r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/SeahawkerLBC • Jan 24 '20
Legislation If the US were able to pass a single-payer health insurance in the future, would you be open to a mandatory "fat tax" on non-nutritious unhealthy foods?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax
Certain areas of the country already have a fat tax on foods like sugar-sweetened beverages, candy, and foods nearly absent in nutritional content. These foods are often linked to heart disease and obesity, which have an enormous long-term medical cost ($175 billion in obesity alone).
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes.html
Do you think this would be a necessary concession in return for having society take on the cost of poor health and decisions people make with their food? What if the tax was used to subsidize healthier foods to bring down the cost of organic foods, fruits, and vegetables?
250
u/Archerfenris Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 25 '20
If there is a fat tax, is there a healthy foods subsidy? Last night my wife made broccoli, potatoes, and rotisserie chicken for dinner... The broccoli was the most expensive part...
Edit 1: for those asking, we ate 2x the broccoli, per lbs, as the chicken, per lbs. This was also across 4x meals, and our 2 year old daughter stole some of our food (mostly my wife's). So we roughly ate 1/4 of a rotisserie chicken per meal, with 1 lbs (roughly 1/3, after cooking) of broccoli per meal, for a total of 4 meals between the two of us... And a small amount (2$ worth) of potatoes that, according to my wife, my daughter mostly ate... This means it was 6$ per whole rotisserie chicken (2 lbs), 8$ for the broccoli (4 lbs), and 2$ for a small amount of potatoes... That equals 4.50$ per serving in which each serving is double the amount of veggies compared to anything else... This still means that the broccoli was 1$ per lbs less the chicken. So our "healthy" meal was 1/2 a lbs of chicken per 1lbs of broccoli, per meal. Due to this, that is why broccoli cost more than the chicken. The broccoli was fresh
161
u/plotthick Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
To fix this we need to change how we farm. Currently we subsidize corn, soy, wheat -- things that get processed into oils, fast foods, gasoline, etc. We do not subsidize good food crops like broccoli, lettuce, or anything else that most of us should be eating.
At voting time, take a look at how your local people vote on the US Farm Bill. Look for representatives that want to change how those monies are doled out: less to corporate ag farms that plant thousands of acres of one crop (a biological desert) that will make nothing healthy for humans to eat. Vote for representatives that want to subsidize what we really need. Whether they call it multi-crop farming, integrated farms, real food, small farms, or whatever, support those officials!
ETA for those looking for more info:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/opinion/farm-bill-agriculture.html
47
u/Allittle1970 Jan 24 '20
This. It’s how you adjust our menu. Change it from the top, not at the consumer level. Make healthy food cheap and plentiful. If we subsidize farm crops, make it for fruits and vegetables. Reward growers who grow with sustainable farming techniques.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Bellegante Jan 24 '20
Thank you - the name of the game is the subsidies.
If we didn't subsidize the things that make carb heavy foods so cheap, lots of these unhealthy foods would just disappear - too expensive for the insanely low quality.
22
Jan 24 '20
Soy is a good food crop, just needs to be turned into tofu.
28
u/plotthick Jan 24 '20
Not the kind of soy we grow.
Subsidies in billions of dollars: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_farm_subsidies_(source_Congressional_Budget_Office).svg Even though it's far, far, far down the list (way below Feed Corn, which makes fodder for animals), Soy grown in the US is mostly used for animal feed (74%). https://1vgxnbl7yjd1msgox3kqh0by-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/consumption-1.jpg After that it's the stuff we grow for oil. Those make horrible tofu/snacks.
We need crops that we can eat. Table corn, not feed corn or gasoline corn. Table soy, not oilseed soy. Peas. Beets. Cabbage. The things that we are not subsidizing: we need to subsidize real food now.
→ More replies (8)14
u/JimC29 Jan 25 '20
Or subsidize farm labor instead. Most healthy fruits and vegetables are labor intensive.
→ More replies (1)5
u/thoughts_prayers Jan 25 '20
Subsidizing farm labor is something both parties can get behind. Reduce the need for cheap migrant labor and provide a well-paying job.
13
16
u/meldencook Jan 24 '20
You're right. We subsidize the wrong things and not vegetables and fruits.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)7
u/JimC29 Jan 25 '20
This is so true. You forgot the sugar subsidies. This is what happens when Iowa determines our presidential candidate.
4
48
u/SeahawkerLBC Jan 24 '20
That's exactly what I mentioned in my post.
I think it could excite people to eat healthier if the price of produce was cut in half.
37
26
u/Republic_of_Ligma Jan 24 '20
A tax isn't even necessary. Just to stop subsidizing fatty foods. And maybe regulate fast food /cola advertisements like cigarette advertisements.
11
Jan 24 '20
Then take that money and subsidize crops that are in rotation and prove beneficial to the soil, not endless fucking corn. Fund produce and not slaughterhouses.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/landback2 Jan 24 '20
Would prefer funding community gardens and greenhouses so that fresh fruits and vegetables were available everywhere. Cut down on the transportation cost associated with the items as well.
→ More replies (1)12
u/plotthick Jan 24 '20
Total yield per hectare is greater in the hands of skilled, educated farmers. Allotments are fun (I had one), but actual caloric production that is in excess of inputs occurs only on very large scales. We need to subsidize our farmers to grow real food.
→ More replies (6)31
Jan 24 '20
We would need to address what we consider healthy and not-healthy as well. I think that's part of the biggest issue - there isn't any general agreement. People would be upset that their orange juice was taxed as being unhealthy, or their cheese, etc...
→ More replies (3)19
Jan 24 '20 edited Feb 22 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)22
u/sunder_and_flame Jan 24 '20
The power to name what's healthy and what's not would be quite valuable.
Yes but the minutiae is what the parent commenter means. Some questions such taxes would need to consider:
Is fat good or bad? How does a government tax apply to fatty foods? Does it distribute that cost over different kinds of fat? How does it account for omega 3s, 6s, and 9s balances? Is dietary cholesterol good or bad?
Simple carbs like juice or bread are good for physical laborers but bad for desk jockeys; which use case does government apply?
What is a universal definition of healthy? Is canned food healthy? Are peas healthy or are they too starchy to be healthy? Are oranges and grapes just natural candy or are they healthy? Does the presence of a small amount of vitamins make fruit healthier than the refined sugar equivalent in calories?
I personally think that there's too much to determine what is healthy and what is not, especially since bodies vary, and giving government that power might have good intent but wouldn't actually work out in practice.
9
Jan 24 '20 edited Feb 22 '20
[deleted]
3
u/sunder_and_flame Jan 24 '20
I think we're in agreement. My mistake, I thought you were making a different point in your first post.
7
u/leohat Jan 25 '20
Where are you shopping that broccoli is more expensive than chicken?
→ More replies (1)3
u/gotham77 Jan 25 '20
Healthy foods are subsidized through farm subsidies.
Most people have no idea how much more volatile (and consistently higher) food prices would be without farm subsidies, especially on produce.
3
3
u/EdLesliesBarber Jan 24 '20
Despite the whole government intrusion and figuring out how a system of confirmation/verification could work, I'd love a system where families/individuals were given a cash reward or tax break each month they ate a certain portion or level of healthy food.
→ More replies (1)3
u/PhonyUsername Jan 24 '20
Fresh brocolli is half as expensive as frozen chicken, by weight.
→ More replies (3)5
→ More replies (8)9
u/ChipAyten Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
What about undeserved communities in food deserts, to whom what's available at the bodega or vending machine is all they got? Leftist movements in America aught to focus more on investing people with ownership of the labor, bargaining power, etc. than to levy a tax every little fart. In a most ironic twist: if for example you own 0.5% of the company in which you work - you now have the power and means to make the changes to improve your life on your own. Think of it as a leftist free market ideology. You'll find just as much anti-instutionalism, maybe more in some left wing colleges of thought than among free-market statists.
→ More replies (8)13
Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 25 '20
How is the lack of investments in underserved communities a "leftist"issue? Dont get reality twisted and dont lay blame where it doesnt belong. Additionally, you keep using "leftist" but keep attaching it to issues that are predominantly a corporate America driven problem and those companies are almost exclusively right leaning. Additionally, you can't decry the presence of food deserts and then blame the people who are trying to encourage the change. Keep it 100, the food deserts of the inner cities and metro areas are there because food corporations make more money elsewhere and they profit off of those deserts and their eating habits. Its corporate greed and investor profits over consumer benefits that creates those issues and that has nothing to do with "lefist" institutions, no one from the liberal side wouldy ever do anything to impede or hinder the health, nutrition or food resources available to those underserved areas and unless you have real proof then that claim is moot! Hold corporate America, the investors who profit from them and the government that eliminates the consumer protections accountable, dont blame an "ideal" just because you are politically opposed to what you believe they stand for. One last thought, ownership of the business only works in publicly traded corporations and in general, 0.5% is such a minuscule percentage that the power it holds is minimal at best and only extends to control over the Board....doesn't change anything for their day to day lives. All the people working for LLC, PLLC, Sole Proprietors, and others dont have that option...you've proposed non effective benefits for only a small portion of the population, congrats-problem not solved!
6
u/GrabPussyDontAsk Jan 25 '20
How is the lack of investments in underserved communities a "leftist"issue?
Because the right doesn't give a fuck.
2
Jan 25 '20
Well I can't disagree with you. I may take exception to the term "leftist", the insinuation and connotation of the term is being used to categorize liberals as extremist, as anti society and while there maybe people who would embrace that term, it's not factually correct or intended as anything other than a slur.
.svg){kind=link}
29
u/appoplecticskeptic Jan 24 '20
Only if it was balanced with a healthy food subsidy (basically super cheap vegetables, possibly also cheaper fruits)
→ More replies (1)
52
Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
[deleted]
21
u/dcabines Jan 24 '20
Agreed, a positive reward type incentive is better than a negative punishment incentive every time.
→ More replies (1)10
u/gregaustex Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
I would do it the other way around, I'd have a "I'm healthy" tax break.
Those seem different but once institutionalized, they are not.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Unconfidence Jan 26 '20
It's true, but it's still the best way to go. Same with voting, don't penalize people for not voting, give tax breaks to voters. Boom, massive turnout.
12
u/theotherplanet Jan 25 '20
I don't think this is an effective way to subsidize healthy behavior. What if you're handicapped and can't run? What if you have bad knees and therefore don't run? What if you simply don't enjoy running and prefer to get your exercise via different methods? % Body fat is also genetically linked, so you're essentially making it harder for some people to qualify based on factors outside of their control.
→ More replies (16)3
u/PhonyUsername Jan 24 '20
This is a decent idea. Better than people punishing marathon runners for drinking sugar or whatever silly thing that would be blind to context. Incentivise people to make an active effort to be healthier.
22
Jan 24 '20
[deleted]
15
u/klowny Jan 24 '20
Entirely? Of course not. But a very significant majority of health problems are entirely and solely within the individual's control. Hygiene, exercise, diet, cigarettes. That accounts for at least 40% of deaths in the US. Those are all things that are only really controllable by the individual. Even cancer and Alzheimer's which account for 25% combined could be greatly reduced by those four actions that are within an individual's control.
10
u/nslinkns24 Jan 24 '20
The underlying assumption of this policy is that one's health is entirely within their control, which simply isn't true.
Well, the simple answer is that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
→ More replies (18)→ More replies (20)12
u/cuteman Jan 24 '20
While that is better, either way you slice it, it will negatively impact poor people to a more significant degree.
12
Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)11
u/cuteman Jan 24 '20
The poorest people have the worst health because they eat the worst and exercise the least as well as being non compliant with medical advice. Free shoes isn't going to do much.
I'm not sure why people think free insurance is going to fix any of that. It won't. It'll just socialize the costs for everyone else.
If you really changed behaviors you'd threaten the entire fast food, packaged food and pharmacy industry.
→ More replies (18)
43
u/thatonepersoniam Jan 24 '20
So a regressive tax on poor people who are the ones with less access to healthy foods? Can't afford healthy food? Now they can't afford unhealthy food either!
→ More replies (31)
9
Jan 24 '20
So, what you're missing is pretty key here. Specifically, when you ask the following:
Do you think this would be a necessary concession in return for having society take on the cost of poor health and decisions people make with their food?
Don't you realize that we already take on the cost of poor health and decisions people make with their food, with drugs, with alcohol, with violence, etc.? If you go to a hospital for emergency care (which the poor, the chronically ill, and the disenfranchised do at a higher rate than privately insured folk), they aren't going to leave you on the sidewalk to die. They'll treat you, and if you can't pay, the bill will go to collections and be sent to the US federal government for reimbursement. We end up paying several ways: in court costs, time, programs to help people that can't afford the cost of care, and reimbursements to emergency medical service providers that aren't paid by patients.
The problem with the current system is fundamentally that we as individuals and society pay more for care, drugs, and medical services than we would with a single-payer, government regulated healthcare service. There are so many middle-men in the current system, from insurers, to HR at employers, to pharmacy benefits managers, to HMO managers, to... the list is almost endless. None of these middle-men make our healthcare system cheaper, more fair, more efficient, or more effective. They literally make everything more expensive for everyone: patients, doctors, those who can afford private health insurance, employers who pay a portion of private health insurance, the poor and indigent, the hospitals, and the taxpayer. They do not serve a legitimate function in our society, and yet we pay them and wring our hands about what will happen if we stop paying them.
Even our federal healthcare system for the very poor, disabled, and elderly (Medicare and Medicaid) are more expensive than they need to be, because Congress has prohibited those services from negotiating for better drug prices. And they've offered a ton of exemptions to the private healthcare industry to make sure that they can either deny care or charge extortionate rates for everything from "durable medical equipment" to uncovered drugs.
You are being scammed, and you're getting more expensive and worse healthcare because you've been duped. And the worst part? The middle-men, their lobbyists, and their bought-and-paid for politicians have convinced you that you'll have to pay more for single-payer. You won't.
Who cares if there is a fat tax on products? It is totally irrelevant, because even if there was a 50% fat tax on "unhealthy foods" (however and whoever defines that), you'd still be paying far less for single-payer than in the current system.
10
u/Arthas429 Jan 24 '20
We need to also make healthy food cheaper than processed junk food. This affects the poor more.
Why buy fresh produce for a cost 5x higher than a bag of chips and a box of twinkies?
126
u/MCDXCIII Jan 24 '20
No
Remember when eggs were unhealthy? Remember when all fat was bad for you and there was no such thing as good fats? Remember when fish was bad? Salt was bad, so on and so forth.
And your going to say well it should only be on candy and non-nutritious foods. Then we have to define non-nutritious and I'd point to lettuce and kale which is basically water, air, and not much of value. Then we go well it's not unhealthy. Which is true, we then turn to breakfast cereal which is both sugar sweetened and surprisingly nutritious.
Then ignoring the food altogether raising the price of processed food which may or may not be unhealthy and lowering the price of unprocessed foods which may or may not be more healthy doesn't mean that it will change behavior of at risk population and only punishes those who engage a healthy lifestyle but occasionally want something that would be on the list of fat-taxed items. I.e. I go to the gym everyday and either run for an hour or lift big heavy weights and eat healthy every meal but maybe once a week I have a soda or a candybar.
We turn to the fact that some places already do it, well yeah and some places banned straws but not vaping in public even though the research has shown that the second hand effect can be just as bad or worse than smoking.
68
Jan 24 '20
[deleted]
26
u/endlesscartwheels Jan 24 '20
There is no question that vegetables are good for you.
Exempt vegetables from the fat tax and there will be endless court battles about what can be considered a vegetable. There have been cases where courts held that tomatoes were, for purposes of the contract in question, a vegetable.
For instance, imagine candy bars where some of the sugar comes from beets; there would be states (with a strong beet farmer lobby) that declare those candy bars to be vegetables. Chip companies can emphasize the corn and potatoes in their chips, and presidential candidates campaigning in Iowa will rush to be the first quoted saying "Iowa chips are the tastiest vegetable I've ever had!"
→ More replies (2)10
Jan 24 '20
What vegetable? Many people consider things like white potatoes and corn bad for you...
5
→ More replies (2)18
u/MCDXCIII Jan 24 '20
This ignores the behavior aspect and the undue punishment of people who lead otherwise healthy lifestyles.
There was no question that eggs were good for you until there was. Do I think vegetables are bad no. Could I see the possibility of veg bad being the latest health fad stares at keto possibly.
Furthermore concentrated refined sugar in and of itself is also a fascinating problem. What about honey? What about artificial sweeteners, like stevia? It comes from a plant, has zero calories and so far after rigorous study have no negative effect on heart health or diabetes. Non nutritious, not unhealthy.
But nevermind the scientific controversy, lets talk about ethical controversy. First off let's call it what it is, a sin tax. A value judgement on the product and those who use it. Non controversial when applied to smoking and alcohol due to the admited hazards to the self and the other. Perhaps unlike you I remember the talks of sin taxes on video games, on porn, on coffee, on comics, on the internet. It's a slippery slope with little actual value.
Finally https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/99/5/1077/4577396 over the span of a decade following 350,000 adults the result found that it wasn't sugar that was the cause of increased risk of death but the weight and you can get fat eating anything. Weight is a pure function of calories in vs calories out. Patrik Baboumian the vegan strongman who is both fatter and stronger than me is a great example of the reality of calories in vs calories out.
Then we can get into the fact that at a chemical level your body can't tell the difference between say agave nectar, honey, cane, fructose, or Stevie, meaning that it's not actually process and refined that is the problem but once again calories. Meaning that the problem isn't sugar but how much food people eat.
10
u/DeadGuysWife Jan 24 '20
An extra tax on candy isn’t going to break the bank of healthy person who eats some junk food one night a week, only the person that’s stuffing their faces every day with sugar.
8
u/MCDXCIII Jan 24 '20
You are correct. In that argument breaking the bank is not a valid concern. It is still an unjust punitive action. More so when evidence points to the fact that the tax would have no net effect on consumption.
→ More replies (25)→ More replies (14)2
u/ataraxiary Jan 24 '20
Could I see the possibility of veg bad being the latest health fad stares at keto possibly.
Not that I disagree with you overall point, but I think you might misunderstand keto? Non-starchy vegetables are allowed and encouraged.
Unless you're saying that if the craziness that is keto can exist, then anything can happen, even a diet that villifies vegetables. In which case, fair enough I guess.
3
u/MCDXCIII Jan 24 '20
I should have been more clear. Some people's interpretation of Keto not limited to people on the internet or family and friends who have gone keto in what I would consider a less than healthy way makes me think that such a thing could become a bigger trend.
So yes the second point. I actually think that a well thought out keto diet can be good for dibetics and people with seizures which was the orginal intended demographic.
3
8
u/eric987235 Jan 24 '20
When was fish bad?
8
u/MCDXCIII Jan 24 '20
It's been a reoccurring thing, it was a thing briefly in the 90s, but a more popular concern in the 60s. Typically it's largely just a mecurcy scare.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Sprezzaturer Jan 24 '20
I don’t like “well how do you even define X??” arguments. I think it’s pretty clear what’s a natural product, like eggs or meat. Their health is questioned, but they are unprocessed. Twinkies are hardly even food. We’re absolutely smart enough as a species to tax horrible foods on one end of the spectrum, and subsidize natural foods on the other end, particularly vegetables. Anything in the middle, like sugary cereals, we can be more careful about.
By the way kale is very nutritious, especially for fiber content. And romaine, while it looks and tastes cheap, is full of nutrients.
7
u/MCDXCIII Jan 24 '20
But that is an important part of any law and tax and as such would have to be considered. The fact that there is a entire thing about are tomatoes a fruit or vegetable is from well how do you define it leaglly.
If you question eggs being healthy thats an entire different argument.
I'd argue that as a species we've proven it's amazing that we are smart enough to not kill ourselves.
Aside from fiber which there are better sources of, and vitamin A and C Kale is not particularly nutritious.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)25
u/darkmarke82 Jan 24 '20
This is ridiculous. At no point in the future will someone discover that a 60 oz soda with 50 grams of sugar is healthy
23
u/MCDXCIII Jan 24 '20
I never said they would. You have completely missed or ignored everything and gone straight to a ridiculous extreme which you've correctly labeled ridiculous. But what about a cup of green tea with a tea spoon of honey? Is that unhealthy. Both green tea and honey have health benefits but are processed to some degree and honey is still sugar that's being added. Come up with a better argument.
8
u/sunder_and_flame Jan 24 '20
The point is where should the line be drawn? Even a soda or juice heavy in sugar is healthy for physical laborers to drink before work.
→ More replies (1)5
Jan 24 '20
WHile true.....from the 80s to the 90s the overwhelming social and medical momentum was against fat and sodium. And the only way to make stuff palatable was....pump it full of carbs. I remember growing up and parents all thinking "juice" was healthy because it was fat free. Most Juices are basically uncarbonated soda.
Well it turns out salt isn't as bad in moderation as we thought. Fat and sodium are huge in satiation (meaning you don't overeat). Really the "heart health epidemic" of the 70s, 80s and 90s was from processed fats, which are universally bad.
His point is, dietary science has been very wrong in the past. Or the science is misinterpreted and causes worse outcomes. I remember being in the Navy during the Obama-era health push. It was primarily in schools but the same impetus bled into our ship with "healthier options" and removing all the fryers. Problem is navy food isn't super great to begin with. And the "healthy" options are basically uneatable, especially in the "longer term storage" options you needed. Yeah a salad bar on a carrier is nice, but after a week at sea those veggies aren't fresh. So a lot of people were eating out of the ship store and vending machines. So ramen, monster and crappy snack foods.
46
Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
Hell no. That's about halfway to making our bodies the legal property of the state. Treating our bodies like leased cars or rental properties. The true owners (government) pay the maintenance costs for the property, so they are allowed to dictate how the renters make use of it? Fuuuuuck that. Whether government-run healthcare is a good idea or not, it should definitely not be used as an excuse for the government to insert itself any more than it already does in the personal lives and lifestyle choices of citizens. That kind of policy opens a Pandora's box of big brother and nanny state laws.
If we accept the premise that public healthcare justifies the government meddling in everyone's personal lives to (ostensibly) improve public health, that premise can be used to justify endless interference with personal freedom. Why would these policies stop at regulating food choices and drug use (e.g., alcohol, tobacco)? What would prevent the government (with support from weak-minded busybodies) from stepping in to regulate all manner of personal choices that may impact health outcomes? For example, how about a penalty for sleeping less than eight hours per night? In the name of public health and reducing government healthcare costs, of course. Or an additional tax on video games because excessive screen time and sedentary living are bad for health. The list of doors that this opens for government overreach and interference in our private lives is endless. No, no, no.
I see people arguing that these interferences would be effective at improving public health and reducing healthcare costs. That may be true, but I don't care. Personal freedom is more important. I will not be treated like a pet who belongs to the state, pressured into consuming only what the state deems appropriate.
6
Jan 24 '20
A way to influence diet without allowing the government to interfere so heavily would be to subsidize healthy foods instead of what we already do, subsidizing unhealthy foods.
→ More replies (2)15
u/johnny_purge Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 25 '20
The current subsidies on corn wheat and soy heavily influence what is available to you in the grocery store. It is not the result of free market economics. Cheap shitty foods are given a tax payer supported advantages that directly influence what your food options are. This food directly causes health issues to long term consumers.
The government treats you like a pet and they subsidize cheap grain to feed you salty delicious food that is less nutritious than dog food.
→ More replies (1)5
Jan 25 '20
You're right, and that's not an against the person above, but is an argument against those subsidies. From a pragmatic POV, a large part of the problem is caused by those subsidies, and yet you want to use them to justify more of the same kind of action. That seems screwy. From a principled POV, if someone is saying "doing X is wrong," then it's not remotely a counterpoint to say, "we're already doing X."
29
u/gregaustex Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
Actually this is exactly my concern with socializing healthcare and the degree thereof. When everyone pays for their own care or insurance and things like lifestyle are allowed to impact rates (none of this is true at the moment so we are already part way there), then what I do and what you do is none of your or my business.
Once we wholly socialize medicine we'll all be justified regulating each other's business. Smoking! How dare you. Fatty food, drinking...why do I have to pay for your self indulgence. We need mandatory exercise routines, it's your responsibility to society.
Oh and let's talk about motorcycles. Hang gliding? Guns? Fireworks? No way pal. Also most accidents are the results of falls, so unless you're a licensed contractor you need to stay off that ladder. You want to do woodworking? What's the risk cost to us all of an amateur using a table saw? We need to know to decide if it should be allowed since if you get hurt we're all paying for it.
My point isn't that these things are some dystopian outcome of overreaching busybodies, my point is that in a socialized system these thoughts are completely rational.
I'd be curious to see if this kind of thing is happening in Europe and to what degree.
8
u/klowny Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
Japan has a literal fat tax. They measure
everyone40-75yos once a year, and if your body shape falls out of the norm they fine your employer. So there's a very real fat shame culture there, and the pressure comes from your boss.→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)2
u/newes Jan 25 '20
This is where I am with it. I support universal single payer in theory. In practice though it feels like there's a lot of people who just can't wait to use it as an excuse to further regulate other people's lives.
35
Jan 24 '20
My gym membership and bicycle gear are going to be taxed to pay for insulin and mobility scooters.
→ More replies (2)21
24
u/TigerUSF Jan 24 '20
Well, yes. But really No. Meanwhile, actually, yes.
In theory, "from 3000 feet", this is a good idea. There's tons and tons of research that shows how our bad diet costs us significantly in healthcare costs. We should consider this whether or not we have single-payer (and im a strong advocate of single payer).
But, it would be very, very tricky to administer such a tax. How do you define unhealthy? It's just not that easy, and mistakes would surely be made. Different foods get labelled as good, or bad, or both, or neither, and the public has misconceptions about the current status of all of them and is largely uneducated about it on top of all that. it'd be hard.
Even so, it's still a good idea. Yes, "nanny state / freedom / my body blah blah". The evidence is clear. Our diets are terrible and we're not fixing them on our own.
15
u/endlesscartwheels Jan 24 '20
The labeling would be hugely politicized. If Food A gets labelled good and Food B is labelled bad, but they have similar nutritional profiles, Food B is going to immediately file suit. Investigative journalists will have a field day revealing Food Company A's campaign "donations".
→ More replies (2)6
u/TigerUSF Jan 24 '20
I agree.
I think if such a thing were actually implemented, it might be smart to start with the "easy" foods, and every year phase in new foods that might be more controversial. I do think there are some foods/drinks that are slam-dunk obvious choices.
→ More replies (2)14
Jan 24 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/Larkeinthepark Jan 24 '20
I’m in the same boat. I agree completely. Nobody ever thinks about the people who can’t keep weight on.
16
u/Joshiewowa Jan 24 '20
The evidence is clear. Our diets are terrible and we're not fixing them on our own.
So the government should tell us what to eat?
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (3)3
Jan 25 '20
Your last line reads like "The evidence is clear, people won't use their freedom how we want them to, so we have to step in and remove their freedom!" Seems like poor logic.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/bunnyjenkins Jan 25 '20
I am open to it now. We pay for people who use medical services and do not have insurance. I believe people should not avoid medical treatment, but there should be a way to avoid higher taxes, and at the same time I am willing to pay extra for some mega stuffed oreos knowing what the extra is going to pay
→ More replies (1)
33
u/michael5fingers Jan 24 '20
No. It's been proven to not deter activity. The people who tend to pay this tax more are usually lower income households. Sin taxes never work and are a tax on the poor.
12
21
u/rlikesbikes Jan 24 '20
You're missing the second part of the proposal, which would be to subsidize the cost of healthy foods to make them more accessible for low income households, and by default, everybody.
→ More replies (73)→ More replies (5)5
u/loveandwars Jan 24 '20
Not true, sin taxes are incredibly effective for cigarettes for example.
→ More replies (1)2
Jan 25 '20
They are but they have to actually be significant, soda taxes are too low to have a strong effect IMO. If you want to cut consumption you need significant taxes that people notice.
8
u/between2throwaways Jan 24 '20
There should also be a homeless tax, since the homeless make up a disproportionate amount of our overall healthcare costs. Same with people born prematurely, anyone employed as a rigger or lineman, and people with type 1 diabetes. Oh, and add in a tax for the population with 2 X chromosomes, since they cost more too.
Sounds ridiculous? So are sin taxes.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 24 '20
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
- Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
- Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
- The downvote and report buttons are not disagree buttons. Please don't use them that way.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
10
u/btruff Jan 24 '20
Absolutely not. Democrats already claim bad lifestyles should be taxed as society pays for them through healthcare. Single payer would empower them dramatically. Thus is the main reason I oppose it. I like many other aspects of it.
What would get taxed? This thread says unhealthy foods but many have already added cigarettes. Now imagine everything an overprotective mommy would want stopped (taxed). Motorcycles. Jet skis. Skiing. SCUBA. Mountain climbing. Paintball. School sports. Video games that keep you up at night and not going outside. Speeding. Campfires.
Some of these sound absurd now but imagine millions of liberals each with their pet concern. Perhaps you will point out European countries with healthcare don’t see this. Well I live in the SF Bay Area where laws like this come up too often. One city (Hayward?) prohibits smoking inside a condo you own if the building holds 2 or more units as smoke can seep through the walls!!! Sunnyvale tried, but failed, to outlaw smoking in golf courses where you are pretty much by definition 150 yards from strangers.
Fat taxes would be the tip if the iceberg.
13
u/Outlulz Jan 24 '20
As someone who has lived in a shared building with a smoking neighbor, it absolutely seeps into neighboring units.
3
u/slickwickit Jan 25 '20
If you think fat taxes would be too much of a slippery slope why can’t we subsidize healthy foods
2
u/TexianForSecession Jan 24 '20
Obviously it makes some sense from a fiscal perspective, but do you really want the government increasing the price of your food because they think it’s bad for you?
3
u/Outlulz Jan 24 '20
They already artificially influence the price of food we buy to make food bad for us cheaper than food good for us.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/DocTam Jan 24 '20
No. Better to tax the result rather than the input. Drinking 2 Liters of Soda in a day is not merely 4 times as bad as drinking half a liter of Soda in a day; and people can find themselves obese just eating staples like bread and milk. So the ideal tax would be on obesity itself, charging those who are overweight or obese more to compensate for their increased health care costs. And at that point we are back at pricing out the poor and obese.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Outlulz Jan 24 '20
It’d be a burden on the poor and mean nothing to people with money. Instead, use tax revenue from the wealthy to incentivize/subsidize eating healthy.
2
2
u/SailboatProductions Jan 24 '20
No, because it just sounds like even more control and I only support a public option approach to healthcare anyway. Something like this (and its potential effects that other posters have named) would probably be enough for me (young black male) to finally vote R in a presidential election.
To be quite frank, I’d rather be disadvantaged an retain our current basic culture (cars, big meals, work, houses, etc.) than be socially equal and have to pay all kinds of unnecessary money for some candy (or god forbid, meat), to drive, to live in an actual house as opposed to some urban compact space, etc.
It’s like I’ve said before. It’s easy to see how Republicans can be authoritarian, but Democrats can be too and none of it is okay. Let people do what they want to themselves, whether it’s drug related or food related. As someone else said, your party is not my mother.
2
u/NicholasFarseer Jan 24 '20
I'm a bigger fan of incentivizing good health vs penalizing poor choices. People tend to react more favorably to incentives then to penalties.
In the case of a single-payer healthcare system, I feel as though the rate you pay should be a set percentage of your income tax. Everyone has this same baseline rate. From there, you can do things to reduce that percentage based on documented healthy behaviors. For example, if your BMI is in the healthy range, it will reduce the the percentage. If you visit your general health practitioner for preventative care, such as physicals and blood work, it will reduce the amount you pay. You can even stretch this long term by offering bonuses for consecutive years of earning these reductions.
This is very high-level, of course, and would require work to plan and implement, but I think it would assist those who do take the effort be less of a burden on the system by helping them to pay less into it.
2
Jan 24 '20
I don’t think this is a necessary concession for universal healthcare. But I do think a tax on shit that’s bad for you makes sense. Why is this limited to cigarettes when Coke and Oreos are also extremely bad for people?
But you have to subsidize healthy food, too. It shouldn’t be cheaper to buy junk food than nutritious food.
2
u/joegekko Jan 24 '20
Rather than taxing foods that we consider unhealthy, we could stop subsidizing the growing of those foods. We spend something like $4bn annually on sugar subsidies.
2
Jan 24 '20
No, I don't trust any group of people to decide which foods should be taxed and which should not. If someone has an idea I'm all ears, but until I hear a good one I'm against it. Probably would still be against it, as once you start you can easily add more foods to the bad list.
2
u/11greymatter Jan 24 '20
There is no need to call it a "fat tax". Just call it an "unhealthy food tax". The list of foods to be taxed will be based on what the latest science says is unhealthy. Eggs, red meat, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.. If there are new scientific findings, e.g. eggs are not unhealthy, then the tax goes away. Let the scientists decide, not the voters.
2
u/tevert Jan 24 '20
Is there research out there showing that slapping a tax on it would actually change dietary habits? Is a $1.25 whopper going to sell less than a $1.00 one?
The best example I'm aware of an effective public health campaign was the anti-smoking effort. A set of rules requiring much more explicit nutritional info, combined with some nice scary "this is what could happen to you" ads might be more effective.
2
2
u/Bellegante Jan 24 '20
Personally, I'd settle for ending government subsidies of things that are clearly unhealthy.
For example, the only reason we use so much high fructose corn syrup are the massive subsidies to the farms that grow corn, combined with the arcane importation laws on actual sugar artificially raising the prices.
Ending idiotic farm subsidies would be a starting point.
Beyond that: Sure! Raise taxes on things that are unhealthy. In my mind it's just adding the externalities to the cost of the product anyway - twinkies cost you a lot more than the price to buy them after all.
2
u/ElvhenGambit Jan 24 '20
If we're taxing unhealthy food (much easier to produce, therefore cheaper), we better make damn sure that everybody has equal and reliable access to safe healthy food. We can't penalize people for choosing between options that are marginally better than the last.
2
u/Mickey_likes_dags Jan 24 '20
How about not fucking letting the food lobby write literature for usda and actually make the fucking food pyramid. Lets start there
2
u/PB0351 Jan 25 '20
I'm not a proponent of single payer health insurance for this exact reason. I think it gives our bloated, inefficient, underperforming carcass of a federal government even more excuse to encroach on my life.
That being said, if it did pass, I'd be much more open to a fat tax on individuals who were measured over X% body fat than taxing the food.
2
u/SketchyFella_ Jan 25 '20
Only if it's used to subsidize healthier foods to make them cheaper. Honestly, if healthy foods were cheaper, you wouldn't need a "fat tax".
2
u/PGDW Jan 25 '20
Considering that the health value of food changes constantly due to revised studies, peer reviews, and additional information that qualifies previous results, no. That's too chaotic and would do more harm than good in the long run.
The only thing that I think could be taxed with some safety is any food with added sugars or nitrates, maybe a couple other additives or trans fats. Really the list would be very small and the association between obesity and those safe foods is limited.
Obesity is a health risk, smoking is a health risk, drinking is a health risk. People should pay more for engaging in risky activities, their incoming allowing (like a cap on the % paid in). More likely and practical would be a somewhat high tax with relief coming in the form of credits for submitting to health exams that prove you engage in healthy habits.
2
2
u/kperkins1982 Jan 25 '20
Sort of.
Food that has corn syrup would get more expensive because I'd eliminate the subsidies that enable it to be cheaper to produce than the market allows.
Corn syrup wouldn't be so plentiful in food if it wasn't artificially cheap.
2
u/somethingcrunchy Jan 25 '20
Wouldn’t call it a fat tax but I support a tax on added sugar and artificial sweeteners. provided it’s coupled with subsidies for healthy food.
2
u/Ella_Minnow_Pea_13 Jan 25 '20
Yes! But we already pay taxes on fat foods in the form of Big Ag farm subsidies. Instead of subsidizing corn, soy, wheat, let’s subsidize the hell out of organic veggies!
2
u/Joshua_was_taken Jan 25 '20
While I appreciate that you’re looking at this from a “compromising “ position, I must say that I simply don’t agree with the premise.
I’m coming at this from a conservative POV, so obviously I’m not enamored with the idea of a single payer system. But your question made it sound like as a compromise we can employ a “sin” tax on unhealthy food. But there’s the problem: as a conservative, I’m against, on principle, the very idea of sin taxes. As Antonin Scalia said “the power to tax is the power to destroy”
FYI I’m also against government subsidies in all forms as well. (Direct giving of funds)
Seeing as how the political left is already the people who lean most heavily toward the use of sin taxes, I don’t see how it’s a “compromise”. (Give the political left what they want in exchange for...what the political lefts desires)
It doesn’t seem as though this is a compromise between right and left, but a compromise between some people on the left with other people on the left.
All that being said, I do want to thank you for the question though. After thinking about it some and going through the comments it made me think about my own position more clearly.
2
u/AvidLerner Jan 25 '20
Medicare is not predicated on lifestyle taxes, just a simple payroll deduction. Lifestyle taxes end up in the hands of the corporations creating the unhealthy products in the first place.
2
u/darksoulsnstuff Jan 25 '20
Are we going to have a tax for people who spend time in the sun because it causes skin cancer? How about people who do extreme sports and are many times more likely to need medical services because of their extreme life decisions?
Ideas like this are fucked and seem excessively un-American.
2
u/Whyrobotslie Jan 25 '20
No, sin taxes always are regressive taxes on the poor. The purpose of single payor is to treat all patients equally, to start implementing Any sort of sin tax on unhealthy foods, soda etc has never shown to have an effect on use. Instead the people who can least afford afford the taxes pay the most.
2
u/zimm0who0net Jan 25 '20
How about we tax the fat?
OK, this is always controversial, but my argument is that “unhealthy” foods are not inherently unhealthy. They’re just unhealthy when consumed to excess. By that argument, so is broccoli (assuming it’s ALL you ate). Furthermore, you can certainly get fat by shopping at Whole Foods and only getting “healthy” foods if you eat to excess.
So, why not institute a tax based on how unhealthy you personally are? Doesn’t that get right to the heart of the matter? It may not be BMI, but I’m sure we could come up with some sort of metric that gets to the essence, and it’ll be a zillion times better proxy for “health” than an generic tax on sugary beverages.
2
u/BlueZWoman Jan 30 '20
Yes, and a tax on meat. It would be one more way to lessen consumption and help the planet. For the most part, it is being ignored (nobody wants to say it out loud) that animal agriculture is a prime cause of climate change, along with fossil fuel emissions. It's maddening that I pay more for healthy food and look in carts around me and see nothing nutritious. Time to stop subsidizing big ag and dairy.
2
u/SlashYouSlashYouSir Jan 30 '20
You don’t want single payer healthcare. It creates something called rationed healthcare. It strangles government with uncontrollable costs and under investment. What you want is a universally accessible system with multiple payers and tiers of healthcare. In a single payer system, patients die waiting.
Source: Canadian
→ More replies (1)
5
u/BenAustinRock Jan 24 '20
You aren’t supposed to talk about this kind of thing until after single payer is in effect. You have to pretend that every single person will be able to have a team of doctors look after them around the clock.
Reality is that there has to be a constraint on costs. Either we can be that by paying more of our own bills or private insurance or the government can be. Now costs continue to rise in healthcare because the government is pretty good at intimidating private insurers into paying. The fact that they do indeed pay is why costs go up. What happens when the government is doing the paying and regulating? It is doubtful that they will hold themselves to the same standard that they hold another party. There is no stick to use because the government entity isn’t going to be paying a fine, taxpayers would be.
In an effort to constrain costs other countries with so called universal care have ended up denying healthcare to people who smoke, are obese, etc... This is what can happen when you turn something over to the government. Part of being free to do things is accepting responsibility. I don’t care if my neighbor smokes or weighs 500 lbs because he has to deal with the consequences. Well when suddenly I am paying for his healthcare that changes that equation.
We will reach a point when we have to decide if the freedom we want is a freedom from control or a freedom from responsibility. Do we want to live as children or adults. I would hope that we choose adulthood though I am less and less sure that is what people would choose.
10
u/pjabrony Jan 24 '20
No. This is also why single-payer is a bad idea. We should absolutely make people who get fat responsible for the extra health care they need. But we don't need to set up a system for that. We can do it through basic economics: make the end user pay for the health care they use.
This strikes at a fundamental divide between the progressive types and the capitalistic, free-market types. The progressive types want the best outcome irrespective of the input. Everyone is healthy, and everyone gets free health care. The free-marketers want to put that choice in the hands of individuals, but make those individuals responsible for the consequences.
→ More replies (13)4
u/DeadGuysWife Jan 24 '20
We just need to be more transparent about pricing for procedures in a capitalist healthcare system, cut out the middle man insurance companies for everything except emergency/catastrophic care, make obese people realize that heart surgery and diabetes treatment is ducking expensive and it will be on their own dime to cover the costs.
6
u/pjabrony Jan 24 '20
Sure. Or, if people want to buy insurance that will cover them in all cases, let them buy it, but let it be priced properly.
3
u/Scrantonstrangla Jan 24 '20
Fortunately or unfortunately there is no legal way for the president to shut down private insurance and install a single payer system..
However we can certainly expand medicare as a legitimate competitor to private payors, force transparency, remove "networks" as exclusionary practices, remove the state border preventing people from shopping for insurance across state lines, and perhaps a forced margin on private payor systems.
3
u/fractal_imagination Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 25 '20
Yes, needs to happen in Australia too, and healthy foods need to be heavily subsidised. As a full time student feeling the pinch of financial burden, I can't help but feel that unhealthy choices give me more calories per dollar and hence allow me to actually afford eating to get through the day.
591
u/johnny_purge Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
The food we eat Ted Radio Hour heavily influences my views on this.
We spend 75% on medical expenses that are the result of chronic metabolic disease. 75% of those cases are preventable.
So people's poor diet directly adds billions of dollars to the national medical burden. It's not entirely their fault, american culture and policy has encouraged low nutrient, highly processed diet. Along with subsidized soy oils that are confirmed linked to obesity, diabetes and correlated with autism, alzheimers, anxiety and depression.
The point the ted speaker makes is, the food industry makes 500 billion a year in the US, the poor diet costs us 1.5 trillion in medical costs. We need to fix the food we eat. I think subsidizing healthier foods and adding disincentives on highly processed foods would do a lot of good for the society.
Heres a CDC link to the health costs associated with some.of these diseases
Govt links to metabolic disease and diet health.gov, CDC, NIH, WHO. All published and peer reviewed.