Tax unhealthy choices

Bergslagstroll · Mar 25, 2017

Even here in Europe there are a lot of opposition against taxing unhealthy choices and I can also agree that there are both pro and cons. That at the same time people in USA are against universal healthcare because people should take responsibility for their own lives. Still wouldn’t universal healthcare and taxes on unhealthy choices be more logical than private insurance you have in USA?

Because people will suffer less if they must pay a bit extra for sodas than if they denied for example bypass surgery.

Also, how healthy you will be are also determent by your genes. So, if you lucky you can smoke cigarettes and still be healthy up to you are 70-year-old. While if you are unlucky you can have a healthy lifestyle and still get an illness that will lead to huge healthcare cost for the rest of your life. While a tax on unhealthy choices, taxes the choices your make.

Thirdly taxes on sodas will not stop you from getting a job and better yourself. While not affording healthcare can lead to that you will continue being sick and must live on welfare.

joG · Mar 25, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
Even here in Europe there are a lot of opposition against taxing unhealthy choices and I can also agree that there are both pro and cons. That at the same time people in USA are against universal healthcare because people should take responsibility for their own lives. Still wouldn’t universal healthcare and taxes on unhealthy choices be more logical than private insurance you have in USA?

Because people will suffer less if they must pay a bit extra for sodas than if they denied for example bypass surgery.

Also, how healthy you will be are also determent by your genes. So, if you lucky you can smoke cigarettes and still be healthy up to you are 70-year-old. While if you are unlucky you can have a healthy lifestyle and still get an illness that will lead to huge healthcare cost for the rest of your life. While a tax on unhealthy choices, taxes the choices your make.

Thirdly taxes on sodas will not stop you from getting a job and better yourself. While not affording healthcare can lead to that you will continue being sick and must live on welfare.

All of these things are interestingnot alone, because they are more complex than they appear. Take obesity. It shortens the life expectancy. Thus the person weighs in the pension system longer and has a longer period un whuch she requires medical care.

Harshaw · Mar 25, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
Even here in Europe there are a lot of opposition against taxing unhealthy choices and I can also agree that there are both pro and cons. That at the same time people in USA are against universal healthcare because people should take responsibility for their own lives. Still wouldn’t universal healthcare and taxes on unhealthy choices be more logical than private insurance you have in USA?

Because people will suffer less if they must pay a bit extra for sodas than if they denied for example bypass surgery.

Also, how healthy you will be are also determent by your genes. So, if you lucky you can smoke cigarettes and still be healthy up to you are 70-year-old. While if you are unlucky you can have a healthy lifestyle and still get an illness that will lead to huge healthcare cost for the rest of your life. While a tax on unhealthy choices, taxes the choices your make.

Thirdly taxes on sodas will not stop you from getting a job and better yourself. While not affording healthcare can lead to that you will continue being sick and must live on welfare.

A gilded cage is still a cage.

Bergslagstroll · Mar 25, 2017

Harshaw said:
A gilded cage is still a cage.

You can argue the same with free market. That in theory everyone is then free to pay and get the health care they want.

While it can mean that some will not get cover because the insurance companies claim they have a preexistent condition.

It can also mean that healthcare is too expensive for some like elderly people.

While at the same time people may not dare to start their own business or change jobs because if they fail they may not afford healthcare.

Also, a person lack the change to better himself or herself and contribute to society because that person can’t get the healthcare he or she needs.

Also, children’s access to healthcare are dependent on something they can’t control, their parent’s wallets.

Harshaw · Mar 25, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
You can argue the same with free market. That in theory everyone is then free to pay and get the health care they want.

While it can mean that some will not get cover because the insurance companies claim they have a preexistent condition.

It can also mean that healthcare is too expensive for some like elderly people.

While at the same time people may not dare to start their own business or change jobs because if they fail they may not afford healthcare.

Also, a person lack the change to better himself or herself and contribute to society because that person can’t get the healthcare he or she needs.

Also, children’s access to healthcare are dependent on something they can’t control, their parent’s wallets.

None of these things represent a gilded cage. So no, the same cannot be said. (Not to mention it presupposes that health insurance is the only way of going about it.)

That you think this is a response indicates a misunderstanding of the objection. The objection is, no matter how materially nice the result, being forced to do something is still being forced to do it.

Bergslagstroll · Mar 26, 2017

Harshaw said:
None of these things represent a gilded cage. So no, the same cannot be said. (Not to mention it presupposes that health insurance is the only way of going about it.)

That you think this is a response indicates a misunderstanding of the objection. The objection is, no matter how materially nice the result, being forced to do something is still being forced to do it.

Sweden have both universal health care and a lot of other social policies that financed through taxes. While at the same time Sweden is, the best country doing business in according to Forbes and also for example rank high than it comes to innovation. So, Swedes have the still the freedom of living in a country that is good for business and become millionaires or even billionaires if they work hard and have the right skills.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Also, more equal country with universal healthcare and other social policies like Sweden and Denmark have greater social mobility while countries like USA have less. So in for example the Scandinavian children have a greater freedom to create their own path in life. While in USA are their destiny more tied to something they can’t control their parent’s wallets.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Also, having children In USA are much more a gamble. Because with today’s rapid robotization and automation many people can’t guarantee that they have enough income to also pay for example their children’s healthcare or save money for the children’s higher education during the almost 20 years it takes to raise a child.

That it was even a bigger gamble before ACA then even children could be denied coverage for preexisting condition so they parent could have to pay huge healthcare costs themselves.
Kids With Preexisting Illness Get New Protection For Coverage But Hurdles Remain | Kaiser Health News

So simply say that you are more free just because you are not force to do something is not true.

Harshaw · Mar 26, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
Sweden have both universal health care and a lot of other social policies that financed through taxes. While at the same time Sweden is, the best country doing business in according to Forbes and also for example rank high than it comes to innovation. So, Swedes have the still the freedom of living in a country that is good for business and become millionaires or even billionaires if they work hard and have the right skills.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Also, more equal country with universal healthcare and other social policies like Sweden and Denmark have greater social mobility while countries like USA have less. So in for example the Scandinavian children have a greater freedom to create their own path in life. While in USA are their destiny more tied to something they can’t control their parent’s wallets.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Also, having children In USA are much more a gamble. Because with today’s rapid robotization and automation many people can’t guarantee that they have enough income to also pay for example their children’s healthcare or save money for the children’s higher education during the almost 20 years it takes to raise a child.

That it was even a bigger gamble before ACA then even children could be denied coverage for preexisting condition so they parent could have to pay huge healthcare costs themselves.
Kids With Preexisting Illness Get New Protection For Coverage But Hurdles Remain | Kaiser Health News

So simply say that you are more free just because you are not force to do something is not true.

You mistake "material comfort" for "freedom." And you certainly consider material comfort more important than freedom.

Eric7216 · Mar 26, 2017

Every country in Europe, with the possible exception of UK, has private insurance. In the US, government covers c. 50% of health care while in Europe it is 80%-90%. The rest is private insurance or other means, such as charity.
A significant factor in health care is environmental and includes clean air and water, safe products, good roads and sidewalks, etc. A study in UK found that poor neighborhoods had 22 less years of "good life" (i.e free from chronic pain and illness) than rich areas due in part to the poor neighborhood and housing. This is a better avenue for government to improve health of citizens.
Another significant factor is medical research and solutions. Most of the health issues from 100 years ago are largely gone, due to medical advances. It is unfortunate that as we spend more for retail health (individual treatment and insurance) we are spending less on wholesale health-infrastructure improvements and medical research. There is only so much money. Curing cancer or solving the obesity (an amazingly complex issue involving much more than simply diet) issue would have more impact on health than a tax on soda. As you hinted, some people eat, drink, smoke, etc. with differing impacts on their health so one size fits all plans, such as taxing soda, seem discriminatory and inefficient.

I would like to see more spending on product safety, medical research, highway safety, etc. and less on treating individuals who are responsible for their own health. To overstate the issue.

Bergslagstroll · Mar 27, 2017

Harshaw said:
You mistake "material comfort" for "freedom." And you certainly consider material comfort more important than freedom.

Not having your parents’ wallets decide your future are freedom not just “material comfort”.

Lack of healthcare makes people suffer or in worst case die. Being healthy also leads to freedom to being able to work and achieve your goals in life. So it's not just "material comfort."

Having children are a basic human need and desire not just “material comfort”. Also without children you have no future society.

Eric7216 said:
Every country in Europe, with the possible exception of UK, has private insurance. In the US, government covers c. 50% of health care while in Europe it is 80%-90%. The rest is private insurance or other means, such as charity.
A significant factor in health care is environmental and includes clean air and water, safe products, good roads and sidewalks, etc. A study in UK found that poor neighborhoods had 22 less years of "good life" (i.e free from chronic pain and illness) than rich areas due in part to the poor neighborhood and housing. This is a better avenue for government to improve health of citizens.
Another significant factor is medical research and solutions. Most of the health issues from 100 years ago are largely gone, due to medical advances. It is unfortunate that as we spend more for retail health (individual treatment and insurance) we are spending less on wholesale health-infrastructure improvements and medical research. There is only so much money. Curing cancer or solving the obesity (an amazingly complex issue involving much more than simply diet) issue would have more impact on health than a tax on soda. As you hinted, some people eat, drink, smoke, etc. with differing impacts on their health so one size fits all plans, such as taxing soda, seem discriminatory and inefficient.

I would like to see more spending on product safety, medical research, highway safety, etc. and less on treating individuals who are responsible for their own health. To overstate the issue.

I think you need to both spend money on product safety, medical research, highway safety, etc and spend money and treaing individuals. That the western countries have enough money to spend money on healthcare. Because without healthcare people will not only suffer but also have less change to better themselves and contribute to society.

Western countries with universal healthcare also have less health expenditure as % of GDP.

Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data

Also, there are not much proof that USA system leads to better healthcare. Instead USA have for example lower life expectance and higher infant mortality rate and also rank low on international comparison.

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

I also guess that not providing having universal healthcare can in some cases leads to greater costs. For example, instead of seeking help early and get a relative cheap and easy treatment, people without health insurance may wait to they are extremely sick and must go the emergency room. There the hospital must decide if they want the patient to suffer or even die or do a much more expensive procedures that they may never get paid for.

While at the same time you should of course spend money on things to reduce the changes people get sick or injured and finding treatment. There taxing cigarettes and alcohol can be a part of that because it’s leads to so high costs for both the individual and society. Their also alcohol also leads to a lot of crimes and social problems.

I’m more uncertain then it comes to taxing food. Still argument for that is the fact unhealthy food are so cheap and easy to make. That instead of offer more variety or better ingredients companies can just add cheap fat or sugar to a product. This also lead to unhealthy food are extremely accessible and heavily marketed. Also even if the effect are diffrent depending on the individual it's still leads to a health problem for many individuals and huge costs for society. So, tax on for example sugar can be a way to counter that.

Harshaw · Mar 27, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
Not having your parents’ wallets decide your future are freedom not just “material comfort”.

Lack of healthcare makes people suffer or in worst case die. Being healthy also leads to freedom to being able to work and achieve your goals in life. So it's not just "material comfort."

Having children are a basic human need and desire not just “material comfort”. Also without children you have no future society.

I think you need to both spend money on product safety, medical research, highway safety, etc and spend money and treaing individuals. That the western countries have enough money to spend money on healthcare. Because without healthcare people will not only suffer but also have less change to better themselves and contribute to society.

Western countries with universal healthcare also have less health expenditure as % of GDP.

Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data

Also, there are not much proof that USA system leads to better healthcare. Instead USA have for example lower life expectance and higher infant mortality rate and also rank low on international comparison.

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

I also guess that not providing having universal healthcare can in some cases leads to greater costs. For example, instead of seeking help early and get a relative cheap and easy treatment, people without health insurance may wait to they are extremely sick and must go the emergency room. There the hospital must decide if they want the patient to suffer or even die or do a much more expensive procedures that they may never get paid for.

While at the same time you should of course spend money on things to reduce the changes people get sick or injured and finding treatment. There taxing cigarettes and alcohol can be a part of that because it’s leads to so high costs for both the individual and society. Their also alcohol also leads to a lot of crimes and social problems.

I’m more uncertain then it comes to taxing food. Still argument for that is the fact unhealthy food are so cheap and easy to make. That instead of offer more variety or better ingredients companies can just add cheap fat or sugar to a product. This also lead to unhealthy food are extremely accessible and heavily marketed. Also even if the effect are diffrent depending on the individual it's still leads to a health problem for many individuals and huge costs for society. So, tax on for example sugar can be a way to counter that.

Why is it that you think repeating yourself somehow changes the nature of what you're saying?

You don't mind giving up freedom for material benefit, and you're baffled that anyone would see it another way.

MaggieD · Mar 27, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
Even here in Europe there are a lot of opposition against taxing unhealthy choices and I can also agree that there are both pro and cons. That at the same time people in USA are against universal healthcare because people should take responsibility for their own lives. Still wouldn’t universal healthcare and taxes on unhealthy choices be more logical than private insurance you have in USA?

Because people will suffer less if they must pay a bit extra for sodas than if they denied for example bypass surgery.

Also, how healthy you will be are also determent by your genes. So, if you lucky you can smoke cigarettes and still be healthy up to you are 70-year-old. While if you are unlucky you can have a healthy lifestyle and still get an illness that will lead to huge healthcare cost for the rest of your life. While a tax on unhealthy choices, taxes the choices your make.

Thirdly taxes on sodas will not stop you from getting a job and better yourself. While not affording healthcare can lead to that you will continue being sick and must live on welfare.

I would support a tax on unhealthy choices IF the money collected was used to help subsidize healthcare. Straight in the front door. Straight out the back. Just like Cheetos. Social engineering in this fashion has my complete support.

Eric7216 · Mar 27, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
Lack of healthcare makes people suffer or in worst case die. Being healthy also leads to freedom to being able to work and achieve your goals in life. So it's not just "material comfort.".

PolitiFacts referenced a study that concluded that lack of health care had negligible impact on mortality.
Pascrell says up to 22,000 Americans die yearly because they don?t have health insurance | PolitiFact

Having children are a basic human need and desire not just “material comfort”. Also without children you have no future society.

We have a problem when people having children do not understand the costs of children. Perhaps if they can not afford children, they should not have them. Having children under those conditions (lack of adequate finances) is bad for the child and the parent.

Western countries with universal healthcare also have less health expenditure as % of GDP.

I would love to see a good study on why this is the case. I suspect that US doctors are much better paid than in Europe and elsewhere. I suspect that our legal system and malpractice issues is a major factor. I suspect that the complexities of insurance add a lot of inefficiencies and extra manpower. I have seen studies that indicate 50% of worldwide legal drugs are sold in the US, despite having 4% or so of the population.

I also guess that not providing having universal healthcare can in some cases leads to greater costs. For example, instead of seeking help early and get a relative cheap and easy treatment, people without health insurance may wait to they are extremely sick and must go the emergency room. There the hospital must decide if they want the patient to suffer or even die or do a much more expensive procedures that they may never get paid for.

I suspect that there is a great deal of variation in "universal health care" around the world. I suspect that a lot of stuff doesn't get covered in Europe that gets covered here. We arguably do not have the resources to provide all coverage to all people. Some people will not be able to get a massage, birth control, etc. And there are special interest groups that will fight hard for every possible service.

I’m more uncertain then it comes to taxing food. Still argument for that is the fact unhealthy food are so cheap and easy to make. That instead of offer more variety or better ingredients companies can just add cheap fat or sugar to a product. This also lead to unhealthy food are extremely accessible and heavily marketed. Also even if the effect are diffrent depending on the individual it's still leads to a health problem for many individuals and huge costs for society. So, tax on for example sugar can be a way to counter that

It sounds tempting to start doing stuff like that. Economists understand the problem with the commons-when costs are borne not by the individual but by society the benefits of the marketplace are lost. If I am not paying for something directly I may as well get what I can from it. Perhaps taxes on sugar, lousy food, and a whole lot of other things would improve society. I just don't trust politicians and the special interest lobbyists who will mess up that whole concept. The government still doesn't have a handle on healthy eating. Government insistence on low fat helped lead to obesity as people started eating more food with carbs/sugars. There is a lack of consensus on much of this stuff.

Bergslagstroll · Mar 28, 2017

Eric7216 said:
PolitiFacts referenced a study that concluded that lack of health care had negligible impact on mortality.
Pascrell says up to 22,000 Americans die yearly because they don?t have health insurance | PolitiFact

Other studies have showed that before ACA 22 000 died because of lacking insurance, but yes there are no scientific consensus. Two interesting point is that insurance works like any other business and only want to have profitable customers. While the taxpayers must pick up the tab for the rest if they not want people to suffer or even die. Also, it may not be enough to only compare insured versus uninsured because as I understand it before ACA health care plans didn't need to cover basic things like hospital visits. Also, as I understand it both before and after ACA insured people could have high deductibles leading to that you also had insured people discourage from seeking medical treatments.

Eric7216 said:
We have a problem when people having children do not understand the costs of children. Perhaps if they can not afford children, they should not have them. Having children under those conditions (lack of adequate finances) is bad for the child and the parent.

In 20 years’ half of the jobs can be lost to automatization. Leading to that many potential parents don't know if they can provide for their kids during the almost 20 years it takes to raise a child.

47% Of All Jobs Will Be Automated By 2034, And 'No Government Is Prepared' Says Economist | The Huffington Post

Eric7216 said:
I would love to see a good study on why this is the case. I suspect that US doctors are much better paid than in Europe and elsewhere. I suspect that our legal system and malpractice issues is a major factor. I suspect that the complexities of insurance add a lot of inefficiencies and extra manpower. I have seen studies that indicate 50% of worldwide legal drugs are sold in the US, despite having 4% or so of the population.

I suspect that there is a great deal of variation in "universal health care" around the world. I suspect that a lot of stuff doesn't get covered in Europe that gets covered here. We arguably do not have the resources to provide all coverage to all people. Some people will not be able to get a massage, birth control, etc. And there are special interest groups that will fight hard for every possible service.

Yes it would be intersting to see studies. Still countries in Europe spend less on healthcare and still the population live longer and healthier lives. Also you in USA don't just have the extra cost of insurance companies but also the debt industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_debt

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

Eric7216 said:
It sounds tempting to start doing stuff like that. Economists understand the problem with the commons-when costs are borne not by the individual but by society the benefits of the marketplace are lost. If I am not paying for something directly I may as well get what I can from it. Perhaps taxes on sugar, lousy food, and a whole lot of other things would improve society. I just don't trust politicians and the special interest lobbyists who will mess up that whole concept. The government still doesn't have a handle on healthy eating. Government insistence on low fat helped lead to obesity as people started eating more food with carbs/sugars. There is a lack of consensus on much of this stuff.

If the government hands out free iPhone people might take some extra just for the fun of it. It is less fun and meaningful to go to the doctor if you are healthy. Also, if you go to the doctor with common cold in Sweden you will not be treated. Also, healthcare in Sweden are not totally free that you pay around 100-200 kronor (10-20 dollars) for a regular visit. Healthcare underuse can aso lead to huge cost. Both that the cost of medical treatment can be many times higher if you don't seek help early also people that aren’t fully healthy can be less productive at work or not being able to keep their jobs.

Companies doesn't like the free market they instead like making profits. So, they don't for example like informed customers that have the freedom to make fact base decisions, if it threaten the companies’ profits. That at the same time companies have huge amount of money to spend on marketing, PR, lobbying and their own biased research. That is one of the reason that it has taken so long to gain consensus on health effects of food. Still today it for example clear with the negative effects of sugar and heavily processed fats.

Tax unhealthy choices

Bergslagstroll

joG

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Bergslagstroll

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Bergslagstroll

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Eric7216

Bergslagstroll

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

MaggieD

Eric7216

Bergslagstroll