[quote]LoRez wrote:
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]
Only if you have socialized health care.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]furo wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
This is so stupid. Get the fucking government off my back. I’m a “relatively” lean 200lbs. If I want to eat a dozen fucking donuts for breakfast and McDonalds for lunch and dinner for a year, I should be free to do so. (That is pretty much my diet as is).[/quote]
I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this, and don’t take it personally, but someone can train well and eat crap and end up looking pretty good. It doesn’t mean they are healthy and it certainly doesn’t mean they couldn’t benefit from eating less crap.
This is from someone who had 4 chocolate muffins for lunch, I’m not trying to preach - I recognise that my diet is terrible. I just think this could help.[/quote]
But that’s the point. I knew a guy who weighed over 210lbs with arms bigger than most here and lean who ate a sleeve of cookies as most of his food intake all day along with a Muscle Milk shake.
He needs more education? Why? Health is a relative word that simply means “free of disease”…so the idea that the in shape guy with the good blood work who trains daily for hours needs to eat less cookies doesn’t have much basis in science fact.
I have heard Mariusz Pudzianowski eats like crap also. He needs more education?
Why?
It worked for him.[/quote]
I’m more for this in terms of public health and for the greater good of the population as a whole. People who train seriously are a minute subset of the population and I agree that this scheme wouldn’t benefit them nearly as much as I believe it would benefit the general population. I don’t think it would directly affect me at all, although I agree with LoRez that it would indirectly benefit everyone through costs to the government etc. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
An [extreme] 10% increase in price to unhealthier foods won’t make much a difference to those who occasionally indulge, but will start making an impact on the food budgets of those who constantly indulge.
[/quote]
Bullshit. How many fuckers you know that were going to stop smoking when Marlboros hit 2 bucks a pack? $2.50? $5.00? Any of them quit? No and magically alternative brands appeared that cost less.
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[Ontario government will not use those tax dollars for what they are supposed to. It would just be another dipping fund for them. [/quote]
Correct. The answer to a government problems is never more government.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?
Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]
Concur.
Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]
But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]
Yeah, but the problem is making loose links to “poor health” based on non-scientific judgment.
Cookies are not UNHEALTHY. Making an entire diet of cookies is unhealthy.
It isn’t even teaching the right message.
If I want pancakes, I need a warning label making me think it somehow magically causes people to become fat?[/quote]
Yeah I guess so, and it puts too much power in the wrong places. Who determines what’s “healthy”? The government already sucks at that.
If it wasn’t clear, I think the warning label idea is stupid.
On the tax front… I guess I’d much rather see things like tax credits for people with a blood pressure under X, or a vitamin D level above Y. I’m not talking about sick people paying more taxes, but rather, using tax incentives to encourage healthier decisions before they actually get sick.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If I want pancakes, I need a warning label making me think it somehow magically causes people to become fat?[/quote]
Careful, you are espousing personal responsibility. You might end up Libertarian.
I work for the government. Trust me, we have no fucking idea what we’re doing.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]
Only if you have socialized health care.[/quote]
Considering the health care cost (in the US) of servicing patients without health insurance for free in public hospital emergency rooms… it costs everyone, since that’s government subsidized.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
All I’m implying is that you can use taxation (and I hate to say it, subsidies), to make healthier options more financially appealing, and less healthy options less appealing.
An [extreme] 10% increase in price to unhealthier foods won’t make much a difference to those who occasionally indulge, but will start making an impact on the food budgets of those who constantly indulge.
Financial motivation seems to be a pretty effective strategy for making health improvements. Many of the newer health care plans offer “discounts” on their rates if you meet certain health criteria, and the incentive of saving an extra $20 a paycheck for having lower blood pressure seems to work.
I think if it were immediately obvious (financially) that the unhealthy options are going to get more expensive, the publicity of the public outcry would lead to people actually starting to make some changes.[/quote]
The problem is, look who will be determining what is and is not healthy. Enjoy a 7% tax on evil red meat…that shit is bad for you, said skinny fat Senator from X state who only eats Kraft Mac and Cheese.
For what it’s worth, I prefer the libertarian take on it…
But as long as we have the government subsidizing healthcare (which I don’t think is going to go away for a very very long time), I see no reason for the government also adjusting the taxation up front in order to control costs down the line.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I think a “fat tax” on these products would really do more good. If someone wants to throw their cash away on cookies, and I get better roads to drive on, I’m all for it.[/quote]
Yeah, the crashing diabetic drinking orange juice or a coke to save their life owes you something.
Anyone who is for this is ignorant. There is no such thing as a healthy food and almost no such thing as an unhealthy one. What is very healthy for one person may be very unhealthy for another.
Not only could the most informed studied people not be able to correctly evaluate what is or isn’t healthy for someone, but if they could, you couldn’t do it on the bases of a type of food. Much less some bureaucratizes trying to do it
No, you stupid, thieving, ass hole, you don’t deserve any of my money if I drink a fucking coke at the end of a long workout.
Just another thing to add to the list of reasons I’m glad I don’t live there.
I was reading a newspaper article about rum this morning in the Food section. They had to list the nutritional value of the rum. You realize someone, somewhere at Jose Cuervo has been hired to be ‘in charge’ of this. This raises the cost of the booze. I hate this fucking garbage.
The worst thing about nutritional labels (until I think of something better) is the serving size makes no fucking sense. Who the fuck gets 2.2 servings out of a can of tuna? Who the fuck gets 16 serving out of a box of pringles? It should say “Pringles Can = 1 Serving 2,200 delicious calories”
I think the Government should tax people that wear sweat pants. That way people will instead wear slacks and thus look more presentable when at Wal-Mart. It’s obvious people don’t know how to dress appropriately and until they figure it out, the gov should intervene.
[quote]furo wrote:
Of course in shape people eat cookies, I’m not for banning them haha. I just think increased education and awareness in the general population can never be a bad thing.
[/quote]
This is actually exactly like when they made the cigarette companies put warning labels on. EVERYONE fucking knew smoking was bad for you. They were called Coffin Nails. “Increased education” results in nothing but lawsuits. These fat fuckers know they’re fat because they eat too much fucking food and don’t move their whale-shaped asses.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]
Only if you have socialized health care.[/quote]
Considering the health care cost (in the US) of servicing patients without health insurance for free in public hospital emergency rooms… it costs everyone, since that’s government subsidized.[/quote]
And the cost to the employers losing out due to sick days, early retirement due to disease etc
[quote]sen say wrote:
I work for the government. Trust me, we have no fucking idea what we’re doing.[/quote]
I worked for the government too. My ideas are pie in the sky impossible to do.
I just like the idea of it.
I know, how about food gets rationed out by the FED that way eveyone is healthy. Maybe since people are irresponsible they should also start assigning jobs too!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I think a “fat tax” on these products would really do more good. If someone wants to throw their cash away on cookies, and I get better roads to drive on, I’m all for it.[/quote]
Yeah, the crashing diabetic drinking orange juice or a coke to save their life owes you something.
Anyone who is for this is ignorant. There is no such thing as a healthy food and almost no such thing as an unhealthy one. What is very healthy for one person may be very unhealthy for another.
Not only could the most informed studied people not be able to correctly evaluate what is or isn’t healthy for someone, but if they could, you couldn’t do it on the bases of a type of food. Much less some bureaucratizes trying to do it
No, you stupid, thieving, ass hole, you don’t deserve any of my money if I drink a fucking coke at the end of a long workout.
Just another thing to add to the list of reasons I’m glad I don’t live there.[/quote]
Note the use of the comparative “more”.
I think it would be better than forcing companies to update their labeling and pass those costs to consumers.
I don’t think it’s really that good of an idea.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
On the tax front… I guess I’d much rather see things like tax credits for people with a blood pressure under X, or a vitamin D level above Y. I’m not talking about sick people paying more taxes, but rather, using tax incentives to encourage healthier decisions before they actually get sick.[/quote]
The benefit of being healthy is being healthy…where do you think the money will come from to pay you to be healthier than some fat fucker? The gummint is NOT your insurance company (well not yet)…that extra 20 bucks you save for being healthy is because they’re making a much bigger profit on you.
Funny, I wasn’t trolling, but I can see why people get a kick out of it.