Arizona Gov Proposes Fat Tax For Welfare Recipients

[EyeKhan]

And a gov't run supermarket isn't acting as "nanny"?

I think it matters HOW the food desert is turned into nutritious and accessible food. If it has to be transported from Brazil or Guatemala, using planes or ships using expensive fuel, that won't help in making food more affordable. To the contrary, that makes food more expensive while it has to trek the globe. And it attracts speculators who are more than happy to run up the price, in order to make their hedge profit.

Local and/or slow foods seem to make more sense. When importing food means the difference between thriving or starving, all hell can break loose. There might even be an argument to make about native populations eating local foods and being healthier, before global food took hold.

Let me clarify: I do not CARE how you irrigate the food desert. You can do it with subsidies, you can do it with tax credits, you can do it with good old fashioned collectivism, you can even do it with church donations. I don't care. It just NEEDS to be done before anyone starts whining about the poor health of the people who live there.

[GGT]

Let me clarify: I do not CARE how you irrigate the food desert. You can do it with subsidies, you can do it with tax credits, you can do it with good old fashioned collectivism, you can even do it with church donations. I don't care. It just NEEDS to be done before anyone starts whining about the poor health of the people who live there.

I know what you mean. You do care, and that's a good thing, but is it really good enough to say "Just Do Something"? We've been feeding hungry people in food deserts on other continents for decades, but it's called food aid and not food security. When it comes to not just feeding but nourishing people in the UNITED STATES, our legislators seem to go all limp and wussy. It's a weird paradox when conservative fiscal hawks will preserve humanitarian aid to third world economies, but deny food stamps or WIC for Americans living in our own national third world.

[EyeKhan]

For the purposes of this discussion, its very well good enough. Because here's the thing, when you start saying - don't use subsidies, use tax deductions - you open a can of worms that nobody can agree on. Everyone and their dog has a bone to pick about what government ought to do and how they ought to do it. Well, if the argument on the table is the government should tax fat poor people for being fat, then the government damn well ought to make it possible for those people to get healthy food. However the hell they decide to do it, don't implement the tax until that's figured out first. And since this is a conservative idea and its the conservatives with the idiotic conception that the government "can't do anything right" and "subsidies are always bad" and "the government shouldn't do anything for anyone" then they ought to be the ones figuring out how to make healthy food at least available to people before they start taxing them for being fat. Who let these lunies in government anyway?

[GGT]

.....Well, if the argument on the table is the government should tax fat poor people for being fat, then the government damn well ought to make it possible for those people to get healthy food. However the hell they decide to do it, don't implement the tax until that's figured out first.

Agreed.

And since this is a conservative idea and its the conservatives with the idiotic conception that the government "can't do anything right" and "subsidies are always bad" and "the government shouldn't do anything for anyone" then they ought to be the ones figuring out how to make healthy food at least available to people before they start taxing them for being fat.

Also agreed. But it's not the conservatives' initiative that makes me prefer people being able to grow their own food, feed themselves, and be well nourished. Without relying on teh gummint for that proverbial "hand out" we keep hearing about. That'd be more of my humanistic tendency, providing opportunities for dignity, self-reliance that has to involve those with more giving to those with less, the philosophy that comes from knowing how to fish (and teaching to fish) instead of being given a fish.

<Not to be confused with the GOP notion that says anyone who needs some help in learning how to fish means they're lazy, stupid, or leeches.>

Who let these lunies in government anyway?

Good question. Short answer? Bitter, fearful, greedy people.

[EyeKhan]

I'm all for locally sourcing food - and everything else for that matter. I try to buy local as much as possible - mostly beer. Generally, I'm not a big fan of globalization - I think many aspects of it do more harm than good.

You sound above like you're suggesting inner city people ought to live via subsistance farming. That's a tough way to live, though they'd probably have more free time available than the average worker bee in the global economic machine. When all your needs and most of your wants are filled, the one thing that becomes most valuable is time. And that's the one thing, in the process of meeting our needs and our other wants, that we have less and less of....

[GGT]

No, not saying inner city poor should live on subsidence farming. Just that they shouldn't have to rely on canned foods from their local "grocer". They should have access to fresh red tomatoes, green peppers, kale and lettuces, carrots and onions, potatoes.....right from the ground. Add those to rice or legumes with spices, and it's a healthy tasty diet. I don't know about you, but my kids and I don't really NEED fresh pineapple, seedless grapes or clementine oranges in February.

[EyeKhan]

Needs and wants. If u can get clementines, then cool. Eat them, I guess. I like fresh tomatoes. Fresh asparagus is the cats meow. Steamed broccoli with salt and cayenne, yum. Green, red, yellow banana, jalapeño peppers, sigh, I love peppers.

[Aimless]

Surgery should be a last resort.

It's also the best resort for the obese, and in terms of health effects better than the implementation of "fat tax" described in the OP.

[EyeKhan]

It's also the best resort for the obese, and in terms of health effects better than the implementation of "fat tax" described in the OP.

What is the basis for your determination of 'better effects?' In Michigan, 25% of our population is obese. Do you think its a good idea to give them all surgery to correct their over-eating (approximately 2 million people)? TBH, I didn't read the OP, so I'm not sure what idiotic taxation of fat people they are proposing, but I think putting a tax on unhealthy food to bring up the price and make it less appealing to people from a cost perspective than healthy food is a pretty good idea.

[Aimless]

What is the basis for your determination of 'better effects?'

Tbh I was being a little flippant. Long-term harms of bariatric surgery as a treatment for obesity is something we don't know all that much about. In all honesty we could probably stand to learn more about data on benefits. We do know that when it comes to weight-loss it's very effective compared to conservative approaches. We know that for a lot of people it also has a very positive impact on comorbidity eg. diabetes.

When it comes to this fat tax we know little about harms, although they may be less dramatic than those of surgery (in an unhealthy group). As for benefits, if it succeeds in getting people to try to manage their obesity through conservative means the results for that group may not compare favorably with eg. patients who undergo gastric bypass surgery.

With all that said, I'd like to reiterate that I'm open to new ideas. This may work out well, who knows

[EyeKhan]

I think you have to look at the costs too. I don't know what that surgery costs, but like everything else associated with the health care industry (in the US) its got to be expensive. Also, I believe there's favorable evidence that higher taxes reduced the use of cigarettes in the US. If it works for smokes, why not for Double Big Macs? Furthermore, the revenue from the tax can be put back into the health care system - in a sense, those who drive up health care costs with their eating habits thus pay a higher share of the expenses.

[Veldan Rath]

Except government gets addicted to the revenue that comes in from the sin tax then cries about it when the effect actually works.

Here in Maine, they keep jacking up the Ciggy Tax...cause revenue keeps dropping...cause less people are smoking (or driving across the border to get them)...so they have less $$$, but if less are smoking (as was the plan) then what are they complaining about?

[EyeKhan]

Well the important thing is the fewer smokers. The increasing tax over time is fine too. Not so good tho if the state finances depemnd on that revenue tho. That's just bad management.

[Lewkowski]

Well the important thing is the fewer smokers. The increasing tax over time is fine too. Not so good tho if the state finances depemnd on that revenue tho. That's just bad management.

I could of sworn smokers saved people money by dying off a lot sooner then others. So their SS benefits don't get to be drawn on since they are dead and years of Medicare coverage costs go away since they are dead. I don't have a link right now but I'm pretty sure this was discussed previously on this forum that smokers don't actually cost our society that much money from a dollars and cents standpoint.

[Being]

I could of sworn smokers saved people money by dying off a lot sooner then others. So their SS benefits don't get to be drawn on since they are dead and years of Medicare coverage costs go away since they are dead. I don't have a link right now but I'm pretty sure this was discussed previously on this forum that smokers don't actually cost our society that much money from a dollars and cents standpoint.

Than.

[Ominous Gamer]

I could of sworn smokers saved people money by dying off a lot sooner then others. So their SS benefits don't get to be drawn on since they are dead and years of Medicare coverage costs go away since they are dead. I don't have a link right now but I'm pretty sure this was discussed previously on this forum that smokers don't actually cost our society that much money from a dollars and cents standpoint.

Read the thread dumbass

[Lewkowski]

Read the thread dumbass

Its about fatty foods. I don't know of any studies that have been done on that side but I imagine the obese folks die off sooner then the smokers as well. End of life care occurs to most people even if they did live healthy lives. However people living into their 90's means 30 years of medicare. The idea of taxing it because it leads to more obese people which leads to higher costs for society isn't proven if they don't take into account the benefits of these people dying sooner in terms of SS/medicare. People have a tendency to dislike fat folks and smokers for personal reasons. The charge for taxation of these activities is really because they want government to control people and eliminate behavior THEY feel is undesirable.

[Ominous Gamer]

Its about fatty foods. I don't know of any studies that have been done on that side but I imagine the obese folks die off sooner then the smokers as well. End of life care occurs to most people even if they did live healthy lives. However people living into their 90's means 30 years of medicare. The idea of taxing it because it leads to more obese people which leads to higher costs for society isn't proven if they don't take into account the benefits of these people dying sooner in terms of SS/medicare. People have a tendency to dislike fat folks and smokers for personal reasons. The charge for taxation of these activities is really because they want government to control people and eliminate behavior THEY feel is undesirable.

Read. The. Thread. Dumbass.

This is unsurprising, but hilarious:

Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

woohoo for living longer. Maybe we should start fining old people?

[EyeKhan]

I could of sworn smokers saved people money by dying off a lot sooner then others. So their SS benefits don't get to be drawn on since they are dead and years of Medicare coverage costs go away since they are dead. I don't have a link right now but I'm pretty sure this was discussed previously on this forum that smokers don't actually cost our society that much money from a dollars and cents standpoint.

[Aimless]

It'd be nice to be able to save our resources for awesome 90-year-olds instead of wasting it on evil 50-y-o smokers

[Veldan Rath]

Well the important thing is the fewer smokers. The increasing tax over time is fine too. Not so good tho if the state finances depemnd on that revenue tho. That's just bad management.

Actually is just called Government.

[EyeKhan]

That is a false assumption that is destructive to society in a way that will be too late to fix by the time conservatives realize what they have done.

[GGT]

She also pushes back on the notion that health disparities are a matter not for government intervention but of individual behaviors — that if black folks would just eat less fatty foods and exercise more, then most of the problem would be solved.

"To some extent, of course it's about personal behavior, but a lot of it is environmental," she says, explaining that poverty and residential segregation are among the issue's biggest drivers. "People of color tend to live in neighborhoods where environmentally polluting industries are located. We have communities with no grocery stores and [an] excessive [number of] liquor stores, sometimes beyond what city statutes allow. All of these things contribute to the socioeconomic determinants of health."

.....ZIP code determines a person's health more than genetic code. He argues that the law doesn't put enough resources behind community-based prevention to tackle the reasons that African Americans get so sick in the first place.

"Health care coverage and clinical prevention screenings are important, but they're not the root causes of health inequities. When you look across the gamut of diseases that people of color disproportionately suffer from, at their root are inequitable neighborhood conditions," Smedley told The Root, echoing the problems of abundant fast-food retailers, environmental injustice and a lack of access to outdoor recreational facilities in many low-income neighborhoods of color. He proposes that federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, collaborate to make neighborhoods healthier.

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/06/135172...are-for-blacks

[Veldan Rath]

That is a false assumption that is destructive to society in a way that will be too late to fix by the time conservatives realize what they have done.

Oh wow...you can't even take a funny poke can you?

[EyeKhan]

Sorry....

[Lewkowski]

Read. The. Thread. Dumbass.

This thread is about fatty foods and not smoking. I get it you don't have to repeat the same thing over and over again.

[GGT]

This thread is about fatty foods and not smoking. I get it you don't have to repeat the same thing over and over again.

This thread is about AZ proposing an obesity tax specifically for Medicaid recipients. Others suggested a tax on fatty foods (like tobacco) to discourage bad eating habits for everyone, not just poor people on Medicaid. There's also the disparity in quality food access by neighborhood and zip code.

Your comment about smokers and fat people using less healthcare dollars (by dying younger) than healthy people was addressed in OG's link.

[Ominous Gamer]

This thread is about fatty foods and not smoking. I get it you don't have to repeat the same thing over and over again.

The thread is on the tax proposal, the OP even mentions smoking 6 different times. You zeroed in a little to specifically and ignored everything else, not unexpected for you.

anyhow, the original reason for telling you to read the thread was because your first attempt to recall the cost effectiveness of smokers was already mentioned.

[Lewkowski]

The thread is on the tax proposal, the OP even mentions smoking 6 different times. You zeroed in a little to specifically and ignored everything else, not unexpected for you.

anyhow, the original reason for telling you to read the thread was because your first attempt to recall the cost effectiveness of smokers was already mentioned.

Yes yes fatty foods and such. I understand it was about fatty foods and not smoking, I've mentioned that already!

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't think you're understanding a single word you're reading/posting