3 ms·

But it's not about how much they spend on sugary drinks and junk food. The issue is that taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of food and drinks which are kno

But it's not about how much they spend on sugary drinks and junk food. The issue is that taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of food and drinks which are known to be incredibly bad for the health of consumers. This is a bad thing, in large part because the additional social costs are profound. We cannot in good conscience subsidize purchasing these sorts of food and drinks (just as we don't allow purchasing alcohol with food stamps). And, I think we should tax them at a high rate just like we do with tobacco, alcohol, and now marijuana. We need to stop treating these toxic foods and drinks as somehow acceptable, just because it doesn't (but probably should) come with a Surgeon General's warning. I predict that someday we'll have the same sorts of ads which play on TV for smoking and drugs for sugary drinks and junk food. Heck, if I were a billionaire, I'd pay for the campaign myself.

Gargoyle 10y ago
This is exactly why so many people resist nationalizing health care. They know it'll be about 30 seconds afterwards when people start trying to tell them how to live under the guise of "we're paying for it." And they aren't wrong.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Incorrect on both counts. The evidence is that most people want federally funded healthcare. http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-... And the experience of nationalised health care in other countries is very much not of being told how to live. The NHS in the UK is fairly easy-going about health promotion. If anything it could have done a lot more about smoking, whose costs have always consumed some significant percentage of the entire NHS budget. Currently it could also be doing a lot more about obesity and exercise. And about sugar consumption. But instead of going through the NHS, the British gov is seriously considering a sugar tax. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38212608 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38212608
michaelmrose 10y ago
Just because they are poor doesn't mean that you ought to use your monetary control to manipulate how they eat even for their benefit. How about we try to educate all of America and make everyone healthier.
- ImTalking 10y ago
  Not sure education alone can do what you desire. In the case of cigarettes, education was coupled with ever-increasing taxes to decrease the percentage of smokers. And speaking of cigarette taxes, they are certainly used, as you say, as a form of monetary control for the public's benefit.
DoodleBuggy 10y ago
> "The issue is that taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of food and drinks which are known to be incredibly bad for the health of consumers." Wait until you learn about farm subsidies.

Gargoyle 10y ago

This is exactly why so many people resist nationalizing health care. They know it'll be about 30 seconds afterwards when people start trying to tell them how to live under the guise of "we're paying for it." And they aren't wrong.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Incorrect on both counts. The evidence is that most people want federally funded healthcare. http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-... And the experience of nationalised health care in other countries is very much not of being told how to live. The NHS in the UK is fairly easy-going about health promotion. If anything it could have done a lot more about smoking, whose costs have always consumed some significant percentage of the entire NHS budget. Currently it could also be doing a lot more about obesity and exercise. And about sugar consumption. But instead of going through the NHS, the British gov is seriously considering a sugar tax. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38212608 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38212608

michaelmrose 10y ago

Just because they are poor doesn't mean that you ought to use your monetary control to manipulate how they eat even for their benefit. How about we try to educate all of America and make everyone healthier.

ImTalking 10y ago
Not sure education alone can do what you desire. In the case of cigarettes, education was coupled with ever-increasing taxes to decrease the percentage of smokers. And speaking of cigarette taxes, they are certainly used, as you say, as a form of monetary control for the public's benefit.

DoodleBuggy 10y ago

> "The issue is that taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of food and drinks which are known to be incredibly bad for the health of consumers." Wait until you learn about farm subsidies.