3 ms·

To avoid a nanny state, I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions. People should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but they need to pa

To avoid a nanny state, I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions. People should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow.

fisherjeff 9y ago
Well it sure seems like that’s exactly what they’re proposing, with the fairly narrow (and, IMO, reasonable) exception of banning sugary snacks from hospitals.
hartror 9y ago
> It also says a tax on sweetened drinks should be introduced as a "matter of priority".
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Taking a page from the UK on that... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/big-soda-small-steps-philip-hammond-must-extend-pop-tax-to-sweets https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/big-soda-sma...
pan69 9y ago
I agree with you in regards to a nanny state. However, the human mind is a complex beast and saying that "People should be allowed to eat whatever they want" isn't really that simple. A lot of people don't eat what they want, they eat what they're being told/advertised to eat. We're all susceptible to this in one way or another.
wasx 9y ago
> I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions The market is incapable of self-regulation, that much has shown itself to be true. Removal of marketing towards children and easy access to vending machines will go a long way in improving public health in Australia. The days of avoiding a nanny state in Australia are pretty much gone, the government regulates everything, and for the most part it hasn't actually been bad at all. > but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow. Terrible idea, Medicare is one of Australia's shining institutions (even with all it's bureaucratic flaws). The American healthcare model has literally 0 chance of ever being adopted in Australia. The simple fact is we live in a socialised society, and so when burdens are placed on the public infrastructure from profit hungry corporations, the natural response is to regulate and deal with it. We saw it with cigarettes, hopefully we see it with sugar, and one day with alcohol too.
- Zalastax 9y ago
  > but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow. I think you should read this as arguing for Tax on Negative Externality, also called a Pigovian tax. Such taxation aims to solve the problem that the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity.
tim333 9y ago
Stopping advertising sugary junk to kids would be a positive move without becoming a nanny state. I believe the UK government tried at on point but gave in to massive lobbying from Kellogs. But really obesity can lead to massive suffering an early death that should outweigh making a few bucks selling frosties.

To avoid a nanny state, I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions. People should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow.

fisherjeff 9y ago

Well it sure seems like that’s exactly what they’re proposing, with the fairly narrow (and, IMO, reasonable) exception of banning sugary snacks from hospitals.

hartror 9y ago

> It also says a tax on sweetened drinks should be introduced as a "matter of priority".

QAPereo 9y ago
Taking a page from the UK on that... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/big-soda-small-steps-philip-hammond-must-extend-pop-tax-to-sweets https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/big-soda-sma...

pan69 9y ago

I agree with you in regards to a nanny state. However, the human mind is a complex beast and saying that "People should be allowed to eat whatever they want" isn't really that simple. A lot of people don't eat what they want, they eat what they're being told/advertised to eat. We're all susceptible to this in one way or another.

wasx 9y ago

> I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions The market is incapable of self-regulation, that much has shown itself to be true. Removal of marketing towards children and easy access to vending machines will go a long way in improving public health in Australia. The days of avoiding a nanny state in Australia are pretty much gone, the government regulates everything, and for the most part it hasn't actually been bad at all. > but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow. Terrible idea, Medicare is one of Australia's shining institutions (even with all it's bureaucratic flaws). The American healthcare model has literally 0 chance of ever being adopted in Australia. The simple fact is we live in a socialised society, and so when burdens are placed on the public infrastructure from profit hungry corporations, the natural response is to regulate and deal with it. We saw it with cigarettes, hopefully we see it with sugar, and one day with alcohol too.

Zalastax 9y ago
> but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow. I think you should read this as arguing for Tax on Negative Externality, also called a Pigovian tax. Such taxation aims to solve the problem that the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity.

tim333 9y ago

Stopping advertising sugary junk to kids would be a positive move without becoming a nanny state. I believe the UK government tried at on point but gave in to massive lobbying from Kellogs. But really obesity can lead to massive suffering an early death that should outweigh making a few bucks selling frosties.