Half of U.S. adults will be obese by 2030

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
British report says...


Based on trends, half of the adults in the United States will be obese by 2030 unless the government makes changing the food environment a policy priority, according to a report released Thursday on the international obesity crisis in the British medical journal the Lancet.

Those changes include making healthful foods cheaper and less-healthful foods more expensive largely through tax strategies, the report said. Changes in the way foods are marketed would also be called for, among many other measures.
Seems to me, making people more responsible for their behaviors would lessen this problem, while making them more dependent on the government will make it worse. But what the heck do I know?


Good thing the Obama health infrastructure will be fully operational by 2030 so the fatties won't have to worry about having their angioplasty procedures covered. :bigwhoop:
 

Oberon

New Member
But things like food "sin" taxes DO make people more responsible for their behaviors. If you buy more unhealthy stuff, you pay more money.
 

libertytyranny

Dream Stealer
But things like food "sin" taxes DO make people more responsible for their behaviors. If you buy more unhealthy stuff, you pay more money.
Great idea! How about a tax if you buy 2% milk instead of skim. You want that full fat sour cream on your tacos..no way, jose..only if you pay an extra 5%.. Or maybe if you decide to treat your family to a pizza night you could pay an additional 3 dollars per person..you know, so you can be more responsible and all. Oh yeah, and peanut butter is evil, so if you choose to buy it you need to pay an extra tax for introducing an allergen.. Oooh..even better. If you don't log in a 3 mile run at a gov't approved center, TAX. Or maybe you decide to have a beer after work, clearly that deserves a tax too. So unhealthy. Bacon for breakfast? Fatty. TAX. eggs? all that cholesterol? TAX. meat eater? vegan is best. Sooo...lets tax meat, cuz then people would be responsible, fit and healthy vegans. SCORE.
 

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
TAX. TAX. TAX. SCORE.
Precisely.

Once the government decides it can tax whatever it wants, who thinks it will practice ANY restraint whatsoever in this area? Who believes they are not smart enough to make their own decisions about what to put into their body, and therefore need the government to guide them?
 

Mongo53

New Member
The Liberals will solve this problem in their typical fashion!


I don't like the idea of growing the government to solve problems people should solve on their own. You give the government more money, that is what will happen, it will grow.

There used to be an old fashion way of solving societal problems, if I remember it correctly, it was something like; "you suffer the consequences of your actions". People seemed to keep their own sh!+ in line when they new they would suffer for NOT doing so. Now, when there is one government program after another to treat you like a happless victim and relieve you of any consequence of your own actions, we just seem to be getting more and more irresponsible behaviour.

Oh, and how long before the Liberals start the line, all those skinny people are benefitting from "Tax Loop Holes", we need to make the tax rates more fair and take away those loop holes, its "simple math".
 

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
Oh, and how long before the Liberals start the line, all those skinny people are benefitting from "Tax Loop Holes"...
:lmao:


There wouldn't be any loopholes if they didn't make the taxes to begin with. But those taxes were necessary to contr... er, advise people on what the government wan... er, what is best for them.
 

Oberon

New Member
Great idea! How about a tax if you buy 2% milk instead of skim. You want that full fat sour cream on your tacos..no way, jose..only if you pay an extra 5%.. Or maybe if you decide to treat your family to a pizza night you could pay an additional 3 dollars per person..you know, so you can be more responsible and all. Oh yeah, and peanut butter is evil, so if you choose to buy it you need to pay an extra tax for introducing an allergen.. Oooh..even better. If you don't log in a 3 mile run at a gov't approved center, TAX. Or maybe you decide to have a beer after work, clearly that deserves a tax too. So unhealthy. Bacon for breakfast? Fatty. TAX. eggs? all that cholesterol? TAX. meat eater? vegan is best. Sooo...lets tax meat, cuz then people would be responsible, fit and healthy vegans. SCORE.
You can slippery slope this all you want, and I personally don't believe using taxes to curb behavior is the ideal solution, but the fact remains that through health insurance, our money is linked to the health of everyone else, so I would support any reasonable method of making people healthier.
 

thurley42

HY;FR
You can slippery slope this all you want, and I personally don't believe using taxes to curb behavior is the ideal solution, but the fact remains that through health insurance, our money is linked to the health of everyone else, so I would support any reasonable method of making people healthier.
So your basis for taxing us more is to save us tax money?
 

libertytyranny

Dream Stealer
You can slippery slope this all you want, and I personally don't believe using taxes to curb behavior is the ideal solution, but the fact remains that through health insurance, our money is linked to the health of everyone else, so I would support any reasonable method of making people healthier.
It isn't a solution at all, and no where CLOSE to being "reasonable". What people refuse to get is SOMEONE makes the determination what is "sin" and deserving of a tax. People are cool when it's ciggs, or booze, but start taxing bacon, meat, eggs, milk anything that isn't tofu, what have you and people flip. Well too fricken late because you opened the door. If we would get rid of medicare and medicaid and allow insurances to compete and offer tailored plans or high deductable plans that make sense..we wouldn't have to be linked to anyone and people could feel the pain of their own mistakes. No, that's never a solution. it's so much more "reasonable" to try to make a determination about the healthfullness of millions of foods for millions of seperate bodies and lifestyles and assign them tax values.:bigwhoop: Never mind the millions of things that contribute to health and ill health. This isn't a "slippery slope" argument..but rather an argument that it isn't even POSSIBLE to sin tax people into health. Health and nutrition are far to complex for that to even begin to work. Not to mention that the poor are more likely to be obese and more likely to be on assistance..a price change makes no difference to them. They are provided for. But if someone who works hard all week wants to treat the fam to pizza night..they are the ones shafted, like always.
 

Oberon

New Member
It isn't a solution at all, and no where CLOSE to being "reasonable". What people refuse to get is SOMEONE makes the determination what is "sin" and deserving of a tax. People are cool when it's ciggs, or booze, but start taxing bacon, meat, eggs, milk anything that isn't tofu, what have you and people flip. Well too fricken late because you opened the door. If we would get rid of medicare and medicaid and allow insurances to compete and offer tailored plans or high deductable plans that make sense..we wouldn't have to be linked to anyone and people could feel the pain of their own mistakes. No, that's never a solution. it's so much more "reasonable" to try to make a determination about the healthfullness of millions of foods for millions of seperate bodies and lifestyles and assign them tax values.:bigwhoop: Never mind the millions of things that contribute to health and ill health. This isn't a "slippery slope" argument..but rather an argument that it isn't even POSSIBLE to sin tax people into health. Health and nutrition are far to complex for that to even begin to work. Not to mention that the poor are more likely to be obese and more likely to be on assistance..a price change makes no difference to them. They are provided for. But if someone who works hard all week wants to treat the fam to pizza night..they are the ones shafted, like always.
You could argue that the door has already been opened, since we already tax cigarettes and alcohol. You are correct that someone makes the determination of what is deserving of a tax. But ultimately the people approve or disapprove of those determinations. You can't say "Well too fricken late" because the will of the people over what is reasonable to tax or not overrides the slippery slope argument.

And you're right that there are tons of things that contribute to health, which is why I think doing things like targeting soda won't completely solve the problem. But I also don't agree with your suggestion because it would also punish people who have health problems that aren't the result of mistakes.
 

libertytyranny

Dream Stealer
You could argue that the door has already been opened, since we already tax cigarettes and alcohol. You are correct that someone makes the determination of what is deserving of a tax. But ultimately the people approve or disapprove of those determinations. You can't say "Well too fricken late" because the will of the people over what is reasonable to tax or not overrides the slippery slope argument.

And you're right that there are tons of things that contribute to health, which is why I think doing things like targeting soda won't completely solve the problem. But I also don't agree with your suggestion because it would also punish people who have health problems that aren't the result of mistakes.
Why is it punishment to pay for your own healthcare?
 

Oberon

New Member
Because not everyone can afford to pay for their own healthcare. And don't just say that everyone could if only they saved enough.
 

libertytyranny

Dream Stealer
Because not everyone can afford to pay for their own healthcare. And don't just say that everyone could if only they saved enough.
If we removed a lot of the middle men (Ie most insurance companies), it would be more affordable. If we stopped treating every cut and bruise, it would be more affordable. If we stopped giving extremely expensive useless care to people dying, it would be more affordable. If we stopped paying for illegal immigrants/ useless welfare suckers to get free care, it would be more affordable. If we had high deductable plans meant for real emergencies, more people could afford it. For those truely unable due to no fault of their own, there are things called "families" and "charities."
 

Cheeky1

Yae warsh wif' wutr
If we removed a lot of the middle men (Ie most insurance companies), it would be more affordable. If we stopped treating every cut and bruise, it would be more affordable. If we stopped giving extremely expensive useless care to people dying, it would be more affordable. If we stopped paying for illegal immigrants/ useless welfare suckers to get free care, it would be more affordable. If we had high deductable plans meant for real emergencies, more people could afford it. For those truely unable due to no fault of their own, there are things called "families" and "charities."
x2 :yay:
 

Mongo53

New Member
Because not everyone can afford to pay for their own healthcare. And don't just say that everyone could if only they saved enough.
No, I was going to say that everyone could afford healthcare, if government was NOT so intrusive and forced insulation of market forces and corruptly prevents the tort reform necessary to fix the problem.

A bag of Saline solution is costs $80, I wouldn't be surprised if its well over a hundred bucks now. Its a bag of boiled and filtered salt water!

As well, NOT everyone can afford to pay for healthcare, because NOT everyone pays for the healthcare they get. So to get healthcare, you can't afford, you have to pay for the people that are NOT paying for the healthcare they get.

In the 1950's some science fictions geeks speculated the "Home of the Future" will have an entire room dedicated to a massive computer system that will provide the automation of the home and computer power to the family. Imagine if the government decided that was necessary service and set forth to make it a reality? Yea, I'm sure we would have small affordable PC's todays. Look what the free market provided. And look, the more we take the free market out of healthcare, and government tries to ensure the people get it as a right to a necessary service, the more expensive and the less efficient it gets with every year.
 

Oberon

New Member
If we removed a lot of the middle men (Ie most insurance companies), it would be more affordable.
Agreed, which is why I support a single payer system.
If we stopped treating every cut and bruise, it would be more affordable.
Agreed, though when sick people refuse or can't afford to treat "minor" illnesses they can often lead to more expensive, often life-threatening illnesses down the line.
If we stopped giving extremely expensive useless care to people dying, it would be more affordable.
Who makes the decision that care is useless?
If we stopped paying for illegal immigrants/ useless welfare suckers to get free care, it would be more affordable.
Care is only "free" when the people who receive it can't afford to pay for it. Are you saying we should force people to pay up front for care, even in emergencies?
If we had high deductable plans meant for real emergencies, more people could afford it. For those truely unable due to no fault of their own, there are things called "families" and "charities."
Not everyone has a family, and if charities covered those situations in every case, then you wouldn't have the complaint about people getting "free" health care. I do like high deductible plans, and I have one myself, but in many cases they often lead to the situation I pointed out earlier, that people who can't afford simpler care choose to forego it and end up with worse conditions later.
 
Top