Quote:
Originally Posted by mdmarvich
I'm an independent...so I'm allowed to straddle the line
Also, I take issue with your assertion that this will punish the poor. The more shitty, obesity, and cancer causing things you buy, the more you pay. Works the same for the rich and the poor. Also, I've said the money should be used for some combo of 3 things...1) paying for universal coverage or a public option 2) subsidizing healthy foods and 3) health education.
I think universal coverage is the way to go, but find it objectionable that I'd have to pay for others poor choices. Sin tax is an easy way to ensure people pay for their own bad choices...one beer, cigarette, or bon bon at a time.
|
True to the bold, but study after study will show you that the poor are more likely to consume the sugary drinks and cigarettes, so ...
It's a regressive tax.
There are a number of reasons why our healthcare system is so expensive.
Among the biggest reasons: administrative costs, waste, and we pay our providers more, we pay the hospitals more and we pay more for prescription drugs. Your sin tax isn't going to address that (though, I know you would argue for universal healthcare anyway, which may touch on some of those reasons). We also use, on average, more high-tech devices than other countries.
I'm not a fan of sin taxes. I don't smoke, a drink only on occasion, and the only calories I drink are alcohol, so I'm not concerned about paying the tax.
Fuck - I already pay 25% tax on alcohol just b/c I live in PA. You know, still paying for that flood that happened in Johnstown 100 years ago.
What I don't like about sin taxes: it's regressive, and 99% of the time, the revenue doesn't go to the intended purposes. Philadelphia's doesn't go back into research or health care - it goes to pre-k education. Not saying that isn't a valid investment, but ...
Additionally, people don't change their lifestyle because Pepsi has an extra tax. People aren't looking at that Pepsi right now as detrimental to their health. They don't see the affect of it for years.
And, diet drinks would have to be included, since studies will show those are just as harmful to your health as a sugar drink. And, are we including things like yogurt? Because that shit is packed with sugar (and people think it's healthy!), unless you know what you are buying. Which is a huge part of the reason why I'd prefer to see incentives / reduction in prices for healthy food choices.
I am a much bigger advocate for incentives that encourage a healthier lifestyle and choices than sin taxes. That's the better investment.
Give incentives for preventive care, educate the consumer (to price shop, to avoid ER care unless it's actually an emergency, food choices, etc), incentives for exercise, etc.
And before a sin tax is introduced, the gov't better get out of bed with Monsanto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdmarvich
I'll give you smoking. But do you have data on drinking and sugar consumption? Also, if it changes behavior then great. Demand for healthcare goes way down and universal coverage is cheaper. If it doesn't change behavior, then we get revenue to pay for universal coverage. So kind of a win-win.
As for the bolded...how about you try having an adult conversation for once?
|
Soda consumption is a lot higher among poor.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163997/re...ow-income.aspx
Changing behavior is the better solution for the problem.
Our food supply is horrendous. It is over processed, and nutrient poor.
It is killing us. A sin tax isn't going to change that.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010/...-syrup-prompts
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pe...aking-us-fat-/
What researchers learned about the link between consumption of subsidized foods and health was striking, if not surprising: People whose diets contained more subsidized foods tended to have worse health than those whose diets contained less. The people who ate the most subsidized food had a 41 percent greater risk of belly fat, 37 percent high risk of obesity, 34 percent higher risk for elevated inflammation, and 14 percent higher risk of abnormal cholesterol.
Let's quit subsidizing poor, shitty, over processed food.
Put that money towards healthcare costs. Or put it towards subsidizing healthy foods.
But that's never going to happen.