Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Governor Proposes Flab Tax
Hugh Pickens writes "The WSJ reports that Arizona governor Jan Brewer has proposed levying a $50 fee on some enrollees in the state's cash-starved Medicaid program, including obese people who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen and smokers. Brewer says the proposal is a way to reward good behavior and raise awareness that certain conditions, including obesity, raise costs throughout the system. 'If you want to smoke, go for it,' says Monica Coury, spokeswoman for Arizona's Medicaid program. 'But understand you're going to have to contribute something for the cost of the care of your smoking.' Coury says Arizona officials hadn't yet finalized how they would determine whether a person was obese or had sufficiently followed a wellness plan, but that measures such as body-mass index could provide some guidance. Estimates for the costs of obesity in America range from about $150 billion to $270 billion a year. According to the latest CDC statistics, from 2009, 25.5% of Arizonans are obese, about 1.7 million people."
Just tax junk food like is done with cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Use the tax revenues to compensate the extra medical costs.
"Brewer says the proposal is a way to reward good behavior and raise awareness that certain conditions, including obesity, raise costs throughout the system."
Where's the reward? If you're on Medicaid and already fit, then the reward of the $50 is not a reward at all since you never received the punishment to begin with. Negative reinforcement only works if you're taking away something negative to begin with. Want to give me a reward, how about you tax the fatties more for FICA and give me a break since I won't be using as many services as Mr. BigMac-a-day who can't keep his hands out of anything deep fried and covered in Mayo.
That won't work. People can still get fat on "legit" foods quite easily.
I really don't think I need to say any more on that.
The junk food approach has been dead for a long time now.
Please quit spreading it.
Over-consumption is the only thing you can target effectively.
I have a body mass index of 30 (obese). My body fat percentage is 12%. My waist to height ratio places me well within the athletic range. . .
Which they do, through tobacco taxes.
I never understand why they required to pay extra again by some people. Either the tobacco tax is a premier example of taxation without representation, or smokers have already paid in. Probably more than they'll ever get out in terms of medical care.
And that's if they even cost the medical system more. They tend to die off...
i was under the impression that a lifetime smoker pays way more on average in taxes (on tobacco) than the extra cost of keeping him alive. at least this is the case in Hungary where i live.
Smokers die earlier and collect fewer pension payments. Aren't fatties just as big a saving on the long run?
sofa -- so good
...let the fucking market deal with this?
Smokers die younger which saves far more money in the long term
There are thousands of reasons to be fat. Doing things and eating well are comparatively expensive.
The system is getting ready to make a scape goat of the unpopular fat people. Already self conscious and worried for their health now they will have to pay more.
Meanwhile, the medical insurance companies will make billions from the most expensive medical coverage on the planet that is driving those that are covered into bankruptcy. Those that aren't covered are abandoned to die in one of the richest countries in the world.
Yea its your fault if you're overweight...... We'll solve everything by kicking the little guy while he's down, not by fixing the system that supports and is owned by the very rich.
Can the government give me some gold stars on the chart on the back of the classroom door every time I do something nice or choose not to do something bad? Maybe you want to reward me for praying or choosing not to play violent videogames? Maybe give me two gold stars every time I go a month without a sick day? Yay!
Is it me or does the governor of AZ wake up and say, "What civil liberties can I shit on today? Oh! I know! I'll start enforcing medical programs just like Big Brother did in 1984. Winston seemed to like it so much!"
"Chinese Amazons, power armor, laser swords.... things just meant to be." - Shampoo, A Very Scary Bet
It seems like Arizona could solve most of their budget woes by taxing stupidity.
Arizona resident here. Downtown Phoenix, no less, about eight blocks from the capitol.
I don't know WTF this has to do with news for nerds, but I'll bite.
Looks like we are becoming the new Floriduh here. Some of the bad attention is well deserved. Some of it not.
Maybe if they had not given that huge tax break to University of Phoenix, they would not have to do stuff like this;
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2011/04/04/Arizona-Legislature-OKs-tax-break.html
Also, I would be negligent if I didn't point out that republicans here went and made their own FUD true: Death panels!
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/12/09/20101209Montini1209.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/02/25/20110225montini0225.html
What an idiot and an asshole. Cigarettes are already taxed relentlessly. It seems that nowadays smokers are the ones whose rights can be and will be trampled on with impunity.
I'm not going to comment on weather it's right or wrong but how is this not the most terrifying of the Noecons kryptonite, big government?
On the one hand I do appreciate that people who take more risks need to bear more burden for the costs of those risks. We see that in other kinds of insurance all the time. The amount a life insurance policy costs varies with the kind of work you do, the amount a car insurance policy costs varies with your driving record and so on. It makes sense to look in to things like this for health insurance as well. If you want to live a more risky lifestyle, ok, but then you need to be willing to contribute more to your likely higher costs. Basic actuary science and all that.
On the other hand I worry about two things:
1) How do you define some of the things like obese? That one is really problematic because the value for it keeps sliding down, what used to be normal is now overweight and so on, and because it generally uses a very bad measure (BMI is extremely stupid). So I worry that this will end up with a system that pushes skinny past the point of reason, that people who are perfectly healthy will be told "You have to pay more because you are too fat," and that people who are underweight (which is far more serious medically) will be left alone.
2) Where does it end? You do have to keep an eye on the whole slippery slope thing when it comes to health insurance. You don't want to start up with a system of "Everything wrong with you costs more." Otherwise you'll end up with a system more or less where the people who can afford it won't need it because they have nothing wrong or likely to be wrong and the people who need it won't be able to afford it because it'll be so expensive. Insurance works when you spread the risk over a lot of people. Now you can limit it to only things people have control over, like what they eat or what drugs they do and so on, but you do run the risk of the government dictating what kind of lifestyle you are allowed to lead.
I also have to wonder about the particular choices. There are an awful lot of things that people do voluntarily that increase their health risks. Why is obesity such a target? I understand that a lot of people are heavy, but you need to run the costs of that against the costs of other choices people make. A lot of people drink heavily too (as much as 10%), and that causes some serious health issues, yet does not seem to get discussed.
I'm not 100% opposed to an idea like this, despite being overweight myself. I just think it needs to be very carefully examined and limited beforehand.
As an example of a problem take using BMI for weight. When I was 18 I worked as a surveyor's assistant for the summer before university. It was physical labour outside for 8-9 hours a day, 5 days a week. Of course being 18, my metabolism was high. I weighed about 185 then, which according to the current BMI scales is "borderline overweight". Still within the normal range, but right at the top. Maintaining that would be essentially impossible as I aged, and you'd have a hard time finding anyone who would argue that I wasn't in good shape, however it was only barely good enough, despite having age on my side.
It is real easy to just start categorizing things without thinking it through and where there's money involved, the pressure becomes all the greater. If more money can be mode with more people being "overweight" then there is an incentive to lower what qualifies, even if there's no medical reason.
How about an idiot governor tax?
For all the idiot governors out there. Can't tax their IQ, so we'll have to find something better to tax.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Jan must not be a fattie. So whats next? Tax people because their paraplegics or handicapped in some way. Just think of the billions that could be saved if these type people started paying a "Your physically handicapped" tax. But I would like to see a POLITICIAN tax of %50 of their income (all inclusive) and the tax should be called; I have my head up my ass tax.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
There are numerous ways that people harm themselves. How about fines for people who fail to exercise? Or fines for those that work too much or work at desk jobs which encourages diseases? How about fines for people who eat bacon? Or how about fines for people with serial, sexual partners who tend to be the ones who get AIDS? How about fines for sky divers or motorcyclists as they tend to sustain injuries in those activities?
The list of things that do harm is endless. Should we tax those things? And isn't getting old a great expense to society? Should we fine people for every day they live after the age of 50?
In one story you read we are heading for a pensions crisis as we will all live too long and in the next story we are all to fat and will die too young. Make up your mind!
The thing I take from all the fat stories in the press is I know for a fact that we can expand world population by another few billion people. There are enough calories for everyone in the system. Some people just need to learn how to share. Also Canada will not survive a war to protect its fresh water; but that is for another post.
I've seen it mentioned somewhere, though I have no reference to hand so this may be complete BS, that smokers cost health systems (when retirement is included) *less* on average because although they have more heath problems that results in them dying younger and therefore having substantially less cost during old age.
which if true leads to the slightly paradoxical idea that smokers should pay *less* rather than *more* for their healthcare.
Their joint problems and accidents are going to cost medicaid just as much.
I guess CowboyNeal won't be going to Arizona any time soon.
I'm guessing that she isn't gunning for the title of "small government Republican" here?
medicare should be paid on "per kg basis"!
...becomes an expense related to the tax, and is thereby tax deductible?
BMI does correlate with cardiovascular risk, and is useful when applied on a population basis, but less so to some individuals who are muscular. From experience most people who use the "BMI isn't useful, look at weightlifters/bodybuiilders" comment, are far from having a muscular physique. Ways around this: DEXA scanning for body morphometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage), is an accurate way of determining body fat composition, but is time consuming and would add cost. A better predictor of cardiovasulcar risk (and other manifestations of the metaboic syndrome such as diabetes) is waist circumference. Rather than taxing healthcare or unhealthy foods (which are fine in moderation), why not heavily tax big pants (>37 inch waist is the cut off for risk in a male).
Ms. Brewer's surcharge would apply only to only certain childless adults:Those who are obese or chronically ill, and those who smoke.
So it's OK to be fat and smoke, if you have children. Ms. Brewer is thinking of the children!
Also:
They would need to work with a primary-care physician to develop a plan to help them lose weight and otherwise improve their health. Patients who don't meet specified goals would be required to pay the $50, under terms of the proposal.
So already overworked physicians will be tasked with yet more paper work, for filing out exemptions forms. Who is going to process all this? The state will need a Department of Fat, Smoking and Do-You-Have-Children. Any savings from the surcharge will be burned up in the processing bureaucracy.
Oh, I'm skinny, don't smoke and I don't live in Arizona.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It just occurred to me: this is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It's a fine on being obese and smoking, but it only applies to the obese and/or smokers who are sick and thus drawing Medicaid support. That would be interesting to see in court.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
In an age where far too many people are clamoring for "other guy" to pay for services they want it is good to see someone saying, well if your going to ask others to take care of you here are some ground rules. If you want someone to pay for it then they will, however there are some requirements you must meet as well. Frankly, asking people to adhere to weight control programs, take smoking cessation courses, and in general live a healthy life, is not too much to ask. We have far too many people who have no issue asking someone else to pick up the tab. What makes many of them worse is that far too many continue on with similar bad habits. Not only are they not financially self responsible they treat their bodies the same way. They simply act as if someone else will fix it. They will just pop into the doctors office for their cough, their bad knees and ankles, and demand treatment. When the doctor helps them and then tells them what they need to do to prevent it far too many will tell the doctor to mind his own business.
In my work, where the majority of people are middle and upper middle class, it is common to find those who bitch about their contribution to their medical plans. Hell we have some complain that they company doesn't contribute more to their retirement. Yet you rarely find the case with these people where they aren't under a permanent cell phone contract of some sort usually on the order of $100 or more; have an expensive car or worse a lease payment, and then top it off with all sorts of other expenses. When did we become a society where self gratification took precedence over responsibility to self and others? I know people in their fifties who are not saving for retirement or are making a piddling attempt all the while burning money on frivolous stuff.
When the government starts to reach resistance in its borrowing it will be cutting programs right and left. It behooves everyone to save for their future because you cannot guarantee that all the things promised you by politicians will be three when you need them. You must also accept that unless Washington takes steps to correct its spending (we have more debt spending than some G7 countries have total spending) that you will have far less to spend on anything.
So get your health in line. If it takes a kick in the pants to get people to do that, or should I say I kick in the wallet, then its a good thing. Grow the hell up. Its your body, you are in the best position to take care of it. It is just sad some people require prodding if not penalties just to do what is right for themselves.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
count me as "in favor".
Health insurance covers risks we are subject to and have little control over. However, just like car insurance premiums depend on the type of car you drive simply because some car types are statistically more likely to crash or get broken into, so do certain life choices affect your health costs.
I don't mind helping shoulder the burden for someone who's had bad luck and serious health troubles. That's what an insurance system is for, and that guy with the bad luck could be me.
I do mind paying for someone's self-inflicted lung cancer. That guy could not be me.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Tax them - as long as it's clearly defined heavily obese, not a problem with me. These people need to learn (as do I) - they should have some self control.
That being said, it needs to be measured properly and the revenue NOT relied on.
Victoria Australia introduced more expensive speeding fines and permenant fixed cameras, they generated revenue which the government began to rely on, once relied on, suddenly people were tired of the fines and slowing down, the government were 'losing money' so they changed the definition of speeding (1.864 miles an hour over the limit is fine worthy)
I would hate them to suddenly define anyone with a BMI over 30 for example as obese, - as the BMI system is heavily flawed as is peoples definitions of overweight when you understand what ectomorph, mesomorph and endormorph actually means.
I, for on, would like to point out one of the inherent weaknesses with the whole BMI thing. Namely, I'm 6'8", in order to qualify as a "healthy" weight, I'd have to weigh in at 227 lbs. Having actually weighed that much in the past, anyone looking at me could tell you that I'm decidedly underweight at that point....The system just doesn't handle the extremes all that well.
Would I then be penalized in AZ for maintaining a healthy weight, because I would be "obese" by the numbers?
I'd like to think that of course I wouldn't, people would recognize the unfairness in the situation, but then, these are politicians, and I've seen enough of them in action to know the truth.
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
We told you this was a slippery slope. Enjoy your slide into bacon-free health.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Working on either solutions or explanations before knowing if there is an actual problem, is called Tooth Fairy Science. You know, the kind where you figure the market value and profits/losses per tooth type, before even knowing if there is a Tooth Fairy.
In this case, last I've seen a study based on data from an actual health insurance company, it turned out that smokers and the obese actually cost LESS. Summary, for example, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
I don't just mean on the total with pensions and all. Even just the healthcare taken separately, actually cost less. Why? Because they die earlier and need less medicine in the long run.
The problem is that you don't need the most care when you're 30. You need the most care when you're 70, and the latter is for decades if you prolong it.
The fat smokers need expensive chemotherapy or surgery for maybe a year, then die. That is, if they don't just keel over and die of a heart attack. If not the first time around, the second will get them. And that's that. While the guy who was fit and lean and never had any vices, if he lives to 100, will likely be on expensive anti-Alzheimer medication for two decades. Plus various other trips to the doctor as their body is barely functioning and getting worse by the year. The guys who died a horrible death in their 50's just saved you all those costs.
So, really, the smokers and obese actually subsidize healthcare for everyone else just by biting the dust earlier. And that's in addition to paying for a pension they won't get as much of, or at all. And subsidizing the government via tobacco taxes.
So, really, WTF? You'd think someone would at least say, "hey, thanks fatty" ;) The notion that, OMG, let's tax them some more 'cause they cost us money, is provably false, and fucking stupid too.
But it keeps happening because it's two overlapping groups of people who already feel bad and guilty about it, and have been amply proven to be easy to guilt trip some more into paying even more.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
What about taxing politicians for anxiety and mental issues as they tend to cause them (via attack ads, talks, false information, revocation or imposing of various laws, wars, etc...), i.e. perhaps even as far as heart attacks and of course PTSD, as their bills squabble over ever piece of minutiae that they have a personal issue with... What about bad drivers? The clergy down the street that rile up citizenry depending on your religion or lack of? What about people that hold a fireworks show; should they cover a "scare" charge for children? Politicians that are dismissive and get rid of collective bargaining, cancel school funds, close liquor stores, live in a "Governor Mansion" and claim they're struggling, or start wars that they never need fight themselves? What about politicians that steal, arguably, money that could be used for the workforce, but are instead used for lobbying fees?
How far should this be taken? If there is one profession that deserves a "medical" tax it's politicians and anyone that has any dealings with them whether that be clergy or lobbyists. They constantly hold society hostage to their causes and yet this is considered fine. If the Wisconsin or Bush era dealings taught us anything is that they are petty and laws like what they suggest here are exactly that, petty. They enact more harm that a Big Mac ever could.
They are responsible for a fair share of hurt and pain both mentally and physically and I'm hard pressed to find a reason to tax fatty rather than them. As they have created the majority of our mess. Why not find ways to help first and punish later? If politicians contributed money from their lobbying endeavors (hahahaha) I'm willing to bet that Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security might be standing on firmer ground.
Fat people equalize themselves as they will die due to issues related to their weight at an earlier age; to me it seems tax payer wise to be equal. This is just another divisive issue to bring up that goes nowhere, but makes people think that something useful has been done and gets that politician re-elected by being in the limelight (in fact it does almost nothing other than make sure fat people die without insurance or support). If you grow old and healthy you'll use a lot yourself even though you're healthy, but eventually you will get sick and die making many of these costs equalize. You use a lot unless you die in your sleep or have a heart attack without any help (or die of anything where help is not available). But, if this happens when you're 100 then you use a fair amount no matter what.
There will be exceptions, but these "point the finger" and "blame games" are simplistic war drum machinations... (I didn't look for grammar, a little too tired; so overlook any spelling, word misuse, issues...)
Something witty goes here.
That link you posted is very suspicious, to say the least. Look at the key sentence:
"Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people"
You can create a model to simulate any effect you want. That's what's called in technical language "pulling numbers out of your ass".
There are simply too many problems with "obesity taxes" it's beyond the scope of any discussion here on Slashdot I think. However, I generally like the idea and intention.
The idea that people who are obese or otherwise do things to themselves that result in their being a burden on society is good. But I think the biggest problems will be the application and administration of such programs. It's one thing to tax "products" that people consume such as tobacco. But it's another to judge how they are used and in what quantity and if they are exercising and all that other stuff. Those kinds of behaviors are still quite individual and reside in the area of privacy. Obesity cannot be "hidden" of course -- it's quite obvious to all.
I like the idea but it just cannot work without endangering freedom.
It might be better to let health insurers discriminate heavily against obese people than anything else. Perhaps the insurers would then have to contribute to these government programs... just a thought -- I haven't really thought it through. Another thing is children and obesity... calling it child abuse could product major changes for the better.
Obesity does have strong correlations to health problem
It would seem that there are other correlations for obesity as well - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition. Perhaps the governor ought to get the religious to look after their own, or at least penalise those who overindulge in religion.
Firstly , I know that it is a general custom/black hole tax and goes in general budget. But even if it did not , the smoker do not pay ENOUGH with the tax ! If you want a tax to compensate on the burden due by smoker then the calculation is a tad bit more complicated :
435,000 death for tobbaco but that is all comfounded (laryngical , lung cancer etc....). The Who cite a cost (including fire started by smoker) of 6% total to the economy health cost (in 1999) (http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas13.pdf) and a cost for 2002 of 76 billion it is probably less now so taking the following statistic : http://www.pnlee.co.uk/Downloads/ISS/ISS-USA_071219.pdf we see the cigarette prevalence dropped, that make it a tobacco burden of about 50 billion dollar on health sector (6% 2010 budget).
We now have a cost
It is difficult to differentiate between tobacco sort (cigare, cigarette, pipe, snuff etc...) but prevalent to 70% is the cigarette so let us assume for a moment it is cigarette only, there has been a sale of 350 billion cigarette. So we are looking at a RISE in price per cigarette of 1/7 dollar, and for a pack of 20 at least 20/7 dollar or about 3 dollar per pack, but as we overestimated the prevalence (75% tobacco sales are cigarette) in reality we take only 75% of that, so 2.25$ 2.25 dollar per pack ONLY for health care
. AS you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States there is only very few state with a tax of more than 2$ per pack , most are below 2$ and about 1/4 (?) are at 2$.
To pay for THEIR health care smoker would have to pay USA WIDE at least 2$25 on tax per pack. They don't today. Therefore Smoker today are not paying for the healthcare of their self destructive habit
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Stallman is now totally broke.
Isn't it the socialist commie demon-crats that are supposed to be telling us how to live our lives, and not the party of individual free choice and smaller government??!?!?!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Its amount of food overall. You can become obese eating only the healthiest of foods if you eat too much, and some nutritionist recently lost 30lbs eating nothing but nachos to prove the opposite point. Thermodynamics works. If you eat less than you burn you will eventually stop being fat, Newton will crush with an apple any who disagree. Actually eating less is the hard part, imagine if an alcoholic couldn't quit all at once, they had to have some every day to live...
Some tricks:
Never eat a food you are craving unless it has almost no calories (leafy greens for example)
Never have food in the house that is "snackable"
Get prepackaged meals, and portionize any cooking you do immediately.
Most have heard never go shopping for food hungry, but it holds for restaurants as well, if you are starving, eat in, it will be easier to be sensible.
Identify which moods you are more likely to overeat in, happy,sad, bored, etc. and think of something else to do in that situation that is healthier.
Also, don't worry about physical activity at first, some studies have shown that physical activity in children increases as a result of weight loss, not the other way around.
Finally, I'm not a dietitian, this is all from personal experience. Except for the thermo part, don't argue with that.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
"According to the latest CDC statistics, from 2009, 25.5% of Arizonans are obese, about 1.7 million people."
That figure of 25% is also the national average. The problem is that the Federal government's definition of "obese" is a complete joke. Further, obesity is a measure of weight, not health. The 2 are often conflated and treated like they're exactly one and the same. They're not.
They'll tax junk food and that money will go back into the slush fund and spent on other shit. Net result: people get their money taken, nothing good comes of it, and someone will declare mission accomplished.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Her plan makes sense, but why only apply this to Medicaid dependents? If you are healthy and pay for health insurance, your premiums are driven sky high by the obese and the smokers who are customers of the same insurance company. If I am a physically fit 20-something non-smoker, why should I be paying higher premiums to compensate for the fat ass smokers who go to McDonald's for lunch every day? This is how the insurance industry works; the people who don't make high claims pay for the ones who do, and the insurance company takes a little off the top for themselves. What Brewer doesn't understand is that it isn't just poor fat smokers who are affecting the economy with their poor health choices. The fat smokers who can afford health insurance drive up the costs for the rest of us. When I, having never made a single claim on my health insurance, still have to pay 30% of my income towards it, that hurts the economy as a whole. If we really want to dig into the collective health cost issue, we could also increase taxes on chemical and mining companies for introducing an increased incidence of cancer into our society. We could also require that golf courses pay a levy for their excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides that are known to cause mutations and birth defects that require a lifetime of expensive health care. We could also make bacon illegal, but I really really really really really really really like bacon.
Republicans vote for "Conservatives" like Jan Brewer when they promise things like "less intrusive government". Then the "Conservatives" get power and force the government's clutches right into your digestive tract.
--
make install -not war
Why didn't Mr smiles fill this one with bullets?
he/she whois without fault... may caste even more aspersions?
another cnn dpd moment? or just more genuine native american spirit escaping;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&feature=player_embedded
We should make sure we tax the conservatives there who fail to pay enough taxes for the negative contribution there political phiolosphy causes the state.
The moralistic folks chastising the 'weak-willed' for being fat (and even worse: poor) are the very same who have no problem with corporatized, industrialized everything - including food. Fat Poor: No!. Fat Cats: Yes!
Car insurance premiums depend on statistical markers indicating the likelihood of you having to file a claim. Currently, statistical markers include age, marital status, credit, make and model of vehicle, and so on.
It works. Most major auto insurers are healthy companies able to pay claims almost instantly, and the actuarians have it worked out almost perfectly so that those who claim more or are statistically likely to claim more, pay more.
I pay a lot more for life insurance because I am a pilot, and I have an athletic injury rider on my heath insurance that pays for advanced care for the treatment of sports-related injuries (road cyclist) - for example it will pay to fly me to an Olympic surgeon in Colorado to have an IM Pin Fixation (1 week off the bike and guaranteed union) installed in my collar bone should I have a bike wreck and break it - as opposed to the standard figure-8 brace and 6-8 weeks off the bike and MAYBE having a good bone union.
I'm a higher risk of death and medical claims because of things I do, and I don't mind paying for it. Why should obese smokers not have to pay for the higher risk that is due to the choices they make? And, what gives them the right to reach into my pocket and forcefully take my money to pay their medical bills that are the result of those poor choices? After all, the government is going to get its tax money out of me one way or another and use it to pay their medical bills for them.
If something like this were to pass, one of the real problems we'd create (and yes, we'd be creating the problem) is that people would be scared about actually reporting their habits to their doctors, especially if they're smokers. So when a doctor starts prescribing a process for a patient to follow, that doctor is going to be absent certain information that might actually assist a person in future living. Yeah, you can condemn the person for being dishonest, and throw up a whole bunch of Darwin jokes, but the fact of the matter is, the job of a doctor is to help someone become healthy, and they can't do their jobs if they're not armed with all of the information. Bad plan. Good intentions. Bad plan.
Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
Your mixing and matching statistics. Worldwide numbers for costs, and us only numbers for tax on cigarettes. Then your tax numbers don't include the federal tax on cigarettes of like a buck, so all of the sudden most of those places have a combined tax load of more then 2.25 per pack. There are still 19 states that still dont make the 2.25. Then there are at least 16 states that charge more then a dollar (cumulative with federal taxes) then the 2.25 cut off point. So those states would probably make up for the shortfall in the others.
So all in all smokers at least pay their own way, and thats with a dose of im not gonna look up the real numbers to prove you even more wrong.
And until the FDA reins in Monsanto and ADM and Cargill (merely the three biggest names in agribusiness,) the rest of the monocolture conglomerate, the heavily subsidized corn-mad crap (I don't call it food) producers and the factory farms with their corn-fattened cattle and cannibal chickens, that effort is merely a tax on the poor fat-ass schlubs in Arizona.
The FDA stands for the Food and Drug administration. It is there to promote and protect the interests of the food and drug producers and , NOT the interests or the lives of the consumers.
After screwing up the food, which makes you sick, they hand you over to the drug manufacturers. who come up with cures for restless leg syndrome, which can be cured just by jerking off .
Americans eat worse, less nutritions, less tasty read than the poorest Egyptian fellah.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You like to rock climb or something? That carries a higher risk of injury than someone who doesn't. You choose to live in an area that snows and has slippery roads? Higher chance of injury than someone who lives in an arid climate (due to car accidents mostly).
You can see where this goes. There are a lot of things that increase your risk of injury, and that you can choose not to do. However is that where we want to head? Do we want to try and force everyone to live one type of life, with severely restricted activities, just because it is safer?
Also please remember there is the problem that the economic incentives would be to increasingly categorize things as risky. Since people pay more money if they do risky things, the more things that are risky the more money made. As such it is in the interests of either the insurance companies or the government (whichever is in charge) to get as much categorized as risky and requiring extra payment, regardless of real risk.
Then of course there's the question as to if it really results in savings. If you delve in to healthcare costs (warning: tons n' tons of data to sift through) you discover that the real big ones are quite often end of life stuff. Someone doesn't die of anything particular, they just keep getting older and more goes wrong, requiring more and more care. Mental diseases and general degradation are a big one. You can get someone who requires 24 hour care, yet has nothing acutely wrong and lives for many years that way. My grandma is headed down that road. She's in quite good health for her age (88) but has fairly quickly developing Alzheimer's. She'll need full time care soon and may live that way for 5-10 years.
That is expensive as hell.
While acute injuries due to risky behaviours or shorter chronic problems (like heart disease) may well increase cost earlier in life, they can cause overall lower costs if the person doesn't live long enough to get to the "Mind goes and body slowly starts breaking down," phase.
Now I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be encouraged to live as long as they can, but if cost is the issue perhaps we are going about it the wrong way. The people who are looking at living longer may well be the ones who need to pay extra, the ones likely to die younger may cost less.
Wasn't one of the sideshow arguments promulgated by the right-wing that "Obamacare would lead to Democrats imposing extra taxes on fat people!!!!"
Pretty funny, actually.
Who did what now?
Seriously, did any of you even bother to read the blurb, let alone the article, or did you just read the tag? This sounds like its specifically for people who refuse to follow guidelines set out for them by medical professionls - ie - lay off the fatty foods because you are at high risk of artery disease right now, or, stop smoking 2 cartons a day, you already have a spot on your lungs. Yeah, if you are going to do something that puts you at a higher health risk, and refuse to listen to your doctor's advice, you should pay a premium.
Do people who live in flood planes not pay more for flood insurance? Do people in California not pay more for earthquake insurance? Do people who have had heart or kidney transplants not pay higher medical premiums for their healthcare? So if someone is willingly putting themselves at risk of having health problems, they should be expected to pay higher premiums as well.
Gosh, a bunch of idiots on Slashdot today!
Brewer's plan is an incredibly bad approach for one very simple reason: Overweight is not always caused by poor choices. Everyone has a different biological configuration, so some people who make really lousy food choices are still going to be normal weight, while some people who make fantastic food choices will still be overweight. Further, taxing a potential, fairly weakly correlated in many cases, outcome is ridiculously indirect.
What would be better, if you really wanted to change people's behavior, would be to directly tax the behaviors you want to change. Put a tax on snacks with no food value - candy and soda are, purely, luxury items in the sense that they have literally no nutritional value and are eaten only as a treat. Tax fattier cuts of meat. Tax highly processed stuff. Then shout it from the rafters that there is a tax on these things, and that the reason for the tax is that these things are bad for your health, and eating them regularly should cost you more because you'll cost the system more. Then tell people if they want a sweet treat to have an apple instead since there's no tax on that and it's healthier.
You can also do other things to promote healthier choices - it takes multiple avenues to make a systemic change like this, but I'm just mentioning the tax on shitty "food" here.
With smoking this approach seems to have worked in a lot of places - in Chicago, where I live, it seems that taxes going WAY up on cigarettes (a pack here now costs about 10 USD) combined with smoking being banned from restaurants and bars, combined with requiring smokers to stay outside and 20 feet from the entrance to buildings has greatly reduced the number of people I have seen smoking over the last 10 years.
Now, I am not saying that these things SHOULD be done - I don't know that it's necessarily government's role to try and shape our behavior in this way. What I am saying is that if you DO want to shape people's behavior, Brewer's plan is not the way to go about doing it.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
is not the absence of a fine. Reward isn't the word they are looking for, punishment is the word.
usually its the "evil socialist" left that says there are costs the community incurs for bad behavior
its usually the right that says "my bad behavior has no effect on society! this is just fascist attempt to take away freedom!" blah blah blah: ignorant and blind. if your idea of "freedom" means the "right" to incur costs on others without any consequence to you, you don't know what freedom is, you just have a 2 year old's mindset: whine with whatever words sound good, be damned logic and reason, until you get what you want and you don't have to pay for the obvious inevitable consequences you avoid seeing out of your blind selfishness
so thank you, jan brewer, for showing to this cynical liberal that there is still the capacity for critical thinking from the right
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... is why America is dying.
No fat taxes in China
(DISCLAIMER: I'm talking as if I live in America, I don't, I actually live in Australia, but work closely with Americans, and my family/friends are in the health care industry in Australia. There is a good chance I'll be relocating there for work soon.)
Excellent. Well, while we're at it, I want a blue collar workers tax. My father who worked on farms, and has done sheet metal work, all his life, is perpetually at the doctors, with all sorts of ailments. Far more than any fat person, and likely, blue collar workers would collectively spend a lot more time at the doctors, especially in their old age.
This would "reward good behavior" like studying hard and going to college, and "raise awareness that certain conditions, including" manual labour, "raise costs throughout the system. If you want to" not invest in your own education and settle for a simple life, "go for it". "But understand you're going to have to contribute something for the cost of the care of your" choice of occupation.
Also, we need a sportsmen tax. When I used to play ice hockey, I was always getting fucked up knees, ankles, shins, shoulders, etc. I was always going to see the doctor, and a few times I took a puck in the wrong place, and had to get some serious attention. My lower leg once filled up with blood, due to a really good slap shot, that cut a muscle internally by pushing the muscle against a bone. These days that leg still gives me trouble, all the time.
This would "reward good behavior" like not playing rough sports, and "raise awareness that certain conditions, including" physical sports, "raise costs throughout the system. If you want to" play rough sports, "go for it". "But understand you're going to have to contribute something for the cost of the care of your" choice of leisure.
Oh, also, some of my family are vegans and keep having problems with balancing their iron needs and some other vitamin stuff (can't remember exactly), so we need a tax on that.
This is absolutely absurd, and extremely counter productive. Especially since, things like this are the reason the people on the right fear increasing the scope of medicaid. This sort of thing, and the scrutiny over different forms of treatment, are what is wrong with public health care. In Australia, doctors are limited via their treatment options, because the public system won't pay for various sorts of treatments (might be contingent on some variables being met), and the private system won't pay for them, because the public system pays more than what normal people can afford to the providers, while attempting cost cutting measures (such as quota limits, and more scrutinzation of patients, etc). This results in driving up the price, and creating an oligopoly type situation.
That's just the start of the sort of problems you have with things like this. They are complex systems, where everyone has a say, many different parties hold influence, resulting in absolutely intractable problems, that will result in higher costs, and less benefits.
Also, the BMI is fucking ridiculous. I've got friend who did/do body building, and they'll tell you that they're actually obese, based on the BMI that is. It's at this point that people say "but but but there's other measures you use in combination", the looser the legal policy is, the more useless this bill is (in fact, it will just add administrative overhead). The tighter it is, the more you're going to be victimizing these other people.
Oh, it should also be noted, that these body building types often put a higher burden on the health care system. They push their bodies to extreme limits, such that they require regular check ups, and can easily end up in a bad situation. Ever seen someone cut weight before? It's pretty fucked.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Heh. Well, off the top of my head, also not easy on the eyes are:
- old people (Fuck off, Grandma, I came to the park to see young chicks.)
- ugly people (I actually went to school with someone whose face was strangely reminiscent of a skull.)
- people with bad makeup (Especially old ladies whose bad eyesight is probably why they look like they buried their face in half an inch of cream and powder.)
- people with bad fashion sense
- people with various medical problems ranging from bad cases of acne to physical deformities
Etc.
And that's not even counting those who are not easy on other senses like:
- smell (and I don't just mean the nerds who last used soap for Christmas, but also the kind of women that smells like she's been dunked in cheap perfume and stinks up the whole train car of that cheap perfume.)
- hearing (people who talk loudly, people whose MP3 player is turned up so loud you can hear it from 3 rows of seats away, or just the kind of idiot who screams "I'M ON A TRAIN! DO YOU HEAR ME?! ON A TRAIN! YES, TRAIN!" into their mobile phone)
Or who insult your intelligence with idiotic conspiracy theories, or with the crackpot idea that a work of fiction can be taken as proving the applicability of a social or economic model to the real world, or whatever idiocy, really.
I'd say tax them all, but then it dawns upon me that we're already taxing everyone, aren't we? :p
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
No, it sounds like they are trying to "punish" what they consider to be "bad" behavior. Rewarding good behavior would be giving $50 to people who are not obese or are non smokers. Avoiding a penalty is not a "reward", especially when the penalty is artificial in the form of legislation. Governments have to remember that they only rule with the consent of the people. The current situation in the middle east should be an example to them.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Does anyone see the irony of charging a fee to someone enrolled or trying to enroll in a program for people without money?
What are they going to do, refuse care to someone who is to obese or too poor to pay the fee.
Hmm? I mean, thank you, I didn't think you cared, but how do you deduce that from what I wrote?
How is calling a BS argument BS, equivalent to being "heartless, selfish, cruel and without love for your fellow man"? Does a kind and selfless person rather say one should tax an unfairly demonized group, based on misconceptions and lack of data?
But generally, my biggest problem is, basically, bullshit. And all sorts of arguments boiling down to group A telling group B "not on MY money!" are bullshit when group A who isn't actually paying that money, but is actually receiving money from group B.
The image that comes to mind of someone going to a soup kitchen and, upon receiving their bowl, going "this is crap, for MY money, I want a steak!" Fuck off. You're not the one paying for it, you're someone receiving stuff that someone else paid for.
That goes for anti-smoking arguments, subsidized mid-west farmers going "not on MY money!" at the groups actually paying their subsidies,
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I know this has been stated before but BMI is the most archaic way to measure obesity ever. It only uses Height vs Weight, thats it. If you are a weightlifter standing at 5'10 with 210lbs of muscle guess what...yer fat. It doesnt differentiate between a 1lb of muscle and a 1lb of fat. The most economical way to calculate obesity is Skinfold measurements. the most accurate (and most expensive) is Hydrostatic weighing. Will they use those techniques? Or just go with BMI to get 50 bucks out of everyone regardless if you are fat or lifted a dumbell My concern like others here have stated is; are these additional "taxes" , if you will, going to be used for their health costs? Or just absorbed into an overall health cost pot. How much would it really save tax payers who are not smokers/overweight. What if you dont go to a Dr, like many, until there is a problem. Which by then will be too late. How do you excise that tax then? Is an annual physical going to be required along with your income tax returns? What about children who are overweight? I think that this will probably cause more problems then solve in the end. People who would normally go to the Doctor, wont because they dont want to be taxed. So now that unrelated condition that could have been fixed early on wont be addressed until its later stages thereby being more expensive to treat/cure.
You are wrong this is not the worldwide number for cost, it is definitively US cost : see top left of the PDF where it says "smoking account for 6% of the health care cost of USA in 1999" then below cost per country : "USA 76 billion ; germany 14.7 billion etc..." it is QUITE CLEAR this is not a world wide cost but USA cost ( heck it even says Health care costs attributable to tobacco 2002 or latest available estimates selected countries)
Counting only the number of lung cancer (there are other) there are 200.000 person it cost about 60.000$ to treat in average http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/coi/pubs/II_5.pdf so that is about alone for lung cancer 12 billion dollar. And that is only the treatment, does not count day of absence, administrative cost , fire injury, fire hazard and so on, all totalled this come to the 50 billion.
If you think the number are over inflated, then point the finger at your health care system which is very costly. But the number are there. And the basic point still stays : the MINIMUM money to cover health care cost would be 2$25 per pack, and a similar rise on all other tobacco form (snuff , pipe , etc...). This is definitively not covered in all the states.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Makes sense for the states maybe, but the federal government needs to stop giving billions in subsidies to the corn industry. There's a reason corn products can be found in almost all junk food. It's the same reason why a cheeseburger costs as much as an apple. It's disgusting really.
There are so many problems with this I don't know where to begin. For one, to qualify for medicaid, you must be below the poverty level. The assumption with this proposal is that the people on medicaid are over eating. Given their income, it is most likely not how much they are eating but instead what they are eating. When you are poor, it is hard to eat healthy. Fruits and vegetables and meat cost money that you don't have. Junk food, on the other hand, is relatively cheap.
Then, what about diabetics? Many are overweight on account of their medical condition. In the private sector, when a business tries something like this, it runs afoul of the ADA. Why wouldn't the state's proposal? If diabetics are exempted, then what about people in wheel chairs? They tend to become overweight, too? If diabetics and people in wheel chairs, what about the next group with a legitimate cause? Once you make an exception for one group, you are opening the doors for others. And if you do have exceptions, then you are going to be paying somebody to determine and monitor the exception.
Part of the proposal requires the people to go to the doctor, get on a plan and stick with the plan. Who is going to pay for those doctor visits? We've already established that the people in the program are below the poverty level. Of course, it will be the state. So, in addition to hiring staff for determination and monitoring the people in the program. The state will have to pay more out to doctors and that also adds staff to process those payments.
Finally, none of this solves the real problem, which is not that the people in question are overweight, but that they are poor and need assistance with basic necessities including but not limited to health care.
Average lubng cancer age is 68. CDC numbers :
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/
Quote : "Lung cancer occurs with much greater frequency among the elderly, which is typical of most cancers. The average age at diagnosis is approximately 68 years. Less than two percent of lung cancers are diagnosed before the age of 40 and five percent are diagnosed over the age of 85
So it is an elderly disease predominantely , and in effect that ruins a bit the argument oto let the people die of lung cancer when they are young.... What happens is that their smoking behavior cost those elderly MORE to take care of (normal elderly care PLUS lung cancer).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Its a lack of self responsibility fed by government entitlement programs that will only get worse as more and more are shifted to public support. We should be doing our best to encourage everyone to live a long and healthy life. Writing people off because it costs us less is inhumane. Why not right off the disabled then as well?
Simple fact, the tax on tobacco is dishonest. If it is such a health threat why is it still legal to buy and sell?
Your study looked at their health costs, what about the other costs to support these people in society? What about loss productivity and the costs of that passed on from employers to every customer? What about the effects of second hand smoke? How do we justify their short term higher costs by claiming that since they cost less over a lifetime it all works out?
What about their effects on their children? Do people who live unhealthy lives not influence their children? How about smokers and their own children? Do not fat people have unhealthy food in house to lead to a whole new generation of fat people?
So yeah, their is a problem. Claiming they cost less overall is a falsehood because it does not look at the effect these people have on others around them, especially any children they have
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If the purpose is to encourage fitness by identifying and taxing the willingly unfit, this plan leaves a lot to be desired.
The term fitness refers to to a person's ability to function efficiently and effectively in work and leisure activities, to be healthy (free from sickness), to resist hypokinetic diseases (conditions that occur from a sedentary lifestyle) and to meet emergency situations.
Obesity refers to an excess of body fat, which can be one result of a sedentary lifestyle and which has a generally negative impact on fitness. but BMI is a measure of a person's weight and height, not their body fat percentage. It is therefore not specific enough to serve as a measure of obesity, and it is certainly not a measure of fitness. As an example, an adjustment in diet and exercise that increases functional strength will almost always improve a person's health and fitness (not to mention their appearance), but if it is not accompanied by an equivalent and concurrent loss of fat it can cause an increase in weight and BMI, which the uninformed could easily interpret as a negative trend.
If the goal is raise funds to cover the cost of care of the willingly unfit, continue to tax cigarettes and booze. One could also consider applying a portion of the savings from the elimination of government subsidies for producers of sugar, HFCS and other nutritional components that are known to be detrimental to fitness. Mandate daily PE for all students (not just competitive and team sports, but other fitness activities as well.)
New taxes, applied unfairly, will just tweak people off and not bring us any closer to any positive, meaningful goal.
First they want to get rid of undocumented workers. Now they want to get rid of overweight people and people who smoke. Correct me if I'm wrong, but who will be left in Arizona if they are successful with all of these things?
Of course, the flip coin is: who died and left you the judge and jurry of what should be imposed on other people for their own interest? How about accepting that they're adult people who can make their own choices?
Yes, some of their choices may shorten their lives. But judging everything from that criterion would also say you should discourage them from driving to a movie, since accidents happen on the road, or living far from work in the suburbs (more driving = more accidents), or letting teenagers drive at all (it's a major cause of mortality for teenagers.)
Ultimately everyone makes their own choices for how they want to live their lives, or to what end. Arguments which boil down to postulating they should live their lives towards one criterion someone else postulated, are stupid. Reardless of which criterion that is. Nobody signed a contract when they got here that they agree to have only maximizing their life span (or producing the most money for society, or whatever) as their sole goal and guiding principle.
Who the heck basically gives someone the right to tell another adult, "Your choices and goals are wrong. I know better than you what you should want. Lemme just shove my choices down your throat, for your own good."?
Even shorter version: It's called free will. Learn to live with it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Those are State cigarette taxes. One must remember that there are also Federal Cigarette taxes. A bit more than a dollar a pack on that side, as of 2009.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
fat is cheap, eating healthy costs more money. Food companies find more and more ways to produce 'food' cheaper and cheaper until what you get is so far from natural and healthy food that it's killing people. Try to shop for organic or only non-processed items and you'll find that your grocery bill will double. I really think we could fund universal healthcare with beer and cig taxes, as to what guideline you'd use to tax unhealthy food I have no idea.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
By my height and weight, on some charts my 'body mass index" or whatever says I'm obese.
If you were to measure my body fat instead, you would think otherwise.
I understand this is an issue for some people trying to get private health insurance, would it be the same in AZ?
Smokers and fat people die earlyer, actually putting less pressure on medicare in long terms. If you tax the consumables (alcohol, tabaco and junk food) you can probably get the best effect, imho.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
What? A Republican wanting to punish people for not keeping themselves healthy? This has to be against the Constitution. I have every right to smoke, eat everything in sight, and sit on my lazy arse without the government getting involved. They just don't have a right to punish me if I don't have health insurance. God forbid I have to pay for something that will lower what the government has to pay because I refuse to do the right thing.
The reason they are looking to apply this tax is not because they actually want to it is because economic issues have caused budget shortfalls. In this situation they start to look for "lost or new revenue" which in entertainment industry terms translates to "piracy" and in government terms translates to "creative new taxes."
Then of course we all know this lady is a nut anyway. ;) Maybe instead she can create a lawyer tax. Every time a lawyer brings a lawsuit to court they are taxed 10-20% of their legal fees and they can't require the client to pay it. Want to bring medical costs down? Fix malpractice suits. If all else fails lets go back to the day when being a senator and the like was a civic duty and not a career.
-Xen
This must be that "smaller government" thing that the teabaggers in AZ love so much...
The idea is good. I want to see an end to obesity and fast. The problem is rather complicated and blame is literally being assigned to the symptom and not the causes.
I attribute causes as follows:
1. Food in need of better regulation, specifically, CORN products but there are many others.
2. Work/Lifestyle requirements in the US. In other countries, there are much better work schedules and conditions. Why do we have to work such long hours and with so little time off?
3. Bad knowledge! There are some serious misunderstandings in the general public. The "basic truths" are well known, but not applied. We know, for example, that "body fat" is "stored energy" or leftovers from processing of food intake. But we are led to believe that the way to burn this fat is to "exercise more." That's where the half-truths and lies begin.
Knowing that the body burns first the "easy stuff" before using the "bad stuff" means that before exercise can be effective, the body has to be quite empty of "easy stuff" first. This means eating less bad stuff and there is simply no way around it. And once eating less bad stuff happens, the need for exercise drops significantly, often to the point that it isn't necessary at all unless you just happen to have some bodily weaknesses you would like to improve (the heart being an often needed target).
4. Childhood Obesity, AKA child abuse and bad parenting. Some of this can be attributed to 1, 2 and 3, but there is a responsibility in parenting that is most often neglected and forgotten. Most parents fail in their duties miserably. Many stop at the duty of "protection" and forget that the whole mission of parenting is to grow good, healthy (mentally and physically) adults. It is an inexcusable thing for a parent not to notice or take action when their children are becoming obese. A parent should always be observant and caring of how their children are progressing in every way and if you can't, then I don't know what should be done, but you shouldn't be a parent at all. It is called "neglect" when a parent doesn't pay attention to a child allowing bad things to happen and it is even punishable by jail time and a felony criminal record. (This is usually only in cases where a child doesn't eat enough... but why not too much as well?)
There is a LOT wrong going on out there and it is simply more appropriate to address the causes than to address the symptoms.
So why are Americans generally so damn fat in the last few decades and growing? Negative reinforcement does very little in absence of identified causality. Especially when "being fat" is already a negative reinforcement in and of itself that obviously hasn't hindered most US Citizens from continuing to grow.
Here's the few major causes that I'm aware of, and none of them are easy to fix on an individual level:
If we want to tackle obesity as a social, collective problem, we need to aim at larger, causal targets. Individual-level negative reinforcement is in place already and a complete fail.
So in this perfect world, we should tax your actions if they incur costs to others. Hmm, therefore we should tax:
- people who would pass any new law (because more law enforcement costs more money)
- people who oppose eliminating any old law (because... see above)
So before government is entirely defunded by the enforcement of this law, in order to pay for it we should quickly tax those who voted for this law. After that, we'll tax everyone who ever voted to pass any other law.
Whee! The government is rich again! And it's out of a job too!
Give a tax credit for people that their doctors deem 'healthy weight'
They then go visit a doctor once a year too which potentially helps with far far more medical problems.
Honestly, I don't see how this sort of thing is avoidable, it's just a fact of the matter. Regardless of where you come out on medical care and the government, if you are doing everything "right" to theoretically need less medical care, why shouldn't your burden be less? Why shouldn't a fat drug addict like Rush Limbaugh pay more?
So where is the extra tax for people who play minor league sports and their constant joint injuries? Are we gonna tax people for doing anything risky or just the people we don't like?
Tax: The purpose of a tax is to raise revenue. Ideally, you want the tax to bring in the same amount of revenue every year.
Fine: The purpose of a fine is to punish bad behavior. Ideally, you want to bring in no revenue for a fine, because the bad behavior people are being fined for stops.
Fee: A fee is an opt in which raises money for a program. If no one uses the program, you don't collect the fees, and the program likely stops being offered.
One of the worst things we have is taxes sold as fines, fines used to raise revenue, and fees as ways to either alter behavior or raise general revenues (not for specific programs).
This "flab tax" should not be called a tax. If it is a "flab fine" or a "flab fee" it should probably go to programs to reduce obesity, and not in the general fund. Of course, Republicans want to end Medicare and Medicaid, so it won't be used to improve the program in these ways.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Stop Medicaid.
Yes, this will cause many people to call any proponent of ending Medicaid many bad names. So what?
Oh, I forgot; many people think it's the government's job to take care of them. Well, I (and others) say it ain't. Eventually we'll get 'round to another war to settle the question, for a few more generations at least.
a study based on data from an actual health insurance company, it turned out that smokers and the obese actually cost LESS
And you believed a study from an insurance company?
"has proposed levying a $50 fee"
"Brewer says the proposal is a way to reward good behavior"
No, it's a way to punish bad behavior. Not making people pay a fee that didn't exist before isn't a reward.
The answer to everything in this country is tax. Don't be more responsible. Don't look at why costs are rising. Just tax tax and tax again. Of course the problem, as we've seen, is that when times get tough the tax revenue that these people rely on goes down so you have to create more taxes which further depress things until the point where it's cheaper not to even bother working since the government takes all your money anyways.
Working overtime can kill you.
And what are these "doctor-supervised slimming regimens?" Gastric bypasses, which can kill you?
To vote these things down yet?
You want to slow obesity?
1) Teach people how to cook, and convince them they should make time to cook. We used to have people in the family specialized in cooking nutritious meals that took a while to prepare but kept a family fed. They were called "moms." I'm not saying that we need to chain women back to the stove all day, but I am saying that we need to realize that this was an important role in the family, that takes a lot of time and expertise! Even my grandma's cooking with lard was less likely to cause obesity than most sugar-soaked fast food and frozen dinners.
2) Get rid of farm subsidies. I noticed when I visited Europe... coke still comes in small cans there, and one of them is considered a dessert. You can barely get anything to drink at a quick american restaurant that *doesn't* come with enough corn syrup in your drink to fulfill your calorie intake for an entire day. You get so accustomed to sweetener in everything that *nothing* tastes right if it doesn't have sugar in it. It's taken me years to wean myself off of a childhood spent drinking mountain dew or sugared fruit drinks every time I got thirsty.
As for medical spending... why is it such a horrible idea to have defined limits for government medical aid. Something like "everyone is entitled to 100k worth of government insurance. After that you're on your own." The idea that we should provide aid to people who can't pay for it is great - the idea that it should be practically unlimited aid, when available medical care is only going to become *more* unlimited in scope, is just untenable.
As plenty of people have found, if you reduce your energy intake from carbohydrates (to less than 10% of your energy intake) and eat fat meats, cream, eggs and vegetables instead, you lose your excess weight pretty damn quickly. It forces your body to burn your fat for energy instead of running on glycogen from the carbohydrates you eat.
Of course, you'd have to throw out all bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, beer et cetera - things which a modern human consumes tons of.
The fat you eat only sticks to your fat cells if you also eat carbohydrates. The blood sugar from carbohydrates is a signal for the body to start collecting stock piles. So then, what would you tax? The fatty food? Or the carbohydrates? You can eat plenty of carbohydrates if you burn them with exercise. You'd have to have a very intrusive diet/lifestyle inspector in order to be able to tax 'fairly'.
I say we tax the hell out of politicians who don't perform. If a budget doesn't get passed, take 10% of their pay and an extra 1% daily. Don't fulfill your campaign promises (Mr President especially, as well as several notable Governors) then either pay up or get the hell out.Performance Guaranteed Contracts are standard way of doing other areas. What makes these ass hats immune?
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
The real problem is that corn-based products masquerading as food are sold in massive quantities at unrealistically low prices to the poor and middle class in this country. Removing corn subsidies would more than pay for the increased health care required as well as raise the price on artificial slop (eg. fast food, corporate chains like olive garden, soda, hot pockets, tv dinners, etc) to the point where the real cost of food would be apparent to consumers. Add in the benefit that cooking at home is suddenly much more attractive financially and you just might see our shameful obesity trends start to reverse.
In Canada smokes went up again. Almost $15 per 25 pack. You guys in the States get everything cheaper and taxed less. Stop complaining.
So, instead of taxing people, why not get rid of the subsidies for HFC's?
We already know that they are bad for you. It's almost as if the government decided to give subsities that are designed to produce more fat people.
It seems to me this would either make foods with HFC's more expensive (thus foods not containing them cheaper) or manufacturers would stop putting that crap into foods.
That way you end up changing both the producer and consumer choices leading to a more healthy overall country.
But of course that would be bad for business, and everyone knows that it's better that we have a obesity epidemic than comporate profits go down.
Regards
Right. Which is just like when you vote for "Liberals" like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama when they promise things like "free health care for all". Then the "Liberals" get power and force the government's clutches right into your digestive tract
Old cat is old.
oh wait, I'm probably more likely to get hit by a car which would require medical care.
another stupid Republican idea.
Absolute statements are never true
While this may seem admirable, the fact is, that it will affect the poor and children more than anything else, and do little to reduce obesity or smoking. An overweight or smoking parent will be fined $50 , but that is $50 less to feed her children and as most food stamp enrollees DO NOT HAVE medical insurance, being on a medically supervised weight loss program is far fetched.
Instead the proposal is designed to punish food stamp enrolees for being poor. The State of Arizona has one of the highest cigarette taxes in the nation and it's revenue, supposed to go into smoking related reduction programs, were hijacked and diverted to the General Fund to balance the budget,
If Gov. Brewer adds this proposal to cover all obese government employees or politicians as a deduction from their paid State health plan, it would be more equitable and more far reaching. But then, it wouldn't pass. as the there are many obese and smoking politicians in the far right who would be outraged at this government intrusion.
Ahh, Slippery Slope, welcome back old friend. First - for the smoking thing, what the hell did they do with all that money they got from the Big Tobacco settlement that was *supposed* to be for health care costs ($206 billion over 25 years, shared by the 50 states)? Oh, right, that got redirected into roads and fisheries and all other kinds of stuff having nothing to do with health costs. Scam! If it's *really* all about correlating behavior to health costs (and it's not, but let's play along) then what about taxing people based upon activities? How about a $5 surcharge for every ski-lift ticket, because people that ski are far more likely to have some sort of trauma injury than those that don't. Golf is notorious for what it does to your back and the long term care prospects for those with bad backs is *very* expensive - $10 surcharge on all greens fees (and $15 if you rent a cart, you sedentary bastard!). You ever see what happens to somebody that falls off a bicycle? Oh man, my Iron Man sister got totally messed up when she fell off her bike while training - busted teeth, fractured ribs, all kinds of messed up skin. People that ride bikes are just accidents waiting to happen - so that probably requires, what, $100 annual fee? I mean I love my sister and all but why the hell should I be paying for her health care just cause she thinks it's fun to run/bike/swim? Oh yeah, swimming - did you know that people drown? Well, those people are dead so I guess there's no health care costs for them - but what about all those *millions* of folks getting attacked by sharks (I saw it on TV, so it must be true)? Some of them think WE should pay to sew their arms back on - or whatever it is that got bitten off. Not sure how to tax that one, though - if we tax swimming suits then some of them will just swim naked . . . and, depending on who it is, that could be a really bad thing. Have to give that one some more thought.
Finally, according to the CDC in the year 2000 (cue Conan and Andy) there were ~85K non-fatal gun injuries. That's a lot of shot up but not dead people expecting somebody to patch them up. I figure $500/year per gun should help cover those costs, right?
Or . . . do you really think that the root cause of all of our high health care costs is solely on the shoulders of smokers and fat people?
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
I guess the Governor is assuming fat people and smokers can't get off the couch to vote either.
is that obesity is often a symptom, and not the root issue. And the current doctor-provided ways to lose weight won't work for a lot of people who are obese, because their insulin system's functioning is not normal, whether it be because of hormone issues or metabolic syndrome.
according to the BMI Ndamakong SUH is obese...you want to tell that to his six-pack? how do you determine whether a person is 300 pounds of blubber or SSSSSSSUUUHHHHHH?
...its time for me to get a six pack. So I stocked the fridge up on beer.
Have gnu, will travel.
We already have a bunch of negative approaches, I've thought of a slightly different approach. The cheapest foods are also the most unhealthy, so what needs to happen is that we make the healthier choices more appealing. Since "food stamps" are now on a debit card type system, the government can make calculations in the background. I say that any fresh produce purchased on an EBT card will get a 10%-50% rebate, I have no idea on the ramifications of this number, so the exact amount of the rebate would have to be studied. The cost for this rebate can be offset by taking it out of farm subsidies for the less healthy choices like meat. Of course this would have to be monitored for over-users, people who purchase tons of produce, then go to a farmer's market and try to re-sell it for less than grocery prices, but more than their rebate price.
.... poor people were skinny.
If we weren't constantly prying into everyones daily life, and insisting we have some moral or social responsibility to pay for each others well being we wouldn't have a problem. Frankly from my point of view being fat is *less* detrimental to ones health than consuming heavily chemically altered foods. In regards to smokers paying for smoking... they do... its taxed to death.. every time they are buying a pack they pay money in to the communal pot... so even if you do subscribe to the socialist view that its your responsibility they are in fact already paying it...
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
They came for alcohol long ago. Maybe it's different in your state, but in mine, alcohol is already heavily taxed and it's regulated to such an extreme degree that anyone works with it, fantasizes that they had the freedom enjoyed by people who seek organic certification for sausages made from reprocessed fetus fission fuel.
Unless you homebrew, anything you do involving alcohol has Mr. Government riding on your back, looking over your shoulder, holding one of your hands, and somehow from that position, managing to stare threateningly into your eyes while sternly pointing, and hatefully muttering through clenched teeth, "I'm gonna fucking get you. How dare you make or sell alcohol!?!"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The land of the free and the home of the people that are just like me.
If you aren't just like me we will legislate against you since we can't discriminate anymore.
I have a big problem with this title being political spin. Medicaid is an entitlement. You cannot tax an entitlement. You can change the rules to reduce the cost of the entitlement, which, if fiscal policy was a zero sum game would equate to a tax CUT. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Still, this is NOT a tax. I have the same issue when politicians try to repeal a tax cut and claim they are not raising taxes, just repealing a cut. Bullshit.
Instead of taxing flab which in some people is genetic and therefore just as controllable as someone's height, I propose abolishing all bilingual government activities. No more bilingual documents which will cut the printing budget in half instantly. As a result, there will be no requirement for translators to create those documents. You will also expand the pool of applicants for government jobs by not insisting on bilingual speaking applicants which will have a net effect of lowering the cost of hiring those workers. Abolish bilingual education and no tax revenue is to be used to set up non-english speaking schools.
so the tea baggers elected one of their own in Arizona to "get big guvament" out of their lives. so now the tea bagger in office and her sidekicks are shoving "big guvament" down the people's throats. in other states with tea baggers in charge are shoving other things down the citizens throats, funneling billions to mega corporations, and creating death panels to kill your grandma. So how is that whole small government thingy working out for ya?
candy and soda are, purely, luxury items in the sense that they have literally no nutritional value and are eaten only as a treat.
When I want a snack, I might eat a ZonePerfect bar or a Snickers Marathon bar. These look and taste like candy bars but have far more nutritional value. I'm also on Diet Mtn Dew (caffeine 54 mg) q.i.d., something that a psychiatrist and I agreed on as a cheap alternative to prescription neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitors. How would you apply your logic to these?
Then tell people if they want a sweet treat to have an apple instead
I eat bananas and the like. But does that make my Zone bars unhealthy?
Corn oil circumvents our bodies 'fullness indicator', and it is a large portion of almost all junk food. Since corn is subsidized, and most Americans only consider the price tag and tongue when shopping. They are doomed to be fat (the poor esp).
To make a real difference, the first thing to do would be to get rid of the stupid political-correctness around obesity and stop acting like its some accident of birth.
The condition is self-inflicted and a direct result of extreme gluttony. Morbidly obese people are not "large" or "big-boned". Its not a physical disability, other than maybe mental. It shouldn't be "OK" to be fat and proud.
We need to stop socially rewarding extreme self-indulgent behavior such as handing out disabled parking stickers to 400lb lardbuckets that can't control their own greed.
Federal taxes nearly doubled last year. Not only that but they are closing loopholes for loose tobacco so the overall effect will be more than double the amount of federal tax collected. Add to that the outright banning of most types of flavored tobacco because somehow menthols are really roping in the kids (won't someone think of the children!), and you can see government is going nuts over the issue.
If government adjusting prices to manipulate demand is called a free market now, I wonder what the newspeak definition is for a planned economy.
You're right: our society says we don't want it, so that must be true, assuming you totally and completely ignore our behavior and continual attestations that we desperately want it.
This is a no-brainer and beyond dispute. Say smoking is stupid and undesirable for both the society and the smoker himself, and your position will be unassailable. But society's position on the matter, as well as its desire, is a totally different matter, and this is proven every day, when unlike the demand for buggy whips, the demand for tobacco remains.
Everything study I've read says obese and smoking people cost LESS in healthcare because of their early termination of life. The healthy people of the country who live forever and end up getting expensive diseases late in life are the real cost.
Tax healthy people!
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Every time a Republican candidate talks about small government, do you get a little buzz in your head, like something short circuiting?
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
smokers have ALREADY PAID the lion's share of taxes, is there some reason that THOSE funds could not be used for their health care as it was promised originally? Likewise prepared foods (fast food) is taxable in most cases - so these people have already paid more than the average taxpayer. It is unconscionable that they keep looking for ways to hammer these people twice. NOTE I myself am disabled but weigh only 160 lbs at 5'7" - just so you have reference, OK? ALSO I have not been a smoker in nearly 20 years of my nearly 50 years here.
oh, wait, I just looked on the back side of the Georgia Guidestones and it says right here - "no people means no tax income".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There are so many comments about how obesity sometimes isn't a choice, how do you define obesity, etc. It appears that people have missed on the key phrase:
Yes, we all realize that genes play a role. We also realize that there are people who are overweight and don't care. Those who simply continue with their lifestyle regardless of the health consequences. Those people are making CHOICES about their health to the tune of billions of dollars in medical bills to the US economy. Tax the people who make bad choices. That's what this governor is proposing.
Good idea in principle, but smokers and the obese cost the system less, not more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=1
I totally agree that those who cost the system more should pay more, though, which is why I'm sure that in light of this new information, Brewer will propose a tax on skinny people and non-smokers.After all, it's about fairness, not disapproval for the behaviors involved, right?
The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time the state-federal health-care program for the poor has charged people for engaging in behavior deemed unhealthy.
This is of course not applied across the board. I've been living in AZ for over 6 years now, and the stupidity of this state still amazes me sometimes.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Yeah, but we can't buy Cuban cigars.... :(
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The issue with all proposals like this are the same. Every single person does something that has a negative effect on their health. If you taxed each person based on what they do and do not do that might be fair, but why do obese and cigarettes get targeted more than alcohol users or people who live high stress careers. Those last two kill far far more people. The reality is that social prejudice plays a role in this.
We should be very careful when we target so called lifestyle conditions with an additional penalties. Does anyone remember ulcers? For decades ulcers were blamed on stress and people who could not get rid of them had to deal with social criticism and the sense that they were somehow responsible for their condition. Low and behold we discover H. Pylori and there went the problem with a shot of Malox and some antibiotics. Recent studies on the long term impact of dieting on the obese show that the stress of Yo-Yo dieting and severs social stigma may be killers, so what if we are wrong about the current solutions. We simply do not know enough about why certain conditions happen to make harsh judgements or force so called cures.
Eating unlike cigarettes, which can arguably be said to be a choice, is not voluntary action. You must eat or starve. While obese people may indeed have some choice in what and how much they eat, they do need to eat. Ask a recovering heroine addict how easy it would be to stop if they had to inject a little heroine three times a day every day for the rest of their lives.
There is a growing body of evidence that once a person has become obese, often in childhood, that their body tries very hard to maintain a given weight and the stress of changing this and can be deadly. The last thing these people need is more social stigma. Keep in mind there is a liability issue here. What happens if they ever find a underlying cause and we learn most obese simply had a unknown medical condition or the death rate of the obese go up do to stress? Do they get to sue for being forced to pay an extra penalty?
I would tread lightly here. No one is perfect. No one wants the state to define exactly what they can and what they cannot do. Where will it end? After all the risk from sex is more dangerous than obesity and cigarettes combined and lets not even talk about the risks of public gatherings.
Actually, the results in the link I provided are not all that dramatic. It doesn't say that the smokers die at 30 years old.
The actual numbers are more like live to an average 84 years old for healthy non-smokers, 80 for obese non-smokers, and 77 for non-obese smokers.
Even allowing for a bell curve distribution around that point, the fact is that most smokers will reach pension age and do their full stint in the workforce. The only ones which may have their 50/50 point around pension age are presumably the obese smokers, but I suspect that even of those most will (barely) make it past the hurdle before dying horribly.
As Aepervius was mentioning in another message, the average age for getting diagnosed with lung cancer is at 68 years old, and less than 5% are diagnosed with it before the age of 40.
So, really, even the argument about years contributed to society is bunk. The vast majority of either obese or smokers will do all or most of their years in the workforce, same as the lean guys. They just won't "suck from the collective teet of society" (to borrow your expression) for as many years afterwards.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
job need to offer full menu to there staff. Mcdonalds Brazil sued over that my only offering part of the menu as part of the free lunch to staff.
http://consumerist.com/2009/09/brazil-declares-mcdonalds-only-diet-a-crime.html
Yes, please, let's punish the lazy fat people who are making things more inconvenient and expensive for the rest of us. But with at least one provision: You may NOT use BMI tables, you MUST use actual bodyfat percentage. Why? BMI tables are hopelessly outdated. I have between 10 and 20% bodyfat, but I have denser bones and more lean muscle tissue by far than the average person, and while I look lean, BMI tables still claim I'm overweight.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
If you want people to eat less fat, stop meat and dairy subsidies. If you want people to eat less sugar, stop corn subsidies, which lead to increased production of high fructose corn syrup. It's ridiculous that politicians bitch about how expensive it is to provide healthcare for obese diabetics while simultaneously encouraging production of foods that lead to those maladies.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Okay, so we're all aware that certain bad habits are likely to cause us to die at an earlier age. However, the fact remains that we will all die at some point. So, what I'd like to see is a comparison of the TOTAL costs of health care over the average lifespan of people who take care of themselves vs. those who don't. I'm curious if such a study/comparison has even been accomplished. Since most people make it at least to retirement age, and at that point they're not really paying into the system anymore, if someone dies a few years early from type 2 diabetes as opposed to 15 years later from cancer, who ended up costing the system more over time?
Just another day in Paradise
How about a one cent per calorie tax? We could also add a one cent per gram of artificial sweetener tax. That tax is not extreme but it would be used exclusively for medical spending and nutritional education. It is a lot easier to measure and keep track of than the Governor's suggestion.
Have you heard the term "externality"? Usually it's used in the negative context, like "second-hand smoke creates negative externalities by harming those nearby."
There are also positive externalities. Blue collar workers earn wages for their work, but also help society to advance. That is a positive externality.
So no, wanting to tax obese for free-riding on the health system does not logically imply taxing your blue collar father.
Silly us. We must've forgotten that science never uses models to predict anything.
Looks like the joke is on you: you got modded +5 Insightful for your assinine comment.
Way to go mods!! Only further proof that Slashdotters are no smarter thant average joe six-pack.
Republican voters are in the 50% who are below average - its that simple. They are unable to handle concepts like hypocrisy or notice when their candidates say one thing and then do the other... and to such extreme opposites... like Michigan's nut who's planning to appoint corporations in charge of cities while dismantling local democracy. Or that plan to have the IRS audit/investigate people who have abortions to require them to prove they needed it so they don't have to pay a hefty tax on it (laying aside the issue of abortion itself-- this is putting a woman on trial in the IRS system.)
Remember, even when a lot of republicans were ashamed during the Bush fubar 30% of the nation was still behind him completely! These are people who can't think and probably think the Geneva conventions are yearly events... at the Geneva convention center... in Vegas?
I understand where he is going with this, but it is just another reason to raise taxes, and make the poor poorer....
People that eat junk food, are not your rich b*tch bmw driving stock brokers.....they are the lower paid salary workers doing that construction job, where they might have to rely on fast food to make ends meet (you know how often I was glad McDonalds offered the 2 burgers for a buck deal back in the day when I had a job out in the middle of nowhere doing construction....).
Instead of taxing the poor for wanting cheap food that makes them sick.....tax the restaurants for only making bad food, those that make good food, get a break...so if all of a sudden a 5 meal at mcdonalds is some yogurt fruits yam, and a slice of chicken, you do not get such an obese population (as 10 % of population make 90% of all the money...so that means 90% of population are poor) ...no one would suffer.
and that would lower the health care costs for obesity....the only reason why mcdonalds is the way it is is profit, if it became more profitable to serve good food then bad food, guess what
I went to the store for a bottle of water, and for a small 591 ml water with flavor , it was 1.99....right next to it a diet pepsi 2l bottle was 2.39....so for just an extra 40 cents, i get not only 4 times the volume, but i also get more flavored drink.
The problem is not the people, or population, but more what the government makes available to them.
Seriously, if smoking is so bad for you, then guess what place it on the same list as cocaine....it might be extreme as most smokers reading this will think, but once everyone accepted that smoking was as criminal as cocaine, then we would have less people doing it....
I am tryign to make a point only, I do not think smoking is as ugly as cocaine, but I think the government is going about this all wrong.
Remember this is the governor's attempt to save money on state Medicaid expenses. Anyone who has any involvement in this population knows that it is predominated by the obese, at a rate much higher than in the general population.
An all too common scenario is a follows:
Obesity --> chronic pain of back, knees, etc. from weight overloading --> "disability" designation --> continued obesity, now financially rewarded and self-perpetuating.
Please translate into "??? profit" format if the above doesn't make sense.
The assumption that many are making in their comments is that this sort of fee would apply to the general population of privately insured individuals. The Medicaid vs. privately insured populations are very different. The Medicaid population has incentive to stay within that group and in fact in situations like I outlined above, even gain or maintain weight. The privately insured population has disincentives already--more difficult to work, pay their bills, etc. I would imagine that the actuaries at the heath insurers have already calculated and continue to monitor how weight corresponds to their profit/loss statements and uses that information to increase premiums.
Now as to the specifics of the plan, a $50 surcharge will do nothing to reduce obesity. Suspending benefits entirely (perhaps with some grace period) would be very effective though in getting people to lose weight and reduce their need for surgery and medications.
The entire NHL are overweight to obese, at least according to their BMI
It is JUST AS FAIR, and JUST AS APPROPRIATE.
Being black carries a higher overall health risk, and a higher probability that the person will end up incarcerated on our dimes.
ALSO, I want to keep them in ghettoes and not build any kind of transportation system that would allow them to shop at my malls.
They are weak minded, I am a better person who has made better choices (ie; being white).
Thank you.
Also -- ugly chicks. Just fuck the hell off
(-1 Flamebait, but intended as ascerbic satire)
If you are going to tax risk, then also tax skiers, muscle car drivers, motorcycle drivers, mountain climbers, etc. Why target just the snackers? Risk is risk.
(Although motorcycle drivers typical pay higher motor insurance, some of the cost of their accidents still falls on the healthcare system.)
Table-ized A.I.
There are million bad habits that are worthy of taxing.
Leave the people out of it, tax the bad habits.
I've seen a lot of comments here about whether or not fat smokers die early or cost the healthcare system more in the long run, and I think you guys are missing the point. The proposed fee is not for all fat smokers, just fat smokers on Medicaid. The point here is that the people in question already can't pay for their own health care, and their behavior makes them more likely to need such care in the immediate future. If a healthy person not on Medicaid lives to be 100, then they've been paying health insurance premiums for most of that time and that helps to offset (or, if the insurance companies did their math right, totally compensate for) the cost of their longterm care. If a fat smoker not on Medicaid dies young in a blaze of medical glory, they have paid some insurance premiums which hopefully will help pay for those costs. If a healthy person on Medicaid lives to be 100, they will have paid no premiums for all that time, and their longterm care will cost the system a ton. If a fat smoker on Medicaid dies young in a blaze of medical glory, they will have paid no premiums for that time, and their immediate medical expenses will also cost the healthcare system a ton. The point is the Medicaid is the bottomless money pit of healthcare--even Medicare is not as bad. It seems like this governor is just trying lessen the expense of Medicaid as a whole, and has chosen one specific point on which to make her stand. I don't think this is a good plan, and I don't know that it will work, but I can see where she's coming from.
On the one hand I despise taxes of this sort...so called "sin" taxes that are mean to urge one towards doing something or other deemed more desirable. On the other hand this is being proposed at the *state* level, which is where any such carrot-and-stick philosophy should reside. If Arizonans vote for this then that's certainly their choice. Not sure how one handles out-of-state residents but you'd probably work it similarly to the way you handle military personnel.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
This is a ridiculous conversation. Don't provide anyone healthcare and you don't have this issue. If everyone pays for the outcome of their life choices then it doesn't truly matter what the studies say about the cost of a smoker or an obese person. When we pay for people's healthcare then it becomes a concern for everyone who has responded to this thread, nearly 100% of whom neither live in Arizona nor collect from public health systems. You could be busy making something rather than complaining about a small tax proposed in Arizona.
No. Complaining obviously helps.
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
– John Stuart Mill,
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Why not tax those people who are handicapped, stupid, Gay, or Jewish or Muslim too, or just not the right shade of white,.... oh they do already, its called income and sales tax.
How about taxing JUNK and FAST food heavily. You know, the stuff that causes obesity. That would do a lot more for the cause then being discriminatory against people with a certain waist size. But then taxing junk food only hinders rich middle-aged white executives of the fast food conglomerations who in turn will send young white male lobbyists to Washington to irritate old white male politicians to abolish the tax. In the end, levying heavy taxes on the products that causes obesity only affects rich white males, while taxing fat people is an equal opportunity kind of discrimination.
I agree with you on all of these. In fact, in many states (not sure about all), if CPS gets involved in a case (whatever it may be), nutrition plays a big role. I have seen CPS force parents to attend nutrition and cooking classes before.
In this case, last I've seen a study based on data from an actual health insurance company, it turned out that smokers and the obese actually cost LESS. Summary, for example, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
Which refers to a dutch study.
In case you need it spelled out for you, health care systems and their cost structures are radically different between countries. You cannot take a Dutch study and apply it to America, or vice versa..
Except that by smoking they die earlier and cost less in care overall. Not to mention the smoker tax isn't even applied to health care at all. Its just a tax to add revenue to the fed and state budgets justified as a moral punishment of smokers.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
...it's just punishing bad behavior.
Sorry to be the grammar nazi here but, a "way to reward good behavior" would involve giving an incentive to those who who exhibited the "good behavior" Levying a $50 fee on obese people should be rightfully called a "punishment", as it is introducing a stimulus (a penalty fee) in order to decrease the behavior (the person continuing to be fat).
So ya, I find any law based on what the CDC says is obese to be highly suspect.
The best way to save a massive amount of money and to revitalize the country would be to simply get rid of the illegal aliens instead of rewarding these criminal invaders and giving them cash hand over fist while giving them all the food they could ever need plus an excess along with free housing and free transportation and free education along with free medical care while they wait to abuse a poorly written and needing to be overhauled/removed 14th amendment for the sole purpose to further exploit their current rewards. Just for being a criminal invader. What other country in the world PENALIZES it's citizen's while rewarding criminal invaders (not even real veterans to real wars are treated this good)???? Besides, few normal people can control the urge to vomit when you see a mexican woman as the beard and mustache and arm/leg/pit hair is so long it is dragging on the ground. The foul inferior cockroaches are only marginally useful for jobs that normally trained retarded dogs do.
Get rid of that massive pink elephant in the middle of the laser light show in the middle of the room by the super stack of blasting speakers and then consider trying to ride on the coattails of a tired ass already done publicity stunt some blind ass fool in NY awhile back.
I have to take exception with #4. With the way our food regulatory system works, if you are at the lower end of the economic scale, often the only choices you have to feed your children are all bad ones. Vegetables are not cheap compared to pasta. I can feed a family of four for under $10 at McDonalds. In some inner cities, a.k.a. "food deserts", fresh fruits and vegetables are non-existent. When a half gallon of orange juice is equivalent to a half-hour's work for you, you don't buy your kids orange juice. You buy them orange soda, "because it least it has some juice in it". (It doesn't). How is it child abuse when it's all you can afford?
I thought smokers were already punished.. From what I understand a pack of cigarettes is around 50 cents with 4 dollars of taxes put on to it. What would the government do if everyone that smoked quit. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year if not more.
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
There are always exceptional cases. But I have to wonder why you are not currently involved in the WIC program? In that program, if your income qualifies (and I'm guessing it should given the inability to feed your children well) then you can get credit for WIC approved foods which include, among other things, frozen concentrated orange juice. (http://www.health.state.ny.us/prevention/nutrition/wic/wic_acceptable_foods_card.htm)
I was once on public assistance. It's no time for pride to get in the way and I gotta say, to me it was a kind of degrading hell that I hope I never have to live again. I know there are hard times to be had by many and I speak from experience on that. WIC does provide a means of acquiring healthy foods for children. (http://wicworks.nal.usda.gov/) Check there on the obesity topics -- enlightening.
In addition to WIC resources, I also had to visit food banks to keep my sons fed for a short while too. This is really bringing back bad memories. But even back then, that they ate well was a top priority for me. Even back then, I realized a simple fact that everyone knows but rarely contemplates:
If nutrition has the ability to shift and change your mood and your ability to think, then it has even more profound influence on the potential of the mind of a child whose bodies and brains are still growing and developing.
And here's another thing -- perhaps old fashioned in these days, but I hold it to be true -- investing in your children with love is an investment in your future as well. You may be taking care of them now, but if you teach them how to love, they will take care of you when you are older if you need it. If you don't, they will put you in a home where you will wish you were dead.
When they're pulling over people for looking "too mexican" they can put them on a scale, too. Welcome to Arizona, land of the free and home of the eh, whatever.
or else!
Very bad idea. We need to encourage risky behavior. Where do you think all the young, fresh donor organs come from? There's a reason ER docs refer to bikers as "doners." Give'em free motorcycles and a free gallon every time they show up at a gas station without a helmet.
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
If you think WIC is degrading imagine being the minimum wage clerk ringing up foods they could never afford for someone who doesn't have to pay for it since they through all the work of getting knocked up.
I hate WIC with an intensity unmatched by any star in this universe.
1) Nothing about corn is attached to obesity other then corn regulation allows for a stable food market. IT's the key reason we didn't have people rioting when food elsewhere in the world was rising.
2) True; however not eating snacks at your desk will end extra calories.
3) exercise is necessary. As well as eating less fatty and sugary foods.
4) Because parenting is a very hard subject to deal with. IN a world where telling someone they have too many damn kids makes you the 'bad guy', telling a parent they feed their kid to much is political suicide in many cases. However, ignorance and economic factors are the biggest reason.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
BMI is only 1 criteria. they also recommend body fat index. It's almost like they are aware of this issue:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/defining.html
BMI is a good general guideline Yes, very athletic people who focus on muscle building will be off? but you know what, they can make an exception based on a Dr.s recommendation.
I mean, pulling a group of people from the extreme edge case is just wankery. BTW, AS and MT where barely obese. So its not like it incredibly off either.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If government adjusting prices to manipulate demand is called a free market now, I wonder what the newspeak definition is for a planned economy.
Would you prefer regulation, criminalisation or government-issued cigaretes with registration and counted? Don't just compare reality to some far-out fantasy, compare it to alternative solutions.
And I don't get why some people here think that "government" is a synonym for "evil". Government is a 5000 year old invention that turns a group of people into a functioning unit. You can discuss the merits of various forms of government, and in fact that has been done pretty much ever since the concept was invented, but if you want to look at what a modern world without a functioning government looks like, look at Iraq, Ethopia or an ever-changing list of massacre-of-the-day african nations.
You want a world without government? It's a flight away. Move there and stop whining.
You're right: our society says we don't want it, so that must be true, assuming you totally and completely ignore our behavior and continual attestations that we desperately want it.
That is why I use the term addition and not the terms choice, fashion or style. You can not seriously debate whether or not tobacco is addictive. One of the most expensive and high-profile court cases ever was not even fought over that fact but over whether or not it was illegally suppressed and falsely represented.
So, in essence, you are saying that the laws on child porn should be made by pedophiles, the laws on drunk driving by alcoholics and the laws on theft by kleptomanics?
But society's position on the matter, as well as its desire, is a totally different matter, and this is proven every day, when unlike the demand for buggy whips, the demand for tobacco remains.
Desire to engage in a behaviour is not the same as wanting that behaviour, as many, many addicts can attest. Do you think the crack whore wants to be a crack whore? The difference between her and the business man smoker is that smoking is legal and thus tobacco is very cheap compared to, say, heroin. And yes, I'm serious. If you think nobody would prostitute himself for a smoke, you've not read the studies that determined just how addictive nicotin is (hint: at least as badly as heroin, some say worse).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Seems like the first good idea coming out of Arizona in years. Although I do believe fat people are already being punished by simply the nature of their condition, however this may give them more incentive to actually start exercising. Sad that it's come to this, but lazy people may be our downfall, and if we can start with the obvious fatso's then I don't see much harm in that.
What, they aren't *already* putting taxes on cigarettes and alcohol that act as a disincentive for consumption, and a way of paying for the medical cost to society of treating this?
Funny how it's the right wing that always decries the "nanny state" while constantly trying to control behavior...