10 ms·

As a doctor, I'm all for banning soft drinks, recognizing that it probably will never happen. But, the health externalities associated with drinking such bever

• solipsism 7y ago
  May we be allowed cake and ice cream or would you ban those as well? Maybe you can get a special license if it's a birthday?
  • conception 7y ago
    Just tax sugar.
    • NegativeLatency 7y ago
      Or stop subsidizing corn
      • conception 7y ago
        Why don't we have both? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • sharpneli 7y ago
      Small funny story about that. In Finland we do (or did, it might have changed on 2017) tax sugar. Then they added artificial sweeteners and even mineral water under the tax because it’s ”fair” that way. Thus negating the original point.
      • bonoboTP 7y ago
        Yeah, just drink tap water. Bottled water is quite a big waste with all the plastic, transport etc. Especially in countries with great water supply like Finland, it shouldn't exist were it not for marketing.
      • chopin 7y ago
        That's not entirely true. Artificial sweeteners are suspect of (indirectly) causing diabetes, too. For mineral water, on the other hand...
  • gambiting 7y ago
    You need to judge a social impact of something before you ban it. The reason why soft drinks are under fire is because there is a lot of people who drink them literally every day. I know several people who drink 8-12 cans of diet coke every single day. On the other hand people usually don't eat cake or ice-cream everyday. I mean, I have no doubt that you could find someone who does, but it's not a widespread behaviour, so there is no reason to ban it.
    • rootusrootus 7y ago
      > I know several people who drink 8-12 cans of diet coke every single day. Interesting. That's not even sugar water. We're going to need some pretty elaborate regulations at this rate.
    • solipsism 7y ago
      I guess you'd be for banning alcohol then? The aggregate negative effects on society due to alcohol are incredible, extending far beyond simple healthcare questions.
    • brokenkebab 7y ago
      It's very shaky reasoning. For starters, I'm sure you are seriously underestimating how much per time unit, and how much people do eat sweets. Second: if someone likes taste of sugar, and you deny that person sweet drinks, you likely to see increased consumption of sweets, or just plain sugar added to other drinks (coffee anyone?) How deep are you ready to go with prohibitions in that light?
    • justforyou 7y ago
      If we're basing this on anecdotal evidence, I've worked with entire departments who ate cake or ice-cream every day. That doesn't mean cake and cookies should be banned, nor should soda. It's nanny state nonsense, and one of the more steeply graded slippery slopes... If you're really concerned for people's wellbeing, ensuring access to healthcare goes a lot further than denying people snacks..
      • ameister14 7y ago
  • ndiscussion 7y ago
    You can have it - just don't expect me to pay for your coronary. A long and painful death that costs millions. Was it worth it?
    • aantix 7y ago
      Thank god, an argument against universal healthcare. I’ll eat the snacks I want. I’ll pay for the healthcare I want and need. You do what you need. And neither one of us is responsible for the other. Now leave me be.
      • CamperBob2 7y ago
        Problem with this argument is: what do you do when someone who can't pay shows up at the ER. They will die without treatment. They can be saved, but not for free. What action, if any, do you recommend?
        • aeternus 7y ago
          Leave it up to the hospital. They are best equipped to assess the cost and likelihood of being able to save the person. They also are most responsible for the repercussions in terms of positive/negative publicity and reputation.
          • CamperBob2 7y ago
            Won't this lead to a situation where some hospitals are known for doing free work, while others aren't? The former will quickly go bankrupt if they aren't subsidized by a charity or religious organization, which has serious drawbacks in itself. As for the rest, the doctors, nurses, and paramedics are now going to be required to do something that's against their training and likely their nature, by letting people die on the sidewalk out front. Do you suppose this policy will be workable in the long run?
            • aantix 7y ago
  • anbop 7y ago
    Eat all the sugar you want... just make sure your bank account is full when you have your heart attack.
  • brokenkebab 7y ago
    May we be allowed cake and ice cream or would you ban those as well? Maybe you can get a special license if it's a birthday? Absolutely reasonable question. How about coffee? Soda-prohibiters usually ignore it, because, I guess, they like it themselves, or expect a huge backlash. However, it's a very common way of excessive sugar consumption world-wide.
    • magduf 7y ago
      You don't have to drink coffee with sugar, and in fact, many people do drink it "black".
      • brokenkebab 7y ago
        You missed the message in my comment. Soda don't have to be too sweet either.
        • magduf 7y ago
          Yes, it does. You don't get to choose how much sugar is in a can or fountain drink when you buy it, it's pre-made. You could buy reduced-sweetness soda I suppose, but I don't know where you're going to find that. Even the boutique brands are very sweet. You can also buy artificially-sweetened soda, but lots of studies are now showing that crap isn't any healthier for you.
          • brokenkebab 7y ago
            No, it doesn't, not sure where you live, but I see low-calorie soda drinks in every supermarket I visit. You also, believe it, or not, are free to not buy any soda at all, in the same way you may decide not to put any sugar in your coffee. Probably, it's true to say that majority of buyers still prefer sugary sodas, because simply put people like sweet tastes a lot. Logically, it means that forced unavailability of sodas will be compensated by other means, including oversweetened coffee, chocolates etc. and I'm just asking where this I-save-you-whether-you-like-it-or-not zeal will end: would you regulate a number of grams of sugar allowed to buy per day as the next logical step?
• dooglius 7y ago
  How is there an externality? It's not like smoking where it affects other people.
  • lotsofpulp 7y ago
    I would bet excess sugar (and carbohydrate) consumption is the second largest externality via taxpayer spending on people’s healthcare due to obesity and diabetes. The biggest externality is destabilization of the environment from pollution.
    • sgeisler 7y ago
      That's only a problem if healthcare is taxpayer-funded. Otherwise it's your and your insurer's problem to price this in somehow, maybe even offering cheaper plans for people living healthy (e.g. meeting weight goals).
      • lotsofpulp 7y ago
        I don’t foresee any country with a high standard of living start to turn people away at the emergency room who are experiencing heart attacks.
      • skummetmaelk 7y ago
        The whole idea behind insurance is that the unlucky ones who require more care than average have their costs covered by those who require less than average. Taxpayer funding systems are literally the same thing. Yes you can get cheaper premiums by living healthy, but how far do you want to go? Are you going to let your insurance company log everything you eat and how many steps you walk every day? Seems much easier to just factor in the external cost of goods into their price.
        • waterhouse 7y ago
          When I got my driver's license at age 17 (or possibly the learner's permit? I forget), we learned that the car insurance company would reduce the premium for me if we regularly submitted them some kind of proof that I was getting good grades. It's possible this was some kind of "public-service program to encourage desired behavior", but I suspect that at least part of why they did it was because straight-A students are less likely to get into accidents. For medical insurance, it seems they could at least do something like "if you send us evidence of healthy exercise/diet/weight, then we'll lower your premiums; otherwise you'll get a premium based on the estimated risk of the set of people who don't do this". (If the government doesn't forbid it. healthcare.gov says "They also can’t take your current health or medical history into account", which sounds like it might rule out some of that.)
• JudgeWapner 7y ago
  > and be used to offset eventual health complications that would be predicated on an honest and direct pricing scheme for healthcare. taxing soda may be a feel-good thing to do, but how can you say - with a straight face - how much dialysis treatment or 'beetus meds actually cost? The whole business model of healthcare is built on information hiding.
• scarface74 7y ago
  Wow. Banning something unhealthy. That didn’t work out so well for alcohol or drugs. The last thing I want is more government power.
  • n0mad01 7y ago
    he also said "health ... associated ... should get priced in" - how about 6€ for a can of coke? people would drink it, but far less.
    • SilasX 7y ago
      It still has the same problems, in that people can bootleg it. Just at a smaller scale. Remember, they have low-grade turf wars in NYC over cigarette sales due to the really high taxes.
      • scarface74 7y ago
        And that also goes to my other point. They have the police another tool to harass people and the police ended up choking a man to death for selling cigarettes illegally that he brought across state lines.
      • randcraw 7y ago
        Cigarettes have cost $6 a pack in the US for over a decade and nobody bootlegs these. Same for beer, at $6-12 for a 6-pack. Bootlegging is generally a short term response to diminished access. But soon after the controls arise, demand generally shifts elsewhere to less inconvenient alternatives. I can think of no examples of continuing bootlegging in the US, aside from piracy of media, which is another kettle of fish.
        • scarface74 7y ago
          This is the result of giving the police yet another tool to harass people for minor offenses. Whether Eric Garner was bootlegging cigarettes or not - do you think it was worth it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner
• Gibbon1 7y ago
  I think not in terms of should, but as a bare minimum. You sell a product with little socially beneficial upside and significant negatives. Then you should be happy to only have to pay a Pigouvian tax instead of being banned outright.
• CamperBob2 7y ago
  As a doctor, I'm all for banning soft drinks, recognizing that it probably will never happen. Just curious, what are some of your hobbies? Things you like to do in your spare time? LOL, looks like some people can see where I'm going with this.
  • bonoboTP 7y ago
    There is no epidemic of dangerous hobby-related health issues, but obesity is aone of the biggest health problems in the developed world, especially the US.
    • CamperBob2 7y ago
      There's no epidemic that can be ascribed to one food item in isolation, either. Why pick on soda? Where are the (reproduced!) studies that justify that? (Standing by for the inevitable authoritative-sounding pubmed link that actually proves nothing of the sort.) Meanwhile, why should my health insurance rates go up because Dr. Joshgel is into cave diving or parachuting or enjoys the occasional track day in his GT3? Or because someone else leads a sedentary life playing video games? How about banning those? There's no valid science behind claims of an "epidemic" of soda-induced obesity, but if you're going to generalize the argument to include all common causes of obesity, I'd respond by pointing out that there's certainly no shortage of studies showing the harmful effects of a sedentary lifestyle. Rest assured, after the Dr. Joshgels of the world have come for my soda, they WILL come after something you enjoy. Maybe your steak, maybe your beer, maybe your guns, maybe your Playstation or your sofa. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, but these people aren't logical. They're too busy being right.
      • bonoboTP 7y ago
        People who are seriously into extreme sports already have pay for extra insurance as related injures aren't covered for such high risk activities. There's also huge taxes on alcohol and tobacco for instance. There's also a lot of other stuff that is banned already or strongly regulated or taxed heavily. Recreational drugs, medicine, certain additives that turned out to be harmful. Or rules like having to buckle up in your car. A lot of nanny state stuff that saves people from themselves.