home

A "Drink Tax" for Health Care?

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 11:46:33 AM EST
Tags: drink tax (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

No one cared about the "sin tax" on cigarette smokers. Will they care about a proposed tax on alcohol and sugary soda? Probably.

Besides alcohol, drinks with sugar, high fructose corn syrup and similar sweeteners would be targeted, though diet drinks with artificial sweeteners would not. Other industries also are on alert, worried that the idea of "lifestyle taxes" could spread to other products deemed unhealthy.

"Are they going to hit couch manufacturers? School districts that have canceled physical education?" joked Neil Trautwein, health care lobbyist for the National Retail Federation, which opposes the plan and whose members include fast-food restaurants.

[More...]

Put more bluntly,

"Before you tax Joe Six-Pack on his beer and Joe Junior on his soda pop at the Little League game, people are going to say, 'Can't you go out and find some savings from'" the health care system, said one committee member, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

Where do legislators get these bad ideas from?

< Osama bin Laden Releases Tape Criticizing Obama | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A "Drink Tax" for Health Care? | 114 comments (114 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sooner or later (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    the various 'sin taxes' will prove to be unfair and unmanageable and a more sane overall federal sales tax will be enacted. I'm fine with that.

    If we must sin tax... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    then by all means, lets spread it around.

    When we get to taxing gluttony, shake me.

    I'm with you (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    If we're going to tax "sins," tax all of them.

    Parent
    Let's tax (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by AlkalineDave on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    coffee.  The idea of a pissed of starbucks lobby group amuses me.

    Parent
    Ahhhhh....leave Starbucks aloooooone (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    They are having to ask their landlords to please cut their rents so they can stay in their existing locations. Plenty of whining from them last night on my local news.


    Parent
    None of them would be better (none / 0) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    taxing all sins would leave too many people broke.

    I just wonder how many times we can be taxed on the same money. These people are just looking around going, "what can we put a tax on that most people will think is out of our concern for their well-being?"

    Parent

    So we get to choose (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    which "sins" to tax?  How is that fair?

    Don't you think the people who participate in the "sins" that are currently taxed are going broke because of it?

    I know, I know, people can choose not to participate in those "sins"....just like people can choose not to participate in any of the "sins".

    And BTW, I don't smoke and I barely drink alcohol but I definitely see that when it comes to taxation, some people are more equal than others!

    Parent

    You can only be talking to yourself, here (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    'cause you sure aren't talking to me. Everything you said must be what you're thinking...I'd like to see this over-zealous taxing of every darn thing end, not pick and choose as a form of punishment.

    I don't smoke, rarely to never have a drink, but wonder what the reaction would be if the gov't slapped a huge tax on Fitness Centers, being as people can walk in their own neighborhoods and exercise at home if they don't want to pay taxes on their addictions (and, I do know plenty of people who are addicted to exercise). At least that's a crowd that has a fair amount of disposable income.


    Parent

    How about a tax... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    ...on stupidity?

    Many states already have such a tax (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by me only on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:26:59 PM EST
    it is called the lottery.

    Parent
    If we could tax stupidity... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    and tyranny-lite policies...we'd be out of the hole in no time!

    Parent
    Well, until we get a more (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by dk on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    efficient model such as single payer, healthcare costs are going to continue to be out of proportion to those of other industrialized nations, and the money has to come from somewhere.

    Very true, (none / 0) (#13)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:27:27 PM EST
    That's why the other countries don't have taxes such as VAT or higher income taxes...

    Parent
    Those countries (none / 0) (#18)
    by dk on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    also have much better services and benefits for their citizens (over and above healthcare).  So what's your point?

    Parent
    As stood in line at the Post Office the other day (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    for about 1/2 hour and looked at the chipped and scuffed linoleum counters, the not-particularly motivated workers, the automated stamp machine that didn't have 2 cent stamps, and the line of captive customers that extended out the door, I thought of my old rugby buddy from the UK that described going to the doc in England as like going to the DMV in America.

    Parent
    At least he gets to see (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    a doc, unlike 40 million Americans and rising.

    Parent
    unless they go to the e.r. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CST on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:25:02 PM EST
    which is far far worse than the dmv.  Whether you have insurance or not.

    Parent
    You must have different ER's in Boston (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    than we do here in LA...

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:49:13 PM EST
    although the DMV is no pleasure, at least at the end of the wait, something actually happens...your license is renewed, or in this case, your illness diagnosed, your prescription written.

    Parent
    What has happened to me when... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:02:27 PM EST
    I got to the front of the line is being sent to the back of the line because I didn't have form #666 completed to the clerks liking.  Then when I got to the front again I was told I couldn't be helped and to contact Albany.

    With service like that, who needs a private sector:)  Get Back In Line

     

    Parent

    The DMV... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    you just sent a chill up my spine...I'll pay almost any vig to never have to set foot in one of those again.  That's a good way for Uncle Sam to raise some dough...sell us some brainless bueracracy exemption certificates.

    Parent
    Well boo-hoo (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    A lobbyist for the fast food industry complains about the possibility of fast food costing a little more.

    Film at 11.

    I'm not impressed by the whining. I like to drink alcohol, but I wouldn't mind at all if I'd have to pay a tiny bit more for it.

    I don't care about taxes at all. It must be because I don't have the American tax-fobia gene.

    You clearly have no idea how heavily (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:47:16 PM EST
    beer is already taxed do you?  Not to mention spirits.

    Parent
    I don't care about reasonable... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    taxation with a clearly defined purpose...what we have with tobacco and alcohol, and soon soda, is unreasonable tax rates for hazy shady purposes.

    Usually I'm with you, just tell me what the vig is and get outta my hair...but things are getting out of hand, so now I'm just dodging where I can.  Out of principle mostly, with tobacco out of principle and necessity because those tax rates are downright criminal.

    Parent

    I think smoking is bad for you (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    but seriously......how are you smokers affording this stuff?  Isn't it like $40 a carton now?

    Parent
    40? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    I wish...I'd pay 40 instead of trekking out to the rez every week or two. My beloved Marlboro Reds are going for 75 a carton by me, more in the 5 boroughs of NYC.

    It is literally insane...and the city/state/fed taxes at these rates with a straight face...at least stick a pistol in my back like an honest thief...jeez.

    Parent

    OMG (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    And a decent bottle of tequila starts at around $25.  Where is the sin tax money already being paid going?

    Parent
    I was shocked when I bought (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:06:41 PM EST
    Tequila last summer. I don't drink it much (my dog freaks at the smell of some liquors thanks to her first "owner"), but wanted some decent T to cook with. OY! Same with the other liquors I was buying to cook with.

    Parent
    I really noticed... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:13:27 PM EST
    when I stocked up on Cuervo 1800 in St. Thomas..."Wow, thats what it is supposed to cost!"

    As for where it all goes, beats the hell outta me, I just knows it goes away from us without much in services coming back that I can notice.  I think some of the NY tobacco money goes into those awful anti-smoking propaganda commercials, or the Smokers Quit Hotline.  

    Talk about money well spent!...lol.

    Parent

    Once I get to CA (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:15:43 PM EST
    I have a feeling I may be popping down to Mexico a bit :)

    Parent
    Look at the history of cig taxes (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    especially in NYC. That "tiny bit more" adds up pretty darn fast.

    Parent
    I've always thought (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by AlkalineDave on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    many of these taxes are taxes on the poor.  Lotteries, cigarettes, alcohol, and (I can't back it up at the moment but I'm willing to bet) your cheap sugary drinks are all bought by the poorer demographic.  

    Probably right (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    They could add taxes to bottled water and fancy "exercise drinks" too.

    Parent
    And they should. Bottled water (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:24:52 PM EST
    is the most moronic waste of plastic and landfills I can think of.  

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by AlkalineDave on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    of course all demographics by them.  My point was that the poorer demographics are overwhelmingly the top customers though.  The point of addictiveness is a very good one to make as well.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    Coming from Michigan, where we have had 10 cent deposits on pop and beer bottles for years (my college roommate and I used to pay our electric bill every month with our returnables), it amazes me being out here in DC, where things are "so much more progressive" on the east coast, that we don't have deposits on all bottles including bottled water. I know the Michigan legislature was trying to pass legislation to include water and juice bottles, but I think it stalled.

    It also seems like it should be standardized across the country - since so many people travel and pack drinks - why shouldn't I be able to buy a pop in Michigan, and then as I travel across Ohio and Pennslvania, be able to return it somewhere?

    Parent

    The deposit doesn't do anything (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:50:20 PM EST
    but encourage you to keep the can out of the landfill.  Here in DC we just went directly to a recycling program city-wide and skipped the cottage industry of can collecting for spare change.

    Parent
    Hmm, we recycle (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    yet we still have can collectors. I see them every Thurs before dawn if I'm out with my dog.

    Parent
    That's because you can SELL (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:24:38 PM EST
    aluminum by the pound (to some recyclers!) but nothing else in the recycle stream has that kind of vslue.  Paper, sometimes, some places...our kids used to have paper drives to collect newspaper for the paper mills to recycle into newsprint and kraft paper for bags.  

    Not any more.  The paper is picked up every week in the recycle...cans, on the other hand, are tossed out the car window by indiots, often aiming their beer cans at the road signs, and walking the local roads can produce lots of aluminum litter for sale.

    Parent

    I'm not talking about revenues (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    But I work in DC, and I have yet to see a place, either in the building I work, or the surrounding area, to recycle anything (besides the newspapers in the Metro).  I work near the Mall and next to the Navy Memorial, and there are always tons of bottles in the garbage (and in our building too), so it's definitely just more garbage, as opposed to a "revenue enhancer" (taxes) or "environmental enhancer".

    But soon we will be paying for paper and plastic bags at stores.

    Parent

    Same here (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    We recycle in the home, but not on the subway etc. Some companies I worked for did recycle, not sure if it's required or not, or if the companies were just being responsible.

    Parent
    They are all bought by (none / 0) (#31)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:42:36 PM EST
    everyone, Dave...by every demographic, including the poor who can't afford the items 'up for taxation' in the first place...except they are addictive.

    My father and brother...addicted to alcohol.  My mother and I...smoking.

    The healthcare cost connections to taxes on these things is obvious to me.  We cost the system a whole lot more than citizens with more healthy lifestyles.  We did when we were poor...and later, when we weren't.

    Parent

    It seems (none / 0) (#38)
    by AlkalineDave on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    I accidentally responded above you.

    Parent
    I don't know about that.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    costing more bit...my old man used both, died in his early 60's without ever going to the hospital, much less a doctor.  We unhealthy types die younger...I tend to think the people living till 108 eating rice cakes end up costing more.

    Parent
    It does cost more. (none / 0) (#65)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    The whole concern about Medicare and Social Security is largely centered on our population living longer on average.  Us sinners are cheap dates.

    Parent
    It's more complex than that. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:35:14 PM EST
    Think alcohol...auto accidents ending in visits to the ER and lifelong health-support needs, from wheelchairbound to brain-injured and everything in between.

    Think alcohol and guns...and the resultant impacts on ERs etc.

    Other social costs to families at the loss of earning power of their husband, wife, son, etc. when injured, temporarily or permanently by these alcohol-related injuries.

    Only two examples...there's a lot more to think about including all those soldiers who now survive to live long lives...over 300,000 from the Vietnam War alone, needing vet care for the rest of their lives.

    Parent

    Probably too many variables... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    to make the burden of health care costs "fair", unless we all just pay as we go... thats why I say divide the cost by number of citizens and send everybody a bill....over finished done.

    Parent
    UH huh...and you will get (none / 0) (#91)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    that accomplished how, exactly?

    Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is a big part of the problem...

    Parent

    Nickel and diming to death... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:05:00 PM EST
    aka taxation on the sly ain't perfect, better, or good.

    We accomplish it by coming up with an estimate of the cost of healthcare for all, divide by the number of taxpayers who make over 30k or pick a number, and increase the yearly vig by that amount.  It's the same way me and my friends have a bbq...food/booze/dope cost 300 bucks, there are 6 of us, 50 bucks a head, we have a bbq.  We don't put in on a credit card and then throw a quarter in a jar every time we take a bite/sip/hit, charge a cover, a grounds fee, and collect fines for spilling, bogarting, or the inability to do 20 push-ups to fund the party...that would be ridiculous.

    If we paid for all our collective needs this way, nobody gets screwed too bad, the necessities get done, the needy are cared for, and we don't have debts...and hopefully no stupid wars or new weapons systems or all the crap no sane person would chip in towards.

    Parent

    If, if, if... (none / 0) (#107)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:21:18 PM EST
    If we wait for your perfect system of taxation, no bills will get paid.  That's the point.

    Yes...your example of how to fund the BBQ would, indeed, be ridiculous, but it's not germane to the issue being discussed.  Funny, tho!

    We pay most of the bills through income taxes nationwide.  Statewide, mostly property taxes, sales taxes and some income taxes.  Still..trouble strikes, the economy goes whopsie and states can't pay the bills.  Now what?

    Parent

    NY Governor Patterson tried to get (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    a similar tax into his budget this year, to stave off the Wolves Of The Bush Depression.  Wanted to tax soda and such.

    Went nowhere with it.  Got pilloried.

    Why a concentration on regressive (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    taxes?

    I still don't get it. Let's tax the folks who will be disproportionately affected.

    Brilliant!

    I'm for a national sales tax (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    with income tax credits for lower income folks to make up for part of it.

    I'm a tax and spend liberal, you see. i think lots of things (health care, roads, defense, education, social security) are better done on a large scale, and I don't mind paying for them.

    Parent

    Lower-income folks don't always (none / 0) (#80)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    pay income taxes and credits are worthless to us.

    Parent
    Feel free to (none / 0) (#82)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    set the example and send more to DC.  

    Parent
    So you think that Congress would (none / 0) (#88)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:56:13 PM EST
    enact a beer tax credit for the poor?  lol  Not gonna happen.

    Okay, so if you are a tax and spend liberal, then why can't we do this in a progressive way?

    All these sin taxes are coming up because no one will just do the right thing and raise the income taxes - particularly on the top two percent earners in this country.  If you are a liberal then why don't you think it would be better not to put the majority of the burden on the poorest among us?

    I am fine with progressive taxation, but sin taxes and regressive taxes not at all - and I am seeing a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party to embrace these taxes that I'm definitely not liking at all.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#40)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    To pay the bills.

    And it's not a case of 'who' to tax...it's about 'what.'

    'What' raises the cost of government?  Tax that to pay for it.  That's the reasoning.  ie. smoking/cancer, etc. = healthcare costs not engendered by non-smokers.

    It's not unreasonable.

    Parent

    Unless of course those non-smokers (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    are obese.

    Has anyone checked the numbers lately on smokers vs other things, like say, type 2 Diabetes?

    Parent

    And then we are back to (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:17:35 PM EST
    While obese people tend to have higher health care costs, that will eventually and indirectly raise costs for non-obese people, smokers have a direct and immediate impact on the health care costs of non-smokers (unless they are hermits and live on a mountaintop by themselves somewhere). Add to that fact, that obese people still have to eat, and no smoker ever has to smoke, and well, round and round she goes....

    Parent
    Can we at least see... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:09:24 PM EST
    the bill first before we start paying...cuz I don't trust the adminstrator as far as I can throw 'em.

    Parent
    As Pauli said, (none / 0) (#45)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:16:42 PM EST
    "That's not right. That's not even wrong." there is no relationship between what is taxed and where the money goes at the federal level.

    Parent
    Sorry, Jeff...you need more (none / 0) (#81)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:41:09 PM EST
    information.

    Simple example:  gas taxes.  Guess where they go?  Both state and federal.  By statute.

    There's more but I'll leave you to do some research on your own.  It's enlightening, actually.

    Of course, you're right when the earmarked taxes don't produce enough to cover the bill and the particular budget (highways/transit, for instance) get more revenue from the general fund.

    Parent

    so... (none / 0) (#89)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:57:50 PM EST
    given gas taxes, which does demonstrate one earmark, give some more examples, please. Since you tout yourself as knowing about such taxes, educate.

    The problematic with your argument is that demonstrating my statement was incorrect does not mean that your statement generalizable concerning taxes being earmarked based on the object/use being taxed.

    Parent

    Oh, for gawd's sake... (none / 0) (#93)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    I've been a teacher but if I'm going to be YOUR teacher, we'd have to start with grammer and sentence structure.

    FYI:  Truman Capote was correct..."That's not writing.  That's typing."

    And doing your own homework is the student part of education.  You're the student.

    Parent

    Ok, you walked right into this..... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:42:12 PM EST
    If you're going to teach this subject

    if I'm going to be YOUR teacher, we'd have to start with grammer and sentence structure.

    start here

    (you incorrectly spelled grammar)

    In the post I am responding to I see several places where a comma is missing. And, the one below headlined as "Good day to you as well", a comma would be in order following you.

    :)

    Parent

    Re commas...depends on the (none / 0) (#109)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    stylebook one favors, I suppose.  I used to follow the Chicago stylebook, then NYT, then I liberalized my comma attitude a la The New Yorker.  The flow is better and clarity

    I'm not a stickler so long as clarity is not an issue...blogging online or re email, that is.  For publication, different story.

    Parent

    Ya gotta admit (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    "grammer" is pretty funny, especially in context.

    Parent
    Heh, heh, heh.....typos only count (none / 0) (#108)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:24:53 PM EST
    `on the final!

    Parent
    Just as I suspected. (none / 0) (#94)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:07:42 PM EST
     good day to you, oldpro.

    Parent
    Good day to you as well. (none / 0) (#96)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    And BTW...your report on taxes is due on my desk on Monday.  No excuses, so don't make me call your Mom!

    Parent
    No one cared? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:15:18 PM EST
    I did.  But few people saw the slippery slope that we were getting on in targeting individual groups with these regressive taxes.

    There is also a proposition gaining traction to increase the insurance premiums for obese people.  

    And all of this picking around the edges regressive taxation is designed to do is make up for short falls like the ones created by the all too low tax rate for the top two percent of earners in this country.  It is pretty ridiculous, but carry on.  The rise of puritanism in the early 21st Century forges on...

    Did I miss it? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    was there a great outcry for Uncle Sam to assume the duties of an extortionary dietician?

    I'm a 150 lb relatively healthy diabetes-free adult, and frankly I don't appreciate or want the "concern"...or the hand in my pocket.  

    If we need funding for health care or anything else, divide the expected cost by the number of citizens and bam...thats what we each owe.  Not hard, not hard at all....enough with the shady discriminatory taxation.

    Whoa! So this is where (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    progressives, liberals and the right-wing meet up ... on taxes!

    Except, of course, the ones we personally approve of, even though that particular plan (flat tax, national sales tax, homestead tax, whatever) may never come to fruition.  Meanwhile, just charge it and let the bills go unpaid, Republicanstyle.

    Yeah, that'll work.

    I am really more than a little shocked at the lack of connection between unhealthy appetites and the rising costs and rising need for healthcare in this country.  Have you missed the epidemic growth of diabetes in children?

    We have an inalienable right... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    to unhealthy appetites and unhealthy behavior...if surrendering the whims of my appetite to the taxman is the deal to get some taxpayer funded healthcare, you all have permission to let me and my unhealthy appetites die and keep your healthcare...because it feels like all you are selling is a healthier  benevolent tyranny....which is an anything but healthy to a free soul.

    All that being said, if the state needs money for healthcare, I got paid yesterday, tell me what is my end and you got it...just don't nickel and dime me on the smokes and soda to the point till I'm paying for 10 people who probably use more healthcare and make more money than I do.

    Parent

    Lack of Connection? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:22:17 PM EST
    I am really more than a little shocked at the lack of connection between unhealthy appetites and the rising costs and rising need for healthcare in this country.  Have you missed the epidemic growth of diabetes in children?

    Who missed it? It's talked about all the time and health/weight topics are endless on the internet with that being a pretty common theme. It's why fast food restaurants had to put nutritional information on their menues. People might be ignoring it, but the connection isn't lacking.

    Parent

    Ummm....I meant on this thread. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:47:09 PM EST
    The denial and convoluted reasoning among some in this crowd is amazing to me.

    I wish more people had taken Philosophy 101 in college...or even read Locke or Hume on their own.

    Parent

    Ahhhh...thanks for (none / 0) (#103)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:44:08 PM EST
    the clarification :)

    Parent
    See... the problem is that sin taxes (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    won't fix these problems - and not for nothin' if we all get religion and stop engaging in these activities - we won't have the funding for healthcare - which is about as dumb as anything I've seen as a proposition for funding an important program.

    The best thing to do is actually to get people back into the healthcare system by providing access - not to take this piecemeal approach to a systemic problem - which is more about lack of care than it is about all this "personal responsibility" stuff.

    The fact is that America has gotten fatter since the 1970's when the health fad first emerged.  Oprah has gotten thin and fat so many times that I think few would be able to count her ups and downs anymore.  I happen to be able to eat all these sinful things and not gain weight and I am pretty damn healthy.  Meanwhile someone else can't.  These overly generalized health awareness campaigns have done nothing really to help the population - and I'd even go so far as to argue that they are probably part of the problem.

    I could go on on this subject.  I used to make a living scaring you into eating new food inventions.  Not salt!  Low fat!  No fat!  Low cholesterol!  I've done it all.  The fact is that where it comes to nutrition and food consumption, there is NO one-size-fits-all diet that works for everyone - not even one that works for a majority of folks.  Our genetic diversity is just that vast and our lives that different too - because someone who sits at a desk is going to have very different nutritional and exercize needs than someone who delivers mail for a living.

    Sin taxes ain't gonna help the problems we have.

    Parent

    Well yeah, no one thing (none / 0) (#77)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    by itself, like sin taxes, is likely to solve the cost or the overall health care problem, and the sin taxers like myself are not making that claim.  But putting a firm economic disincentive in place to encourage people to make better food choices isn't unwise and in the long run can be a positive factor in bringing down health costs.

    The fact is that America has gotten fatter since the 1970's when the health fad first emerged.  Oprah  

    Ah, the 70s.  Yeah, health food talk sorta picked up at that time, to go with the jogging craze.  Of course, the fast food industry really exploded in that decade too -- McDos everywhere and all the others.  Convenience stores (to go with the mini-mall idiocy) also began to mar the landscape and ruin previously decent neighborhoods.

    And the 70s also saw an explosion of diet fads.  How many charlatans made a mint peddling faddish diet theories in the bookstores and on teevee?  Probably the same ilk of snake oil peddlers that unthinking Oprah has been following over the years, hence her yo-yo weight patterns.

    All she probably needs to do is eat real food, veggies and fruit mostly, plenty of water, avoid the carbonated and fried, daily moderate exercise working up a sweat but nothing major.  And voilà, the pounds, over time, evaporate ...

    Parent

    Ah... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sj on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    All she probably needs to do is ...

    Spoken like someone who has never struggled with weight.  

    Parent

    Not really. And you'll notice (none / 0) (#90)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    I did qualify the above with the "probably".

    Long ago I had more of the type of moderate added weight/bad cholesterol problems (more from what I call a nutritionally suspect Trader Joe's diet than from traditional fast food) that Bill Clinton began to experience in the 90s.  

    Losing it was something I had to research a bit myself.  Though, because I was always skeptical of the flashy fad diets so heavily promoted in the media, I never wasted my time with them.

    (Reminds me of a natural food proponent I heard on the radio recently -- he said that generally if a food is advertised on teevee you don't want to eat it.)

    Probably (note that word again) 75% of the weight problems people experience, in my non-expert opinion, can be solved by just applying the simple real food/daily exercise basics I mentioned above.  And nothing happens overnight, as I also stated, or in 90 days as the diet books promise ...  

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:47:12 PM EST
    "All she needs to do is eat real food, veggies and fruit mostly"...  See I'd be levying sin taxes on people like you (and me in my former life) for giving out health information with basically no knowledge of the particulars of the "patients" that you're preaching to.

    Parent
    I'd want to tax myself too (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:05:06 PM EST
    if I put myself out there as some medical or nutritional expert -- which I'm careful not to do.  

    Of course, I'd also want to tax the idiot who would take advice from any self-proclaimed non-expert without doing his/her own due diligence.

    I suspect, without knowing for sure since I don't watch her show, that Oprah probably lost weight using one of the many fad diets.  Then she brought in the fellow to help her work out.  Apparently she couldn't consistently maintain the workout regimen, so I hear, and completely fell off the treadmill so to speak.  Was it all too intense?  More than she really needed?  Burnout?  I don't know.  I'm just putting in my two cents, and you can take it or leave it.

    Parent

    Newsweek has a cover article (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:32:23 PM EST
    about Oprah and her health advice this week.  I was pretty amazed that they took her on, but happy to see someone do it and I am hoping it is a trend towards questioning most of the health information that passes for "truth" in our culture these days.

    The reality is that we don't have very good science at all where it comes to food and nutrition.  Most of the studies that you hear cited in the news are too small and too short to provide any real insights into how we process food in our bodies.  The ethnic and genetic diversity in this country in particular also poses great obstacles to developing any real generalities about nutrition that could be legitimately applied across the population.  Doctors aren't even trained in nutrition in our medical schools.

    We understand the role of food more where it comes to disease states like diabetes or heart disease, but even then populations are not at all uniform in their needs and in the foods that they should avoid.

    We know some foods can activate certain processes, but we don't really know how much of that food you personally might need for the effect to kick in or even if your unique chemistry would be triggered as well as someone else's might.

    Go to the American Diabetes Association website and you can see that they are very careful to state that any and all diet plans should be developed with medical supervision and that there is no one formula that works for all diabetics.  Honestly, if we could really figure out diabetes and why a diabetic can have an incident on one day in which they have eaten the same things, done the same activities, had the same amount of sleep and followed the exact same regimin - we'd be a whole lot closer to understanding food and nutrition - and the whole body.

    In any case, moralizing about the sins of food intake is about the least scientific approach we could take in trying to solve the health crises we have in this country.

    Parent

    What? You mean (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    use self control to exercise more and eat less? Heresy, I tell you. Heresy.

    Parent
    God I love this post (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    and this says it all about the various "solutions" being raked about

    The best thing to do is actually to get people back into the healthcare system by providing access - not to take this piecemeal approach to a systemic problem - which is more about lack of care than it is about all this "personal responsibility" stuff.

    And as far as diet and genetic diversity goes my Josh still eats fast food about five times a week, particularly a large fry now with his thing they call a burger.  He is very thin, goes with his gene mutation, his tummy is small and due to his facial musculature he actually tires when having to chew a great deal and will stop eating due to that. His doctors have said he can have as much sin food as we can get into him.  He has avoided a feeding tube, most kids with his gene mutation have not.  Many special needs children receive great benefit from these calorie bloated foods.  As a parent, going to McDonals almost everyday after school is for Joshua.  I seldom get anything to eat with him...bleh....what is there really TO EAT there.  I'll sneak a few fries but bleh!

    Parent

    I can definately relate... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    ...as I share many of these same traits, although for different reasons.  Some people live to eat, I eat to live.  And it can be a real chore.

    My poor Mom--she tried every trick in the book to get me to eat ANYTHING as a kid.  Bribes, good old fashioned Polish-Catholic guilt, bringing whatever I was craving to the hospital, you name it.  

    The transplant team has told me that I should eat all of the empty/bloated calorie stuff I can that fits into the low phosphate diet.  

    Parent

    Does anyone know of any regressive taxes (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    Implemented by FDR?

    But this isn't a depression (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    or even a HUGE recession, this is a liquidity problem *wink wink

    Parent
    If we could go to a single-payer plan, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 07:48:46 PM EST
    we would not have to consider all these taxes - taxes that, I fear, will be finding their way into the pockets of private insurance companies that have done nothing to prove that they care as much about health CARE as they do about profits.

    To me, it is emblematic of just how deeply in the pockets of our elected representatives the insurance industry is.  People should be outraged, not so much about the idea of a tax, but about the realization that your government would rather tax you than tick off insurance company lobbyists and executives.

    Oh (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    why did Wyden have to say Joe Six Pack...

    But more importantly this idea is completely out of touch and completely absurd...

    Where do legislators get these ideas from? (none / 0) (#6)
    by itscookin on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    Lobbyists. Who paid for the studies that convinced the public that eggs are bad for you? The cereal companies. The question here is who would benefit (other than the government coffers) if the price of sugary drinks went up? Then see who's taking your congress critter to lunch.

    I know (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    lets tax church!

    If you go to confession, you owe $1 per sin.

    If you aren't Catholic, I'm not sure how that will work, but there's gotta be some way.

    That way if you don't consider it a "sin" you're in the clear :)

    Also - will they tax all alcohol?  I thought red wine was good for you in small doses...

    I yes, and a cuss pot please (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:00:33 PM EST
    I crave to be broke :)

    Parent
    Oops....red wine yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:01:26 PM EST
    then the cuss pot stuff

    Parent
    Gawd (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    Are we all going to have to rent a bus and start taking sin vacations to Mexico?

    C'mon, Tracy...get that tongue (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:06:41 PM EST
    out of your cheek!

    Parent
    I'm a huge tequila sinner (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    What is this tax going to do to me?  I can get one of those distillers that scribe spoke of but I'm not exactly swimming in cactus around here.  Can you see the Talkleft bus getting shaken down at the border on our way back?  Imagine what would be on Kdog.

    Parent
    Nah... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    I might be "on" a whole mess of things, I might be in the bus bathroom downing the last of it, but I won't have nothing on me when customs comes a knockin'.

    That's Int'l Border Crossing 101 sh*t kid:)

    Parent

    Come to think of it... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    you won't have to go south of the border Tracy...if the tax on tequila gets out of hand, a tax-free speakeasy will be open in your neighborhood before you know it...the rule of the black market.  If they over-tax it, the bootleggers will come...take it to the bank.

    Sh*t, you might be the owner/operator...you still got that job for me right?...:)

    Parent

    Well I'm thinkin I have a bit a (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:43:26 PM EST
    problem here with all this tequila.

    Parent
    As for moi, put me down (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    as favoring the tax.  In fact, I'd prefer it extend also to the so-called "diet" soft drinks with the artificial sweeteners which, I suspect, aren't very healthy either.  

    (Actually, I'd like to see the entire soft drink industry drastically scaled back.  Maybe something to do with associating Pepsi with that snake Dick Nixon and that child-beating actress, Joan Crawford who, if memory serves, also pulled in a nice annual salary peddling that junk ...)

    You want a little healthier "soft" drink, then do what the pros do here and buy yourselves some plain cola syrup (the non-carbonated stuff) and simply mix it with water and make your own slightly sweet drinks to taste.  Pour over crushed ice for those hot summer quenchers.  

    Good for alkilinizing the body and, according to one claim I've seen, also good when used in moderation to help purify the kidneys.  Also, with no carbonation, you give your digestive system a needed break.  

    Put me down... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    as preferring a tax on rice cakes, soy, and for every day you live over 85...we've got an overpopulation problem.

    Never mind...last thing I want is to be like the tyrants proposing this garbage....lets let freedom ring instead and divy up our societal costs equally.

    Parent

    You can go ahead (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    and tax the rice cakes.  Never took a likin' to 'em myself.

    As for the soy tax though, that's where I take to the barricades!

    Parent

    I'll man the barricade with ya brodie... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:47:52 PM EST
    as much as I can't stand anything soy, it is your right to enjoy that crap:)

    But you won't stand with my sinning kind:(

    Parent

    If it got nuts enough (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:53:25 PM EST
    I don't doubt it for minute. I carry profitable and successful bootlegging genes.  I have few qualms about using them if needed.

    Parent
    Yup...soy further stunts my thyroid (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    It's bad!  Tax it!

    Parent
    Overpopulation! Yes! ZPG! (none / 0) (#87)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:55:49 PM EST
    Now you're on to something!  Instead of giving tax breaks for having kids/dependents, tax them!

    I'm only half kidding...

    Parent

    Not giving tax breaks to people (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    for having kids seems pretty reasonable to me actually.  Hell, kids come from original sin don't they?

    Parent
    Oooooo.....good one. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:12:37 PM EST


    Parent
    We hand a whole lot of money (none / 0) (#101)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:33:52 PM EST
    out to those "sinners" annually.

    Parent
    Man, if they taxed coffee and caffeine (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    now there's a motherlode.  

    Used to be a (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    4 cuppa/day guy.  Straight caffeine, none of that pantywaist decaf stuff.

    That was a while back though, pre-Euroization of the American coffee-drinking lifestyle, when the only decaf option was Sanka.  

    Nowadays the decaf options are numerous and taste-tempting, and so it's easier to switch away from the strong stuff.  Even decaf espresso beans are available to buy and grind, which we do also.

    Parent

    I suffer from something called SAD (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    (seasonal affective disorder), it is like hibernating in the winter for me and it is a bummer because our current society isn't crazy about hibernators.  I can't control it, it can be hard to treat with a high degree of success.  My doctors usually allowed me to drink as much coffee as I wanted and wow do I drink coffee and espressos when I'm farther North.  We did not know how much of an improvement it would be for me living as far South as we do now but that part has been wonderful, I have almost no symptoms of it and now I drink a couple of cups in the morning.  In what they call "winter" here I do tend to sip all day in January but I'm not downing the stuff.

    Parent
    A "Drink Tax" for Health Care? | 114 comments (114 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment