Soft Drink Tax to pay for Healthcare?

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Science vs. religion. There's the difference. Its not a personal worldview, its a scientific worldview. Show me good science that shows that consuming large amounts of soft drinks is good for one's health.

When it comes to fanatically pushing your agenda using either there isnt a difference.

I bet those studies indicate if taken in moderation soft drinks are fine. So instead of addressing the problem of over consumption you slap everybody on the hands with a new "sin" tax for drinking a soft drink.

Are you going to tax every single item deemed harmful?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Where does it all end...taxing high fat foods, alcohol, fried foods, twinkies, ice cream, candy? Or taxing people who don't exercise on a regular basis? What is it that compels civilized human beings to so strongly desire to control the minutia of other people's lives and behavior? I've met the enemy, and he is us.

When I see shit like this proposal it makes me realize the religious right and left wing liberals are the same people. Each trying to force their world view down our throats and control our lives via big govt. The best is when both play kettle to each others pot.

I don't see the similarity. Liberals aren't trying to ban smoking or soda. You can just pay for your bad habits. And I speak as someone who has drank 2 bottles of Mountain Dew today, so far. If the price went up another 25 cents or 50 cents and was put into health care, fine by me!

You are forcing your personal worldview of how others should live their lives via govt. Outright banning or taxing it to the point people cant afford the product. Is there really a difference? Isnt the point to get people to stop using the substance?

Just like the religious right who want you to sing a prayer in school you want people to stop consuming products that are deemed "harmful".

As for smoking, really? Where can one smoke today anyways? Inside an enclosed bunker under your house? They dont want to outright ban smoking but will tax the shit out of it while banning where you can actually consume the product. It is like the DC gun ban for smokers. Dont outright ban it, just make it nearly impossible to consume it.

Science vs. religion. There's the difference. Its not a personal worldview, its a scientific worldview. Show me good science that shows that consuming large amounts of soft drinks is good for one's health.

Science can be flawed, biased, and outright WRONG as well. Scientists thought the world was flat at one point as well. Where's the 'Its my body - its my choice' abortion rights crowd? Should we tax everything thats bad for us? Motorcycles are pretty dangerous. Should we tax them more? Does their smaller carbon footprint offset that?

:roll:

 

[Amused]

Whatever happened to freedom?

It simply amazes me that so called "liberals" seek to control and engineer nearly every aspect of people's lives these days.

The American left has become the authoritarian party. No doubt about it.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Amused
Whatever happened to freedom?

It simply amazes me that so called "liberals" seek to control and engineer nearly every aspect of people's lives these days.

The American left has become the authoritarian party. No doubt about it.

....as opposed to the Authoritarian right which we had a glimpse of the past few years? I hate to do a buhbuhbubbutBush! as our old friend winnar111 called it, but it really does put things in perspective. The left is no more authoritarian than the right - the only difference being on which specific issues. They are two sides of the same coin. Both sides have very anti-authoritarian segments, neither of which seems to be prominent in the party agendas.

 

[Modelworks]

Imagine a future where there are scales at the tax offices. When you go to file you pay a tax for every pound you or your dependents are over the accepted norm. That is where it is heading with this kind of crap.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Amused
Whatever happened to freedom?

It simply amazes me that so called "liberals" seek to control and engineer nearly every aspect of people's lives these days.

The American left has become the authoritarian party. No doubt about it.

....as opposed to the Authoritarian right which we had a glimpse of the past few years? I hate to do a buhbuhbubbutBush! as our old friend winnar111 called it, but it really does put things in perspective. The left is no more authoritarian than the right - the only difference being on which specific issues. They are two sides of the same coin. Both sides have very anti-authoritarian segments, neither of which seems to be prominent in the party agendas.

Too true.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Science can be flawed, biased, and outright WRONG as well. Scientists thought the world was flat at one point as well. Where's the 'Its my body - its my choice' abortion rights crowd? Should we tax everything thats bad for us? Motorcycles are pretty dangerous. Should we tax them more? Does their smaller carbon footprint offset that?

:roll:

Then change the law based on updated science. Laws and science are not static. If the Government is the health insurance provider, they should take reasonable steps to raise revenue and combat bad health habits. Insurance companies charge higher premiums for fat smokers. This is no different.

I'm sure that motorcycle insurance costs more than automotive insurance because motorcycles are more dangerous.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Science can be flawed, biased, and outright WRONG as well. Scientists thought the world was flat at one point as well. Where's the 'Its my body - its my choice' abortion rights crowd? Should we tax everything thats bad for us? Motorcycles are pretty dangerous. Should we tax them more? Does their smaller carbon footprint offset that?

:roll:

Then change the law based on updated science. Laws and science are not static. If the Government is the health insurance provider, they should take reasonable steps to raise revenue and combat bad health habits. Insurance companies charge higher premiums for fat smokers. This is no different.

I'm sure that motorcycle insurance costs more than automotive insurance because motorcycles are more dangerous.

Motorcycle insurance is dirt cheap. Oops, there goes your hypothesis.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Science can be flawed, biased, and outright WRONG as well. Scientists thought the world was flat at one point as well. Where's the 'Its my body - its my choice' abortion rights crowd? Should we tax everything thats bad for us? Motorcycles are pretty dangerous. Should we tax them more? Does their smaller carbon footprint offset that?

:roll:

Then change the law based on updated science. Laws and science are not static. If the Government is the health insurance provider, they should take reasonable steps to raise revenue and combat bad health habits. Insurance companies charge higher premiums for fat smokers. This is no different.

I'm sure that motorcycle insurance costs more than automotive insurance because motorcycles are more dangerous.

Uh, no. There is no premium for being fat. A smoker, yes, but fat, no.

And motorcycle insurance is MUCH less than car insurance. For example I pay $690 for 6 months for a 2006 Civic, and pay $270 for 6 months on a VTX1800. And I have about double the coverage on the bike.

So, study up a little cowboy.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Science can be flawed, biased, and outright WRONG as well. Scientists thought the world was flat at one point as well. Where's the 'Its my body - its my choice' abortion rights crowd? Should we tax everything thats bad for us? Motorcycles are pretty dangerous. Should we tax them more? Does their smaller carbon footprint offset that?

:roll:

Then change the law based on updated science. Laws and science are not static. If the Government is the health insurance provider, they should take reasonable steps to raise revenue and combat bad health habits. Insurance companies charge higher premiums for fat smokers. This is no different.

I'm sure that motorcycle insurance costs more than automotive insurance because motorcycles are more dangerous.

Motorcycle insurance is dirt cheap. Oops, there goes your hypothesis.

I'd like to see if the health coverage on a full coverage motorcycle policy is cheaper than on an auto policy. The bike itself is cheaper, but if you get in a wreck, you're going to be in far worse shape.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Science can be flawed, biased, and outright WRONG as well. Scientists thought the world was flat at one point as well. Where's the 'Its my body - its my choice' abortion rights crowd? Should we tax everything thats bad for us? Motorcycles are pretty dangerous. Should we tax them more? Does their smaller carbon footprint offset that?

:roll:

Then change the law based on updated science. Laws and science are not static. If the Government is the health insurance provider, they should take reasonable steps to raise revenue and combat bad health habits. Insurance companies charge higher premiums for fat smokers. This is no different.

I'm sure that motorcycle insurance costs more than automotive insurance because motorcycles are more dangerous.

Motorcycle insurance is dirt cheap. Oops, there goes your hypothesis.

I'd like to see if the health coverage on a full coverage motorcycle policy is cheaper than on an auto policy. The bike itself is cheaper, but if you get in a wreck, you're going to be in far worse shape.

Did you read my post? My coverage is DOUBLE that on my car, and its more than 50% cheaper.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Science can be flawed, biased, and outright WRONG as well. Scientists thought the world was flat at one point as well. Where's the 'Its my body - its my choice' abortion rights crowd? Should we tax everything thats bad for us? Motorcycles are pretty dangerous. Should we tax them more? Does their smaller carbon footprint offset that?

:roll:

Then change the law based on updated science. Laws and science are not static. If the Government is the health insurance provider, they should take reasonable steps to raise revenue and combat bad health habits. Insurance companies charge higher premiums for fat smokers. This is no different.

I'm sure that motorcycle insurance costs more than automotive insurance because motorcycles are more dangerous.

Motorcycle insurance is dirt cheap. Oops, there goes your hypothesis.

I'd like to see if the health coverage on a full coverage motorcycle policy is cheaper than on an auto policy. The bike itself is cheaper, but if you get in a wreck, you're going to be in far worse shape.

No. Liability is the expensive part of insurance. You don't do any damage to anything else when you're on a motorcycle.

I pay State Farm $240/yr for motorcycle insurance, there's no options for full or partial coverage or different medical insurance, and my auto coverage did not go up when I added the motorcycle back in 2001. Hell, it didn't even go up after wrecking a bike.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Linky...

The Senate Finance Committee, looking for ways to pay for health reforms, has been considering the possibility of attaching a federal excise tax for the first time to soda and other drinks sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and other sweeteners. Increasing the taxes on alcoholic beverages has also been on the congressional table.

It seems unlikely that these ideas will make it into the health-care legislation that Congress will tackle this year. In an interview with CNBC, committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said they're "on life support." Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, described them as "nuisance taxes."

However, some leading health experts applaud the ideas, saying these kinds of taxes could cut consumption of high-calorie soda and help obese Americans lose weight; and they argue that more taxes on alcohol could reduce drinking and pay for some of the costs of alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver.

Other Sweeteners... does that include diet drink sweeteners? Are they safe from the tax?

I wonder what is next to be taxed for the general good.

So if Americans were to cut comsumption or soda and alcohol how would they be making any tax money to pay for this health care? I see they thought this one through as usual.

It sounds more like you didnt think it through actually. Obviously if people were eating more healthy then they would need less to pay for health-care. You make it sound like if people buy less soda, then suddenly all the funding from its tax stops completely. Dur?

A soda tax is not all of a sudden going to make America any healthier. Even if soda went away their are still a million other things that make us fat and unhealthy. Twinkies, cookies, etc. TAX IT ALL. No wait...dont.

Im not saying there should be a tax on such things, im just pointing out flawed logic.

 

[ElFenix]

how about we just stop subsidizing the crap out of it? oh, wait, that would make far too much sense. instead they want to tax the thin people who drink regular instead of the fatties that drink diet.


if we'd have implemented this sort of tax 30 years ago they'd have driven us to eat trans-fat laden margarine over regular butter. and i guarantee you that we'd still have the tax today even after figuring out just how bad trans fat is. it took them 100 years to repeal the spanish american war phone tax! are we that certain that diet is really any better than regular?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Amused
Whatever happened to freedom?

It simply amazes me that so called "liberals" seek to control and engineer nearly every aspect of people's lives these days.

The American left has become the authoritarian party. No doubt about it.

....as opposed to the Authoritarian right which we had a glimpse of the past few years? I hate to do a buhbuhbubbutBush! as our old friend winnar111 called it, but it really does put things in perspective. The left is no more authoritarian than the right - the only difference being on which specific issues. They are two sides of the same coin. Both sides have very anti-authoritarian segments, neither of which seems to be prominent in the party agendas.

Who said I favor the right?

I'm libertarian. Try again. I USED to be "liberal" back when liberalism wasn't about nanny-state elitism and authoritarianism.

But the way I see it, the religious right was stopped in their tracks over 20 years ago. Now the authoritarian left is getting it's agenda passed by leaps and bounds.

Six of one, half dozen of another...

So, for future reference, when Amused bemoans freedom lost to the agenda of the left, pointing out anything the right has done is nothing more than a useless attempt at deflection.

 

[Paddington]

There's some studies nowadays that claim "diet" drinks make you worse off, because they make you hungrier i.e. you end up eating more later on in the day. Possibly true. I'm a thin guy and I prefer sugary drinks.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Where does it all end...taxing high fat foods, alcohol, fried foods, twinkies, ice cream, candy? Or taxing people who don't exercise on a regular basis? What is it that compels civilized human beings to so strongly desire to control the minutia of other people's lives and behavior? I've met the enemy, and he is us.

When I see shit like this proposal it makes me realize the religious right and left wing liberals are the same people. Each trying to force their world view down our throats and control our lives via big govt. The best is when both play kettle to each others pot.

I don't see the similarity. Liberals aren't trying to ban smoking or soda. You can just pay for your bad habits. And I speak as someone who has drank 2 bottles of Mountain Dew today, so far. If the price went up another 25 cents or 50 cents and was put into health care, fine by me!

You are forcing your personal worldview of how others should live their lives via govt. Outright banning or taxing it to the point people cant afford the product. Is there really a difference? Isnt the point to get people to stop using the substance?

Just like the religious right who want you to sing a prayer in school you want people to stop consuming products that are deemed "harmful".

As for smoking, really? Where can one smoke today anyways? Inside an enclosed bunker under your house? They dont want to outright ban smoking but will tax the shit out of it while banning where you can actually consume the product. It is like the DC gun ban for smokers. Dont outright ban it, just make it nearly impossible to consume it.

Science vs. religion. There's the difference. Its not a personal worldview, its a scientific worldview. Show me good science that shows that consuming large amounts of soft drinks is good for one's health.

Show me the science where consuming just one a week is bad for one's health.

 

[Fingolfin269]

By the way I thought of something else we could tax...
Internet message board posts by the post. One could potentially get carpal tunnel when using a keyboard so we might as well sway people from using it unless absolutely necessary (work for example). This would be for the greater good and would help drive health care costs down. First you might avoid carpal tunnel but you might also be more healthy because you would have less incentive to sit in front of the computer.
I realize this might lead you to watch television or play video games and if this is deemed the case we may just need a tax on those activities as well.
Good day, Comrades.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
You see, we both know that this is not about making people any healthier. It's about more money, using extra health as a cover. The government doesn't actually give a flying fvck about people's health. It is a business and cares about what businesses care about, which is money.

This. :thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
By the way I thought of something else we could tax...
Internet message board posts by the post. One could potentially get carpal tunnel when using a keyboard so we might as well sway people from using it unless absolutely necessary (work for example). This would be for the greater good and would help drive health care costs down. First you might avoid carpal tunnel but you might also be more healthy because you would have less incentive to sit in front of the computer.
I realize this might lead you to watch television or play video games and if this is deemed the case we may just need a tax on those activities as well.
Good day, Comrades.

I have already suggested this. Think of the productivity increases by making it harder for people to post during the day on work time?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how about we just stop subsidizing the crap out of it? oh, wait, that would make far too much sense. instead they want to tax the thin people who drink regular instead of the fatties that drink diet.


if we'd have implemented this sort of tax 30 years ago they'd have driven us to eat trans-fat laden margarine over regular butter. and i guarantee you that we'd still have the tax today even after figuring out just how bad trans fat is. it took them 100 years to repeal the spanish american war phone tax! are we that certain that diet is really any better than regular?

Maybe some are, but confidence doesn't always represent reality. I think that from a health perspective as long as calories are kept in check accordingly, regular soda is healthier than diet. I do drink diet, but one day I'll stop, hopefully before I get cancer. I've tried regular but ran into that calorie checking problem

By the way I thought of something else we could tax...
Internet message board posts by the post. One could potentially get carpal tunnel when using a keyboard so we might as well sway people from using it unless absolutely necessary (work for example). This would be for the greater good and would help drive health care costs down. First you might avoid carpal tunnel but you might also be more healthy because you would have less incentive to sit in front of the computer.
I realize this might lead you to watch television or play video games and if this is deemed the case we may just need a tax on those activities as well.
Good day, Comrades.

Thank you for that. I am fvcked now.

Think of the productivity increases by making it harder for people to post during the day on work time?

If I ran a company the first thing I'd do would be to ban non-essential internet using during the day, no argument or debate, it would happen.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how about we just stop subsidizing the crap out of it? oh, wait, that would make far too much sense. instead they want to tax the thin people who drink regular instead of the fatties that drink diet.


if we'd have implemented this sort of tax 30 years ago they'd have driven us to eat trans-fat laden margarine over regular butter. and i guarantee you that we'd still have the tax today even after figuring out just how bad trans fat is. it took them 100 years to repeal the spanish american war phone tax! are we that certain that diet is really any better than regular?

Maybe some are, but confidence doesn't always represent reality. I think that from a health perspective as long as calories are kept in check accordingly, regular soda is healthier than diet. I do drink diet, but one day I'll stop, hopefully before I get cancer. I've tried regular but ran into that calorie checking problem

By the way I thought of something else we could tax...
Internet message board posts by the post. One could potentially get carpal tunnel when using a keyboard so we might as well sway people from using it unless absolutely necessary (work for example). This would be for the greater good and would help drive health care costs down. First you might avoid carpal tunnel but you might also be more healthy because you would have less incentive to sit in front of the computer.
I realize this might lead you to watch television or play video games and if this is deemed the case we may just need a tax on those activities as well.
Good day, Comrades.

Thank you for that. I am fvcked now.

Think of the productivity increases by making it harder for people to post during the day on work time?

If I ran a company the first thing I'd do would be to ban non-essential internet using during the day, no argument or debate, it would happen.

You are thinking from a productivity standpoint. You need to think from a healthcare standpoint. Your business is unimportant relative to the health of the general populace. Just think, people would be thanking you for assisting them in seeing the healthy vision of the New America.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

By the way I thought of something else we could tax...
Internet message board posts by the post. One could potentially get carpal tunnel when using a keyboard so we might as well sway people from using it unless absolutely necessary (work for example). This would be for the greater good and would help drive health care costs down. First you might avoid carpal tunnel but you might also be more healthy because you would have less incentive to sit in front of the computer.
I realize this might lead you to watch television or play video games and if this is deemed the case we may just need a tax on those activities as well.
Good day, Comrades.

Thank you for that. I am fvcked now.

me too



(postcount++)

 

[Patranus]

I thought Obama wasn't going to raise taxes on those making under $250,000 per year?

I am going to be required to bring my IRS paperwork to Safeway? How is this going to work?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
This is only the beginning. If government-run universal health care comes to pass, they will be able to manage/tax everything you do, eat, drink, etc., all in the name of "controlling costs" and "reducing expenses through prevention".

It is truly frightening.

Why are you scared? The British are fat as fuck... fatter than Americans. They smoke more. They drink more. The French love their wines and cheeses. Germans put our drinkers to shame.

Your problem is your religious belief in capitalism. I just want things that work reasonably well for most people.

No, what you want is forced transfer of wealth. envy is an ugly characteristic.

Want to live in a modern first world society? You have to pay for it.

You guys are nostalgic for the days of Serfs and Lords. Most of you forget that you would be the Serfs.

Tell that to the Chinese "serfs" whose government is currently funding our first world society. Kind of ironic isn't it?