an intrinsic evil. "We must set the example, self-reliance is the only way, etc.etc."

I suspect you might just be a complete nutter.

Regarding possible taxation of things that are bad for you; you are following a fairly typical libertarian fundamentalist tactic - wilfully conflating banning things and putting taxes on them.

I think you may be looking for the poster across the street. He actually posted words about banning or taxing things. Can't miss him.

Re:I'll tell you where

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm not a native english speaker, so ???

your fault that your language's spelling is such a messy clusterfuck with no rules whatsoever...

Money

[Murdoch5]

Yet another example on how the government screws us out of money. There is nothing in this but the money, come on Taxing pop, banning pop, what will that actually do that serves anyone. Will this stop world hunger, cure world wide aids, or more so (and the right answer) get the governors and the soda makes bigger cars and houses.

Re:Money

[sydbarrett74]

Well, it just might help prevent millions of cases of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer -- thereby easing the burden on our pricey healthcare system.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the things we enjoy aren't "good for us." Maybe we should just ban everything enjoyable and be good little worker robots for our corporate overlords.

Re:Money

[Murdoch5]

Thats a pretty big long shot, I Drink a case a coke a week easily and I mean a 24, so far I've seen nothing happen to me, even the the doctor didn't find anything. I'm not just going to use my self as an example, all the coke / pepsi or just soda drinks I know that drink pop fairly heavy, out of all of them NONE, 0 of them have any health problems related to it. If it's not good for the person drinking then they should be the ones not drinking it, don't punish us, the non effected soda lovers.

Re:Money

[tokenshi]

"Will this stop world hunger, cure world wide aids..." well, considering those are the ONLY TWO PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD, I can see why you're so against a tax that would most likely: A) Lower the rates of Type II Diabetes (being a Type I diabetic that wasn't diagnosed until last year (at the age of 27 @_@) I feel this is a prudent move) B) Help lower obesity rates, which will in turn: i) lower heart disease ii) hypertension and blood pressure iii) problems cause from electrolyte imbalances. C) Lower over all health care costs. That's the theory anyway. One thing that I have learned in my short time on this planet is that we can't be trusted to care for ourselves, or think for ourselves (said with no sarcasm whatsoever.) The average american knows less about proper diet and exercise than they do about world geography, which is downright scary. They would drink whatever Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh told them to without so much as a second thought. We haven't grown up yet, so we might as well accept the necessity of a babysitter.

Re:Money

[tokenshi]

Out of curiosity, what are your vital stats? (Height and Weight I mean...) Are you sedentary or do you get a decent amount of physical activity? The flaw in your argument is the same that smokers use... Yes, there are smokers who are NEVER effected by their habit, but a lot of people are, negatively, Hence the tax, to dissuade people from doing something bad for them. While you have had no ill-effects (yet) from your massive sugar consumption, your chances of things like type II diabetes, obesity and heart disease are exacerbated by having a poor diet (re: drinking a 24 pack of soda a week.) Would you rather keep drinking soda, then get type II diabetes and be stuck spending a huge amount of money on either subcutaneous or oral insulin prescriptions? You highlight perfectly why we need this tax. People, due to a combination of factors, fail to make the proper choices regarding healthy living, even when confronted with overwhelming scientific evidence. Just because you can haz cheeseburger doesn't mean you should haz cheeseburger.

Re:Money

[Ironsides]

How will taxing zero calorie beverages prevent even one case of diabetes, heart disease or cancer? Also, shouldn't it by up to me what I want to pay for my healthcare costs and not you?

Re:Money

[zippthorne]

They would drink whatever Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh told them to without so much as a second thought. We haven't grown up yet, so we might as well accept the necessity of a babysitter.

There are worse things to drink than Snapple.

Re:Money

[ravenshrike]

Really? I find Snapple to be pretty vile myself.

Re:Money

[Murdoch5]

Ya okay well the proper diet as laid out by a dietitian or nutritionist means nothing to me. Just eat what you want and make sure you eat enough of the different food groups. I'm sick of people saying that we can't take care of our self's that's so much BS it's sad.

People who get over weight, that AREN'T over weight because of medical reason that can't be controlled, can not turn around and blame the food. It's there fault 100% if you eat your self to the size of a Hippo then deal with it. If you have to ride with motor assistance because you can't put down a piece of pie or a burger then live with it. It's the same way here, if you can't learn how your body deals with certain food then you A) Have a very very low IQ and B) Need to follow "the balanced diet".

You want to bring up hypertension and blood pressure, what about them. There controllable and completely in the hands of the person to deal with and watch out for. If your worried go to a doctor and in 5 min you get to find out that the burger you were to hungry to put down in the last 10 years every day has become the reason you ride in a cart with a flag saying "Hey I'm a fat ass who has no self control". I do want to make it clear that I'm only targeting people who DON'T have a chronic medical condition.
High blood pressure is not that hard to control for the love of god, Taxing a soda drink or any drink doesn't fix the problem. If you eat with out thinking about what your eating then I wonder what will happen. There's no need to eat 5-6 serving of Veg and Fruit + 2-3 serving of grain, it's as simple as "Hey I ate a plate of chicken wings last night with Beer so tonight lets have hmmm a salad with wraps or something". People who are clogging the health care system because they are pigs, lazy fat gross examples of humans need to be put down like sick animals.

The problem here is people who are to stupid and dumb to see the out come of there actions. If you can't read a label or even apply one ounce of common sense to your food and drink then you don't deserve to eat. Why not think of food as a job, if you don't do the work you don't get paid. Same thing here, you want to drink a case of coke (fine) then at least follow it up with an apple or orange or heaven forbid a salad.

The truth is we can or at least I can think my / our selfs. Getting sick / overweight because people don't doesn't make there problem our problem. There is only one person we need to care about on earth and that's us. If you make sure you get your check ups down, get your phsyicals like you should on a regular basis and just apply a bit of common sense in life to food then you have nothing to worry about.

Any thing that happens outside of that isn't related. You can eat perfect and still have high blood pressure, you can eat better then some books on a balanced diet and still be over weight but if you at least are able to say to your self that you know whats going in and your prepared to deal with it then you have no reason to be punished with a Tax on food.

It's just very simple and any one that can't see this view point needs help, I never just put points of there to be looked over, I assert my point as a universal maxim. If your not ready to stand behind your ideals as a maxim then you really have no point and no reason for existence in the first place.

Re:Money

[Murdoch5]

Smoking and Food can't be compared, and yes I do work out on a regular basis because I like to eat and drink foods like coke and burgers. Don't put in the time eating the food if your going to let it sit. BTW I'm 6'1" 200 Pb and currently in great health as I get my physicals done twice a year. I'm make sure to cover my bases, it's not hard for others to do the same.

Re:Money

[tokenshi]

I had a hard time reading that due to flagrant violations of English grammar, punctuation and spelling, this does not bode well for your argument that people who can't make the right decisions for themselves have a 'Low IQ' In fact, given your antagonism, based entirely on personal bias and anecdotal evidence, and not on anything empirical, illustrates a lack of understanding of the argument at large. You give people guns, they will shoot someone, you give people easy access to poisons, they will hurt themselves or others. You openly admit that, while you do exercise, that you don't eat a well balanced diet, so at BEST your argument boils down to "I haven't had any ill-effects Yet." For the record: I am 6'1, 195lbs and 10% Body Fat, as a TYPE I diabetic (meaning it's a disease, not self-inflicted,) President/Coach of the KU Judo Team, and otherwise incredibly active, but even I struggle with avoiding soda's, and they can quite literally cause damage to myself. "If your (you're) not ready to stand behind your (right!) ideals as a maxim then you really have no point and no reason for existence in the first place" --- Point noted, eat a bullet, douche.

Re:Money

[Murdoch5]

The evidence is evident if you think about it. I didn't state any links to back my self or references to medical text but then again you didn't either in your reply to me and before I posted my argument you didn't to make your points. So I fail to see why you can call some one out of the same thing your guilty of. As for you being a diabetic, if you had read the post then you'd clearly see how I state several times that it's not directed toward medical conditions which can't be helped.

You can give a person a gun and they have the choice to shoot it!, They have the choice to use the poison and they have a choice to do anything in there life. I know many many people 50+ who haven't had ill effects because of an unbalanced diet, it's not a problem until the person chooses to make it a problem. Which is completely what I was talking about.

Clearly you missed the clear point of my post, which didn't need any hard evidence to back anything up. I didn't make any legal clam or say anything which needed to be referenced as a fact. I simply said if people can't control there own life's why should we have to pay for it.

Really it's more of a stupidity tax, you can't think so pay up!

Enjoying your hope and change yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoying your hope and change yet?

paternalistic overreaching ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, its ok to make drugs illegal. Its ok to have anti-sodomy laws. Its ok to have laws that stop two people that love one another from getting married. But when it come to soda filled with high fructose corn syrup (which also contains mercury) its "government needs to stop interfering in our lives"

Re:paternalistic overreaching ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, its ok to make drugs illegal. Its ok to have anti-sodomy laws. Its ok to have laws that stop two people that love one another from getting married. But when it come to soda filled with high fructose corn syrup (which also contains mercury) its "government needs to stop interfering in our lives"

Howsabout having government stop interfering in sugar importation and subsidized corn production so we can get sodas made with real sugar again?

Re:paternalistic overreaching ?

[mcornelius]

and have cheaper ethanol!

Re:paternalistic overreaching ?

[sixteenbitsamurai]

Right, its ok to make drugs illegal. Its ok to have anti-sodomy laws. Its ok to have laws that stop two people that love one another from getting married.

No, it isn't ok. It's total bullshit. In this country, we don't need health care reform or tax reform or patent reform, we need government reform. Nothing less than a well-written amendment to our constitution could ever fix the problem, either. In this country, you should have the right to do anything you damn well please, so long as what you do does not directly harm another or infringe another's right to do whatever the hell they want to do. And it should never be the government's place to decide what you're allowed to do with or put into your body. Furthermore, these rights should never be restricted based on whether or not anyone finds any action taken by anyone offensive or inappropriate, unless said action is meant to directly affect another in a negative or hurtful manner, such as harassment or slander or assault.

My emphasis on the word "directly" here is important; people seem to think that because they don't like something, there ought to be a law to stop it or impede it. That's a load of bullshit, too. If two people of the same sex get married, it has absolutely no effect on you other than if you think it's weird or wrong. If a person uses drugs and fucks up their life, it was their life to fuck up; as for the people they hurt because of their drug abuse, yes, that's something they can be held accountable for and the law should reflect that, just like it does with drinking alcohol and driving. If a person wants to ask you if you found Jesus, that's their right, just like it's your right to tell them to fuck off. And banning and taxing food products or even drugs over health concerns? So long as the consumer knows the risks, it should be their choice. None of these these things directly affect anyone except those who choose to do them, and they only reason there should ever be a law for anything is to ensure no real harm comes to an individual because of another individual's direct action against them.

This country has a lot of issues it needs to resolve and this would by no means fix them all, but it would be a good step in the right direction. Instead of relying on laws to stop something people don't like even if it doesn't affect them, they can just deal with it; it's a free country, or at least it's supposed to be.

Good policy

[nbauman]

Try this exercise:

Imagine your wife or girlfriend.

Now imagine your wife or girlfriend, with a can of soda constantly in her hand, weighing 300 pounds.

(Next exercise: Imagine your wife or girlfriend imagining you with a can of soda constantly in your hand, weighing 300 pounds.)

Re:Good policy

[Agamous Child]

Your assumption is that slashdotters have wives or girlfriends, so the whole argument is moot.

Try this exercise:

Imagine your wife or girlfriend.

Now imagine your wife or girlfriend, with a can of soda constantly in her hand, weighing 300 pounds.

(Next exercise: Imagine your wife or girlfriend imagining you with a can of soda constantly in your hand, weighing 300 pounds.)

Re:Good policy

[slim]

Serious question: what if 300 pound women is your thing?

Re:Good policy

[Culture20]

Imagine your wife or girlfriend. Now imagine your wife or girlfriend, with a can of soda constantly in her hand, weighing 300 pounds.

Imagine myself with a can of soda constantly in my hand, weighing 160 pounds; reasonably trim. Not everyone has a broken metabolism.

Re:Good policy

[magarity]

Now imagine your wife or girlfriend, with a can of soda constantly in her hand, weighing 300 pounds
 
Besides this horrible image, what, exactly, is your point? So the person in this situation doesn't care about themselves enough to exercise and/or eat properly, the spouse is unable or unwilling to intervene enough, so your solution is that the government has to do it? Why, oh why, do we need government to protect us from ourselves??? Let her be 300lbs or on the way there, and she and her family must deal with it. Not everyone else. It does NOT take a village to enforce thinness.

Re:Good policy

[Anonymous Coward]

We slashdotters have what?

In soviet Russia, the food taxes you... Oh wait.

Re:Good policy

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon - this is slashdot - all we have are imaginary wives/girlfriends!

And if she's imaginary anyway, no way she's going to weigh 300 pounds!

Re:Good policy

[MightyYar]

what if 300 pound women is your thing?

We should keep Texas as a protected wildlife grazing reserve.

Re:Good policy

[JaredOfEuropa]

Imagine you and your wife looking fit as a fiddle, but with short tempers, twitchy eyebrows and a serious case of the munchies all day, because the government allows you to have only weak tea, raw carrot and soybean pudding?

Fix your own damn diet, and don't go looking for excuses to have it fixed for you and everybody else.

Re:Good policy

[maxume]

Come to America.

Re:Good policy

[machine321]

Now imagine your wife or girlfriend, with a can of soda constantly in her hand, weighing 300 pounds

Besides this horrible image, what, exactly, is your point?

Yeah, 300 lbs is a horrible, horrible image. Every woman should be 5'3" and 90 lbs. I wonder why Slashdotters have a reputation for never getting laid?

Re:Good policy

[couchslug]

"Now imagine your wife or girlfriend, with a can of soda constantly in her hand, weighing 300 pounds."

Too skinny.

(I'm a feeder, you insensitive clod!)

Re:Good policy

[dswensen]

Try this exercise:

Imagine yourself, building a giant man made of straw.

Imagine other posters burning it.

Now imagine yourself smiling with satisfaction, convinced you've actually made a relevant point.

Re:Good policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Now imagine your wife AND girlfriend, wrestling in a pool of jello.
Now imagine your wire and girlfriend, each weighing 300lbs, wrestling in a BIG pool of jello.

Pop doesn't make people fat, if it did I'd be the fattest person in the world. I'm 150lbs, 6'2". Underweight.
I practically live on pop. Yeah, it's anecdotal, but who in this world is obese and drinks more than they eat? (no, lard drinkers isn't a realistic answer)

Re:Good policy

[ravenshrike]

Clearly you haven't been to Iowa or Kansas.

Re:Good policy

[Omestes]

Outside of being around 7'5", no one can weigh 300lbs and be healthy. Attractiveness is generally correlated (in an evolutionary sense) with the health of our mates, therefore someone who is 300lbs, on the whole, will not be attractive. If that is attractive to you, sobeit, but it is more a fetish than normal.

Your average supermodel also falls into this category of "not healthy = not attractive", the people who find supermodels hot are the same people who think the airbrushed-to-the-point-where-it-might-as-well-be-fake Maxim models are hot (same for Playboy, sometimes I wonder if they stopped having actual women in them, and settle for 3D models and CGI). But then again these are the same people who probably love cartoon women. Its called "hyper sexuality" where you take normal "sexual organs" and over emphasize them.... Actually most run-way models fall into the "legal pedophile" mode, since they look like adolescents as far as their features go.

In the middle you, of course, have healthy women who may or not be attractive based on features other than weight (mostly symmetry, it turns out, which oddly, is another sign of health).

That said, if my girlfriend started to gain weight rapidly, I'd insist she go to a doctor, to make sure it isn't a medical issue. If it wasn't, I would tell her to watch her weight/behavior, since obesity that isn't based on glandular problems generally represents a personality problem or character flaw, and often a mental illness. If that failed I would dump her, since our lifestyles, and personalities, drifted apart. The weight, in this case, is nothing more than a symptom of deeper problems.

And yes, my girlfriend is 5'3, and no, she doesn't weight 90lbs.

Re:Good policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine your wife or girlfriend.

Whoa, you lost me there.

Good idea, or overstepping

[uuddlrlrab]

Coffee fanatic here, and I'm honestly not sure. The tax is definitely more acceptable/reasonable than bans, the latter being something left to the FDA when it finds that something actually contains cyanide or some nasty bull$#!^. At least this is a step in the right direction, but they need to tread very lightly when it comes to what *adults* *choose* to drink (see 1st Amendment) and focus more on institutions that supply food to kids (see schools, after-school programs, etc), diet education programs, etc... Also, manufacturers of beverages should be required to help fund both long & short term studies that evaluate the effects of high fructose (or whatever all the "bad" ingredients are) drinks on various aspects of health across a variety of ages (overseen by FDA of course, to reduce bias), then make publicly available said results. If the drinks are really that bad, maybe soda cans will start carrying a Surgeon Generals warning just like cigarettes.

Re:Good idea, or overstepping

[bcmm]

1st amendment? What does taxing beverages have to do with freedom of speech? In any case, America already has an awful lot of laws about what slightly harmful, slightly addictive things adults are allowed to consume.

Re:Good idea, or overstepping

[uuddlrlrab]

Did I fudge up? Yeah, I fudged up. Awesome. Revised: see either 10 Amendment or somewhere or other in the Constitution (I'm too lazy & tired to actually search for the applicable part)

Re:Good idea, or overstepping

[Anonymous Coward]

...but they need to tread very lightly when it comes to what *adults* *choose* to drink (see 1st Amendment)...

Umm....how does the First Amendment apply here? The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads thus;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you see where is says you and I have a right to drink whatever beverage we so choose, then I'll show you where all laws against cocaine consumption in the United States are unconstitutional.

I generally agree with the rest of your post. There's no good reason that public schools have junk food; we accept that schools are responsible for children while they're at school, so they absolutely should be strict on what food is served there, including vending machines. Furthermore, our subsidizing of high-fructose corn-syrup is unconscionable. It's just incredibly stupid and wasteful all around, and I say this as someone from downstate Illinois.

Anyway, concerning Saletan's paternalistic handwringing, I find him full of crap. There's a great deal more paternalistic "Big Brother" parallels with the rising American police state, yet I can't seem to find any articles by him on Slate.com voicing concerns about this. Instead, he's wetting himself over the possibility of having to pay a few cents more on a can of Fresca? Please! And what's his whining about outdoor bans on smoking in public parks in NYC all about? Maybe Mayor Bloomberg has "paternalistic" reasons for wanting the ban, but here's my reason: if I'm walking in the park, I shouldn't have to smoke with you. You can smoke all you want in your own home, but when you're around other people, you're negatively affecting them, and when you're in a public place, we have public rules (e.g. no defecating on the sidewalk) so that everyone can enjoy the public place equally. That's why it's called "public".

When the government actually proposes banning soda, then I'll object to heavy-handed Singapore-style government. But making crappy carbonated beverages *slightly* more expensive is simply not worth getting worked up over and getting paid to write a vapid article about, fears of a "slippery slope" notwithstanding.

Re:Good idea, or overstepping

[Hatta]

they need to tread very lightly when it comes to what *adults* *choose* to drink (see 1st Amendment)

Try the 9th amendment instead. Though I can understand how you'd forget about it. Everyone else has too.

Re:Good idea, or overstepping

[bcmm]

There is an amendment which says "no passing any laws which could possible restrict any freedoms"? While it would be totally awesome if there was a bit of the US constitution which said "and, by the way, anarchy!", I'll believe you when you specify which bit you're talking about.

Re:Good idea, or overstepping

[logicnazi]

Yah, and people like you forget that the amendments were only restrictions on federal power when the constitution was adopted and given that taxes on sweets are likely to be imposed by the states it's unclear if the 9th ammendment is even relevant to the discussion.

The supreme court has determined that the 14th amendment incorporates much (but not all) of the bill or rights against the states but it's not clear that incorporation even makes sense for the 9th amendment. I mean the 9th merely says that other rights are reserved to the states or to the people but doesn't specify which so even if incorporated there isn't any state action that could facially violate the literal meaning of the 9th.

And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[antifoidulus]

dependence culture in the US. I've lived in both East Asia and Europe for the past 6 years of my life and every time I come back home I am just shocked at the utter disdain towards people who don't drive. In much of Europe(and a lesser extent in Japan), cyclists are treated with respect when they are on the road and there are a lot of facilities set up for cyclists to commute, futhermore in residential areas there are plenty of pedestrian areas. As a result kids(and adults) can work exercise into their daily routine safely and easily. Now compare that with most of the United States, where if there are any pedestrian signals at all, they last for a very short period of time(I was in Phoenix and I swear the walk signal only lasted for 15 seconds when crossing a 6 lane road), there are few special paths for pedestrians, and anyone that doesn't drive a car is treated as if they are worthless as a human being. I've heard tons of stories from cyclists in the US detailing how people in vehicles purposely drive as close as possible to them, cut them off, throw things at them etc.

As a result most Americans never walk anywhere simply because it isn't safe to do so. We only walk from our front door to the car and from the parking lot to the office. Its no wonder why Americans are the fattest people in the world. We need a radical cultural shift away from this whole notion that people who don't drive are worthless human beings and away from this dependence on cars

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[tippen]

No, most Americans don't walk/bike because most cities in the US are spread out. Cities here just aren't as dense as in Europe. In the southern US, there's also the additional weather factor. Walking/biking in Phoenix?!

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Culture20]

I've heard tons of stories from cyclists in the US detailing how people in vehicles purposely drive as close as possible to them, cut them off, throw things at them etc.

Let me guess, they were cycling at 17mph two-abreast on a 45mph road at sundown without proper reflective gear or flashing lights? American cyclists are predominantly stupid and ignore traffic laws to their own detriment. They are far safer on sidewalks than on the roads.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Phoenix. The walk may last 15 seconds, but the flashing "don't walk" before the light changes is almost always set to the amount of time it takes to cross the street at a walking pace.

The walk time might get cut into by a dedicated two way left situation but I'd say 15 seconds for people to *start* walking across is more than enough.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see...
No helmet.
Talking on a cell phone (regardless of legality, it's a distraction).
Riding on the wrong side of the road, whether on the sidewalk or in a bike lane.
Riding at night without a bike light as required by law.
Running red lights.
Of course, motorists are no better when it comes to obeying or disobeying traffic laws.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[mcornelius]

In the southern US, there's also the additional weather factor. Walking/biking in Phoenix?!

Yeah because walking around Buffalo in January would be so much better!

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[pla]

I've heard tons of stories from cyclists in the US detailing how people in vehicles purposely drive as close as possible to them, cut them off, throw things at them etc.

First, I agree with you in spirit... I fully believe that the US having such poor pedestrian and cycling accommodations largely ties in with the current obesity epidemic (though I would point out that the latter doesn't exist solely as a US phenomenon).

That said, you have to understand that American cyclists, for the most part, ride like complete assholes. Despite a legal obligation to obey the exact same rules of the road as cars, they completely ignore 99% of those rules. They don't feel a need to obey speed limits (in either direction - They'll blow through a 15mph zone as fast as their bike can go, and they'll crawl along in a 45mph zone as though on a leisurely ride in the park). They routinely ignore traffic signals, running red lights and stop signs whenever convenient. They make no strong distinction between "road", "median", and "sidewalk", using whichever will get them to their destination quickest (ie, they'll pass a half mile line of cars in the right shoulder, only to proceed to run the light at the intersection all those cars have waited for). I've actually had my mirror clipped by a cyclist trying to squeeze up to a light between two lanes of traffic (and the bastard had the nerve to try to accuse me of queuing up at the light too close to the other lane!).

Now, as with any generalization, this doesn't hold true of all cyclists. But I've seen a hell of a lot more of them behaving as I describe above, than I have obeying traffic laws. When you wonder why Americans generally hold cyclists in low regard, you now have your answer.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't safe to walk anywhere in the United States? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[eulernet]

Its no wonder why Americans are the fattest people in the world.

That, and the fact that americans consume too much sugar, and especially high-fructose corn syrup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

In Europe, producing high-fructose corn syrup is more expensive than the other sugars.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[TheTempest]

I live in Arlington, VA and this is a very bike friendly area (as are some of the suburbs beyond). There are numerous bike trails and bike lanes throughout the area.

I bike to work and for pleasure regularly and generally find that the driving public is very polite. I think often that is because they can clearly see that I'm commuting to work. When I bike for pleasure I stay off the roads as much as possible.

I do regularly see bikers acting like assholes, but then again I see the same from other drivers when I'm in my car. The difference is that bikers run a much higher risk by violating the laws than drivers do.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[tippen]

Having grown up in Texas, thinking about winter doesn't occur to me much beyond a couple of weeks a year :-)

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[arthurpaliden]

Or the gun.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[GeckoAddict]

I really wish I had mod points, cause this post is exactly correct. This is why I don't respect most cyclists. If there's one that's not riding like a complete a-hole, he gets the respect and space he deserves on the road.

And to the GP's point of the 15 second walk signal: the walk signal tells you it's OK to start crossing. Usually these will turn to the flashing don't walk, but they'll stay that way as long as it takes an average person to walk through the intersection. The lights don't actually change until it's solid, which is usually past the time anyone's still walking.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[westlake]

I've lived in both East Asia and Europe for the past 6 years of my life and every time I come back home I am just shocked at the utter disdain towards people who don't drive.

Its no wonder why Americans are the fattest people in the world

The U.S. ranks ninth.

Canada 35th, about the same as Mongolia, Germany, Cuba or the Bahamas.

Japan, 163.

But below that you are not talking "thin" - you are talking "starved." World's Fattest Countries

The pedestrian and the cyclist of the 1890s felt persecuted as well. It has much to do with the way the American city evolved.

The eastern American city is the creation of the railroad and the streetcar.

There was never any great need or desire to build cities as densely packed as those of Europe or Asia - and the migration of the middle class to the suburbs was well under away before the American Civil War.

The American city of the south and southwest is a creation of the air conditioner. Their explosive growth belongs to the post-war years of the 1950s. A generation earlier, they looked - and felt - very different.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[slim]

It's a chicken and egg situation.

Phoenix is too spread out for non-drivers, because during its biggest period of growth, planners assumed cars would continue to be ubiquitous.

Cars continue to be ubiquitous because the city isn't planned for any other form of transport.

In older cities - Santa Fe, New York City, most European cities (with the exception of a few "new towns") you can see how a differently designed city can make driving less necessary.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[d3ac0n]

I actually live in the WNY area, and work in downtown Buffalo (such as it is) and let me tell you, you are DEAD ON. Heck, even walking the 2 blocks from my parking spot to my building is awful during the winter! I can't imagine trying to walk or bike it!

And although I COULD take the light rail in to work, not only would it cost more on a monthly basis than driving, it is significantly slower, so I would have to get up even earlier, AND I would still have to drive a good 10 minutes to get to the closest station!

It's faster and cheaper for me to just drive my car and park it.

Oh, and to the GP, regarding car attitudes in the East, try visiting China sometime. Since they pretty much gave up Socialism (economically, if not politically) their car use is skyrocketing. Their highway system is based on America's system, right down to the color, size, and positioning of the signs. Within a few years China is going to be just as much about cars as America is, and they have 1/3rd the Planet's population.

(Interesting side factoid: The most popular car make in China? Buick.)

Bicycles are nice, and walking is healthy. but for a modern transportation system, they suck. Even the Bicycle obsessed Chinese have figured it out. It's about time leftists and bicycle fans in the West accepted it.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[slim]

It isn't safe to walk anywhere in the United States? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

It would sound absurd, if that is what he'd said. What he actually said was:

most Americans never walk anywhere simply because it isn't safe to do so

... which is reasonable if you assume "never" is an exaggeration.

Americans are usually astonished when I tell them I walk 20 minutes to work. When I visit my colleagues in Tampa, I stay in a hotel less than half a mile from the office. Yet I drive from the hotel to the office, because to walk involves crossing 6 lanes with no pedestrian signal.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

blow through a 15mph zone as fast as [they] can go

crawl along in a 45mph zone

routinely ignore traffic signals, running red lights and stop signs whenever convenient

That's been my experience with a lot of people driving cars as well....

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Sir_Lewk]

As a city biker, I can fully agree. We're dicks. (but damned if we don't get there faster ;))

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always put on another sweater/jacket. You can't take off more clothes than all of them.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[chrb]

they'll crawl along in a 45mph zone as though on a leisurely ride in the park

How on earth do you expect the average cyclist to travel at 45mph?! Even Lance Armstrong at his best is only averages 30mph. Have you ever considered that the fact you are being effortlessly propelled forward at 45mph by a motorised vehicle just might, possibly, impact your perception of speed in slower vehicles? It is perfectly legal for a cyclist to travel at 5mph, just as it's perfectly legal for a tractor to travel at 5mph. Not all vehicles you meet on the highways will be travelling at high speed, and if you can't cope with that situation calmly and safely, then you shouldn't be driving.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[EEBaum]

Sidewalks are actually a quite dangerous place for cyclists. One of the most dangerous interactions between cyclists and motorists is the intersection between sidewalks and parking lot entry-exit. The visibility can be exceptionally poor, the cyclists are going faster than the motorists expect, and sometimes the motorists simply don't look at the sidewalk. This is in addition to the need to dodge bus stops, telephone poles, pedestrians, and other cyclists on a fairly narrow path. Dedicated bike paths are one thing, but run of the mill sidewalks are a poor location for cyclists.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[chrb]

They don't feel a need to obey speed limits

What percentage of motorised vehicle drivers don't feel a need to obey speed limits? Two thirds? 80%? 87%? As subgroups of vehicle operator go, cyclists are not the problem - the majority of cyclists would have difficulty breaking the limit in a 15mph zone, nevermind anything higher.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[mobby_6kl]

Cyclists are assholes everywhere. Why yes, Mr Fixed-gear bike riding douchebag, please go ahead and squeeze up to the light we're all waiting for, and then take off while the light is still red. This way, you'll be in the middle of the intersection when cars take off, making them unable to pass you. The only other thing about bikes that pisses me off about as much are the assholes slowly crawling up steep hills on narrow curvy country roads with lots of blind turns. Thanks for signaling for me to pass you, jackass, but I'm not going to risk a head-on collision just because you can't be bothered to pull over for a second and let me through.

Erm, enough with the ranting. Not all of them ride like that of course, and I have no problems with them hurting themselves while jumping off cliffs or stairs. Anyway, I don't think biking has much to do with obesity to be honest. I am in Europe, and nobody that I know rides their bike to work or school, and the hordes of bikers are nowhere to be seen during the morning rush hours. I suspect that more people ride recreationally than in the US, but still nowhere near enough to explain the differences in obesity.

Even if you look at Denmark, with the highest biking km/person/year in the EU, biking only accounts for around 12-13% of km traveled. This figure is somewhat smaller for the Netherlands, but then a bit lower is Germany at about 4%, while Spain is 0.4%. Yet, the Spanish are actually significantly thinner. Italians don't rely on their bikes as much as the Dutch, buth again they're the thinner ones.

I don't have any research on this, but I'd say walking affects the obesity rates much more than biking does. While walking accounts for even less distance traveled than biking, this is mainly because walking is fucking slow and you can't actually go further than a few blocks in a reasonable amount of time. At the same time, many more people walk than ride bikes, and I think this is what makes the difference. I don't know if the data supports this, but at a glance there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation, though maybe that's partially because the variation in walking is much lower between the countries (115 km range vs 915 for biking).

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Vellmont]

I think you're overstating the case just a bit. I have a co-worker who cycles 15 miles to work during spring-fall. He's never reported anyone throwing anything at him or people intentionally trying to harm him, mostly just people not paying attention. There's certainly a danger, but it's not malicious.

On the other hand 16 years ago I used to bicycle along roads a lot on the shoulder with plenty of room. A small minority of people would scream, yell, and honk their horns clearly to just be complete dickweeds.

I do have another story from the mid 90s though that supports your idea. (This story comes from a friend of mine). He was in college at the time and taking a bio-chemistry class. One day they had manager from Ecolab who was a guest speaker talking about life at Ecolab and whatnot. He spoke about one candidate for was interviewing for a job, who (as he put it in a derogatory tone) "RODE A BICYCLE TO THE INTERVIEW!!!". Riding a bike to the interview was just clearly a HUGE negative in this guys opinion. He just couldn't get over it, mentioned it several times. In his mind the bicycle rider was some kind of utter and complete freak, since NORMAL people drive cars to interviews.

So I think there's a small portion of people who never quite grew up, and think that riding bicycles is for only for children, or at least an indication of some form of "deviance".

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[misexistentialist]

Your complaints would be solved if there were dedicated bike lanes. Average bicyclist behavior would also improve once there are large numbers of "professional" bicyclists commuting in these lanes, and when these bicyclists are traveling in an environment of mutual respect with drivers, rather than occasional bicyclists being thrown into a free-for-all on roads designed exclusively for cars.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Khyber]

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/lifestyles/x1909890410

That is how I expect the average cyclist to do 45. Get a damned aerodynamic bike. Hell just putting a shell with good aerodynamics over the front tire alone would drastically improve the ease that one could pedal up to 35 MPH. A good gear cluster and proper workup through the gears would probably get you to 50 MPH.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[drsmithy]

Americans are usually astonished when I tell them I walk 20 minutes to work.

What's really funny is those same people would think nothing of _driving_ for twice that time to get to work, spending most of it in traffic probably not moving any faster that you are. :)

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

When you wonder why Americans
generally hold cyclists in low regard, you now have your answer.

Not really. Americans hold cyclists in low regard because they see a car as an essential item like a house or a gun. The line of reasoning goes something like this:

Cars are essential -> cyclists would drive cars if they could afford it -> cyclists are poor -> poor people are lazy -> cyclists are worthless scum.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[chrb]

though highways do have posted, if rarely enforced, minimums

There could only be a very, very small minority of highways in the world where it would be legal to cycle and there is a minimum speed requirement. In fact, having never seen one, I am not convinced that there are any. The majority of highways in the world have no minimum speed, and those that do (e.g. motorways) are unlikely to permit cycling.

A 150lbs lump of meat on top of a 2d trapezoid with wheels, vs a 3000lbs partially armored 110KW mobile power plant

So what? In a collision between a car and an articulated lorry (or semi-trailer truck) the car will come off worse, and at high speeds a fatality is likely. By your logic, car drivers should not drive cars on the highway, because there is some possibility of being in such a collision. 43,313 drivers and occupants of motor vehicles were killed in collisions in the USA in 2008. Should everyone stop using cars because there is some risk? If your answer is no, then why should cyclists stop cycling because there is some risk? 4,749 pedestrians were struck and killed by motor vehicles in the USA in 2008. Should people stop walking across roads because there is some risk?

A study in New York showed that 70-92% of drivers were at-fault in accidents where pedestrians and cyclists had been killed, but 74% didn't even get a ticket. The real problem here is people like yourself, who consider getting in a vehicle akin to putting on a suit of armour, and the justice system, which fails to enforce laws against aggressive drivers who put the lives of others at risk.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, there are plenty of sane cyclists--you've just selected for the ones that aren't. There definitely would be no excuse for bicyclists throwing beer bottles at cars etc... I've never seen that happen though.

Secondly, the consequences for being a prick or being inattentive on a bicycle are much different than when driving a car. If you ride a bicycle and cut off a Tahoe, you're F***'ed. If you're in a Tahoe and cut off a bicycle, you simply say you didn't see the bicyclist and the bicyclist is still F***'ed, typically without serious consequences to the driver.

So yes, there are idiots on both sides of the fence--but remember on your high suburban, the one splattered to the bumper will be the cyclists in both cases. So saying bicyclists are stupid does not excuse poor driving.

Finally, one thing to keep in mind is it is sometimes necessary as a bicyclist to break laws. Most camera controlled traffic lights will not pick up bicyclists. Trust me, this personally pisses me off since I'd much prefer to get a green light.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There could only be a very, very small minority of highways in the world where it would be legal to cycle and there is a minimum speed requirement. In fact, having never seen one, I am not convinced that there are any. The majority of highways in the world have no minimum speed, and those that do (e.g. motorways) are unlikely to permit cycling.

In many states in the US local traffic laws require that a vehicle which is causing on obstruction to traffic, such as one traveling significantly below the average speed on that roadway, must pull over and allow the obstructed traffic to pass. I don't think I've ever seen a bicyclist do that, even when there have been 10+ cars backed up behind one cyclist going 5mph.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[j_sp_r]

Helmets on the bike are for foreign people anyway. And using a cellphone at 20km/h plain sucks.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[j_sp_r]

Ever seen earodynamic bikes on the road? Beside SUV'? It's suicide. And you cannot take a case of beer and groceries with you in those death-traps. Also I expect my bike to be outside in the rain/cold/hot 365 years a day (no place inside) so a need a though gear cluster, not a precision made thing.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[farnsworth]

That said, you have to understand that American cyclists, for the most part, ride like complete assholes. Despite a legal obligation to obey the exact same rules of the road as cars, they completely ignore 99% of those rules. They don't feel a need to obey speed limits (in either direction - They'll blow through a 15mph zone as fast as their bike can go, and they'll crawl along in a 45mph zone as though on a leisurely ride in the park). They routinely ignore traffic signals, running red lights and stop signs whenever convenient.

There are many areas in the us that do have separate rules for cyclists, eg "treat a red light like a stop sign" and "treat a stop sign like a yeild sign". The fact is that such laws (whether explicit or de facto) make riding and driving safer for everyone. Have you ever tried to get up to speed on a bike from a red light with a dozen cars behind you, some of which cannot see you? That's dangerous for both the cyclist and the drivers. It's much safer for the cyclist to pass through the red light as soon as it is safe, and get up to speed on his own. And a cyclist, not being enclosed in a sound-proof box with little windows can determine if it's safe very easily.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that some cyclists are reckless and self-centered, but this problem is greatly exaggerated. "American cyclists, for the most part, ride like complete assholes." This is more a matter of perception than reality.

The purpose of road regulations is generally safety, so it is natural to look at who's hurting whom and who's causing the accidents. It would be helpful to consider some actual "data," which contains things known as "facts," rather than mere anecdotal evidence, so let's look at 1996-2005 statistics for New York City, which has a disproportionate share of aggressive cyclists because of bike courier services and, some might argue, by virtue of it being NYC.

In accidents where a bicyclist was seriously injured by a vehicle, of the cases where the cause of the accident was documented, the driver was solely at fault in 64% of accidents, while the cyclist was solely at fault in 24%. The city averaged one pedestrian killed by a cyclist each year, but over 190 killed by a vehicle each year. Of course, zero drivers were killed by cyclists, but many drivers were killed by other drivers.

Also, who must suffer the consequences? You had your mirror clipped. Did you have to replace it? Were you hurt? When there is a serious accident between a car and a bike, most of the time (as above) it is the driver's fault, and the cyclist suffers the consequences; sometimes it is the cyclist's fault, and the cyclist suffers the consequences; sometimes both are at fault, and it is the cyclist who suffers the consequences. When bikers are irresponsible, they are generally only putting themselves at risk; when drivers are irresponsible, they put other people at risk. Drunk drivers kill 13,000 people annually in the US. How many people are killed by drunk cyclists? And even when one is driving safely and following all the regulations, one is still harming others by emitting CO2 (see guilt trip below).

You mentioned a half mile line of cars stopped at a light and complained about the cyclist who passes them. Do you realize that that cyclist is one less car in that line in front of you? If all those drivers were on bikes, would there be a half mile line of cars? And is it so bad to have a bike pass a stopped car, considering that cars pass bikes all the time?

When "Americans generally hold cyclists in low regard," it has more to do with fighting back against the idea that they should drive less, than it has to do with the cyclists themselves. When you ask Americans to change their way of life, they go on the attack, and cyclists are a reminder of the carbon guilt trip that's being laid on them.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[darkmeridian]

Having vehicles on the road traveling much slower than the flow of traffic is a hazard. That's why it's actually illegal in some states to drive slower than 40 mph on the highway absent some emergency. If a bike can only travel 10 mph, they should not be going on a roadway where the flow of traffic is going at more than 40 mph. It's just dangerous.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

(I authored the above post.) Having thought a bit further, I think the lashing out isn't so much about the carbon guilt trip as it is retribution for the occasional inconvenience of having to slow down while waiting for the chance to pass a cyclist, and the encroachment of bikes upon perceived car territory.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[mizhi]

"First, I agree with you in spirit... I fully believe that the US having such poor pedestrian and cycling accommodations largely ties in with the current obesity epidemic (though I would point out that the latter doesn't exist solely as a US phenomenon).

That said, you have to understand that American cyclists, for the most part, ride like complete assholes."

Sorry, this is true no matter what form of transportation is being used. I've commuted to work by walking, biking, public transportation, and car. And the mode of transportation rarely matters - people do not pay attention to what they're doing and they cause headaches for those of us who do. If they're walking, they're blocking traffic, crossing roads when the light is red, or when there is not cross walk. If they're biking, they're running red lights, speeding down side walks (I had one blow around a corner at 15 miles per hour and crash into me when I was jogging), or going the wrong way down the few bike paths that are available. If you're on public transportation, then folks block the doors, shove people into the train, and don't allow people to exit. And if they're driving, they don't yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, don't use their turn signals, don't merge until the last minute, go 45 in a 65 zone, tailgate at 80mph, all while talking on their cell phone.

Your last statement is more accurate as, "That said, you have to understand the American commuters, for the most part, travel like complete assholes."

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[tftp]

Riding a bike to the interview was just clearly a HUGE negative in this guys opinion.

Let me guess the interviewer's reasons:

1. He didn't show up in a suit. That shouldn't be of any importance, but an interview is all about "look and feel".
2. He was all dusty and sweaty (even if the company has showers, a visitor is not likely to get access to them.)
3. He was tired even before the interview started, and failed the interview just because of his weak answers.
4. He has a higher risk of a road accident, affecting his job performance and the insurance.
5. Finally, bicycling was outside of interviewer's comfort zone. The applicant would be also rejected if, considering other prejudices, he dresses up like a drug user, or like a prostitute, or like a gangster, or like a gay man, or like a skinhead, or like a cowboy...

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[a whoabot]

1. Wearing a suit on a bicycle is not hard.
2. Not getting dusty and sweaty on a bike is not hard.
3. Not getting tired on a bicycle is not hard.
4. Cyclists are healthier than non-cyclists.
5. Or black, or hispanic, or a woman ... this was exactly the grandparents point: The interviewer was irrationally prejudiced.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Vellmont]

Let me guess the interviewer's reasons:

Or in other words "Make shit up"

Finally, bicycling was outside of interviewer's comfort zone.

Is this a new code word I should be aware of that's used to justify inaccurate prejudices? If so, thanks for letting me know.

The applicant would be also rejected if, considering other prejudices, he dresses up like a drug user, or like a prostitute, or like a gangster, or like a gay man, or like a skinhead, or like a cowboy...

This is kind of the point of the story, though strangely it sounds like you truly believe in it. Putting someone who uses a bicycle in the same category as gangsters, drug users, skinheads, or prostitutes is kind of odd. But thanks for proving my point for me.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[oldhack]

I've heard tons of stories from cyclists in the US detailing how people in vehicles purposely drive as close as possible to them, cut them off, throw things at them etc.

Really? Wow, I (we?) am famous.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[tftp]

though strangely it sounds like you truly believe in it.

It's psychology, a lot of it working on autopilot, outside of conscious control. Myself, I do my best to not involve my personal issues during an interview. Would my best be enough?

But thanks for proving my point for me.

I'm glad you liked it :-) I didn't really disagree with your point, I just added a few semi-objective reasons for the failed interview, just to balance the interviewer's prejudices and valid observations.

Putting someone who uses a bicycle in the same category as gangsters, drug users, skinheads, or prostitutes is kind of odd.

Another poster (above) suggested another, better example - being black.

Is this a new code word I should be aware of that's used to justify inaccurate prejudices?

The comfort zone is just a state, but it affects everything you do (see the link.) If you are a peaceful accountant and suddenly find yourself in a firefight in Afghanistan I wouldn't expect you to correctly count the number of attackers and note their positions. Your thoughts would be primarily about getting out alive.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Vellmont]

It's psychology, a lot of it working on autopilot, outside of conscious control.

You make it sound as if people aren't responsible for their own belief structures, and we're all just slaves to the unconscious. People can and do change. People should be held accountable for what they do, what they believe, and how they act. Any explanation or theory about consciousness is irrelevant.

Would my best be enough?

Enough for what? Your best, or anyones best? You I don't know, but I have seen people whose "best" isn't adequate. Is your argument really that as long as people "do their best" they're somehow not responsible for their actions or should not be judged? There's just multiple problems with this point of view. How are we to know if people "do their best"? How do we know what "their best" is? If a bigots "best" is bigotry, that doesn't really excuse them from bigotry.

No, outcomes matter, not some unknowable hidden internal state of what someone believes about what they might be able to accomplish at that given moment.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are far away in America, moron. Lots of suburbs, a lower residential density. It's not like fucking portugal or belgium with people packed, it's a fucking big country.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Omestes]

According to the list... These is a bunch of small islands, then Kuwait, then the US. So, of all the developed countries, or countries with a population above... say... 5 million, the US is the second fattest, behind Kuwait.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[KingAlanI]

Indeed. Other street traffic can be too fast for cyclists, other sidewalk traffic can be too slow.

I'd like to ride on the edge of the street if I can, but it's hard to fit, especially if (a lot of) people are parked on the side. (Also, in general, cycling on the side roads is a lot easier than cycling on the major ones.)

It seems that far too often, when I cross paths with a motorist, they think *I'm* the crazy one gettign in the way. If this is a true trend, then it's symptomatic of the culture problem

The dedicated bike trails we *do* have are more suited to ride-for-exercise purposes rather than transportation purposes.
The one I was on this weekend was at best a long-distance backbone - one would have to be on regular streets at the beginning and end, as well as at occasional intersections.

The inefficiencies of US mass-transit systems are another issue.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[BgJonson79]

How does one ride a bicycle in a nor'easter or blizzard? Or well-below-freezing temperatures?

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[dkf]

Ever seen earodynamic bikes on the road? Beside SUV'? It's suicide.

No, it's murder.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[dkf]

Having vehicles on the road traveling much slower than the flow of traffic is a hazard. That's why it's actually illegal in some states to drive slower than 40 mph on the highway absent some emergency.

That's also why it's reasonable for it to be illegal for cyclists (or slow farm vehicles) to be on the freeway.

And yet there's plenty of other roads, and drivers should on seeing a cyclist take care to not hit them. A considerate (and safety-minded) cyclist will seek to ride close to the verge of the road so as to allow other vehicles to pass. But if everyone just insists on their rights all the time instead of taking a tiny amount of effort to be nice to other users, then every journey will be a trial punctuated by near-accidents. IMO roads are way too dangerous for that approach.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[BeanThere]

I've heard tons of stories from cyclists in the US detailing how people in vehicles purposely drive as close as possible to them, cut them off, throw things at them etc.

It's even worse here in South Africa, the primitive-caveman-brain disdain for cyclists is so bad that some drivers kill cyclists purposely, with relative regularity.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[CAIMLAS]

Most roads have a posted minimum, and any slow moving vehicle is expected to GTFO the way. A responsible cop will pull someone over in a vehicle who is impeding traffic and causing unsafe driving conditions. Those conditions apply to pretty much any cyclist on the East Coast (35-45mph posted limit on a 2-way single-lane winding road). Yet, the cyclists rarely give a fuck, and cops don't do anything about them.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[joebagodonuts]

Any chance this is a case of assholes being more noticeable? Where I ride & drive, the majority of cyclists obey the traffic laws. YMMV

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[antifoidulus]

They can't, but what is your point? Just because you cannot bicycle every day doesn't mean you shouldn't bicycle at all, or respect those who do. If you can ride your bike around 9 months of the year, it's a lot better than 0 months a year.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite simply the problem in America with our dependence on the car for transportation boils down to 1 insurmountable problem: We live farther away from our jobs then people typically do in other countries. Biking or walking from home to work is simply impossible for many of us and public transportation truly does not exist in the majority of our country. Certainly cities have public transportation but rarely to the degree Europe does. And the majority of Americans live in suburbia or rural areas often 20 miles or further from their place of business.

I say this as someone who has walked to work in Pittsburgh, when I lived close enough and loved it. Later when I got a better job far away I took the excellent Pittsburgh bus system to work and loved it. I love public transportation and walking. I wish I could still do it. But now I moved to the Los Angeles area where public transportation in any usable fashion simply does not exist and instead we have 14 lane highways. I cannot afford to live near my job as it is located in an affluent suburb that my modest entry-level salary does not allow me to afford. So instead I live 49 miles away and commute by car. It sucks. I hate what I am doing to the environment. But in America, there is often simply no choice but to make commutes like this.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

You talk about cyclists as if they are some different breed of human beings, and I think this illustrates GP's point nicely.

Here in holland almost every cardriver has a bike or two, uses them on a regular basis, if only for recreation, and as such has respect for cyclists (even if they ride like idiots) because he will be one at a later point in time.

Also, the cyclist-driver relationship in the US being so bad is also a direct result of the terrible infrastructure for cycling (and walking -- I was very surprised to find absolutely terrible lighting and sidewalks on a evening walk in Concordia, a very well to do suburb of Boston).
Make conditions better for cyclists and you will attract a different and less reckless kind of cyclist.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually live in the WNY area, and work in downtown Buffalo (such as it is) and let me tell you, you are DEAD ON. Heck, even walking the 2 blocks from my parking spot to my building is awful during the winter! I can't imagine trying to walk or bike it!

You, sir, are a Pussy, and I say this as someone who lives in northern Finland.

Bicycles are nice, and walking is healthy. but for a modern transportation system, they suck.

They will not solve ALL transportation problems, but "suck" is very much an exaggeration.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a fairly large suburb of Buffalo, NY. The population density is 4,156.3/sq mi. The city proper only manages 7,206.4/sq mi and isn't amazing at mass transit. The buses run okay but they don't run very frequently or conveniently out to the major suburban population centers, or between them.

Compare the population of my city with a city with a functioning mass transit system - Paris, for instance, at 65,700 people per square mile - or even New York City at 27,440/sq mi.

This is ultimately the problem with comparing most of the US and Europe in terms of delivering services. Running mass transit isn't commercially viable without large numbers of people willing to take advantage of the service. This is also part of the reason why we pay more for cell service (as a percentage of income) than Europe - it costs more to run the towers to get coverage throughout a larger area, where less people use them.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Captain Murdock]

While I'll agree with you, I'd like to point out that many intersections operate by using switches underneath the road that detect the weight of a car in order to trigger the intersection. I've ridden up at some intersections without a car and had to move to the sidewalk simply because I couldn't trigger the switch and there were no cars on my side.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[KnownIssues]

I'm mostly a pedestrian. My observation has been that most drivers drive like complete assholes. As a passenger, I've observed drivers see pedestrians, cyclists, buses, and taxis as complete assholes. I've seen other pedestrians walk as complete assholes, jay-walking whenever it's convenient, crossing at red lights just because they're in a hurry.

I don't discount your opinion as I've witnessed the same behavior of cyclists myself, but I have to wonder if it's just natural to see everyone outside "your group" as jerks and forgiving those inside it.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[adolf]

Most roads have a posted minimum

Oh? Most of them?

Which roads? Where are they? How are such limits posted?

The only time I've ever seen a posted minimum speed on a roadway in the US, is on signs next to interstate highway onramps. Where I'm from (Ohio), they state that the minimum speed is 45MPH, along with a bunch of other verbiage meant to keep specific things like mopeds, farm tractors, pedestrians and bicycles off of the interstate. I've not seen minimums posted anywhere else at all.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Hythlodaeus]

That's kind of the point. If you are doing 5mph in a 45mph without an emergency reason for doing so, you are being an ass - regardless of the type of vehicle you're doing it in. All the campaigns to increase respect for cyclists have it backwards as far as who is disrespecting whom.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Doctor Faustus]

Yeah because walking around Buffalo in January would be so much better!
I live in Detroit, which is only a little warmer in the winter, and yes, it is much better. You have to bundle up, but it's doable. Walk very far to work in Tucson (Phoenix is just too ugly to contemplate, sorry) in August, and you're going to arrive a sweaty mess.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[mcornelius]

I grew up in and just moved back to Upstate New York. I've camped and hiked in the Adirondacks in the middle of winter and I've had to walk through Iraq and Kuwait in the middle of summer. In northern winters, there is no way to bundle appropriately if you're going more than a mile or two by foot or bike. You start warming up and you perspire worse than in 140 desert sun, or when you start you're not dressed warmly enough to avoid frostbite.

Either is doable, neither is fun.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

See the "ride like complete assholes" portion. While it may be *legal*, they're still acting like complete dickballs by not getting out of the way of through traffic. Your example tractor cannot get out of the way, so any sane driver (emphasis on sane) understands that. The unwillingness of a person on a bicycle traveling downhill at 30 mph to pull out of a lane of traffic in a 55 mph zone (true experience) is usually interpreted as inconsiderate disregard for others.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[saintlupus]

I bike to work in Buffalo, year 'round. It's really not so bad. Good gloves help.

--saint

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

America is NOT the rest of the world. People always seam to forget that there are always differences between a particular area and the rest of the world. Japan, much of Asia, and Europe is heavily populated and the population is very concentrated. By in large its not the same here and you will require a car to move around efficiently. For most areas building up mass transportation is just not cost competitive and the locals prefer to keep the independence and mobility of their personal vehicles instead. And bikes are just not a good choice when having to make a long distance trip or if you need to be or prefer to be protected from the elements.

As for cyclists being held in low regard its the opposite from what I have seen. Government is wasting tons of money setting up bike lanes and related protections for cyclists which take up road space and make the roads less efficient in the goal of promoting a green agenda (since the car is one of the greens' favorite boogiemen). While there may be an argument for promoting cycling the spending of the money to promote that is very one sides and inefficient. Here in NYC the new bike lanes are taking up 2 lanes of various important Manhattan streets, which already used to be packed by cars during peak hours of the day. All they have accomplished is backing up traffic even worse and spilling over the backlog onto adjacent streets. For every one bike that uses the new private bike lanes there are 50-100 cars/buses/trucks stuck in traffic basically spat on by the local government for being a car/bus/truck driver/rider. Meanwhile the bike lane itself is also one lane so one leisurely bike rider will slow the entire lane behind him to a crawl, killing the efficiency of getting around the city even if by the now heavily promoted bike. The cyclist, for the most part, continue to ride everywhere and anywhere they feel like and break various traffic laws with impunity as they have always done; at least in this city.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Not getting dusty and sweaty on a bike is not hard.

Maybe the dusty part, depends on route. But sweaty? There's no way to prevent that no matter how physically fit you are; maybe if you have a very short route.

5. Or black, or hispanic, or a woman ... this was exactly the grandparents point: The interviewer was irrationally prejudiced.

Poor analogy: One does not choose gender or ethnicity (ignoring edge cases). Maybe you should have tried "Christian" or "Vegan" for examples, since those involve choice. That said, I agree that the interviewer was irrationally prejudiced.

- T

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[mcornelius]

I didn't say it was impossible. It's also not impossible to walk or cycle in Phoenix. I've never been to Phoenix in the summer but I have been to the Persian Gulf in the summer (and walked more than one human being ever should) and I'm from Upstate New York, and have gone hiking and camping in the Adirondacks in mid-winter. Most Americans would not like or do either with a choice.

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Anonymous Coward]

The city averaged one pedestrian killed by a cyclist each year, but over 190 killed by a vehicle each year.

Surely you don't believe this illustrates anything more than "kinetic energy is a bitch"?

And "carbon guilt"? I suppose just about any human condition which one can imagine probably exists somewhere, but if you believe such individuals are more than statistical outliers, we don't inhabit the same planet. Now, "carbon apathy", yeah, the planet I live on has plenty of that... Most people see global warming in the news and think "that's awful, congress should do something", and otherwise go on about their day much as they did before - maybe they switch to CFLs so they feel they "did something for the environment". If they switch to a less polluting car, it's usually motivated by correspondingly lower fuel cost, not "carbon guilt". And when they next vote, some wedge issue (or who has a nicer smile or catchier slogan) is more likely to be the primary (or sole) consideration for which candidate they pick.

- T

Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car

[Khyber]

You call an aerodynamic bike a death trap as if the other vehicles around you weren't deathtraps in themselves. Please, think about that for just a moment. When you step out of your door, hell you don't even have to do that, you're at risk for being hit by a vehicle.

Either way we lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have two package deals of crazy to choose from in this country.

We have the religious right with their false gods and forced patriotism for war and loyalty.

And we have the religious left with their irrational hatred of hydrocarbons their false gods of socialism and failed urbanism and rectums every bit as puckered as the right despite their endless lecture on tolerance and multiculturalism.

No matter who we vote for, we get shit.

Wah wah wah... complaining about soda, honestly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard they would only be adding like a 5 cent tax. Are we seriously such a nation of whiners that something non-essential as soda if we see the price go from $1.50 to $1.55 for a 2 liter bottle all of a sudden they're trampling on our rights to consume products that are bad for us while simultaneously ensuring that our next doctor visit costs us hundreds of dollars less potentially of out of pocket money?
 
Seriously just look at the logic, look at the math. It all adds up reasonably well when you also consider how the prices of soda has raised in the last 10-15 years without any special tax. I recall a 20 ounce cold soda used to cost $1.00... now its common to see it for about $1.50 at a gas station. I doubt any other products out there have seen a 50% inflation rate in just 10 years.

Herd health management

[ewg]

Waiting for the science fiction movie that takes this principle to its logical extreme: widespread application of herd health management practices, developed for livestock, to humans.

Re:Herd health management

[d3ac0n]

Um... Gattaca, Soylent Green, The Matrix series and about a dozen others I can't remember the titles to right now.

Re:Herd health management

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah man, a DOZEN

Re:Herd health management

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi Germany tried this; if they hadn't picked a fight with most of the industrialized world at the same time we'd see how it turned out.

We subsidize soda

[jonsmirl]

Random Google search says US spent $4,920,813,719 subsidizing corn production in 2006. Corn gets turned into HFC (High Fructose Corn) Syrup. HFC is what makes most sodas and candies sweet. Fresh berries are $6.00 a pint in my grocery store. Make me president and I'll switch that $5B from corn to subsidizing the production of fresh produce.

Re:We subsidize soda

[Agamous Child]

But what about the poor corn farmers???!????

Re:We subsidize soda

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax corn instead of subsidizing it. Problem solved.

Re:We subsidize soda

[zippthorne]

You're thinking inside the box. Moving subsidy from here to there. Spend the money on this instead of that.

The truly radical thing would be to just stop spending the money.

Re:We subsidize soda

[Cornwallis]

But what about the poor corn farmers???!????

There's an oxymoron!

Re:We subsidize soda

[NoYob]

But what about the poor corn farmers???!????

Their subsides basically end up in the pockets of the big grain companies. In the first section of "The Omnivore's Dilemma", there's a farmer who explains how the government subsidies actually has distorted the relationship between supply and demand pushing prices down and down. Basically, the farmer gets less for his corn, has to produce more to get paid more and get more subsidies, which then because of greater supply, the price falls, so the farmer having to make payments, produces even more corn, and down and down we go. The benefits go to the HFC/Corn processors. They're getting cheap corn at the expense of the tax payers.

I can't remember the farmer's name, but he actually wants the subsidies to end because it will allow corn prices to increase - at least when he was interviewed.

Re:We subsidize soda

[DusterBar]

That is just too logical for a US congress to go along with. I mean, really, how would ADM survive? And how would candidates get their big donations from ADM and related down stream industries?

Re:We subsidize soda

[drinkypoo]

Just give it back to the taxpayer. The subsidies mostly go to major agribusiness which needs no subsidies. Many nations operate just fine without farm subsidies. Definitely not voting for you, who wants to continue stealing my money to no end.

Re:We subsidize soda

[Anonymous Coward]

We'd also need to make you 60 Senators AND at least 218 Representatives. I hope you're working on cloning technology ;-)

Re:We subsidize soda

[Anonymous Coward]

The truly radical thing would be to just stop spending the money.

I am pretty sure that is the wrong use of the word radical.

Re:We subsidize soda

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, in the US, not spending money IS "radical".

Re:We subsidize soda

[Anonymous Coward]

But the move to spending the money subsidising healthful food can be seen as a preventative measure to combat the obesity epidemic and damage caused by poor diet.

That money spent on subsidising healthful food (and/or taxes on junk food which could then be used to subsidise healthful food) might very well end up costing the government less than the money poured into health care and hospitals to deal with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.

Re:We subsidize soda

[Raptoer]

Of course, thanks to our wonderful American election system, that will never happen.

People will vote for the party in government that gave them money, in the form of subsidies. Guess which states produce the most corn? Battleground states.

Re:We subsidize soda

[Ross Finlayson]

Make me president and I'll switch that $5B from corn

And then watch as you get your butt kicked in the Iowa caucuses, killing your chance of getting reelected.

Sad, but true...

Re:We subsidize soda

[Omestes]

Worse; the people vote for those who spend the most money of advertisements and publicists, meaning the people with the most money. These people generally got a lion-share of this money from lobbyists. Then these people, in turn, vote for things that serve the people who allowed them into office (not the people).

The problem then lies firmly at the feet of the voters. Basically, the average voter is a complete moron.

Re:We subsidize soda

[CAIMLAS]

Wasn't 2006 the first year that major ethanol-related subsidies were put into place? It was either that or 2007; I can't remember. If it was 2006, that would explain the bulk of that money. Farmers were dropping otherwise productive crops (wheat, winter wheat, alfalfa, etc.) in favor of trying to get another crop of corn in at the end of the season due to the massive subsidies for corn the government was giving. That, in contrast to the year prior where corn was losing money for the farmers.

LIBERTY

[Anonymous Coward]

government is people
and people need to GTFO MY FRIDGE!

LOOK UP THE WORD LIBERTY!

MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!
CHOOSE NOT TO DRINK DIET SODAS!
CHOOSE TO DRINK ALL YOU WANT!
CHOOSE TO DRINK YOUR OWN URINE FOR ALL I CARE!
STOP MAKING DECISIONS FOR EVERYONE ELSE!

don't make us put a jihad on your asses.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sin taxes and the rich

[qbzzt]

Bad argument, since rich people can also afford more medical treatment.

Not that sin taxes are a good idea - but this particular argument against them doesn't work well.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[rtb61]

Consider this a more of a tax on bad ingredients in what used to be quite not so bad products, until corporate greed drove arse holes to remove expensive reasonably healthy ingredients and replace them with addictive junk chemical substitutes, double bonus not only cheaper but you will be forced to feed your addiction. Don't think it's addictive, you honestly don't think it's addictive, just read some of the comments and if those are not the comments of drug addicts, then it didn't take me four goes to give up smoking and give me the opportunity to learn how to recognise the behavioural patterns of addicts on a first hand basis.

The flip side of this, I had tasted sodas made from all natural ingredients, you the actually really truly 'traditional' not the PR=B$ traditional and the original type sodas taste a whole lot better of course they are also more expensive and for some reason are more satisfying and you feel less of a need to drink any where near of as much of it as the cheap junk fakes.

What a new law, a good law, than make it compulsory for corporate executives and their families to live on nothing but the junk food they create and, perhaps then we might see the 'real' not the marketing quality of the products improve, either that or all the crap executives will bloat up and die off, either way a real win ;).

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[InspectorxGadget]

That Timecube site you created was near-perfect, man.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[Shihar]

How I would kill for mod points. I salute you.

+1 awesome.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[thejynxed]

If they simply replaced all of the HFCS in everything that seems to have it nowadays, with pure cane sugar (not that processed white shit), then there wouldn't be half the problems there are now with weight issues. HFCS can't be processed by the human body, and are converted directly into fat, waste materials, and by-products. Let's not forget the mercury, other poisonous chemicals, and heavy metals used in the commercial production of HFCS and other chemical food additives.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[apoc.famine]

On the soda comment, my family has always made tons of stuff from scratch. Beer, wine, cordials, and of course, soda.
 
The two I most remember from growing up were the root beer, and the ginger ale. Both had AMAZING flavors. Strong, bold, vibrant flavors. Flavors to the point that you almost needed to water them down, coming from a mass-produced soda background.
 
I think it's partly because of this that I just don't drink soda. The other reason is that I'd rather spend that money on beer, so I drink water in place of soda.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[Z34107]

We only have HFCS because of tariffs and quotas on sugar. All at the behest of the corn belt, though.

HFCS exists because of the agriculture lobby. It's easier and more PC to invoke a myriad of worthless "sin taxes" than to actually fix a problem caused by the government to begin with.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[Monsuco]

until corporate greed drove arse holes to remove expensive reasonably healthy ingredients and replace them with addictive junk chemical substitutes

People who blame issues on "corporate greed" seldom think through what that term means. If problems can be caused by so called "greed" then that creates several questions. What causes "greed" to fluctuate? Where people less "greedy" in the past, and if so why? What is the difference between trying to satisfy what is clearly a market demand and being "greedy"? Are the corporations you so love demonizing really any more "greedy" than the people who work to buy their products? Are the companies that make healthy beverages less "greedy"? Are customers who buy these healthier products less "greedy" somehow, even though they too work to buy them (indeed the healthier "natural" ones are generally more expensive, possibly due to this mysterious force you call "greed", or possibly due to this mysterious force I call "individual choices")? It is no surprise people attribute problems to "greed'. It is the same reason people have attributed things to conspiracies, witches, Jews, or "the rich", that is people are always happy to look for simplistic answers to complex problems, even if these answers really make no sense upon analysis.

double bonus not only cheaper but you will be forced to feed your addiction. Don't think it's addictive, you honestly don't think it's addictive, just read some of the comments and if those are not the comments of drug addicts, then it didn't take me four goes to give up smoking and give me the opportunity to learn how to recognise the behavioural patterns of addicts on a first hand basis.

Oh yes, I have heard of many people who have gone into shock or gone mad from being deprived of soda! I mean, I almost died of my former soda habit. BE STRONG! /sarcasm.

What a new law, a good law, than make it compulsory for corporate executives and their families to live on nothing but the junk food they create and, perhaps then we might see the 'real' not the marketing quality of the products improve, either that or all the crap executives will bloat up and die off, either way a real win ;)

Yes, of course, BURN THE WITCHES! There is nothing unhealthy about having the occasional soda or bag of chips. If you go over to a party and have some chips and a soda, no harm done. There is such thing as "moderation". If you try to live off of sodas and chips you will have problems, but it is perfectly healthy to have them occasionally. The same thing can be said about almost any health habit. The occasional glass of wine is good for you, and occasional light consumption of alcohol is harmless, but bing drinking or getting plowed is dangerous. Heck even healthy things can be harmful in large quantities. Jogging for an hour a day is good for you, forcing yourself to jog for a hundred miles nonstop would likely kill you.

Now I am sure you must be really smart, being able to micromanage everybody's life and all, but I feel people can handle deciding things for themselves. Sure occasionally someone will get fat, but if they do so out of their own free will, who am I to judge?

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[jonadab]

> If they simply replaced all of the HFCS in everything
> that seems to have it nowadays, with pure cane sugar
> (not that processed white shit), then there wouldn't
> be half the problems there are now with weight issues.

I think the significance of high-fructose corn syrup is overrated. Yes, it's bad for you, because it's basically pure sugar. But I'm pretty sure that pretty much any refined sugar is bad for you in large amounts. Fructose, sucrose, glucose, whatever -- pure sugar as a major component of the diet isn't healthy, duh.

There's almost no HFCS in my diet. (I cook most of my own food, because it tastes better that way. And I hardly ever drink pop.) But I have weight issues nonetheless, and I'm pretty sure sugar (in other forms) is a major contributing factor, although starchy foods are probably also relevant.

> HFCS can't be processed by the human body

What's your source for this information? From the limited amount of molecular biology I've had, I was under the impression that normal amounts of fructose are metabolized in just about the same way as normal amounts of galactose or glucose or any other cyclic six-carbon sugar.

> and are converted directly into fat

That's what your body does whenever it doesn't have an immediate use for all the food energy you've consumed. Sugars are fairly energy-dense (though fats are worse), so any time you eat a lot of them you're likely to have spare energy left, and your body stores it.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[jonadab]

And what will the food industry do if high-fructose corn syrup is taxed in a way that makes it expensive to use as a major ingredient? One supposes they will find a different inexpensive concentrated sugar to use.

The only way around that, legislatively, is to make the tax more general, so that it applies to any concentrated sugar. Actually, artificial sweeteners should probably be included as well.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[Civil_Disobedient]

If they simply replaced all of the HFCS in everything that seems to have it nowadays, with pure cane sugar (not that processed white shit), then there wouldn't be half the problems there are now with weight issues.

I used to think this, too. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Not that HFCS isn't terrible, but that the "pure" cane sugar is some panacea of health. Sugars wreak havoc on your liver, and are directly responsible for what's called metabolic syndrome. Not just HFCS, which (deservedly) gets plenty of bad press, but all fructose--doesn't matter if it comes from cane or corn. The only reason fruits get a pass is because they're wrapped in fiber, which naturally satiates the appetite.

This is coming from a former soda-junkie.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[commodore64_love]

Instead of making HF corn syrup more expensive, the government could make real brown sugar cheaper. i.e. Remove the tax on sugar.

And for those who support a sin tax, I suspect you'd change your tune if they started sin-taxing gaming, tv watching, and internet surfing.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[FiloEleven]

In addition to sugar tariffs and quotas, we also have corn subsidies totaling $56 billion over 10 years. The rest of your post is of course accurate.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[ozgood]

Agreed, but

Sure occasionally someone will get fat, but if they do so out of their own free will, who am I to judge?

People who "live off of" soda and bags of chips tend to be poorer and less educated http://dailyuw.com/2009/1/23/paying-price-obesity/. These people also are the sickest and use up a substantial portion of health care resources - and general welfare resources. Have you seen the US's balance sheet lately? We can't afford to simple "not judge" obesity. Turning a blind eye, as you seem to imply is not even an attempt at a solution.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[commodore64_love]

>>>Are the corporations you so love demonizing really any more "greedy" than the people who work to buy their products?

All good questions. I'm going to present this as an example of corporate greed: I withdrew my money from my bank's money-market account and moved it to my checking account. I then asked to close the MM account since it was empty, and the manager on duty said he can't close it since there might be some last-minute transactions. Now because the account is still open, but below the minimum, they charged me a $10 fee on my most-recent statement. And they sucked that money from my checking account.

I call that "greed" because the manager knew full well I would be charged that fee, which is why he left it open, in order to entrap me.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[jeffshoaf]

Hmmm... Sort of a "value removed tax" instead of a "value added tax." I like it!

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[BooRolla]

Jogging for an hour a day is good for you, forcing yourself to jog for a hundred miles nonstop would likely kill you.

It apparently doesn't kill everyone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that and Nixon. Couldn't we get the same effect of a "Sin Tax" on alcohol, tobacco and HFCS put the the end user simply by removing the subsidy incentives and tax breaks for the production of these things? Or better yet, raise the taxes for their production? The reason these things are so prevalent is simply because at large scales they are insanely profitable. For the corporate hive mind, I would tend to think morality really goes hand in hand with profit margins. When a cost to benefit analysis shows healthy alternatives to be more profitable and easier to manufacture than a variable for addiction, we will see things improve hopefully.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[rrvau]

Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their actions?

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[qbzzt]

Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their actions?

The welfare state. Or to quote Kipling:

WHETHER the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birthâ"
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.

Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by voteâ"
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.

Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give,
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy Kingâ"
Or Holy Peopleâ(TM)s Willâ"
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Sayingâ"afterâ"me:â"

Once there was The Peopleâ"Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The Peopleâ"it shall never be again!

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[rrvau]

Absolutely true and correct. Wise man is our Rudyard and a wiser man who quotes him aptly.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[qbzzt]

Thank you *blush*. If more people read Kipling, we'd be better off.

Re:Sin taxes and the rich

[thejynxed]

Yes, but unlike HFCS, cane sugar production doesn't introduce mercury or other heavy metals into the food/beverage product it's used in.

That by itself is more than enough reason to get rid of that nasty shit.

Also, while it is true that sugars can damage your liver, so can many other things, taken out of moderation (my favorite beer, for instance).

I've noticed a distinct difference in how I feel after I switched to Mt Dew that uses cane sugar compared to the HFCS kind I used to drink regularly, and that was before I even noticed it used cane sugar instead. I just was glad to be able to get it in those nifty green glass bottles instead of plastic bottles or phthalate lined cans. Now I don't get cranky if I go without drinking it for a few days, it doesn't make me urinate as often, and I no longer get kidney stones.

I've now started reading the labels on all of my food products, and if it contains HFCS (or sodium benzoate for that matter - I prefer to eat food that doesn't contain benzene by the time I get it home from the store), I don't buy it.

Waistline tax

[Anonymous Coward]

BMI doesn't work. Most athletes like heavy weight boxers and weight lifters are technically morbidly obese even if they have 7% body fat. Make anyone with under a 34" waist for men as an example exempt from the tax and everyone over pays on a sliding scale. If you have a 42" waist that cheese burger comes with an extra $10 in tax. Yes it is silly and any sin tax is rediculous since people still won't change their behavior. Cigarettes have hefty taxes and plenty of people still smoke. We do have a serious problem though. I've been seeing people in their 30s riding the scooters because they are too fat to walk. The real question is should society pay for your bad behavior? Lately there have been a lot of attacks on people for being too thin but when's the last time you heard people attacked on the news for being too fat? Anorexia is their fault but overeating isn't? Removing the stigma isn't a good thing. The little scooters were a rare sight 10 years ago but today they are commonplace and the majority I see aren't because of extreme age they are because people are too overweight. The people in Walle aren't as much our future as they are becoming our present.

Big Brother Loves Me!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

Re:Big Brother Loves Me!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words:
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny that slightly increases the cost of a fizzy beverage may be the most oppressive."

Thoughts

[cluge]

As the government pumps more money into the economy - it looks for more items/services to tax to try to make up for the insane amount of deficit spending. This cycle is a bit part of the reason the great depression lasted so long (ie until WWII). This tax is partly driven by "health" concerns and partly driven by a need for funds to cover the massive amount of deficit spending. A happy coincidence - win win for everyone (Notice the position of tongue and cheek)

Here is the irony of this sort of taxation behavior. If you are successful and get people to stop buying soda - your tax revenue goes away. This creates another problem because the revenue starts being counted on (see cigarette and alcohol taxes for example) and the vicious cycle continues with the government looking for other things to tax (all in the name of your well being mind you) to make up for the loss of the revenue which should have been expected. When the taxation goes too far you start to create an underground economy in the taxed product and enforcement of taxation starts to take up a signifigant amount of the revenue. A quote from the DOJ budget

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requests $1,120,772,000 for FY 2010, including $1,114,772,000 in Direct Salaries and Expenses and 5,025 full time equivalents (FTE) and $6,000,000 for construction of explosives ranges at the ATF National Center for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR). Specifically, ATF requests $1,077,783,000 and 4,979 FTE for current services, $17,989,000 and 46 FTE for Southwest Border enforcement efforts, and $19,000,000 for operations and infrastructure costs associated with the NCETR."

Can you imagine what the Bureau of healthy food enforcement budget will look like in 20 years? Considering all the hyperbole that we have to suffer through regarding foods (first it's good for you, then it's bad, then it steals your wife, then it's a miracle diet food, etc, etc, etc) who has any faith that the regulations dreamed up with the contradictory drivers of increasing tax revenue and eating healthy compounded by several special interest groups will produce anything but a mess?

These are hard times and the government needs to SHRINK just like every other sector of the economy. Why should the government not feel the same pain and be forced to make hard decisions that every other entity is? It shouldn't. Here is a simple rule - does the law proposed increase or decrease liberty? If it decreases liberty it probably is a bad law and should not be passed.

-cluge

Re:Thoughts

[RighteousRaven]

Here is a simple rule - does the law proposed increase or decrease liberty? If it decreases liberty it probably is a bad law and should not be passed.

I agree, but you seem to be implying that this law would decrease liberty. The original article in the NEJM explains that sugary drinks externalize their costs to the health industry. If we can agree with the science, then the fact is that everyone with health insurance is currently being forced to cover the costs of other people's consumption decisions. That is lack of liberty. The proposal will make people pay for their own decisions, so you don't have to. That's liberty.

Re:Thoughts

[tftp]

If we can agree with the science, then the fact is that everyone with health insurance is currently being forced to cover the costs of other people's consumption decisions.

Yes, but that should be fixed at the health insurance end because that's where the problem is. If you instead work on consequences then you need to outlaw *everything* that has a chance of raising healthcare costs, and that, in the end, would be the life itself.

Let's just become the biggest nanny-state there is

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, we could become the biggest Nanny-state in the world. Just how far do the American people want this to continue? I know I have had enough.

People are getting fatter from diet foods?

[bmartin]

The tax idea doesn't make sense. It's not likely to happen. Corn is already subsidized and used to sweeten soda.

The idea that discouraging people from drinking diet soda is going to stop them from binging on a box of chips ahoy or fig newtons is stupid. Does soda stimulate the appetite? The miniscule amount of caffeine would suppress the appetite, if anything, and the liquid in the stomach would make you full sooner. Is not drinking soda gonna stop people from eating twinkies or a bag of doritos? No.

Flat taxes put more burden on the lower classes. The majority of us can afford whatever stupid tax they decide to levy; I feel bad for the poor people who are already having a hard time scraping together enough for food, clothing, gas and rent. The rest of us will have to listen to their kids whining at the store because they can't have soda due to some stupid tax they can't afford.

Whether or not you can afford another tax, it's not going to happen and it wouldn't help with anything except raising tax revenue.

Re:People are getting fatter from diet foods?

[canajin56]

Does soda stimulate the appetite?

Yes, RTFA. Diet pop tastes sweet, your body thinks you just slammed back 1 L of pure sugar water, so it makes a bunch of insulin to break down all those sugars. But they never arrive, since it was artificial sweetener you tastes. All that insulin quickly translates into a hunger for sugars and starch. So yes, it makes you reach for that bag of chips.

Re:People are getting fatter from diet foods?

[Hittman]

The tax idea doesn't make sense. It's not likely to happen.

You're half right. It makes no sense at all - but that's never stopped Big Brother. BB is only interested in money and power. "Sense" has nothing to do with his actions.

The idea that discouraging people from drinking diet soda is going to stop them from binging on a box of chips ahoy or fig newtons is stupid.

Absolutely. But that has no bearing on the inevitably of the tax.

Flat taxes put more burden on the lower classes.

The government doesn't care about that. As long as they get more money and power they're happy.

Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k/year. The first thing he did in office was raise the tobacco tax to fund SCHIP. The biggest increase was on roll-your-own tobacco - he raised it 2400%. I don't think too many wealthy or middle class people are rolling their own cigs.

Re:People are getting fatter from diet foods?

[Ironsides]

Flat taxes put more burden on the lower classes.

How? How does having them pay the exact same percentage of their income put more of a burden on them than anyone else?

Re:People are getting fatter from diet foods?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the more you make the more you can afford to loose, even as a percentage.
Say you make $100, with 50% tax. Now you have to survive on $50.
I make $100,000. I have to survive on $50,000. This is a lot easier.
Now if the government only takes $40 from you, but $50,040 from me, total tax income is the same but your life is suddenly much better while mine is unchanged.

Re:People are getting fatter from diet foods?

[Ironsides]

Except there isn't a 1:1 ration of those making $100 and those making $100,000. So it's more like the $100 guy getting taxed $10 and the $100,000 guy getting taxed $90,000. Which still beggars the point of why one person should pay more percentage why than another. 'Because they can afford it' is not a moral, ethical or constitutional reason.

Something stupid like this...

[Cornwallis]

will be the start of a violent revolt in this country. I can't wait.

Politicians continue to reach for self-validating programs and in the end it is going to come back and bite them hard.

I just have a feeling...

Re:Something stupid like this...

[selven]

Boston soda party!

That is the biggest problem with the left

[Anonymous Coward]

They just can't see anything good coming without the help of government.

People are already showing themselves willing to pay a premium for slow, local sustainable, foods.

What these people need is to be left alone to grow their produce and their markets.

Not new rules of production that create barriers of entry to small growers that only corporate farms can afford.

And the idea of subsidize make things cheaper is a laugh. These are payoffs to special interest groups.

Under your plans, they;ll be paying people not to grow produce to keep the prices propped up.

Sick of Nanny-state

[benvec]

Ya know, we could become the biggest Nanny-state in the world. Just how far do the American people want this to continue? I know I have had enough.

Brawndo... it's what plants crave

[Anonymous Coward]

Brawndo, the thirst mutilator. It's got electrolytes.

Maybe some slogans will help the cause...

[jenningsthecat]

Nuke the Fat Soda Drinkers for Jesus! Guns Don't Kill People, Sugar Kills People! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Healthcare!

You make no sense

[poptones]

Slavery? Get a grip. What we have NOW is fascism - how is socialism any worse? What we have now is corporations running unfettered through society keeping us addicted to whatever they can keep legal while our health disintegrates - which they then try to patch up by selling us even more shit to fix the problems THEIR SHIT CAUSED. And when someone can't pay for their shit who pays for it?

YOU AND ME.

Every time we go to the hospital and pay 500 bucks for an ER visit, 50 bucks for an aspirin, 5 grand for an operating room and 8 grand for an anaesthesiologist.

Being held accountable for your behavior toward society is not socialism, it's what freaking Jefferson wrote about.

Re:You make no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

fascism: i do not think you know what that word means.

no company forced a single thing down your throat.

Re:You make no sense

[MaWeiTao]

First of all, corporations aren't running unfettered through society. There are so many government regulations in place they'd make your head spin. While some of these very necessary, many have them have done little more than ensure that it's primarily the largest, wealthiest and best connected corporations which thrive. Small upstarts are forced to be a part of the system, basically, if they want to get anywhere.

That said, what corporation has forced you to buy their shit? Nobody is forcing you to buy cigarettes, big macs, televisions, iphones, expensive homes or anything else you might be inclined to buy. If the vast majority of Americans boycotted McDonalds, for example, I guarantee you within weeks their cuisine would change. The government certainly wouldn't force consumers at gunpoint to eat there. But people value personal satisfaction more than principle.

Unfortunately, the attitude we see today is one of playing victim and entitlement. I had enough common sense not to buy stuff I can't afford, putting myself in debt. Why is it that credit card companies are at fault for other people being unable to do the same? But people live throwing around stupid terms like "evil" so that they can foment a little righteous indignation for themselves.

This is not to say that corporations don't take advantage when they can, because certainly they do. But people have gone way too far blaming others for their own short-comings.

As for your comments about medical expenses, I can only reason that you're trying to slip in your endorsement of government healthcare. I agree with you, medical costs are too high, to the point of feeling exploitive sometimes. But socialized healthcare in other countries hasn't decreased the cost of healthcare. What you'd pay directly to insurance companies you instead pay in taxes. And when the government tries to force down costs what you end up with instead is a shortage of doctors, hospital staff and equipment. And then we get into rationing.

The fact is that medical care is expensive because that's the value society places on it. Whenever anyone gets sick they want their condition to be treated as effectively as possible. If people shopped treatments, doctors and hospitals perhaps were would be competition on cost. But when you're incapacitated there isn't much chance of that happening. So what do you suggest? The government making those decisions for you? Does anyone want the government cutting corners on your treatment in order to save a few bucks?

And where do you cut costs? Are we going to cut doctor's salaries? If so, then are we going to cut their education costs in order to be fair about it? Are we going to tell manufacturers that they're asking too much for EKG machines? What about x-ray machines, MRIs, and everything else you find in a hospital? What about syringes, trash bags, towels, beds? What about staff, nurses and administrators? Are we going to cut their salaries too and tell hospitals they have to limit the number of people they hire? What about pharmaceuticals? Do we cut when they can ask for any medication? How do we then deal with R&D? Do we tell them they can only focus on certain fields in order to keep costs down? (Actually, I think pharmaceuticals should be completely banned from advertising, but that's another story.) And what about lawsuits? Certainly some lawsuits are justified but there are too many frivolous ones out there and even when they don't go to trial they still incur some level of expense. Oh yeah, lets cut what lawyers charge because they're seriously overpriced too, worse than doctors.

As you can see this is far more complicated than people every consider. Unfortunately too many people seem to have the simplistic worldview of a 10-year-old. And they seem to share that same infantile expectation that they should be sheltered from the troubles of the world the same way their parents were over-protective of them when they were kids. The way people have been spoiled by their parents I'm not surprised that younger ge

Re:You make no sense

[Khyber]

You have no clue how wrong you are.

In fact, the car insurance lobbyists have effectively forced you to buy their car insurance, because it is MANDATORY now in pretty much every state. You just had that shoved down your throat like a big black dick. Enjoy choking on it.

Re:You make no sense

[Khyber]

"That said, what corporation has forced you to buy their shit?"

Car Insurance, ahobaka. Or do you not own a vehicle? It is now mandatory for you to have car insurance if you own and drive a vehicle on the public roads in pretty much every state, if not all of them. Why is it mandatory? In case you run into someone and hurt them, resulting in hospital bills.

We wouldn't need that if we had a universal health care system. We wouldn't be effectively forced by the Federal government to suck the cock of Car Insurance Companies, all out of the need to pay someone's medical bill.

Just FYI - I was hit by a drunk driver June 18, 2007. No insurance, not even his vehicle. Vehicle owner had insurance, my father had insurance that covered me. That still didn't pay all of my bills - I owe for the helicopter ride and two resuscitations. This wouldn't have happened if we had universal health care. I would not be in debt. I was 100% debt-free until that accident. Now I can barely find work besides the random computer repair and sign waving job. There's no way in hell I'm getting out of debt any time soon.

Re:You make no sense

[Squiggle]

First of all, corporations aren't running unfettered through society. There are so many government regulations in place they'd make your head spin. While some of these very necessary, many have them have done little more than ensure that it's primarily the largest, wealthiest and best connected corporations which thrive. Small upstarts are forced to be a part of the system, basically, if they want to get anywhere.

Exactly! You prove the parents point. When large corporations "run unfettered" they will use the government to make laws that benefit only themselves. See copyright legislation for an example.

Re:You make no sense

[Truekaiser]

you might not of been paying attention so let me point it out.

lets say for this explanation there is a corporation who's main product is a some food or some such. the ceo of said company works there for a few years then changes jobs to a lobbyist for the company to fda. a few years later the new administration hires him on as the head of the fda. then when he is let go in the next administration he goes back to work as the ceo of the same company, rinse and repeat. This is in the basic sense fascism, though not the jack boot kind that has become the common person's definition. We currently have this system for just about every government agency, fda, department of defense, department of energy etc. in such a system these agency's who stated goal's are for the interests of the people of the country as a whole are changed to serve the interests of the company's they are supposed to be watching etc. as a result we have two indefinite wars. drugs that have to be recalled because regulations were relaxed and harmful ones became too obvious. milk that has growth hormones in it that all other industrialized nations have baned but the fda continues to say it's safe etc.

Re:You make no sense

[ravenshrike]

You probably wouldn't have GOTTEN the helo ride and two resuscitations. Just look at the case of the skier in Canada.

Re:You make no sense

[tftp]

It is now mandatory for you to have car insurance if you own and drive a vehicle on the public roads in pretty much every state, if not all of them.

Incorrect - you can be self-insured by keeping about $45,000, IIRC, at DMV. You do have options here.

There are more fatties in Norway than in the USA.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Folk Institute of Health

"Over half of adult men in Norway are overweight or obese, according to BMI-values. The same applies to adult women, except in the 30 year age group where the proportion is somewhat lower. (..) Today, 32 per cent of children and adolescents in USA are overweight or obese, since 2000 the proportion has not increased (Ogden 2008)"

So don't feel too bad, a lot of the "Americans are fatties" is just America-bashing ;)

But consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we tax luxury items (including sugary food with little-to-no nutritional value) we can then subsidize the basic necessities (such as bread and canned veggies), thus making it much easier for the poor to survive.

This, in turn, prevents them from having to turn to crime in order to eat, and thus everyone benefits from living in a safer place.

Re:But consider...

[obarthelemy]

I'm not sure. To (badly) paraphrase Orwell, the problem of the poor is not si much that they are poor, but rather that they are idiots. In particular, given the same amount of money, they'll buy much worse food a richer and more educated person.

So subisidies may not be it. Education rather. Plus there's the added moral risk of deciding what's good and what's bad. Red wine has been found to lessens circulatory problems, cigarettes to lessen Alzheimer... The US governement doesn't seem able to realize that good cheese is good for your health and your quality of life, and has you eating plastic instead. I wouldn't trust them to sensibly define what foods are good are bad.

They don't call it the Bureau of STF

[Anonymous Coward]

For nothing. (Bureau of Soft Drinks, Tobacco and Firearms).

Be well? Be fucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?

Save us from Optimal Production!

[handy_vandal]

'Government intervention ... on the grounds that "market failures" in this area are causing "less-than-optimal production and consumption."'

Thank God we don't have optimal production, whether government-mandated or otherwise!

For a contrarian alternative, see Frank Herbert's Bureau of Sabotage.

Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Your police and military is getting even more aggressive and doing serious robocop shit with all those new 'less lethal' weapons. Your soda getting more expensive however, _that_ pisses you off.

That right there is an unbelievable level of fuckedupness!

Article and summary are misleading at best.

[Captain Nectarine]

The study cited states clearly that the tax is for sugar-sweetened (including HFCS) beverages only. The full quote related to "diet" beverages actually is:

"A controversial issue is whether to tax beverages that are sweetened with noncaloric sweeteners. No adverse health effects of noncaloric sweeteners have been consistently demonstrated, but there are concerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumption by justifying consumption of other caloric foods or by promoting a preference for sweet tastes.34 At present, we do not propose taxing beverages with noncaloric sweeteners, but we recommend close tracking of studies to determine whether taxing might be justified in the future."

This would also preclude 100% fruit juice drinks - although "juice" - the mostly sugar and water kind - has been touted as a victim on commercials against the sugar-sweetened beverages tax, which is disingenuous, at best.

Last time I drank a Fresca, it didn't have sugar in it - nothing to worry about for the article writer. Granted, there's no ends to what governments will put a tax on, but to derive an article that may have no purpose other than to upset and anger persons from a one paragraph that doesn't exactly say what you say it does is somewhat irresponsible.

Re:Article and summary are misleading at best.

[Agram]

Non-caloric sweeteners often have questionable side-effects on human body in part because our bodies were never exposed to them before and therefore have no reliable way of dealing with them nor do we have any historical data on what their long-term exposure may do to us (e.g. corn syrup is one of the top reasons for obesity as human body has no way of dealing with this by-product of processing corn that does not exist in nature otherwise, so the body simply deposits it into body fat and wreaks havoc on our metabolism). On the other hand, you mention fruit sugars (e.g. fructose). These have nowhere near the same side-effects like refined sugars because they metabolize slower and do not give us that sugar spike that is so dangerous to our bodies, particularly through prolonged exposure. Hence, fruit sugars are entirely different ballgame than the refined sugar and I would go as far as stating that their prolonged exposure (unlike refined sugars) bears practically no side-effects beyond potentially rotting your teeth (and that is arguably more of a matter of personal hygiene).

Makes more sense than taxing medical devices

[nixman99]

Taxing sodas, cigarettes, snack food, and alcohol to fund health care makes more sense than the tax on medical devices being proposed. Logic has long since left politics which has devolved into taxing whichever group has the worst lobbyists.

Where you draw the line?

[Agram]

How about "how much is your health worth to you?" or "how would you like the Soda Inc. company buying a little piece of land near your house, drilling deep, and running your well dry leaving you without drinkable source of water? (obviously assuming you have well water)" or "how would you like Soda Inc. company hiring local thugs to chase you away from your local natural resources so that they can gobble it up, destroy the ecosystem, poison you and your family and then leave you in this impossible mess to die?" Health care in US is already ridiculously expensive. Couple that with ridiculous nutrition and between insurance companies and corporations selling you corn-syrup-infested water that makes you obese, diabetic, rots your teeth, etc. your hard-earned dollars are already spoken for an endless stream of health bills and life-long health conditions (so much so that US is the only "developed" country in which one of top reasons for bankrupcy is not money mismanagement or poor financial decisions, but rather costly health bills). So, indeed, where do you draw the line?

I didn't complain

[Dorsai65]

when they taxed tobacco, because I didn't smoke. I didn't complain when they taxed alcohol, because I didn't drink...."

Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing we need to stop doing is calling fat people "obese" or "overweight" or any other feel-good term like that. We need to call them "fat", with all of its negative connotations, because that is what they are.

Second, we need to go back to ridiculing them like we did in the 1950s and before. Aside from the very small number of people who are legitimately fat, because of some disease or disorder out of their control, most fat people today are fat because they make stupid diet and exercise decisions.

Some sissies may think ridicule is mean, but it's just a form of positive peer pressure. I know from personal experience. When I was growing up in the 50s, I used to like chocolates and sweets too much. They made me fat, and then people around me started ridiculing me. Even as a child, I knew that it was my diet that was to blame, and so I admitted I was at fault, and changed my ways. I started exercising, stopped eating so much fucking candy, and became skinny.

We don't need soda taxes. We just need to tell these fat fucks that they're fat and that they need to lose weight. Either they'll disregard us and face more and more ridicule, or they'll change their ways for the better.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[slim]

"Obese" is a feel-good term now?

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm not sure "obese" was ever a feel-good term.

You make an interesting point, but I'm not sure it would've helped me. I recently lost around 50 lbs, still more to go. Being called "fat" didn't motivate me. Realizing that I could build muscle, and that muscles are fun to have, was a much stronger motivation.

we need to go back to ridiculing them like we did in the 1950s and before.

I have to wonder, did ridiculing them work in the 1950s? I don't think so. Look around -- things are different now than then. Among other things ("supersize", anyone?), the fat and sugar content of the same foods has gone up quite a lot since then.

most fat people today are fat because they make stupid diet and exercise decisions.

And calling them fat and stupid doesn't motivate them to do anything other than cry.

Some sissies may think ridicule is mean, but it's just a form of positive peer pressure.

"Positive" in what way?

When I was growing up in the 50s, I used to like chocolates and sweets too much. They made me fat, and then people around me started ridiculing me. Even as a child, I knew that it was my diet that was to blame, and so I admitted I was at fault, and changed my ways.

Were you really so stupid you needed to have people around you ridicule you in order to realize it?

Actually, "stupid" is the term I'd bring back. For example, creationists do not have another point of view that should be respected, they have a stupid delusion that should not be given the time of day.

That, and people who are stupid in that way often don't realize they're stupid. Fat people would have to be pretty absurdly stupid to not realize they're fat.

We don't need soda taxes.

But they wouldn't hurt.

We just need to tell these fat fucks that they're fat and that they need to lose weight. Either they'll disregard us and face more and more ridicule, or they'll change their ways for the better.

And if they disregard us and continue to face more and more ridicule, what then?

No, I think a soda tax is much more practical. At some point, you stop caring about the ridicule, or even internalize it -- the fattest people I know often say things like "I'm so fat!" Maybe there are ways we could pressure them socially, but really, we need to hit them where it hurts -- in the wallet. If nothing else, we'll at least stop subsidizing them in our healthcare.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[dr2chase]

Whoa. Fat kid step on your puppy or something?

I am not too keen on the whole vilify-the-fatties thing, because this is NOT 100% an issue of individual actions. We are influenced by our friends, we are influenced by physical cues. We also subsidize fat in various ways, everything from relatively low taxes on gasoline (easier to drive than to walk/bike or walk to transit) to crazy farm policies. This stuff didn't just happen in a vacuum.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Stradivarius]

Of course friends influence you. But if your friends decide to rob a liquor store, your individual choice is whether or not to participate. Unfortunately, sometimes people will make the wrong choice. It doesn't mean we don't hold them responsible for their choice.

Of course we are influenced by physical cues too. Murder rates go up in the summer. Doesn't mean we say that "the summer made me do it".

Now, overeating is neither robbery nor homicide. And I'm not saying we should go around vilifying people for it (lord knows that most years of my life I've been overweight and sometimes downright fat). But it really is a matter of individual choices, and we should educate people on how they can help themselves, and hold them responsible for the cost of their actions.

If your health insurance premium was a function of whether you're trying to take care of yourself or not, then we'd be holding people responsible without having to make it into a moral crusade. Whereas if you are subsidizing my behavior through health insurance or whatever, then you do have a legitimate interest in my eating habits. That's not the society I want. We should all be free to do what we wish and to bear the responsibility for those choices.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Ridicule is never the answer. I used to be fat myself and I'm still very self conscious about my body even after losing a third of my total weight. My niece who wasn't even fat, just a little chubby, got anorexic after too many comments about her looks. Ridicule for most people destroys self esteem which is often the problem in the first place.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing we need to stop doing is calling fat people "obese" or "overweight" or any other feel-good term like that. We need to call them "fat", with all of its negative connotations, because that is what they are.

Short version of this: I want to feel good about being an asshole again.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people that are fat have low self-esteem already and eat too much junk food because it makes them feel better. There is plenty of ridicule and derision of fat people today and they know what the problem is. Your idea will not help solve the problem instead making it worse, you need to address the root of the problem.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[fireball84513]

do you know what that kind of thinking did to me? it turned me into an outcast before i even left elementary. i can thank people who did that for making me WANT to spend hours on my computer so i guess i can thank them for turning me into a nerd. ridicule might have worked for you, but not everybody works the way you do. at an early age i learned to accept the fact that im a "fat fuck" so i didnt grab my dads gun and blow my brains out. you dont know who i am or lived my life so you cant say i never tried, i tried for years but gave up. i go swimming without a t-shirt on and not give it a second thought because people like you made me realize your nothing but selfish and shallow assholes. id like to thank people like you for making me realize this.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, there's no need to fight. You both have the arrogance to think you can force better decisions on other people, and social cruelty and sin taxes are equally wrong ways to pursue that goal.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

As technology and communication have improved efficiency (especially since design for usability has grown tremendously), the average problem solving skill level of the population has dropped. The sense of entitlement that is said to have developed is related -- people expect that solutions will be provided, or at least easy-to-follow solution paths.

In the opposite direction, marketing and especially fitness marketing has developed to become strong enough that they can focus on profit rather than results. For example, programs like Weight Watchers that are (covertly) based more on helping customers feel better about themselves than actual weight loss. After all, the program would make less money if they successfully taught customers how to maintain their weight by themselves.

The result? Population is hungry -> population eats fast food, because it's easy -> population gets fat -> population wants to lose weight -> population goes to Weight Watchers, because it's easy -> population stays fat.

So how can anyone lose weight? Luckily, the Internet is an equalizer in the guerrilla sense, giving power back to the individuals. Go find fitness message boards. Lurk a little. If someone posts a self-picture, and the posters are brutally honest and pull no punches, that's where you want to be. That's your support group, that's where you can get advice on getting fit, and in the end you are just another user, so there's no incentive for the site to lie to you to try to keep you fat so you'll come back forever.

(as a side note: soda tax is ridiculous because diet soda, while it's not water, is in an entirely different class of food than regular soda. Either you'd tax regular and diet soda, which defeats the whole point, or you'd post a ridiculous cost on soda retailers, restaurants, convenience stores with self serve fountains, etc who then have to carry the burden of identifying and taxing a regular Coca Cola and not taxing the visually identical cup of Diet Coke or Coke Zero. Much more sensible to just require soda sellers to display calorie counts for each soda in the available sizes. 500 calories for a Large Coke and 0 calories for a large Diet Coke? I think people will figure that out pretty quick when you remind them of that fact.)

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[lennier]

"As technology and communication have improved efficiency (especially since design for usability has grown tremendously), the average problem solving skill level of the population has dropped. The sense of entitlement that is said to have developed is related -- people expect that solutions will be provided, or at least easy-to-follow solution paths."

Well, yeah. Is that really an unrealistic expectation?

The claim of science and progress is that things *will* improve and that science *is* building a better world which we are all entitled to. That's why we pursue science - so it will make our lives better. Better meaning simpler, more capable, more usable, more ergonomic, more accessible devices through which we can do more with less effort.

Are you saying science *shouldn't* aim to improve our lives but to make it harder?

Remember, science is also massively increasing the complexity of our daily lives, and the amount of sheer rote knowledge and time-consuming learned skills needed to successfully navigate it -- yet our individual brainpower isn't necessarily increasing at the same rate, and the complexity means we all have *less* time to learn new skills. Therefore, unless we can leverage our technology to make things easier and require less mental effort, we're all likely, even the brightest of us, to increasingly struggle just to get by each day.

Are you really advocating a sort of Klingon/Nietzschean/Dune design aesthetic - that technology *should* be built to be deliverately hard to use, time-consuming to figure out, and everything should be much harder than necessarily, so that we force ourselves to engage in a titanic moment-to-moment mental contest against our machines? Massively reducing our efficiency and productivity in the meantime?

Who's the real failure - the person who doesn't have time to learn the irrational quirks of a badly-designed device, or the designer who refuses to make the design rational to operate?

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there are ways we could pressure them socially, but really, we need to hit them where it hurts -- in the wallet

Hahaha! That worked really well for cigarette smokers, right?

And how will this help those of us who are already in good shape? I guess we'll have to resign ourselves to drinking water and snacking on carrots and broccoli(Gee, I'm looking forward to those parties) unless we pay the new tea taxes.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

" the fat and sugar content of the same foods has gone up quite a lot since then."

HFCS - high fructose corn syrup is what happened to the US Midwest, not sugar. That hfcs shit is nasty and doesn't taste as good as sugar. Evolutuion knows what to do with cane sugar; HFCS, notsomuch.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Macgrrl]

We don't need soda taxes. We just need to tell these fat fucks that they're fat and that they need to lose weight. Either they'll disregard us and face more and more ridicule, or they'll change their ways for the better.

I'm pretty sure, based on the size of the multi-billion dollar diet industry that they already know they are fat. The problem is for most people the freely (not free as in beer) available 'solutions' are unsustainable given current societal pressures around work/life balance and readily available foods.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that approach works. Chances are more than one person has called you an asshole in your life, or are you just too stupid to change?

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[SanityInAnarchy]

You both have the arrogance to think you can force better decisions on other people,

I'm not trying to force anything. I'm trying to convince people to make better decisions. If I can't do that, I'm trying to at least ensure that they're the ones paying for those poor decisions, not me.

social cruelty and sin taxes are equally wrong ways to pursue that goal.

What is the right way to pursue that goal, then?

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[SanityInAnarchy]

the average problem solving skill level of the population has dropped.

Citation needed.

After all, the program would make less money if they successfully taught customers how to maintain their weight by themselves.

You'd think that all it would take is one program that worked to break that oligarchy. But then, you're right about the marketing.

Much more sensible to just require soda sellers to display calorie counts for each soda in the available sizes.

Except that counting calories isn't all there is to good nutrition, which is needed if you want that weight loss to be at all permanent.

It's not a bad idea, but I think focusing on any one statistic like that is missing the point, and is also likely to lead to even more artificial garbage. Remember Olestra? Yeah, the solution isn't to make "diet" versions of everything, the solution is to make saner "regular" versions, and stop consuming stuff you don't need. Diet may be better than regular, but I'd argue one regular a week is better than two diets a day.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Hahaha! That worked really well for cigarette smokers, right?

Cigarrettes are physically addictive. So is caffeine, but to a much lesser degree, and if that's the problem, switch from Coke to coffee.

What's more, if the taxes actually go towards healthcare, and if smoke-free areas continue to increase, it solves the larger problem of me having to care. At the moment, I care mostly because my tax dollars inevitably go to medical care for these people -- but if they're pulling in tax from the cause of those medical bills (cigarettes, soda, etc), problem solved.

how will this help those of us who are already in good shape?

Well, by not having to pay higher taxes for things like Medicare and Medicaid.

I guess we'll have to resign ourselves to drinking water and snacking on carrots and broccoli

That'd be a terrible diet, and if you're in any decent kind of shape, you should know that.

But I'd be more curious how you're drinking enough soda that this is an issue, yet you're "in good shape"... I guess "round" is a shape. But yeah, if you're drinking one a week, or every few days, does it really matter whether it's $1 or $2?

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Evolutuion knows what to do with cane sugar

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

50s psychiatric ideas:
1.)Homosexuals are mentally ill.
2.)Lobotomizing people is good.
3.)Insults will make fat people thinner.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[mpe]

Except that counting calories isn't all there is to good nutrition, which is needed if you want that weight loss to be at all permanent.

At best doing so is a gross approximation. That's before you consider that the methods used do not take account of things like humans inability to digest cellulose (and other things which may well happen to burn in pure oxygen.) Also often ignored is the possibility of foods containing "drugs" which affect digestion and metabolic processes.

It's not a bad idea, but I think focusing on any one statistic like that is missing the point, and is also likely to lead to even more artificial garbage. Remember Olestra?

Olestra would come out very high in "calories" using regular testing. However the human gut hasn't evolved to handle indigestable sucrose based esters. The bacteria used in sewage treatment havn't either. Thus you have an alien compound to remove from drinking water.

Yeah, the solution isn't to make "diet" versions of everything, the solution is to make saner "regular" versions, and stop consuming stuff you don't need. Diet may be better than regular,

In some cases "diet" may be considerably worst than regular. It's also often the cae that "low fat" can equate to "high crab", "high salt", etc.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[mpe]

HFCS - high fructose corn syrup is what happened to the US Midwest, not sugar. That hfcs shit is nasty and doesn't taste as good as sugar.

But has a powerful lobby in the US.

Evolutuion knows what to do with cane sugar; HFCS, notsomuch.

How easy is it to get sucrose out of sugar cane compared with getting "corn syrup" out of maize anyway?
It certainly appears to be the cqase that humans and fructose are not a good mix.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, creationists do not have another point of view that should be respected, they have a stupid delusion that should not be given the time of day.

It's so nice to know that YOU are being open minded and willing to let others have their own views about things. Sheesh. Talk about disrespectful and delusional hubris.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's so nice to know that YOU are being open minded and willing to let others have their own views about things.

They have the right to their view.

And I have the right to, having considered it thoroughly, disregard it without much of a second thought. I usually don't, because I have the time, but I'm not surprised real scientists are too busy with real science to waste their time educating you.

Talk about disrespectful and delusional hubris.

Which is more disrespectful or delusional:

Disregarding a concept which has been proven false at least as many times and as conclusively as the idea that the Earth is flat, in favor of an idea which, in reluctant humility, places no greater value on ourselves than on any other creature? To accept that not only does the sun not revolve around the earth, but the animal kingdom does not revolve around us?

- or -

Believing that the vast majority of the scientific community, filled with people much smarter than you or I, have somehow collectively failed to grasp something you (or the con artists who lead the "Intelligent Design" movement) see so clearly? Or if you're honest with yourself for a moment, imposing a strange Bronze-Age belief system on a cosmos so much larger and more profound than anything Yehoshua ben Yosef ever dreamed?

That's right, profound. You are missing on something so much more amazing, something truly awe-inspriing, something so much grander than any religion's wildest dreams, all because you'd rather believe something comforting than know the truth.

If you really want to start that discussion, bring some evidence or GTFO.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[geminidomino]

Cigarrettes are physically addictive. So is caffeine, but to a much lesser degree, and if that's the problem, switch from Coke to coffee.

I love that idea. Just the thought of all the Coke drinkers being completely tweaked out from 3x the caffeine gives me a grin.

Don't get me wrong, I love my programming juice, but the entertainment value would be awesome.

"fooooor(i=00; i ====argc; +++++i)"

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I don't know about you, but when some ignorant loudmouth asshole starts telling me what to do, I don't look for ways to accommodate his every wish.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[geminidomino]

the average problem solving skill level of the population has dropped.

Citation needed.

See this link

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Are you sure? Coke is a _lot_ of caffeine, and coffee is less sugar.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[geminidomino]

Are you sure? Coke is a _lot_ of caffeine

Coffee is more.

Coca-Cola contains 34 mg of caffeine per 12 fluid ounces(~95.81 mg/L)

Coffee ranges from 310-2000 mg/L depending on preparation/type (not counting decaf, naturally)

and coffee is less sugar.

Depends on how you take it. ;)

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as someone who calls fat pieces of shit 'fat pieces of shit', I would like to dissuade the notion that I am doing it to help anyone.

Believe it or not, my intentions are not altruistic.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Depends on how you take it. ;)

Goes for coffee, too. I far more frequently drink less than 12 fluid ounces of coffee, and more like 20 fluid ounces of Coke. Or Vault, for that matter.

Oh well, it's probably a good thing, anyway. Caffeine boosts metabolism, which helps with weight loss.

Re:Just ridicule the fat.

[geminidomino]

Oh well, it's probably a good thing, anyway. Caffeine boosts metabolism, which helps with weight loss.

Not for me. It just boosts my "stab idiots in the face for talking to me before noon" resistance, which is, arguably, more important than weight loss. ;)

For the Love of Liberty!

[huffybadger]

I think the U.S. citizens have forgotten and do not care what Liberty is anymore.

Liberty is the right to choose how one lives their lives. Now, it seems, we are in an era in which everybody is trying to control the actions of one another. So many problems would eventually fix themselves if government would get out of the peoples lives. It also appears government has gone from the servant of the people to the master of the subjects.

No one cares when our neighbors vices are being excessively regulated and taxed. The pain never hits home until it is something that we love that is being hit.

Support the Environmental Lobby!

[rufusdufus]

Support the Environmental Lobby!

Eat recycled food!

The principle is good, but the evidence is lacking

[Michael G. Kaplan]

I strongly support government intervention to discourage any harmful product or behavior as long as such intervention is supported by appropriate evidence and as long as the risk/benefit ratio of what the government is trying to discourage is sufficiently high.

The increasing severity of the obesity epidemic over recent decades is alarming as demonstrated by the Center for Disease Control's map of obesity prevalence in the United States from 1985-2008. A government intervention to stop this epidemic is warranted, but that intervention must be backed by evidence.

The authors of the New England Journal of Medicine article cite the evidence demonstrating a correlation between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity. They then cite the results of the four long-term randomized controlled trials that studied the effect of discouraging these beverages on weight gain in school children. A one-year United Kingdom study did not show a significant change in body mass index although a decrease in the overweight rate was statistically significant. The authors failed to mention, however, that a follow-up of these subjects two years after completion of the study showed that this difference in the overweight rate was not sustained. It would seem that this dietary intervention had no more than a transient effect without impacting the long-term propensity of these children to become obese.

The other three long-term studies cited by the authors all failed to meet their primary endpoints. Instead the authors rely on the results of sub-group analysis of these studies to conclude that there is a benefit to discouraging these beverages. The conclusions of the sub-group analysis between these studies don't even match up as one study suggested that only the more overweight kids would benefit, another study suggested that only the more overweight girls would benefit, and the last study suggested only a benefit of increased lean body tissue. These mismatched results of subgroup analysis are only useful as a basis for designing future clinical studies.

So which dietary interventions work? Well, all of them... and none of them. Clinical studies have show a wide variety of diets to be effective (e.g. low fat diets, low carbohydrate diets, etc.) but the most a population of highly motivated obese people can expect to keep off in the long term with any diet is about 5% of their body weight (although there is a lot of individual variability). No diet has been shown to effect the long term propensity to be obese - i.e. you must keep on the diet forever. I think that discouraging sugar-sweetened beverages probably will have some effect, but it is unlikely to be superior to any other intervention. Even if restricting sugar-sweetened beverages does cause weight loss we cannot assume that combining it with another dietary intervention such as a low-fat diet will result in an additive benefit.

Body weight is exquisitely regulated and "will power" can only be used to vary ones weight within a very narrow range. We need to admit to ourselves that we do not understand the etiology of the current obesity epidemic and we should not be distracted by trying to fix it via unproven interventions like restricting beverages. Maybe then we can focus more on basic science to find the true etiology.

Right to tax

[dstates]

Bottom line on taxes is that the government has the right to tax anything in any amount even to the point of extinction. The logic of taxes is also simple, if you don't want people to do something, increase the tax on it. Europeans don't want to spend all their money importing oil so they tax gasoline out the wazoo and guess what, people do not drive SUVs. We do not want kids to start smoking so we increase the taxes on cigarettes to $4 per pack and guess what, kids are not smoking as much. Association between the introduction of corn based high calorie sweeteners and the onset of the obesity epidemic is pretty strong, and there is a good scientific basis for linking the two (you eat more, you get fat, just like your mother told you). We do not want to pay lots of money taking care of diabetes, heart attack, stroke or kidney failure so it makes sense to tax calories. But don't stop with soda, also tax french fries, donuts and supersize whopper burgers. BTW, the NEJM article specifically does not advocate taxing diet drinks like Fresca.

Troll, huh?

[allseason radial]

The more I read arguments against socialized healthcare, the more those arguments seem disconnected from reality. For example: my employer (a very large company) pays its well-known commercial health care "insurer" $800 per month per employee, including me. $800 per month! This is the amount the company uses to figure out how much they are really compensating us.

Last month, my doctor prescribed 2 different flu shots, which I took. My wife did not. Now she is sick as a dog, drowning in her own snot and generously sharing her illness with others everywhere she goes. Me? I'm perfectly healthy. I go to work. I produce value for my employer. I'm not coughing on the food at the grocery store.

Last Wednesday, I got a letter from my company's insurance carrier informing me that they will not pay, that I am responsible for the crappy $100 charge for the flu shots as well as several other basic health care services totaling over $1,000. $1,000 is just 25% more than my company pays these thieves in a single month. It makes me wonder if the executives at my "insurance" carrier have coverage that would take care of a richly-deserved icepick through their neck.

If private "insurers" actually "insured" anything, Republicans might have a point. Unfortunately for them and you, the so-called "industry" you champion AND the system that created it is at best nothing more than a bunch of unproductive leeches and thieves who profit handsomely while contributing as little as possible to the well-being of their victims... I mean, their "customers". Maybe that's why over 80% of respondents who are genuinely concerned about this country think we need health care reform to benefit people, not the over-compensated beancounting math-impaired executives of an industry that brought us to this insanely unbalanced point in the first place.

Re:Troll, huh?

[n0nsensical]

Oh, they are quite good at math.

hypocritical

[ChipMonk]

They can ban the Marlboros, tax the Cokes, and zone the Whoppers, says Slate's William Saletan on the subject of today's morality cops. But it's time to put the brakes on the paternalistic overreaching of the food police... when they come after his editor's beloved Fresca

In other words, the rights of all don't matter, just the rights of the people in his little sphere of influence. About on par with Pauline Kael wondering how Richard Nixon could have won in 1972, because she didn't know anybody who voted for him.

A letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear America,

You can have all the guns,
none of the health care,
and all the Coke and BigMacs you want.

Best Wishes,
Death

It DOES take a village

[nbauman]

It does NOT take a village to enforce thinness.

You've raised an interesting point. It DOES take a village to prevent obesity.

Obesity is a classic example of a behavior in which there is good evidence from rigorous scientific studies that the behavior is determined by community influence, rather than individual choice. Nicholas Christakis showed in NEJM that people are far more likely to become obese if they have a close friend, sibling, or spouse who is obese. People in a community become obese together and loses weight together. The most effective weight loss methods are community-based.

Christakis demonstrated the same thing for smoking. He has great computer-generated diagrams of social networks over time, as people gain and lose weight together in nodes.

The only way to deal with obesity effectively is to approach it as a community problem, like sexually transmitted disease.

After extensive studies, they identified soft drinks as one of the worst contributors to the problem (obesity, not STD), and the one most vulnerable to intervention.

That's why they're going after soft drinks.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/4/370
New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 357:370-379 July 26, 2007

The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years
Nicholas A. Christakis, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., and James H. Fowler, Ph.D.

Background The prevalence of obesity has increased substantially over the past 30 years. We performed a quantitative analysis of the nature and extent of the person-to-person spread of obesity as a possible factor contributing to the obesity epidemic.

Methods We evaluated a densely interconnected social network of 12,067 people assessed repeatedly from 1971 to 2003 as part of the Framingham Heart Study. The body-mass index was available for all subjects. We used longitudinal statistical models to examine whether weight gain in one person was associated with weight gain in his or her friends, siblings, spouse, and neighbors.

Results Discernible clusters of obese persons (body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], â¥30) were present in the network at all time points, and the clusters extended to three degrees of separation. These clusters did not appear to be solely attributable to the selective formation of social ties among obese persons. A person's chances of becoming obese increased by 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 123) if he or she had a friend who became obese in a given interval. Among pairs of adult siblings, if one sibling became obese, the chance that the other would become obese increased by 40% (95% CI, 21 to 60). If one spouse became obese, the likelihood that the other spouse would become obese increased by 37% (95% CI, 7 to 73). These effects were not seen among neighbors in the immediate geographic location. Persons of the same sex had relatively greater influence on each other than those of the opposite sex. The spread of smoking cessation did not account for the spread of obesity in the network.

Conclusions Network phenomena appear to be relevant to the biologic and behavioral trait of obesity, and obesity appears to spread through social ties. These findings have implications for clinical and public health interventions.

(In case that link doesn't work http://www.media6degrees.com/about/pdf/Spread%20of%20Obesity%20in%20a%20Large%20Social%20Network.pdf)

Mod Parent Up

[openfrog]

The point that this is a 'cost tax' rather than a 'sin tax' is right on. The term 'Sprite rebellion' sounds like it was brewed in a PR firm, which is quite possibly the case. A Sprite rebellion? Come on!

Re:Mod Parent Up

[buswolley]

The fact is that people do not make good choices when it comes to food. There is too much instinct involved in our addictions to fat, salt and sugar, for good eating decisions to happen at a group level.

Companies that produce food do not have our health in mind, and thus put every bit of processed crap they can in it to cut costs, and increase consumption. I don't think there should be a soda tax.

I think their should be a tax on grams fat, grams sugar, g salt.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[zach_the_lizard]

The fact is that people do not make good choices when it comes to food.

You can say the same thing about every possible human choice. What is so special about human food choices and not about anything else? Once you start pushing humans in a certain direction for one choice, there is no real reason why you can't try it with all other choices.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[tsm_sf]

Well, we're hard-wired to seek certain compounds that do not naturally occur in high concentrations in the wild. Fat is the prime example. It would be hard to make the same statement about, say, a clothing line or a model of car, although the reliability of our sex drive is the reason you see so many titty girls in advertising.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Runaway1956]

"The fact is that people do not make good choices when it comes to food."

Can't really argue that. But, look just a little further. From childhood, people are bombarded with advertisements. Most women use television as a babysitter. That boob tube is on all day, every day in most households. Little children can sing a McDonald's song before they start day care. They are indoctrinated for hours each day to believe that various high sugar foods are good for them. Children's icons such as Sponge Bob endorse "foods" that are pure garbage.

People don't make good choices, true. But a lifetime of brainwashing does contribute to making poor choices.

I would rather see the government simply tax the manufacturers of corn syrup, bleached sugar, and bleached flour to the point that those ingredients become to expensive to use for filler. I very much want to see other unhealthy ingredients banned. Alzheimer's, ADD, and other ailments have been tentatively linked to a number of food colorings and preservatives. Such studies are quickly "discredited" by the corporations that produce these unnecessary additives, but the links keep coming up.

Let's put an end to the brainwashing, and tax all the ingredients that are proven to be unhealthy along with questionable additives. That will be enough to cut America's obesity problem drastically.

America is addicted to trashy foods because the government approves of the pushers. Government permits the pushers to come into our living rooms to warp the minds of our children.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[AK Marc]

Most women use television as a babysitter.

Because men would never do it? You misogynist bastard.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Runaway1956]

Awww, bite my mysogenistic arse, alright? Just how many Mr. Moms do you know? How many regular Moms do you know? Those little kids sitting in front of the television for 5 to 10 hours a day while Mama cleans, cooks, or talks on the phone are often times just waiting for Daddy to get home, so that they can go outside with him. I've seen it.

Do you care to address my previous post, or are you just trolling for the odd sexist comment that you can unload on?

Re:Mod Parent Up

[AK Marc]

Sorry, couldn't see past your sexist lies to the rest. Leave your hateful stabs out of your post if you want someone to evaluate the rest.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Runaway1956]

Demonstrate that there is a lie in my post. Go for it. Show Slashdot that there is an appreciable number of Mr. Moms. If/when we can establish that there is a significant number of single dads raising houses full of children, then we might examine if there is any difference between their child rearing habits, and the habits of mommies.

Meanwhile, are you capable of addressing what my post says? Mommies are more than happy to allow their children to sit in front of the boob tube for hours every day, to be brainwashed into eating unhealthy foods.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[AK Marc]

Mommies are more than happy to allow their children to sit in front of the boob tube for hours every day, to be brainwashed into eating unhealthy foods.

What do the daddies do? They leave home and don't care one whit about how their children are raised? And that somehow absolves them? Why is it "mommies" and not "parents"? What possible reason could you have to single out one sex? The implication is that women do it more than men. Is that what you are intending to imply? Or are you simply stating that men aren't parents and avoid all such responsibility?

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Runaway1956]

I can offer personal experience. When my boys were little, I came home almost every day to find them watching television. Daddy booted their little arses out the door, unless the weather was bad. "Let's play ball" or "Let's weed the garden", or "let's mow the lawn", or, "Help daddy wash the car". All translated to "Get your butt outside and exercise!" Just because you are a feminist, and you want to feel good about challenging a stereotype, doesn't mean that the stereotype isn't true. The primary caregiver in most households is the mother, and mother often takes the path of least resistance. If you have a problem with that, that is your problem. Maybe you should kick some well-meaning mother's asses, and make them change the stereotype. I could have used your help 15 years ago.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

So which are you suggesting needs to be regulated-- parenting, advertising or consumption? Or just anything 'questionable'?

Re:Mod Parent Up

[AK Marc]

Are you divorced? It sounds like there is some bitterness there over how your wife handled things, and that you felt powerless because she had the power when you weren't there. And that she did things differently than you would have, but that you didn't do anything about working it out with her then, but instead take it out on women now.

And yes, plenty of women are like that. And so are the men that are home for the same amount of time. There comes some point of where it is hard to deal with the constant demands and a break is needed. Since the wage earner is unavailable for giving care, they turn to something else. The working parent that's home for 3 waking hours every day can more easily point out the flaws and state how they'd do it differently, then they leave again for work. It's the same whether it's the guy at home or the woman. So again, I fail to see how it's a woman problem, unless it's really a man problem for abandoning their family for the majority of the waking time and then complaining about how the wife, with no support, manages in his absense.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Runaway1956]

Wow. Feminazi, much? The guy is at fault here, no matter what, right?

You haven't answered my question: How many Mr. Moms do you know? Are they common where you live? Males who are primary care givers exist - but I don't think they are common in ANY demographic.

Going to work, bringing home the bacon, is "abandoning" the kids during the day? Good grief!

I appreciate your attempt to psychoanalyze me. Did you reference a book? Wrong book, sorry. Keep searching, though. You may find something that hits me personally.

Meanwhile - what say you about using the boob tube as a baby sitter? That WAS, after all, the subject of my original post - or have you forgotten that? Children are brainwashed to eat a diet of junk, then we wonder why they are lard asses. Ironic, isn't it?

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Runaway1956]

Primarily, advertising. Almost every advertisement seen on television that makes claims about nutrition and/or health benefits is an outright lie. Almost nothing advertised on television is actually "good" for you. The only benefit realized by the advertisements, is to be seen in corporate revenue.

Parenting? Yeah. Every high school graduate should have been educated regarding nutrition. By 3rd grade, children should be educated enough to understand what real food is, but a high school graduate should be able to plan menus for the family.

Consumption? Yes, again. Tax the hell out of additives and preservatives, and tax sugar, corn syrup, bleached flour, and all the rest that does nothing but fatten the hogs, and/or addict the piglets to unhealthy food.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[mdarksbane]

The fact is that people do not make good choices.

The difficulty comes in I think my bad choices are better than your bad choices, and try to force you to change yours. We should pick our battles on that front carefully, and personally I don't think regulating what people are allowed to eat is pretty high up there.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so it's misogynistic to blame Mother's who are around their children most of the day if they are stay at home moms, for putting this children in front of the TV all day, but it's perfectly ok to make it a MAN problem because the father might actually go out and bust his ass to that there is food on the table, a TV to watch, and a roof over their head. I like your poor choice of words, "Abandoned" meaning they go to work. If the roles were reversed you would spew some bullshit about how the mother/wife was empowering herself or breaking the shackles of tyranny. Fuck you and your stupid world view. You're a hypocrite and a very obvious one at that. So answer the question, how many Mr. Mom's do you know? You're the one challenging the perception that when it might be a woman's fault we must make it gender neutral, so put up some statistics or shut the fuck up.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[AK Marc]

The guy is at fault here, no matter what, right?

You stated that women are always wrong. So I presented that men can be wrong too. You apparently are clinging to the idea that women are always wrong and men are never wrong. I'm objecting to the latter, and you apparently understand that this will invalidate your life-view so you are ignoring it. Again, can you explain how a man that knows how his children are being raised and that they are being raised wrong has no responsibility in their rearing?

Meanwhile - what say you about using the boob tube as a baby sitter? That WAS, after all, the subject of my original post - or have you forgotten that?

Nope. Because of your word choice, you made it a post about how women are lazy and harming our children by letting TV raise them. It wasn't about what they see on TV, but blaming the class of people you blame for allowing it.

I appreciate your attempt to psychoanalyze me.

Oh, so I was wrong that you are not currently married to the mother of your children? I feel sorry for her.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Runaway1956]

"Don't use that tone of voice with ME!"

I got news for you. We don't even hear "that tone of voice". And, it certainly can't be heard through a keyboard.

Get over yourself. If you can show me some kind of statistics that prove my statements to be wrong, I may very well admit that I'm wrong. I've done it before, right here on slashdot.

Until then - I maintain that only a lazy parent will use the television as a baby sitter, and I will further maintain that most primary caregivers are female. Hence, a lot of mommies are bad mommies. Of the VERY few primary care givers who are male, that I am acquainted with, they bumble like fools in a lot of other ways, but they don't seem to rely on the television.

Got some stats for me to browse? Hit me with them. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[AK Marc]

Yes, I get it. You make an unsupported assertion that is inflamatory and insulting. I say "that's unfair" and your response is "prove it." I can't. I can make the same "I know people that..." statements, but they aren't proof of anything. So yes, you win. You are right. I can't prove your unfounded insulting and mysoginst statements false. Why? Because they are false, but I can't be arsed to do the work because you aren't worth it.

And you never answered the question of why the mother is wrong when the father knows what happens and doesn't get her to adjust. I also noticed that you never answered about being married to the mother of your children. You implied I was wrong in my analysis, and that's an easy test of my analysis. Am I right or wrong? Are you currently married to the mother of your children, or not? That will clearly reveal whether my assumptions are correct or if I'm off base. I'm guessing that you aren't, but that you won't reveal it here because it's proof you are wrong. But at east you will know, even if no one else will hear it from you.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Runaway1956]

*sigh*

Yes, I am married to the mother of my children. We have talked many many times about that boob tube. Uhhh - you suggest that I change her? Uhhh - we aren't members of one of those religions where "Father's word is LAW!" Do you suggest I beat her? I mean, WTF? The woman is just as hard headed and independent as I am. Yeah, I could change her, I guess. And, I could spend the rest of my life in prison. I should maybe divorce her? *cough* If I were a little more hard headed, maybe I would - but, have you ever noticed that Mom generally gets the kids, along with alimony, and child support? Duhhh. That's a game that no man with even a shred of honour wins. Come to think of it, even those dishonorable deadbeat worthless dads don't "win" that game. Usually, the man is guaranteed to lose, and chances are high that the woman loses too. Not to mention the kids.

As for me trying to prove my statements, just google "Obesity in America" or "Obesity" and "Television", or make up your own combinations of terms. There is no end to the documentation that far to many people in America spend their lives in front of the television, almost from cradle to grave. Where do those primary caregivers fit into the equation? Hmmmm?

Contrary to what some people seem to believe...

[Chris Mattern]

"Market Failure" does not mean "people aren't buying what I think they should!"

I like it.

[MarkvW]

Americans eat crap. Crap that makes them obese. Crap that makes them die earlier than they need to.

That doesn't bother me much. We suffer the consequences of our diet decisions.

But this kind of activity forces food manufacturers to put more better foods in the market place. That's good for me. So I like it. I don't want to eat the garbage anyway.

Market failure?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's partly a problem of health care. If you have to pay for your obesity, certainly there shouldn't be 'market failure', but a bunch of fat people complaining the government for not covering their asses.

Pointing out the obvious

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Death is free. It's life that has costs. You'd think this is rather obvious to anyone who's ever tilled a field or had to buy his/her own food.

The future is replacing humans with AI, which has a hugely lower cost-of-life than we ourselves, even if it is nonzero.

Psst...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "soda", it's pop.

We should have drawn the line long ago

[Quila]

The first time the government taxed or band something for our own good was what sealed our fate. This is a true slippery slope, and nothing was off limits once the government realized the people would let them do it.

Step 1: Run a campaign of demonization to convince the sheeple
Step 2: Tax or ban
Step 3: Repeat with another product or activity

So you fans of the anti-smoking legislation have only your own ignorance to blame when the government comes after your soda, ice cream, Big Macs or anything else you don't like.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!

[tedgyz]

Fresca, my one "vice" is being taxed? They've gone too far!

Sleight of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep your eyes on the 'hope' hand, while the 'change' hand lifts your wallet and watch.

Hold Cyclists to the Same Standards as Motorists

[dlenmn]

There's no denying that many people on bikes break lots of rules (I keep "random schmuck on a bike" and "cyclist" distinct -- the former is the superset of the latter -- people who also ride bikes for recreation). As a cyclist who obeys most of them, it annoys me to no end, because they piss off drivers, making life harder for everyone.

That said, it doesn't make sense to hold cyclists to a higher standard than motorists. How many people come to a complete stop at a stop sign if there's no cross traffic? Do motorists follow all posted speed limits?

On a related note, what exactly do you expect cyclists to do in a 45mph zone? Go the same speed as the cars? At least in the states I've been in, there's no legal obligation to maintain a minimum speed on such roads. Unless it's a downhill, whatever speed the bike is going will be slow compared to that of the cars, so what does it matter that they're going at a leisurely pace?

Which gets to the real heart of the issue. Many of the things that cyclists do to irritate motorists aren't illegal or are the same illegal things that motorists do. Let's take your cyclist using the shoulder example. Here's some applicable WI law:

A motorist passing a bicyclist in the same lane is require to give the bicyclist at least 3 feet of clearance, and to maintain that clearance until safely past. [346.075] A bicyclist passing a stopped or moving vehicle is also required to give at least 3 feet of clearance when passing. [346.80(2)]

For some reason reason (anger, ignorance, convenience, whatever) most cars don't give 3 feet of clearance. The law says that people on bikes can pass stopped vehicles. Why do you expect them to give 3 feet of clearance in that situation when they were just denied it? How about they stay in the middle of the lane (as suggested by the state) and hold up traffic when the light turns green instead?

Again, I agree that many people on bikes are assholes and break many traffic laws. Their actions annoy me too. For what it's worth, I won't ride down the shoulder at a stopped light unless I have clearance (cyclists have plenty of torque at 0rpm, so can often match a car's acceleration in a green light situation, so it's possible to not hold up traffic while remaining in lane), I don't blow through stop signs (although I don't come to a complete stop unless I have to), and I obey all traffic lights (however, at least in WI, you're allowed to go through a red light under certain situations, since many will not register the presence of a bicycle and so will not turn green). I think those are fair compromises -- similar to the ones cars make all the time. Don't hold cyclists to a higher standard than the average driver on the road.

Is this article a troll?

[Nimey]

I didn't RTFA (don't forget this is /.), but from the summary's tone one wonders if this is something mainly intended to get the anti-government folks riled up.

Garbage tax

[bitemykarma]

I agree that a tax on consuming garbage is wrong. Write your congrescritter.

Re:Garbage tax

[uassholes]

Exactly. You have a right to eat shit.

Ban corn syrup and you've got a deal

[wiredlogic]

I'm all for an unfair excise tax on sweetened drinks so long as they ban the use of corn syrup and return the the all natural goodness of pure cane sugar.

Re:Ban corn syrup and you've got a deal

[/dev/trash]

don't ban it. Just eliminate the subsidy corn gets. Problem solved.

Re:Ban corn syrup and you've got a deal

[corychristison]

Just want to point out that only 46% of the US sugar production comes from Sugar Cane. Majority (54%) comes from beets.

Numbers-wise, you aren't getting "pure cane sugar" as you mentioned.

Source. 3rd bullet from the bottom.

Re:Ban corn syrup and you've got a deal

[sowth]

How about they ban the use of syrup / sugar in food it doesn't belong? Such as additives to pasta sauce and fruit drinks. Not only does it make you fat, (in my opinion) it ruins the taste.

the real, actual solution

[ILuvRamen]

The most proper solution legally and socially would logically be to cut fat people off from all health related government benefits. I'm sure that would go over just as well. Instead of this roundabout, greedy, inaccurate targetting of the foods that cause people to be fat in order to make it too expensive for them to be fat, they could just say if your BMI is ____, you're off medicare and medicaid and insurance companies can legally drop you. That would be extremely fair in that my health insurance premiums would probably be cut in half after all those fat asses are cut out. It wouldn't punish people who have some cake and a soda occassionally and it would achieve their supposed end goal of motivating people to not be so fat.

Re:the real, actual solution

[sowth]

Yeah, sure. Brilliant solution. Except for the study that said fat people and smokers reduce health care costs because they die sooner. So I guess your revised plan would be for insurance and government plans to drop healthy people because they live longer and end up costing more.

Then some of the people who now have no insurance don't get medical treatment for anything until it is so serous they end up in the emergency room of the hospital which turns into a month long visit costing more than most houses, which they can't pay for because they have no medical insurance, and government programs won't pay for them, so the hospitals don't get paid for all this medical care they did which cost them a lot of money to provide, so they all go bankrupt.

Wonderful solution!

Thoughts to the contrary.

[plasmacutter]

As centralized corporate power continues to consolidate, it looks for more avenues by which to leverage its media holdings and increasingly dominant position in both the lives of every-day citizens and politics to invade the lives of the populace.

It seeks legislation and technical means by which to erect barriers to market entry and to prevent consumer behaviors which would interfere with their profit margins.

The larger the company's market presence and holdings, the more abusive it can become and the more people can be compelled to "bear" their behavior, as there are plenty of others unaffected, and any news holdings will be there to marginalize and discredit those who dare to speak out.

The irony of this sort of controlling behavior is it creates an underground society.

for reference, see:
amzon kindle 1984
patent medicines of the 1800's
meat packing practices which led to "the jungle"
the current state of private health insurance in the USA.
fox news

The only way to prevent the abuse of centralized corporate power is to centralize individuals' power in the form of government and regulate them with consumer protection laws.

Punish the diabetics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a type 1 diabetic. My pancreas's beta cells no longer produce insulin, causing nearly all carbohydrates I digest to sit in my bloodstream until I manually inject myself with insulin to compensate. I was diagnosed at the fairly uncommon age of 21, three years ago. Changing my diet and adding more exercise cannot correct this (although they can help). This is not type 2, which is related to being overweight.

I take specific amounts of insulin with each meal corresponding to the number of grams of carbohydrates I have budgeted into the meal. Fruit Juice of any kind is filled with carbohydrates. As is milk. And you better believe regular soda is too (sugar). There are a relatively few drinks that I can just drink at any time of the day, without having to factor it into my meals. It basically comes down to water, coffee/tea (no sugar or milk added of course), and diet soda (let's include diet iced tea in there too).

I don't care about the effects of artificial sweetners such as sucralose or aspartame. To me, it's the lesser of two evils compared to what continually elevated blood sugar levels would do to me. I don't drink gallons and gallons of diet sodas each day, but I do like to enjoy a can here or there and have it with my meal. After all, that leaves more of my 'carb budget' towards the actual food.

Now, I live in Canada, but my concerns are just as valid from articles like this. It's true that I could live with water as my only drink, but I shouldn't have to. Banning diet sodas, or taxing them more heavily punishes people like me.

And for anyone wondering, I'm an anonymous coward because in all my years of reading Slashdot, I never bothered to get an account. Should really get around to it one of these days.

Re:Punish the diabetics?

[Jerry Rivers]

With all due respect, you live in Canada, where your health care coverage is universal. Here in the Fatest States of America, we don't live as long and we have the most expensive health care on earth. This is at least partly due to all the fatty hackers consuming massive quantities of crap "food" day in and day out, and letting themselves go to the point of severe illness. This lazy, obesity-driven lifestyle for so many drives up the cost of health care for everyone. Nanny state or not, if people can't resist slamming their pie hole several times a day for years until it makes them sick, then SOMETHING has to be done to discourage the consumption of useless and excessive calories. Since money is just about the only thing most Americans understand (another is size), taxing sugar water is probably the only way to slow its consumption. I for one am sick and tired of paying higher premiums because the chow line at Togo's is filled with whales ordering meals that contain more calories than the average needs for an entire day, then topping it off with a soda and a cookie for desert.

I can sympathize that through no fault of your own you are diabetic, and I agree that you shouldn't be punished by higher taxes, but surely some accommodation can be made in the form or rebates or exemptions for people with medical needs.

Re:Punish the diabetics?

[sowth]

Fat people costing the health care system more is a myth. PLos Medicine: Does Preventing Obesity Lead to Reduced Health-Care Costs?

...and demanding that people who have health problems have to go through more hoops just to follow their needed diet is an asshole solution. In fact, most of these food "solutions" are based on studies of 50 year old fat men with cholesterol problems and pop crap made up "science". NOT EVERYONE IS THE FUCKING SAME. You are obviously a self-righteous shitheaded fucktard who just spouts out idiotic "solutions" without thinking.

In fact, I have kidney failure and have to follow the renal diet. Watch phosphorus and potassium among other things. Cake and candy and red meat are better for me than "heathy" food such as lots of fruits and vegetables. What a given person should be eating depends on many factors.

Genetics, condition of their internal organs, how much muscle mass and fat they have, how much of various chemicals are in their bloodstream (vitamins, minerals, cholesterol, etc), their current metabolic rate. You can't just say this one magic food is good for everyone all the time or that food is bad, because everyone is different and their condition is always changing. Nor can you say by how much they eat they are going to be fat/unhealthy. It just doesn't work that way.

This is why there is so much information on the side of food boxes: to help you decide if a given food will be helpful or harmful to you. Even too many vitamins, just as too few, can be bad for you. Over 2000 mg of Vitamin C in a day causes diarrhea. What, do you think it should just have a thumbs up or thumbs down on it?

Really, you are just the stupid self-righteous American which makes this country a fucking shitty place to live in.

Re:Punish the diabetics?

[Jerry Rivers]

I hope there is a cure for your denial some day. If you live that long before someone shoves their fat fist down your oh-so-eloquent potty mouth throat (I wouldn't be surprised if it actually fit either). You can try to justify mass obesity all you want, and call me as many silly names as you like. It won't change the fact MANY people are grossly overweight for no other reason that they consume massive quantities and red meat and cake for no other reason than because they can. It's obviously too late for you as you have already likely ruined your health for good, but I'll remember you and your kind words and compelling arguments for obesity the next time I pay my insurance premium.

I'd say see you at Togo's, but you probably have it delivered.

Re:"Where do we draw the line?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The way European governments see to it that their population doesn't behave in an unhealthy manner?

Fresca is made from "wood rosin".

[Futurepower(R)]

Sure, but the whole discussion is not important, because no one should want to drink "Glycerol ester of wood rosin", in my opinion. Except maybe wood beetles.

The real target...

[Lord Kano]

All of that bullshit about the health care costs of smoking or obesity or drug use is just a pretext. They want to go after people's sources of pleasure. It's only a matter of time before we hear someone talk about taxing condoms. It'll be framed as a necessity because of the health care costs of STDs, but the reality is that they know how much people enjoy sex.

Anything they want to regulate and tax is something that people enjoy.

LK

yaaaaawn

[Anonymous Coward]

slow new days? "oh damn my as hurts too much after my gay boyfriend raped me yesterday, so i dont want to do journalism today. what to do instead? oh wait, i know ..... [insert random policy x is too overreaching, its time to act story here] .. yeeehaaa, journalism. now back to rubbing my rectum ."

Bullying is the answer? Really?

[N0Man74]

Do you honestly think that harassment and bullying is the way to create "positive peer pressure"? And are you going to ask them for their medical records before deciding whether or not they are "legitimately fat" and open game for your bullying?

Have you ever considered that quite a large number of the overweight aren't that way *just* because of medical conditions, but also because of mental health issues or can often coincide with feelings of isolation and social withdrawal that just fuel many behaviors that increase the likelihood of unhealthy behaviors that can lead to weight gain.

Did you also know that there have been studies show that it can be healthier to be a little overweight than a little underweight?

And where does your bullying start, when they are 40 lbs too heavy? 20? 10? Don't we have enough people with screwed up body image problems because we are bombarded with images from popular media that give us skewed and unrealistic ideas of what is normal, healthy, or attractive?

No, thast poster is just an idiot

[N0Man74]

"Overweight" might be euphemistic, but it's also vague. It could mean slightly overweight, obese, or morbidly obese.

Obese is pretty much to the point, but I wouldn't say euphemistic. Maybe more clinical sounding.

You might hear some critical ass-hat movie-watcher calling some actress "fat" (who is a perfectly healthy weight) because she doesn't conform to a rigid standard that they've become accustomed to through popular media, but you wouldn't likely hear them call her "obese".

You may have missed the point...

[weston]

And that's where we start seeing the problems of the nanny state. If we are going to take care of the people, with our taxes and income, who have damaged themselves - those who consume too much food, resulting in extensive health care costs, etc. - then we have to manage those costs.

While what you've said is true, the gp's point was that death and illness have economic and social costs whether or not there's any form of state care. Costs in the most real sense, not just lost valuation, money moved from one account to another, but lost productive capacity.

That may or may not mean the best thing to do is impose taxes on problematic behaviors, but it's important to understand this issue exists independent of any kind of welfare program.

skidding and speed differential

[harvey the nerd]

Serious speed differentials cause accidents and kill, 5 mph and 45 mph are incompatible in higher traffic times and areas.

Also where I live, skidding is a common problem on roads, even motorcycles are inadequate vehicles. There are no old and long term motorcyclists, they literally disappear after several years. We have separate bike paths but those paths are seasonal, winter shuts them down.

Ridicule ie harassment is a nice way to get shot

[Anonymous Coward]

it was never coll in the 1950s (or before), it wasn't cool in school, and for adults? You're just begging to be shot. You think someone is fat, too fat? You keep your mouth shut, lest they think you breathe too much (lawyer, fist, or gun, you're getting with something).

Diabetic Tax

[meerling]

Yes, I said Diabetic Tax.

Now, what happens if you're a diabetic? You consume non-sugar sweetness substitutes. You avoid the sugar in the first place. So this bozo goes and taxes your 'diet' foods because he's afraid it might cause a non-diabetic to eat even more sugary stuff than they would without the diet stuff.... Not bloody likely you moron, and now you've pissed off the growing number of diabetics. With the 'logic' that cretin uses in that one paragraph, he might as well tax diabetic medication because it indirectly increases you ability to tolerate, and thus consume, more sugar.

Somebody kick that scum out of office and into the deepest darkest metaphorical well of forgotten politicians they have so nobody ever hears any of his stupid ideas again.

As a type 2 diabetic, I'm not exactly unbiased in this issue. As someone allergic to milk, who dislikes alcohol, and is living someplace where the tap water just isn't desirable, I don't find a lot of other drink choices. I'll admit I occasionally have a real candy bar, but I have to be careful with that stuff. As to the non-sugar replacement candies, a lot are horrible (most peanut butter cups), but some (mostly the hard candies) are just as good. There's already a premium price on those, and if this idiot gets his way, it'll get much worse. And yes, I know he's 'targeting' beverages, but he's doing it by talking about sugar and sweeteners. It's a very very short leap to all foods with those in them. And when politicians are talking taxes, it's not a question of IF they'll make the jump, but rather HOW FAR they can actually go before hitting a brick wall...

Re: healthcare choices

[King_TJ]

In reality, there are PLENTY of health-care choices every U.S. citizen has. As one of my chiropractor buddies is fond of pointing out, nearly every patient he sees is suffering from at least one medical condition/issue that likely wouldn't have happened in the first place (or would have been dramatically lessened) if he/she took more steps to take care of themselves in the first place.

If you choose to eat loads of sweets and junk food all the time, then you should be aware that you're putting yourself at much higher risk of becoming diabetic, for example -- and with that comes all manner of other health problems. But so many people take an attitude of "It won't happen to ME!" until it finally does, and *then* they're all worried about what's covered with their health insurance plan, or if they can afford one that will take them with their "pre-existing condition."

I'm not saying I'm some kind of health nut, or that I even do all the things I probably could/should do for better health. But I realize it's MY body and MY choices to make. Everything involves a level of risk, and I'm trying to avoid a lot of the BIG risks (like smoking), while opting to take my chances on some of the smaller ones.

In the absolute sense, no, the United States never made health-care a "right". If it had, it would be spelled out someplace in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. As the nation has moved away from its roots as a Democratic Republic and towards some sort of Fascist/Socialist hybrid, though, you're seeing lots of legislative changes promising people new "rights" that aren't spelled out anyplace in the documents that SUPPOSEDLY spell out how things work here. Meanwhile, federal government is completely bankrupt and spending more money it doesn't even HAVE to give "the right of free healthcare to all children" and so forth. The "house of cards" is going to fall, sooner or later ... and then we won't have ANY of these promised government freebies anymore.

Re:The principle is good, but the evidence is lack

[tftp]

I strongly support government intervention to discourage any harmful product or behavior as long as such intervention is supported by appropriate evidence and as long as the risk/benefit ratio of what the government is trying to discourage is sufficiently high.

"By overwhelming scientific evidence life is the leading cause of illness and death. Researchers demonstrated that 100% of dead people previously lived, and none of people who never lived suffered any health problems. Therefore it had been decided that life is deadly, and by this Presidential Decree everyone should report to the euthanasia chambers."

The more rights you cede to the government the fewer rights are left with you. The government is infinitely patient, and eventually it will have all rights and you will have none (except the right to do what you are told.) But don't worry, it will be for your own good. Life of a slave is so easy, so decision-free...

re: socialism

[King_TJ]

I don't think Americans have been brainwashed at all! Many of us simply realize that we have a system of government that's unique in the world, and we don't wish to succumb to conversion to the exact same type of government in place in many other countries.

The biggest problem I have with all of the "socialist ideas" some people are promoting for the USA, currently, is that they can't PAY for any of them! Our government has long ago been bankrupted by the banking cartel, and our deficit spending is OUT OF CONTROL! We keep paying the Federal Reserve to print up more money for us (instead of our government making it directly!?) and then they loan it back to the federal government at INTEREST! Where does that money go they've been shaving off the top? Into the pockets of the private bankers who run the Federal Reserve! And we don't even have enough wealth left in the nation to back all the money that's been printed! Say what you will about the "gold standard" we once used, but at the very least, it ensured our paper money had real value. They couldn't just run off more paper any time they thought it was convenient, because it had to be tied to something tangible.

At this point, I don't see a better option than a massive REDUCTION in the size of government, so it doesn't cost so much to operate it and all of the associated programs it has going on. Failure to do so means a collapse of our entire economy, at some point - and then people will have much bigger things to worry about than if they can get the government to pay for all of their medical care! The only other alternative is findings ways to tax the people huge amounts, to try to balance the budget back out ... and I think we're so far in the red, that's not even a workable solution anymore, even IF people were ok with paying 60% or 70% of their annual income back to the government. (We don't even collectively produce enough in exportable goods or services to generate enough wealth to offset all the spending on everything from wars to foreign aid programs.....)

Covering costs != Nanny State

[Roger W Moore]

Therefore, if we are providing health care for everyone, we need to make sure that people are taking care of themselves.

No you do not - you just need to make sure that those costs are covered. This is the justification for taxing tobacco in the UK. Smokers generally have substantial health problems so there is a tax on cigarettes to cover the cost of treating those health problems. I have no trouble with there being a tax on junk food to cover the associated health costs. Those who eat more of it will pay more tax and hence foot their own healthcare bill. This does not make it a "nanny state": it simply means that you are end up paying for the consequences of your own choices.

Taxing junk food when you have practically no public healthcare like the US is unjustifiable. It is essentially the government saying that they disapprove of your behaviour. This is a true "nanny state" because they are trying to modify your behaviour "for your own good" and you still have to cover the cost of your own healthcare on top of this.

When in doubt, tax it

[Powys]

When you don't know what a creature is, kill it When you don't agree with a philosophy, burn the witch If you don't like something, TAX IT It makes about as much sense. Why would I think the gov't know/cares more about my health than I do? If I make dumb decisions about my own health, it is my problem, not the governments. That also means that I don't expect the government to pay for my health care. It is my problem, and my expense. I don't expect ANYBODY to play for my problems. They are my own.

Coca-Cola: The All-European Drink

[PCM2]

I just had a vision where, in 2018, Coca-Cola is known as one of the most popular drinks in Europe and Asia ... because in America it costs too much, so nobody really drinks it.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the ice cream debate rages on. Congress wants to raise federal taxes, but the States claim that the ice-cream tax is their sole purview. In Texas, making a root beer float is already a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,500 fine (debited automatically from your account).

Re: healthcare choices

[Vellmont]

In the absolute sense, no, the United States never made health-care a "right". If it had, it would be spelled out someplace in our Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Umm.. no. Your mistake is that you believe the Constitution is an enumeration of our rights, and anything NOT listed in the constitution is not a right. The framers of our constitution were very clear that the bill of rights and the constitution are limits on the GOVERNMENT, not a list of the only rights given to you. (See 9th Amendment). They actually foresaw that people such as yourself would miss-interpret the bill of rights to be a limit of the rights of the people, and not a limit on what the government is allowed to do. It's a common mistake, so I can see how you might think that way.

They aren't buying salads

[Kaseijin]

I can grill some chicken and make a salad far more cheaply than I could buy anything close to that at McDonalds, and far more quickly than the trip to Mickey D's too.

Your salad may cost less than theirs, but their double cheeseburger costs less than your salad.

Re:They aren't buying salads

[ceoyoyo]

And you can make double cheeseburgers at home for less than the usual going rate for a fast food burger. They might just have the advantage in the super cheap loss leader, dollar menu item type things, but if you walk in and just order one burger off the dollar menu you're not really going to have an obesity problem. Malnutrition, possibly.

Re:They aren't buying salads

[Kaseijin]

They might just have the advantage in the super cheap loss leader, dollar menu item type things, but if you walk in and just order one burger off the dollar menu you're not really going to have an obesity problem.

The double cheeseburger is one of those dollar menu things, and orders aren't limited to one item.

Re:They aren't buying salads

[Anonymous Coward]

The double cheeseburger is one of those dollar menu things...

You can easily beat the cost of this at the supermarket using better (but not the best) ingredients of the same kind.
 

...and orders aren't limited to one item.

Neither are servings at home; this adds nothing to the discussion.

- T

Death doesn't have those costs.

[doug141]

People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function.

Please explain the critical knowledge and skills the average 74-year-old-going-to-die-tomorrow person uses to keep society functioning. Were you referring to... social security lobbying and walmart greeting? Although aging and retiring are costs to society, dying is not. Heck, when you die society gets a bunch of your stuff, and the funeral industry gets a sort of cash-for-clunkers.

Duh, someone gets it

[poptones]

There's more to "force" than pointy sticks and guns.

Mod Up

[benjamindees]

This is entirely correct. The people you can vote for are so far removed from even writing the legislation, let alone writing or enforcing the regulations, that the whole circus of government in the US has become completely pointless.

Legislation is written by lobbyists and special interests, introduced at the last minute by a few "party leaders" who have managed to wrangle themselves special privileges in what were originally egalitarian, democratic legislative bodies, and then rubber-stamped by ignorant "representatives" who didn't even have time to read what they are voting on.

That legislation goes through several other layers before it finally gets to those responsible for enforcing it: hand picked insiders who move seamlessly between government and private industry, raping the rest of us for their own interests.

All anyone really needs to know about this is that they subsidize corn syrup at the same time as they tax sodas.

It's not about the health or welfare of Americans. It's about control.

And those who benefit are exactly the people who comprise Hillary Clinton's base: bureaucrats, acting solely in their own self-interests, above the law and beyond democratic control. The Clintons are out front-and-center in the move to bureaucratize healthcare and wage war on "unhealthy" foods. The same Democrats now in charge spent the last eight years eagerly approving every new layer of pointless bureaucracy and handouts that that idiot Bush piled upon the Federal government. This is the hope and change you voted for.

So far, all these people have managed to do is make Americans less responsible and more dependent upon government, drag the country deeper into debt and ruin, pervert and demonize the free market and free choice, and pass the cost on to future generations. And at this point it looks like there may not ever be another Republican revolution or Newt Gingrich to threaten to shut down the government and bring balanced budgets back to Washington.

So then what?

[twoallbeefpatties]

Dumb liberal: Hey, health care costs are too high! It must be because we don't have a single-payer program!
Dumb conservative: No, our health care is the best in the world! It's just that Americans don't take care of themselves and drive up their own costs with the unhealthiness! We need to just encourage better behavior!
Dumb liberal: Okay then, let's put a tax on unhealthy goods to encourage better consumption!
Dumb conservative: What, are you crazy? You can't tell people what they can and can't eat! That's fascism!
Dumb liberal: All right, then if we can't tell people what to eat, then we'll have to deal with the consequences. It's time for a national health plan!
Dumb conservative: You're a socialist! Our health care will get better if we just start eating better!
Dumb liberal: Then let's encourage better food!
Dumb conservative: Communism!

Import healthy foreign food?

[4D6963]

I'm underweight so I find it quite annoying that they do all they can to prevent anyone from getting an excess in calories. But the real problem is their overall approach. While I agree on the approach taken with cigarettes, and I also think that it's reasonable to make sure fast food restaurant don't serve grossly unhealthy food, I think a line is crossed when they basically try to force you into a calorifically lighter diet. It seems that the approach is about making sure you wouldn't be able to get fat even if you wanted to.

I think a better approach is to take a shot at the root of the problem, namely, the national food culture. I'm from France and I noticed something quite striking when moving to Ireland, people there are much chubbier/fatter. Their McDonald's are no better tasting than in France or any less healthy, but the national food culture is different. While French people would stuff themselves with ratatouille, Irish people would eat, I don't know, potatoes? The point is, both enjoy their food, but the French food culture is healthier. People get to eat as much as they like and not grow any fatter. Well, obviously things have changed a bit with the introduction of fast food restaurants with hamburgers and kebabs, so the French are seeing their national food culture being modified for the worse.

But that's the point, if a food culture can be changed (mainly through foreign cultural imports), then you should modify yours for the better. My point is, don't ban hamburgers, eat ratatouille, it's pretty yummy too!

Democrats are the new Moral Majority

[dirkdodgers]

The author's point is that the federal government has no more business regulating virtue and vice in the refrigerator than in the bedroom, which is to say, it has no business at all doing either.

The point isn't whether or not it's good or bad for you. The point is that it is not a legitimate function of the federal government.

So long as we permit to go unchallenged this notion that the federal government is the nanny of the people from cradle to grave, we will be subject to the fickle tyranny of the majority with every new cause, crusade, and fad of the generation in power.

You got what you wanted

[argStyopa]

F*ck you all who voted for this nanny state. You get what you deserve.

I'm looking at you Democrats, who have never seen a government program you didn't want to throw MORE money at, or a single issue that you didn't think some bureaucrat in Washington couldn't resolve better than the people directly involved.

I'm ALSO looking at you Republicans, who have invented your own version of the nanny state and labeled it "The War On Terror" where (for our own good, of COURSE) you've turned on its head the Founding Fathers' basic concept that power flows FROM the people and that the government SHOULD be afraid of its populace.

Re:You got what you wanted

[Yunzil]

I'm looking at you Democrats, who have never seen a government program you didn't want to throw MORE money at, or a single issue that you didn't think some bureaucrat in Washington couldn't resolve better than the people directly involved.

The problem is that, broadly speaking, the people directly involved often don't make the best decision. I don't know if it's uniquely American or if it's built into our species somehow, but we often don't make decisions that are in our best interests, particularly our long-term interests.

Hell, look at the recent debacle in the car industry. People kept buying bigger and bigger SUVs when they didn't really need them. They didn't worry about it because, hey, gas is going to be cheap forever, right? The economy is always going to grow, right?

The upshot of this is that people sometimes have to be... nudged in the direction they "should" be going (whatever that means), and one way of doing that is taxing things that are bad for them. Ideally people would decide that driving a car they don't need is bad for their bank accounts and the planet; and that drinking a gallon of Coke a day isn't doing their bodies any favors either. The problem is that they don't.

Re:You got what you wanted

[argStyopa]

"The upshot of this is that people sometimes have to be... nudged in the direction they "should" be going (whatever that means), and one way of doing that is taxing things that are bad for them."

BULL. SHIT.

See, *you* (or your favorite government entity) doesn't GET to decide what direction anyone "should" be going.

Don't you understand that the SAME logic could apply to someone establishing a new tax on people that (for example) don't go to church, since studies are generally consistent that religious people are happier than nonreligious? Would you seriously be OK with that? But shouldn't people be happy?

Once people are grownups, they are not only responsible and entitled to make their own decisions, they are REQUIRED to do so. If they make stupid choices THEY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. The moment that you insert a safety net for people's choices, you warp the entire society in subtle and far-reaching ways.

Fat? Smoker? Lazy slob? Drive too fast? Any of these things are CHOICES. And the moment that you try to claim that they have costs that impact others (ie medical costs 'borne by the system') you are simply reinforcing my point - remove artificial safety nets that protect people from their choices.*

* for that matter, get rid of the ones that protect companies from their stupid decisions, while you're at it.

Why is soda bad for you anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's interesting is that one of the prime reasons soda is bad for you is that it's made with high fructose corn syrup, which requires many more calories than sugar to provide the same sweetness. Why do soda companies use HFCS? It's cheaper. Why is it cheaper? Because of Federal sugar import restrictions, designed to drive up the price of sugar at the behest of the homegrown sugar lobby. Yet another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Many Americans have never even tasted "real" sugar-sweetened soda. If you haven't, you should; it's delicious.

Re: healthcare choices

[jmac_the_man]

The Constitution is a exhaustive list of rights held. Every right held BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is listed in the Constitution. Anything not mentioned in the Constitution is something that the Federal Government is not allowed to do. (See 10th Amendment).

Since the Constitution doesn't allow the Federal Government to mandate health care, a health care mandate (as is being proposed) would be unconstitutional. Since the philosophy of the framers was that rights given to natural persons came from God/Nature, they also didn't grant the government the power to create "rights" for people.

That's not how it works

[CAIMLAS]

('there are concerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumption by justifying consumption of other caloric foods')

That's not how it works. "Diet" sodas usually contain aspartame, which, aside from being an artificial sweetener, is also a neurotoxin/suppressant and an appetite enhancer. In other words, people don't increase their calorie consumption in justification of drinking diet soda; they eat more because they are, indeed, hungrier due to drinking it. It's no coincidence that overweight people can usually be seen with a diet soda in their hands; it's a cyclical loop.

I'm against regulation in general, but there's no reason that aspartame should be allowed to be put in foods. There are quite a few people - primarily, children - who have a very negative response to the stuff: everything from severe asthmatic response to waaaay over the top hyperactivity.

Ok Tovarisch

[Xonstantine]

What you are basically saying is that you are not allowed to die without state permission. Your death takes valuable labor resources away from the state, it could take invaluable knowledge as well. Therefore, anything you do to yourself that the state does not approve of is to become a taxable event.

The funny thing about people like the parent is they have no fucking problem telling everyone else how to live and trying to impose their wills on the rest of us. It's the new fascist puritanism, dressed up as environmentalism or some other ism, but in the end, it's the same impulse to rule other's actions that has driven mankind for ever...and it's always advertised as being for your good.

pixplox

[Anonymous Coward]

Pics or it didn't happen. Also, TITS.

How about....

[Kagetsuki]

How about Americans just stop eating crap? Oh wait, your food production companies make it impossible not to. Straight up I don't have a problem with MSG if it's used properly (like with meat or tofu), and it's often used here in Japan. But High Fructose Corn Syrup? That has to be one of the worst food additives ever. Reading an ingredient list on a potato chip package is like chemistry class in America, whereas here the same chips would have a fraction of the ingredients and I'd know what most of them actually are at first glance. Why is America so different?

Fast food in America is out of controll too. I'll just lump pizza in there as well, but in general it seems like there's almost no other choice in the average American town but fast food... unless you want to spend $40 on crummy restaurant food which in general will involve a lot of cheese or grease anyway. Even that Food Network seems to feature insane food items. I haven't seen much of it, but I recall seeing a fat southern woman cooking bacon specifically to extract the grease and use that on something else.

Tonight I'm going for a very fancy meal with some associates of mine (I do this about once every 6 months). We're ging to have 10 courses primarily consisting of fish, shell fish, and vegetables - probably nothing fried. Desert will consist of a variety of rare fruit and perhaps some traditional japanese sweets - nothing super sweet or all that bad for you. I have a feelng most Americans would find the entire meal unapplealing; but I think that's a cultural problem Americans will need to overcome to become healthy. The average American child craves pizza, burgers, nuggets, hot dogs, and macaroni and cheese. The average adult seems to simply prefer adult versions of these things, nuggets turn to fried chicken and macaroni and cheese to fetuchini alfredo (which is an American creation by the way, that is not an Italian dish). Americans are loaded up with so many artificial ingredients that they can't even properly perceive natural flavors. Carrots for example are very high in sugar, they are sweet, but I'm guessing the average American takes in so much HFCS (which is basically not allowed in food here in Japan to begin with) that they can't taste the sweetness. On average, how often does the average American eat fish? How often do they eat fish that isn't fried?

I could keep going on, despite only being in America a short period I found innumerably differences in the American diet to our own, and most of the American way sees extremely unhealthy to me. I also don't think it's the average American who really wants things this way, I think it's the food production companies pushing garbage on the populus and getting them addicted with all sorts of food additives. They really target children a lot as well: Coolaid, soda, even juice explicitly labeled for children would include almost no natural ingredients and would basically just he HFCS and water. Kids meals were terrible as well, a hamburger and fries with apple slices and a coke. Oh yeah those apple slices are really going to make your kid healthy! Perhaps Americans shouldn't be opposing their government trying to make their diets healther, perhaps Americans shouldn't be relying on their government to help them get healthy at all, perhaps they should all just one day stop buying chips and products that have a long list if disgusting chemicals, and just eat fish/meat, vegetables, tofu, start considering cheese a seasoning and not a topping, cut out thick sugary sauces and stop frying things that just don't need to be fried.

Re: healthcare choices

[rel4x]

There's a difference between what the government has the ability to do, and what is a right. Technically they could all give us free cheeseburger tuesdays, but that doesn't mean(with current legislation) you have a right to a free cheeseburger every Tuesday.

Remove corn/soy subsidies instead of a sin tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Although this doesn't apply to "diet" drinks, I'd prefer removing the federal subsidies that keep sugary drinks (high-fructose corn syrup) so inexpensive.

Re:The principle is good, but the evidence is lack

[Agram]

What you mistakenly call "your right" is in actuality government-endorsed (or in this case for most intents and purposes ignored) corporate privilege to supply you with ridiculously cheap and utterly unhealthy, yet easy-to-get-hooked-on sugary water at the expense of the underdeveloped World where they employ terrorist-like tactics in order to obtain super-cheap water source and pollute the environment without having to ever be held accountable. How do you think otherwise that these companies make any money by selling you 2 liters of soda drink that costs *less* than 2 liters of pure water? And don't forget, that pollution even if it is made on the other end of the Globe will eventually reach you one way or the other. This World or its resources are finite and as such it is only a matter of time...

Hah! If only that's what they did...

[bornagainpenguin]

Instead it is a bait and switch - tax something unpopular to make an attempt to close a very large budget hole.

If only that was what the stupid legislators actually did, that wouldn't be too bad of a thing--instead they pass a "sin" tax on whatever supposedly immoral thing is popular to hate on this week in order to encourage people to stop the offensive behavior. So far so good* right? Except the dumb %&*# then guesstimate the new amounts of tax dollars coming in and instead of actually closing the budget hole they immediately pull out a long list of pork projects to spend that imputed income on. Only then when people start cutting down due to high costs for what ever "sin" it was that was legislated against lo and behold, another budget hole which can only be filled by taxing the sin du jour!

It never ends and there is always some "sin" that can be taxed to take up the slack...

--bornagainpenguin

*assumes you think state sponsored morality is a good thing. Me, I could have sworn there was that thing about congress making no laws respecting the establishment thereof and all, but I seem to be in the minority when it comes to keeping the politicians from infecting spirituality...

Re:The principle is good, but the evidence is lack

[tftp]

You seem to be arguing that mere humans don't know what is good for them, and the wise government has to step in and protect the human herd from itself. The government, however, never stops there. Today it's ban on 'wrong' food; tomorrow - forced vaccinations; why not - these are 'good for you', aren't they? But day after tomorrow you suddenly realize that you are just a property.

Freedom, which is much talked about and less and less allowed, includes the right to do 'bad' or dangerous things. Of course there may be price to be paid, sometimes with a Darwin award. But a free man should be free to do even things that *you* think are against his best interests. This is because you can't know what his best interests are.

Re: healthcare choices

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "right" (in the constitutional sense) to material goods or services like health care. Frankly, such a requirement would conflict with our prohibition against unvolunatry servitude. What we DO have are entitlements. These are government benefits that are guaranteed by statues that can be changed by congress at any time.

It's a Carbon Tax

[ShoulderOfOrion]

...on carbonated beverages.

Maybe you can cap and trade tax credits for a Big Mac?

WTF?

[SmallFurryCreature]

So, you would have a poor person who can only afford an old petrol car pay MORE tax then Bill Gates who can afford to buy an electric car?

Somehow I think that you won't have to worry about being cold in the after life.

No taxes, please.

[master_p]

This taxation thing must be abolished. The KISS principle applies to governments as well. Do you want roads? pay for them. Do you want hospitals? ports? airports? etc...the same. Pay directly for those works and cut the middle man.

And if you don't want homeless people, accept the fact that some people are unlucky or lazy and pay for them as well. You'll get social peace and decreased criminality.

And if you worry about social inequalities, pay proportionally to your profits.

Re: healthcare choices

[cemulli]

Your mistake is that you believe the Constitution is an enumeration of our rights, and anything NOT listed in the constitution is not a right.

I'd also note that the writers of the constitution didn't WANT to put the bill of rights into the constitution, for the simple fact that they didn't want people to think those were the only rights they had.

Should have stoped befor it started

[tbgreve]

It started with cigarettes and now there is no stopping them. No one cares until it effects them. So.... How is that whole "hopey-changey" thingy going for all of you now? I won't be the one to say' "I told you so."

Wrong way

[jandersen]

Soda? Who would like to consume NaCO3 in any form?

Jokes aside, the whole area of luxury consumption - like junk food and sugar-drinks - is highly inflamed and mired down in huge, economic interests. Whole sectors of industry all across the world would collapse if people suddenly started to eat and drink only healthily; yet there is no doubt that this same consumer life-style is the biggest cause of preventable, early death, disability and general bad health.

People often say "nobody is forcing you to buy junk food", when you criticize the junk-food industry; but that is a superficial argument that is not justified. As all modern research into the causes of obesity shows very clearly, it is not simply a matter of personal choice, whether you eat too much junk; and anybody who has tried to fight a serious weight problem will know from experience that it takes more than mere will-power to stay away from the calories. Our bodies and instincts are programmed to make us fatten up when we are surrounded by abundance. When you turn on the tv you are constantly indoctrinated to go and consume junk food, and when you go to the supermarket the displays are brimming with it; you will be hard put to find a quick and easy, healthy option. So is it really a matter of personal choice? I don't think so.

What one should remember is that these things are neither human fundamental rights nor basic food-stuffs; they are luxuries. And while luxury can be nice from time to time, it simply get trivial and not actually enjoyable when you have it all the time.

I don't know what is the best way forward, but the present situation is simply not sustainable. Personally, I would like to see a situation where basic, healthy necessities were abundant and easy to find everywhere, but luxury items were something you would have to go out of your way to find; not the other way around.

Re: healthcare choices

[FiloEleven]

That's a good point: just because it's not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights doesn't mean that it isn't a right. However, health care still cannot morally be a right because for now and the foreseeable future, health care requires human labor, and claiming health care as a right is in effect claiming that I have a claim to a doctor's labor--because if it's a right, I certainly don't need to pay for it.

Oh, jeebus

[sean.peters]

Then pay the freakin' $.05 per can. Not to unload on you personally, but I'm really getting tired of all the "ZOMG soda taxes == SLAVERY!!!1!1ONE!" in these threads.

Support the Center for Consumer Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

This, my friends, is yet another reason to support the Center for Consumer Freedom.

If, while reading this article, the government's actions piss you off, I'd recommend going to the CCF's website, checking them out, and then giving them your full support.

Re: healthcare choices

[Yunzil]

Since the Constitution doesn't allow the Federal Government to mandate health care, a health care mandate (as is being proposed) would be unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to collect taxes for the general welfare of the United States. I would think universal healthcare would fall under general welfare.

An absolutely staggeringly dumb post

[sean.peters]

This cycle [of deficit spending] is a bit part of the reason the great depression lasted so long (ie until WWII).

This particular bit of idiocy, while commonly spouted by right-wing nutjobs, is not accepted by any reputable economist. In fact, the order of events was 1) economy cratered. 2) Roosevelt began the New Deal, with attendant large deficits. 3) Economy began to recover rather quickly. 4) Roosevelt, thinking the problem was solved, cut spending dramatically. 5) Economy cratered again. 6) Dithering ensured. 7) Economy remained stagnant. 8) WWII broke out, with attendant large deficit spending. 9) Economy recovered rapidly.

If you are successful and get people to stop buying soda - your tax revenue goes away. This creates another problem because the revenue starts being counted on (see cigarette and alcohol taxes for example) and the vicious cycle continues with the government looking for other things to tax (all in the name of your well being mind you) to make up for the loss of the revenue which should have been expected. When the taxation goes too far you start to create an underground economy in the taxed product and enforcement of taxation starts to take up a signifigant amount of the revenue.

I know this is a tough concept to understand, but there are other values of soda consumption besides 1) our current level and 2) zero. The object of the game isn't to drop soda consumption to zero, it's just to reduce it. Not being complete morons, it's also possible (and done for most other product specific taxes) for those implementing the tax to estimate what the equilibrium level of consumption will be after the tax is in place, and plan revenues accordingly. Finally, the key phrase here is "if the taxation goes too far". Well, call me when it does, and then we can talk about what to do about it. For now, you're assuming facts not in evidence.

These are hard times and the government needs to SHRINK just like every other sector of the economy. Why should the government not feel the same pain and be forced to make hard decisions that every other entity is?

Jesus, more idiocy. The answer: because, obviously, government is, you know, DIFFERENT from every other sector of the economy. Where as YOU have a limited lifespan, a limited earning power, can't borrow infinite amounts of money, and as an individual, have an infinitesimal influence on the economy; the government is immortal, can print money, can take money from anyone it wants to by force, and can have a major effect in stimulating said economy. It's Econ 101, baby - when the economy is in the tank, everyone cuts spending, which sends the economy further into the tank. Only the government can break the cycle by borrowing money and spending freely.

But hey, why bother with the facts when you can just fall back on the "market good, government BAAAD" ideology.

Paying on the "front-end"...

[jemenake]

When you buy mutual funds, in addition to any annual fees they may charge, different funds may charge you a percentage of your invested capital at the time you purchase and/or at the time you sell shares of the fund. If they charge you when you purchase, we say you're paying on the "Front-end" and, if you pay when you sell, you're paying on the "Back-end".

Back-ended funds are alluring because you get to defer the pain of paying until later, so a back-ended fund with a certain fee structure can compete with a front-ended fund with lower overall fees than the back-ended one. When the higher cost is way out there in the future, it doesn't seem so bad (one reason people buy so much crap they don't really need on credit-cards).

If you look at some of the huge costs to the U.S. these days (like dependence upon foreign oil and the cost of health-care), you realize that these are heavily back-ended arrangements.

With foreign oil, we're able to buy cheap SUV's and land-yachts. Initially, this increases demand for oil, so gas prices go up. But also... because of this need for oil, as Bill Maher says, we've got to go find other oil deposits and then kill the people living atop them. So, that means a large military, which is a huge cost which is passed on to us in taxes. (Imagine, for a moment, if we didn't need any of that middle-east oil and could afford to let the whole region just go to hell in a handbasket. Think of how much military we would not need). Now, imagine if there were a "military tax" on cars where, depending upon what the mileage of the car was, you'd be taxed some amount which would be proportional to the amount that your car would increase military spending in the future in order to ensure a supply of fuel for it. It would move those costs from the back-end to the front-end and cause people to think a little harder about purchasing vehicles which, when all costs are weighed, probably aren't as "good for you" as a more fuel-efficient one.

So, on to this notion of the snack taxes and soda taxes. This is another case of back-end payment. The fast-food establishments engineer their foods to give us instant gratification, be easy to eat a lot of ("boneless wings", anyone?), and be cheap, without much attention given to nutritional quality. The "payment" for this low nutritional quality happens on the back-end, when we're obese and have adult-onset diabetes and/or heart-disease. The path that brought us to our unhealthy condition wasn't clearly laid out, because we didn't feel that we were eating fast-food that often... and we only order the super-sized fries half the time... etc.

Now, if some of these costs were moved to the front-end, our wallets would show us that we're eating fast-food and supersizing a lot more often than we think and might get us to make some different choices. Or, if we make the same choices, at least some of the payment for our bypass surgery is being made over decades, so we won't suffer so much "sticker shock" when we get the bill for the surgery.

I know people bellyache about this being another part of the "nanny state", but we already front-end a lot of other things in our life without giving it any thought. When you visit, say, a national park... you may pay an entrance or visitor's fee. This fee goes to repair the wear and tear that you're going to put on the park by walking, riding, or driving around in it. In many cases, you're even charged proportionally to the amount of effect you're going to have (like large motor-homes being charged more than a small car, say).

I, for one, welcome our new soda-taxing overlords....

Lies and Bullshit

[logicnazi]

I have no problem with governmental tweaks to economic incentives to improve social welfare. I'm a strong supporter of a carbon tax for this reason and there are probably a number of consumer products that would be beneficial to tax or regulate in some way because of true economic failure*.

However, these attempts to justify regulations of smoking and foods by reference to market failure drive me nuts as they are usually at best total bullshit and at worst outright lies. For instance it's simply not true that smokers impose higher health care costs on society. Indeed, as the congressional budget office noted when they considered this issue, the savings that result from early deaths by way of lower medicare and social security costs may actually exceed the extra health care resources consumed by smokers. As the economist noted once you factor in the cigarette taxes smoking is a a clear net positive for government finances.

So do people who consume soda and other sweets impose additional costs on society? I sure as hell don't know but you can't just assume they do because it's unhealthy. Sure, your average voter might be excused for not considering the potential savings that may counterbalance the costs but it's inexcusable for academics publishing in the New England Journal of Medicine. Well then what about advertisements. Do they encourage people to purchase these products? Almost certainly. Does this mean they indicate a market failure? Surely not. Maybe we would be under consuming these products relative to the utility they offer without these ads. Indeed, it's quite possibly the case that the very existence of the ads makes consuming these products more enjoyable. Lastly the bit about discounting the future is completely absurd. No only is discounting not itself irrational but even if we charitably take the argument to be addressed at hyperbolic discounting it's no more applicable to soda than to the decision to drop a dollar into the red cross bucket at Christmas.

Maybe it really does make sense to tax soda but don't adopt a flimsy pretense of objective argument to excuse penalizing behaviors you already disapprove of. I mean if these authors were truly objective they would insist on better arguments before leaping to this kind of conclusion and consider the potential harms that embarking on this kind of policy might bring.

Health care reform has a cost?

[Cajun Hell]

Implementing all of these [list including health care reform]is a real drain on the economy

The fact that most people (including the bill authors) agree with this statement, is how I know the current health care reform bill is a fraud. Implementing health care reform would be a net gain to the GDP, i.e. generate a surplus that could be either taxed, or not wasted, making it easier to fund one of the other items on your list.

A health care "reform" that costs more than the old system -- that makes the nation poorer and weaker than it was before -- is not a reform.

And yet, the right is complaining about a shuffling of costs (changing who pays for what, and how), and both the right and left are uncomfortable about an overall increase in costs. No wonder nobody likes the bill; deep down, everyone knows that when insurance lobbyists spend over a million dollars per day for access to write a new law, it is because they know that they are going to come out ahead, at the country's expense.

Fuck that. Nobody who votes for a bill that was purchased by the insurance companies, is going to get my vote in the next election.

This isn't about socialism vs free markets. It's not right vs left. It's about a government for the people vs a government for someone else.

Lil Wayne said

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't care if it's... if it's heroin in my cup.
IT'S MY CUP!" -Lil Wayne on VH1 Behind the music on him drinking lean all the time.

I will probably die someday in defense of the libertarian principle. Stay the fuck out of my life. Try and steal my freedom for doing things that you have no right to tell me not to do and I'll steal your freedom. I don't have a prison, but maybe you have a skull and I have a baseball bat. Maybe you have police and guns, but I have my freedom and I'll never let you take it without killing me. If you are willing to kill me to keep me from smoking a joint or growing my own tobacco then why would you not expect me to do the same to defend myself when I have harmed no one else. Where did You The People get this crazy idea that you can prohibit me from doing something that doesn't affect you. I've never gotten your help and if I get cancer then tell me to fuck off because it's my fault.
Constitutional Libertarianism. Anything else is one group trying to force their morals on another group.
Don't Tread On Me

We Warned You

[FreekyGeek]

We smokers warned you: they'll come for you next. But did anyone listen? Noooooooo! "Let them tax the filthy smokers all they want", everyone thought. "*I* don't smoke, and it's disgusting and unhealthy anyways, so why shouldn't I have them pay more taxes so I don't have to?" Well, now you know why: because the nanny-staters never stop. They will never stop trying to force their idea of "what's best" on everyone. "It's for your own good!" is their marching song, and anyone who stands against them get branded with the Giant Smear Bush. Even politicians are helpless. Did they get any support from their constituents when the Smoking Nazis were on the prowl? Nope, y'all just sat there and cheered them on because you don't approve of smoking and felt that nice warm sense of self-righteousness and smug superiority.

So, as a smoker who's had to sit and take it up the ass for so many years as nonsmokers happily voted for tax after tax after tax, all I can say is - Nelson-Muntz-style - a big old "Ha-HA!"

I hope they tax the fuck out of everything that you enjoy. After all, soda and Big Macs are unhealthy, just like cigarettes! And since I neither drink soda nor eat the alleged "food" at places like McDonalds, I hope they pile on $4 worth of tax to every burger and soda so you know how it feels to have *your* guilty pleasure start to cost you a fortune.

When they came for the smokers, you didn't say anything because you weren't a smoker and didn't like smoking anyways.
Now they're coming for *your* sins, and those of us who might have been on yoru side are just going to laugh it up.

Not that I'm bitter.

Re:Laws.

[jwilcox154]

Making people "responsible for the costs of their actions" is not always the best way to fix a problem. Sometimes society has to protect itself by outlawing otherwise profitable behaviors such as fraud or armed robbery.

Perhaps it would be better to simply ban or regulate things like high fructose corn syrup, phosphoric acid and other garbage that soda makers find cheaper than real food. It can be argued that these ingredients are responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Do you have any credible evidence that HFCS or phosphoric acid have any more negative effects to health than sugar or citric acid? If not then what reason should there be to ban those substances?

Fat people get cancer more frequently than "normal" people and we now see even children with acquired diabetes. Real foods like sugar are not that much more expensive but without laws to protect food makers, economics forces them to all use crap. If you think food bans violate your liberty, remember that lead oxides were once as a cheap sweetener before people really understood heavy metal poisoning.

There is a huge difference between HFCS and lead acetate. One contains lead while the other contains carbon and hydrogen, much like sugar. If you feel it is damaging to ones health you can vote with your wallet and go for the natural foods.

Finally, "sin taxes" make the state a partner in crime. Tobacco taxes, for example, have not come close to eliminating smoking or paying for the medical costs. I doubt it is possible to strip the hundreds of thousands of dollars cancer treatment alone costs from the average slob who smoke even if you assume the smoker survives forty years of their addiction. Prevention programs, the tobacco companies know, often backfire by normalizing smoking in a way that direct advertising has a hard time conveying. It would be a lot easier and cheaper to just ban the sale of tobacco.

Banning substances someone doesn't like has already been tried; it was called prohibition. During prohibition people found ways to get their alcohol and it was worse when it was made legally. Just as people found ways around the ban on alcohol people will find a way around the ban on tobacco. On top of that, not all people who smoke are addicts. There are some that enjoy a cigar or pipe once in a while and the jury is still out on its negative effect on health.

Taxing sodas is much the same. In the 20 year war between Iran and Iraq a causeway was literally built out of the bodies of dead soldiers. Do we want to pave our streets with the blood of smokers and soda drinkers, or do we want to outlaw profit from the sale of addictive, factory made poisons?

Ah, more FUD. You do realize HFCS is not much different than sugar, don't you? If you have to call for a ban on HFCS then you must call for a ban on all sugars. The same with everything that someone deems to be an "adictive, factory made poison". Who gets to decide what falls under that category? If it is a single person then how do we know if he or she is right or wrong? If it is a group of people then how do we know they will be right or wrong?

Re: healthcare choices

[jmac_the_man]

This is why a tax to pay for Medicaid (healthcare for poor people) is constitutional. But forcing everyone to buy a product, any product, is not one of their powers.

Daily quotes

[Runaway1956]

My Google homepage gives me some neat quotes everyday. I naturally thought of you when I read this.

The only way to be truly misogynistic is to be a woman.
    - Randy K. Milholland