Most ridiculous thing I heard today

[skeeve]

Originally posted by BarstoolProphet
Apparently, New York State has either tried to pass, or is going to try to pass, an \'Obesity Tax\'.

THe obesity tax proposed by our beloved governor is the tax for all non-diet drinks. You can scream about big government, it entertains me immensely.However, medicare/aid is always a large chunk of money in any state budget. 1) obesity-related disorders taxes (no pun intended) the healthcare system considerably more. For those who don\'t know there is a negative correlation in this country between income and obesity. 2) 60% of excessive calorie intake comes from soft drinks. 3)people who buy non-diet drinks willingly and knowingly increase (at least potentially) burden on health care system.

It seems rather logical that if people are willing to use medicare/aid in the future and believe that they can demand public money to deal self inflicted obesity-related disorders they should pay for this.

 

[Amazon warrior]

I am a little puzzled that so many people have come on and said that healthy food is more expensive. It really doesn\'t have to be. I make a mean carrot \'n\' lentil soup that probably only costs a few euros to make (I haven\'t priced it exactly, but the recipe\'s on my Livejournal if you\'re curious) and I can get four meals out of it. FOUR! But then I guess this comes down to education - I got taught how to cook by my family and we\'re not ashamed to like food and eating. I realise this is an unusual position in this day and age. People\'s attitudes towards what they shove in their gobs need adjusting and bad habits learnt early are very difficult to shift.

 

[alextheartist]

Originally posted by skeeve

Originally posted by BarstoolProphet
Apparently, New York State has either tried to pass, or is going to try to pass, an \'Obesity Tax\'.

THe obesity tax proposed by our beloved governor is the tax for all non-diet drinks. You can scream about big government, it entertains me immensely.However, medicare/aid is always a large chunk of money in any state budget. 1) obesity-related disorders taxes (no pun intended) the healthcare system considerably more. For those who don\'t know there is a negative correlation in this country between income and obesity. 2) 60% of excessive calorie intake comes from soft drinks. 3)people who buy non-diet drinks willingly and knowingly increase (at least potentially) burden on health care system.

It seems rather logical that if people are willing to use medicare/aid in the future and believe that they can demand public money to deal self inflicted obesity-related disorders they should pay for this.

Or they could just drink it in moderation and stop being lazy?

Aint diet drinks worse for you anyway, if you think about it, whats worse, sugar or a bunch of chemicals?

The thing here is moderation..

 

[slah]

The problem is that (virtually) nobody \"just\" does that. When looking at people who have eaten their way up to weigh 300 pounds it´s easy to say: \"moderation people, moderation - oh and do 100 push-ups while you´re at it\"! but making them live by those words is hard - heck I´m 180 cm, and weigh 81 kg and is as such juuuuuust below being overweight, and I also have problems with moderation.

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by alextheartist
Or they could just...stop being lazy?

easily said.
Let\'s see. ( I\'m pretty sure that there are others here that have similar days )
Up at 5:30
5:45 out the door to the gym
6:00 at gym for 45 minutes
6:45 leave gym
7:00 home to shower & change - maybe a bagle.
7:30 off to work. This job is close -
8:00 at work.
17:30 (on a good day) leave work.
18:00 home (maybe - usually closer to 19:00 if I make a stop at the market or home center)
19:00 - 21:00 household chores and dinner.
21:00-22:00 watch a TV show unless it was a movie then later (TeeVo is wonderful)
22:00-23:00 bed

6 hours of sleep, 2 unhealthy meals, 1 hour commuting (I\'m lucky), 10 hours sitting in an office chair. 1 hour on the couch watching TV if I\'m lucky.

I used to think like you did back when I had time to run 3-5 miles every night, now it is a streatch to find 10-15 minutes to put paint on a mini. (more chair time).

Tell me where \'laziness\' is? Yet my lifestyle has put 40 unwanted pounds on me. Yea, I know, I could give up another half hour of sleep for a healthy breakfast instead of what ever comes out of the microwave as I head out the door to work....
And eating healthy is much more expensive and time intensive.

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by alextheartist


Aint diet drinks worse for you anyway, if you think about it, whats worse, sugar or a bunch of chemicals?

The thing here is moderation..

yes moderation is the key

and yes there is now thought that diet drinks are worse. the sweet taste makes the body think that there is sugar coming when there isn\'t. cock things up but i can\'t remember how

 

[alextheartist]

Originally posted by airhead
And eating healthy is much more expensive and time intensive.

I disagree, eating healthily is not more expensive. Simple things like shopping at a place like Lidl (or US equivilant), the food is the same (if not better) and it costs much less.

Instead of drinking a bear, have some fruit juice.

Instead of eating an expensive meat like beef, eat chicken, its less fatty and costs less.


Saying that eating healithily costs less is just an easy excuse if you ask me.

Alex

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by skeeve
It seems rather logical that if people are willing to use medicare/aid in the future and believe that they can demand public money to deal self inflicted obesity-related disorders they should pay for this.

Well, then shouldn\'t we be taxing the hell out of people with dangerous hobbies as well, base jumpers, rock climbers,etc.
Chances are they will have a serious accidents.
By that logic should we not also tax people that have children that they cannot afford? They are willingly putting a burden on the system.
By that logic, shouldn\'t well off, single, men be taxed less because they provide far more to the system than they pull?
Shouldn\'t single and married couples who have no children be getting tax breaks instead of those with children as they use less of the states resources?

It\'s about the money. It\'s not about helping anyone or being fair, it\'s all about the money. The very fact that this tax has been brought up before and has been laughed off, yet, is taken serious during a recession proves that.

 

[Zora]

No taxes on overeatering, more taxes on Smoking!

I mean, no ones ever hurt by second-hand bacon cheeseburgers...

 

[tzor]

It was actually a tax on beverages -w- sugar

Originally posted by BarstoolProphet
Apparently, New York State has either tried to pass, or is going to try to pass, an \'Obesity Tax\'.

Labels aren\'t always what they appear to be. The obesity tax isn\'t taking people for being fat, but a sales tax added to things that make you fat.

Sunday, December 14th 2008, 11:37 PM - Daily News

ALBANY - A can of Coke could soon cost New Yorkers more than just calories.

Gov. Paterson, as part of a $121 billion budget to be unveiled Tuesday, will propose an \"obesity tax\" of about 15% on nondiet drinks.

Here is an article from Feb 19

In completely unsurprising fashion, notorious food cop Kelly Brownell has pounced on N.Y. Governor David Paterson’s proposed tax on soda pop in a new op-ed praising the unpopular idea.

Gov. Paterson’s proposal has been met with criticism at every turn, particularly from consumers who aren’t swallowing the need for an “obesity tax.” In one poll, only 37 percent of New Yorkers support the proposed 18 percent tax on drinks made with sugar, favoring other methods of fixing the state budget crisis instead. Seemingly unfazed by the fact that people hate this scheme, Brownell writes:

\"[The governor] should find a way to rescue the idea, and quick. The tax is one of the very smartest ways to fight the obesity epidemic confronting the state and country …

\"This tax would be a smashing success in so many ways. It would reduce the consumption of sugared beverages, now an average of 41 gallons per year per person. Economic studies predict that an 18% tax would cut consumption by 14%, a whopping public health effect. To produce a drop like this through public education campaigns would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and decades of precious time.\"

Brownell’s iron-fisted sentiments reveal his argument to be nanny statism at its platonic ideal. New York residents aren’t interested in being punished for drinking non-diet soda, but Brownell believes the government should impose the tax anyway to save nutrition activists some money on their campaigns. It’s self-serving for Brownell to argue that New York consumers should foot the bill for the so-called “public health effect,” given that he’s been lobbying for it ever since he came up with the Twinkie tax.

Consumers don’t want it. Gov. Paterson is reconsidering it. So maybe it’s time that Brownell and his colleagues gave up the ghost.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by AinuLainour
@vike - There 74.1% of Americans over 15 who are overweight. The fact the US isn\'t number one doesn\'t appear to be very important given the circumstances.

[

I\'m not making excuses...just pointing out the US is not the only country where obesity is rampant.

 

[Amazon warrior]

Mmm. I have to say, it probably wouldn\'t bother me in the slightest to have a tax like that imposed. I hardly ever drink pop of any kind because they make my teeth feel funny! The \"diet\" varieties really aren\'t any better for you either, I seem to recall. So long as I can buy the occasional bottle of tonic water in the summer, I\'d be fine.

If they taxed tea, however, just hand me the pitchfork and flaming torch!

Who was it said that healthy food takes longer to prepare? It can, but it really doesn\'t have to. It just depends on what you\'re making. In uni, I used to live with a girl who pretty much lived out of packets - she had a fairly unhealthy diet by most standards. I cook most of my food from scratch (although I\'ll admit to the odd frozen pizza!), and it was interesting to see that it didn\'t really take me much longer (if at all). Sure, actually cooking something (as opposed to ripping open a box and reheating the contents) requires slightly more monitoring and input, but I think it\'s worth it for the result (I do find cooking quite relaxing tho, so that might just be me). Plus, you make enough of whatever it is and you can freeze or refrigerate the rest for a future meal, saving you time later on if you have a \"can\'t be arsed\" day. You might still be reheating food, but at least you know what went into it! Hooray for Food Cubes!

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by slah
I´ve heard that the health-system/insurance in the states also \"reward\" doctors who don´t refer patients up in the system - is this true, because that could also be a cause for just doing a relatively cheap symptom-fix instead of going all the way and try and get to the bottom of the patients problems!?

I believe this to be true.
Also couple this with the fact that both Medicare and most insurances haggle with the doctors to get the prices down, and this leads to more unscrupulous doctors preferring a steady pay by treating the symptoms, rather than fixing the problem and not getting paid well, or referring the patient to another doctor and he getting the payment instead.

I do believe there is an MD on the boards who might share more insight into this.

I do know this, due to my wife and I both having jobs we both have different medical insurance. I have been off the State Insurance for some time.
I had excruciatingly painful Gall Bladder spasms, three days later I was diagnosed and in surgery to remove my Gall Bladder.
I have a friend on the State System that has been waiting for the surgery for six months.
I have a friend in Scotland, which has far more socialized health care than we do, she to has gall bladder problems, it took a year to get diagnosed, and she is waiting another year for the surgery.

Granted I took a greater hit to my pocket than my other friends, but I, for one don\'t mind paying a bit more for speedy efficiency.
I do mind paying for bureaucratic BS when I\'m in excruciating pain. I was also able to recoup that loss a lot quicker than my friends because I was up and out a lot quicker, had less sick days, enabling me to make more money to pay the slightly higher bill.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Well, then shouldn\'t we be taxing the hell out of people with dangerous hobbies as well, base jumpers, rock climbers,etc.
Chances are they will have a serious accidents.
By that logic should we not also tax people that have children that they cannot afford? They are willingly putting a burden on the system.
By that logic, shouldn\'t well off, single, men be taxed less because they provide far more to the system than they pull?
Shouldn\'t single and married couples who have no children be getting tax breaks instead of those with children as they use less of the states resources?

It\'s about the money. It\'s not about helping anyone or being fair, it\'s all about the money. The very fact that this tax has been brought up before and has been laughed off, yet, is taken serious during a recession proves that.

Your arguments are logical, but only if you view the role of the state as scraping in cash - the role of the state is also to help the less unfortunate or redistribution of wealth. If you were to tax people only by how much they are a \"burden\" for then to pay them the exact amount in form opf benefits, medical help and such you could just as easily do away with all tax and let everything be userpayed.

also with regards to your example with the children the reason these people shouldn´t be further taxed is that by doing so you inadvertantly harm the child because the allready finacially situation of the parents become even more impossible. The interest of the child outweigh the interest of the state and the rest of us to have the parents \"pay for their mistake\".

Originally posted by alextheartist

Instead of drinking a bear, have some fruit juice.

Instead of eating an expensive meat like beef, eat chicken, its less fatty and costs less.

Saying that eating healithily costs less is just an easy excuse if you ask me.

Alex

It´s true that you can eat very healthy very cheaply if you want to live of cabbage and stuff like that, but that isn´t the point.

The point is that if you want to eat the lean beef it cost up to twice what the fatty and unhealthy beef cost.

There is also the fact that if you want to spend an hour a -hour and a half every day cooking a healthy breakfast, lunch and dinner those hours have to come from some where. If you´re a single mom with three kids with two jobs just to make the rent, then you don´t have that time, and have to settle with banging 4 frozen dinners in the microwave - and those are usuallyalso rather unhealthy.

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by skeeve
It seems rather logical that if people are willing to use medicare/aid in the future and believe that they can demand public money to deal self inflicted obesity-related disorders they should pay for this.

Well, then shouldn\'t we be taxing the hell out of people with dangerous hobbies as well, base jumpers, rock climbers,etc.
Chances are they will have a serious accidents.

In fact, most insurance do not cover such injuries. They are quite specific about this. I friend of mine who is a competitive climber actually has to buy a separate insurance to cover for this. So, in essence we do tax these people

By that logic should we not also tax people that have children that they cannot afford? They are willingly putting a burden on the system.

Uff, I will receive a lot flack for this, but yes, we should. Chinese do. When I was personally in the situation like this (12 years ago, me and my wife both in graduate school 12K/year income) all I got from our hospital was a LOAN that I repaid. Back then being an alien I was not eligible for all these benefits.

By that logic, shouldn\'t well off, single, men be taxed less because they provide far more to the system than they pull?
Shouldn\'t single and married couples who have no children be getting tax breaks instead of those with children as they use less of the states resources?

This is where is become complicated. Any taxation is the system of income redistribution that in principle is needed to \"equalize\" income disparity. People with children are getting the tax break in a hope that by doing this they will not use MORE public resources.

Well off single man pays more so the system he lives in continue to maintain the level of \"comfort\" he exist in. What is cheaper maintaining good police force or hiring private bodyguards, removing gratifies from your walls every morning and clean street on your own?

It\'s about the money. It\'s not about helping anyone or being fair, it\'s all about the money. The very fact that this tax has been brought up before and has been laughed off, yet, is taken serious during a recession proves that.

No doubt about this. The question, however is what other effects (intended and unintended such a tax will have). After all (yeah, I am reading something about taxation right now), when Pennsylvania soon after revolution imposed a liquor tax this is why the did it - \"to restrain persons in low circumstances from an immoderate use thereof\". Whether it helped or not you will be the judge of it , but sure brought a lot of money and payed up national debt incurred during revolutionary wars. By the way that particular tax was also \"laughed at\" to the point that Washington had to enforce it (the whiskey rebellion episode)

 

[Amazon warrior]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by slah
I´ve heard that the health-system/insurance in the states also \"reward\" doctors who don´t refer patients up in the system - is this true, because that could also be a cause for just doing a relatively cheap symptom-fix instead of going all the way and try and get to the bottom of the patients problems!?

I believe this to be true.
Also couple this with the fact that both Medicare and most insurances haggle with the doctors to get the prices down, and this leads to more unscrupulous doctors preferring a steady pay by treating the symptoms, rather than fixing the problem and not getting paid well, or referring the patient to another doctor and he getting the payment instead.

I do believe there is an MD on the boards who might share more insight into this.

If that\'s true, it\'s a disgusting practice. Treide is our resident doc, isn\'t he?

 

[skeeve]

´ve heard that the health-system/insurance in the states also \"reward\" doctors who don´t refer patients up in the system - is this true, because that could also be a cause

I don\'t think they do it directly, but what often happens is that if I refer a person to a specialist, then this specialist not me will be payed by the insurance company. It takes tremendous amount of integrity to admit you own incompetence and refer your patient out.

Dave\'s story is not uncommon (and from what he described it is borderline malpractice). I had something like this of my own with my son. Fortunately his situation was in the area of my narrow expertise so I went to a specialist right away. Otherwise they would be continuing treating his \"symptoms\". The red flag for me was the idea of using systemic steroids for treatment. I do steroids for a living and I know how over prescribed they are and what they do long-term, especially with kids.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by skeeve
I do steroids for a living

That´s a hard-core job!

 

[Shawn R. L.]

@lizcam - your little avatar\'s ROCKIN\' to Kickstart My Heart lollol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTXbx0zyt_Q

 

[alextheartist]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Well, then shouldn\'t we be taxing the hell out of people with dangerous hobbies as well, base jumpers, rock climbers,etc.
Chances are they will have a serious accidents.
[/quote]

base jumping is illigal, hence, no tax