Tax the fat

[Dis]

how stupid are New Yorkers?

How many times do I have to say it. Fatty food does not make you fat.

Eating more calories than you burn makes you fat.

If anything, they should institute a tax once you consume a certain amount of food.

[Solly]

It's bad diet that cuaes someone to gain weight, not fat as such.

Indeed, most independent studies in the last five years have shown the importance of fat in the diet. More important than carbohydrates, for example. Should carbs be taxed?

Fat consumption has risen in Mediterranean countries in the last few decades, with a striking correlation with life expectancy.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
As long as computer games aren't included, I also support this.

Taxing computer games does sound like a tax on children.

I suppose a tax on computer games would be followed by a tax on movies ("couch potato entertainment)?

So I don't see that part happening in a hurry.

Personally I think a tax on sugar would be a good idea, in line with tobacco and alcohol - only the sugar companies would argue that's also a tax on children.

Damn, I can't see a way out of this one.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


I'm only assuming PPOs (which are private) enroll both fit and fat people. The fat people will drive up premiums if premiums are set equal. If they are not set equal, then it is likely fat people will not be covered either because (a) the fat can't afford the premiums or (b) the business providing coverage as a benefit will not provide the benefit to fat employees. ((b) evokes a number of complex labor and business issues that would take to long to go into here).

So what if fat people aren't covered? Are you saying your willing to allow private hospitals to turn uninsured fat people away when they are having a heart attack? Aside from the fact that this would violate the doctors' code of ethics, most people simply aren't that cold hearted. Ergo - you have a market failure: demand but no supply. Taxing fatty foods can ofset these costs. Nothing socialistic here, just standard market economics. Unfortunately, libertarians tend to gloss over externalities - and internalization of externalities is central to a healthy market economy.

Thus libertrianism is wrong. But that's another thread.

ur working under some absurd assumption that fat ppl are at infinite risk. or that simply increased risk patients are not worth insuring, both are inane assumption. yes if u r unhealthy health insurance costs more. but it is not an infinitely increasing curve. u need to think about what u type more.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon


ur working under some absurd assumption that fat ppl are at infinite risk. or that simply increased risk patients are not worth insuring, both are inane assumption. yes if u r unhealthy health insurance costs more. but it is not an infinitely increasing curve. u need to think about what u type more.

On the simplest understanding of insurance, you want many more fit than sick people. This allows a profit to be made after paying out expenses. Ideally, you would want only fit young people (whose greatest risks are accidental in nature). Each obese person with their increased risk cuts into the profit margin by raising the amount going out in expenses.

Real insurance is a bit more complicated with investments and all, but the basic principle is sound.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
How many times do I have to say it. Fatty food does not make you fat.

It's called positive correlation. Besides, fatty foods bring other risks as well, such as heart diseases.

[yavoon]

if u increase the premiums for increased risk ppl then u can maintain profit. u also can maintain market share.

I don't see waht your large objection is. u keep trying to skirt it by implying that insurance companies wont insure higher risk than 20 years old and fit. which is just ridiculously untrue.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon
if u increase the premiums for increased risk ppl then u can maintain profit. u also can maintain market share.

While pricing fat people out of insurance. Hence your market failure.

[yavoon]

what? look first of all ppl don't usually reinsure themselves at 50 when they become much higher risk. and insurance companies like bank loans will find that 20 year olds aren't retards and don't want policies that kick them out should they become high risk.

ur argument is flacid and uninteresting because its just not true.

[Urban Ranger]

This is beautiful. Some smokers used to tag fat people with a red herring whenever there's some new anti-smoking regulation on the floor. Now they don't have any excuses.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yavoon
if u increase the premiums for increased risk ppl then u can maintain profit. u also can maintain market share.

Doing this will penalise those obese people who got that way because of genetics. Not very fair.

[yavoon]

yah I hate how ppl who don't have 50 inch verticals are punished by not joining the nba too. or ppl w/ ocd who have a hard time getting jobs or or or etc etc...libertarianism isnt overly concerned w/ being fair. especially in comparison w/ socialism.