Mississippi: Innovative protectors of public health or descriminating retards?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hmmm, yeah I guess your rigtht. That should change.

Well, unless you want to force everyone into individual coverage it won't . Spreading out the risk over the entire company is a good selling point for attracting new applicants.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Wezil


Cig taxes disproportionately affect the poor as well. Do you think they are a bad idea?

I'm assuming by the that you're just jerking my chain...

Cig/Booze taxes are fine.

The lottery is a tax on those who don't understand math and/or are desperate and is not fine.

A tax on "unhealthy food" would be fine (thus my first post calling it a luxury tax), but nearly impossible to implement. Odds are it would hit cheap unhealthy food, but miss expensive unhealthy food -- that's not really fair. I guess you could just tax all soda -- that's about the only easily definable item I can think of that has no redeeming nutritional features.

[Zkribbler]

BTW: If figured Miss. House Bill 282 had to be an Internet Myth because it is so wacko. So I checked the Mississippi House website....the Bill is genuine.


A fast-food tax is justifiable. We taxpayers are picking up the healthcare tab of the uninsured obese people. Taxing McBlubbler will help offset those costs.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
A fast-food tax is justifiable.

You're going to run into a huge problem in defining the term "fast food". If you could, in fact, define "unhealthy food" and "healthy food" and tax only the unhealty, that would be fine and dandy. As a practical matter, I highly doubt a fast food tax would significantly impact the obesity epidemic anyway -- it's a culture problem: TV, video games, internet, boredom, stress, isolation, depression, etc. leading to lack of physical activity and excess food consumption.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
BTW: If figured Miss. House Bill 282 had to be an Internet Myth because it is so wacko. So I checked the Mississippi House website....the Bill is genuine.

Why is it wacko?

Society has many similar laws for other substances, and most notably has many similar laws placing restrictions on young people supposedly protecting them from themselves. Why are those laws considered acceptable and a ban on obese people eating unhealthy food wacko?

[snoopy369]

Unless it infringes on others, it should not be banned or (excessively) taxed... illegal drugs infringe on others (as does alcohol, but apparently we can't get up the courage to ban that without a stiff drink ), but fast food has no impact beyond having trouble finding a seat on the bus that's not overflowed onto... and the health costs, perhaps, but that should be simply reflected in the health insurance cost (like smoking is)

[Zkribbler]

It's wacko because how will it work? Will you have a scale in the restaurant? Actually, you need to measure to percentage of body fat, which is even more cumberson to measure.

And what is the motivation for the restauant not to sell their food to an obese person; will they be licensed like liquor stores and be endangered of losing their licenses?

And when fat people want burgers and fries, they can still buy them at the supermarket and make them at home.

Taxing the unhealthy food is a better disincentive...plus, it adds to the government's treasury.

[OzzyKP]

For the vast majority of people who consume alcohol - of all ages - it is not harmful to others. Same with some of the milder illegal drugs.

With smoking, whatever harmful effects others experience, the result is the same regardless of the age of the user.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
It's wacko because how will it work? Will you have a scale in the restaurant? Actually, you need to measure to percentage of body fat, which is even more cumberson to measure.

And what is the motivation for the restauant not to sell their food to an obese person; will they be licensed like liquor stores and be endangered of losing their licenses?

And when fat people want burgers and fries, they can still buy them at the supermarket and make them at home.

Taxing the unhealthy food is a better disincentive...plus, it adds to the government's treasury.

Clearly it is impractical. You don't then have a moral objection to banning fat people from getting fast food?

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Unless it infringes on others, it should not be banned or (excessively) taxed...

I'd think you'd have to look at it like a luxury tax -- this food is not a necessity as it lacks substantial nutritional value, therefore, there is an additonal price for the luxury of eating it instead of eating an apple. Not that I'm saying it's a good idea. Just that we certainly tax plenty of things that don't infringe on others. Why not unhealthy food.

(yes I am pretty much playing both sides of this argument. and, yes, I do change my mind about every 5 minutes).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Clearly it is impractical. You don't then have a moral objection to banning fat people from getting fast food?

It's a little Big-Brotherly. But because the law won't work, there's no need to argue how morally defensible it is. A law that won't work just encourages people to ignore the law and is therefore a bad law.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

lol
I guess the law makers any where have nothing else better to do then decide now who is gonna be allowed to eat out!!! I ask all of you do u really care who is in the resturant ur eating at? well as long as they aint robbing the place nobody really cares.
Next thing to be banned, skinny people from the Gym, that way they cant go and diet and purge!! What happened to the consititution?

[Dinner]

If junk food was taxed appropriately, as it is in California just like Alcohol and tobacco, then I don't see a problem with universal care. I mean, yes, tobacco smokers cost more then the average person but the tobacco taxes are so high that they end up paying in far more to the health care system then they take out. Countries like Sweden are trying to cope with the drop in smoking because so much of the health care system is paid for by tobacco and alcohol taxes.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


It's a little Big-Brotherly. But because the law won't work, there's no need to argue how morally defensible it is. A law that won't work just encourages people to ignore the law and is therefore a bad law.

Do you support the 21 year old drinking age?

It is quite big brotherly as well and universally ignored.

[Blake]

I have a better idea. Let the fatties by the burgers, but then have service attendants with steel rulers who smack the fatty on the hand every time he reaches for the burger, and once he actually grabs and eats it, smack him with the ruler some more.

You see part of the problem with obesity is that people are unable to properly make the connection of "Eating this food causes pain and suffering", because the pain and suffering comes three years down the track.

The immediate negative reinforcement would be much more effective at instilling the proper fear of unhealthy food.