Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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...
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.
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.
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.
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"
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
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.
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.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.