Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm, maybe it's just me, but there's something not quite logical about proposing a fatty food tax...
It's not just you. There are many other anti-tax proponents around. Your scenario is quite innacuurate. It's not we who do the advertising. It's a PRIVATE corporation that does the advertising. So perhaps instead of taxing the individual idiots who buy the unhealthy junk food, tax the corporations whenever they advertise this crap. Manufacturing this junk makes them contributors to an unhealthy population that requires more health care. Make them responsible for bearing their fair share of the health care cost that result from eating their unhealthy products. They don't deserve the free ride they are currently getting.
If you want a socialistic option you should move to Russia or China or even Canada. In America, we choose to be a republic. It is, in fact, what we were founded upon.
Socialism is already rampant in the US, but it is mostly corporate socialism ( privatize the profits and socialize the losses ). Also the roads you drive on everyday and the schools that you and your children ( if you have children ) attend are SOCIAL benefits that you enjoy. I'm in favor of less corporate socialism and more socialism that benefits we-the-people. The brand of socialism practiced in China and Russia have no appeal to me. I do however appreciate the socialism that is practiced in Canada and some of the European countries.
As Randomdude points out, Unfortunatley every other country on the planet doesnt allow every Tom, Dick and Larry to cross the borders. If Canada had an easier immigration policy, I'd seriously consider living there again. Even though Canada has more of a socialist flavor than the US, the government feels less obtrusive in day to day life than it is here in the USA. The Canadian health care system is heads and shoulders above the health care system in the USA. I've experienced both, and I much prefer the Canadian system.
elamigo wrote:
You are basically saying: I want to the government to use the strong arm to take money away from my fellow citizens to take care of me.
No strong arming is necessary. Lets's find a way that is fair to everyone.
Also, it may be a choice you make, to take the easy route at others expense but in the end you will also take away other peoples choices on who they want to go for their medical services.
You are making an assumptionthat in the end you will also take away other peoples choices on who they want to go for their medical services. This is very unlikely to occurr. This is not what I am advocating. I am advocating giving people an option to CHOOSE either a social program or a private program. I am not an advocate of aboloshing private programs, nor do I think they will be eliminated.
With the other option you still have the choice of looking for the best deal when you go and shop around. Sure, there are rip offs out there, not only with medical services but anywhere you go. The beauty of it is that you can look somewhere else. You seem to be content with being stuck with one choice. To me that is the easy route and careless of your fellow citizens by taking their choice away at their expense.
The problem is...even the best deal available is not a good deal.
Thanks for the clarification. I think we are more in line then. To me a socialistic program is one that simply puts a blanket on everyone and that is it. A social program is different. I believe I explained that earlier.
If the state decides to set up some local hospitals to provide services for those with less means, well, that does exist already. There are many county hopitals. However, even then I will venture to guess you agree they do not provide the best deal for the people. Granted in some cities they do. However, I see a better solution that the state or county simply allow the those in need, and qualify, to choose where they want to go for services and the states gets the bill. This does create competition from health providers. I explained that how the Army did it and to me we get much better quality service because we have the choice which dentist to go and quality is better.
As far as other countries in Europe and Canada, sure everybody is covered. Now, what is the quality? There are a couple of problems here. The first one, there are many choice taken from the people.
The second one, the quality goes down. You must wait in line and that may mean life and death. Also, they determine who will get better service and that may mean old foggies like me simply are sent to the back of the line and hope someday I can be serviced. That is true and does happen. Also, those service in time do get more and more expensive. Those countries are having turmoil on how to support such growing monster. What are they doing in some cases? Cutting down services to keep it going. The seems eventually bust.
Another problem. I spend a couple of months in the Republic of Georgia in the capital city of Tbilisi. You do not want to have a socialistic program in place. I saw the results of about 40 years of socialistic programs. The sad part about it is that people do get this mentality that the State will take care of them. Once the wall came down, some do long for the days of socialism. Why? Because they simply did not learn to take care of themselves. However, I met so many people so happy to be on their own and find ways to make it. They loved the free choice. You could see the spirit of entreprenouship. They were out there finding ways to make money. I loved talking to them. They had the thirst of making a better life. The were happy to be free to make their own choices. If I could I would show you the pictures I have that I took of a hospital where I worked so you could see the results of a socialistic system. You rather stay at home and take your chances.
I am all for being health concious, I think it is an important PERSONAL responsibility but this is ludicrous, the government should butt out and mind it's own business instead of trying to parent the population. This is a free society and if I want to eat 1 pound of pure lard at market costs determined by demand and supply then so be it!
If the government starts taxing stuff based on what IT thinks is good and bad then things can get out of control real quick.
You know, I'm not fat, but I still feel like puking reading this thread. Same goes for many of the same nature.
The government just has no problems whatsoever in this country as there are enough “concerned citizens†to support any idiotic proposition first sent down the tubes by the think tanks as a controversial “idea†or a “study†before being passed as another link of the chain tightening about EVERYBODY’s neck! That last part the non-smokers, the non-fatsos, the non-whatever fail to comprehend. Whatever they are or whatever they like will be next on the agenda soon enough.
I am all for being health concious, I think it is an important PERSONAL responsibility but this is ludicrous, the government should butt out and mind it's own business instead of trying to parent the population. This is a free society and if I want to eat 1 pound of pure lard at market costs determined by demand and supply then so be it!
If the government starts taxing stuff based on what IT thinks is good and bad then things can get out of control real quick.
As long as you sign off that uncle sam isnt picking up your health bills, so be it, kill yourself all you want. Just dont shift the risk of your destructive behavior on to the rest of us.
As far as other countries in Europe and Canada, sure everybody is covered. Now, what is the quality?
I can only speak for my experience in Canada, and that was many years ago. In the mid 70s when I was living in Canada, the health care was EXCELLENT. On a dollar per dollar basis, it was far superior to anything I've received in the states. Wether or not that is still the case, I honestly don't know.
I'm a healthy person who rarely ever visits a conventional doctor, so I'm not a good person to be making comparisions between countries. Take everything I say in that regard with a grain of salt.
randomdude wrote:
As long as you sign off that uncle sam isnt picking up your health bills, so be it, kill yourself all you want. Just dont shift the risk of your destructive behavior on to the rest of us.
I agree with you 100%! There is a problem though. If some idiotic person eats junk food and/or fails to practice a healthy lifestyle in general, and that person has health insurance...the rest of us do end up paying for their unhealthy lifestyle with higher premiums, even with the current system.
Another problem. I spend a couple of months in the Republic of Georgia in the capital city of Tbilisi. You do not want to have a socialistic program in place. I saw the results of about 40 years of socialistic programs.
Why dont you take pictures of an country which has a higher amount of available funding, such as France, Canada or the UK. Its not fair to pick such a poor country and use that as empirical representation of a way of doing something.
Hmmm, maybe it's just me, but there's something not quite logical about proposing a fatty food tax...
It's not just you. There are many other anti-tax proponents around. Your scenario is quite innacuurate. It's not we who do the advertising. It's a PRIVATE corporation that does the advertising. So perhaps instead of taxing the individual idiots who buy the unhealthy junk food, tax the corporations whenever they advertise this crap. Manufacturing this junk makes them contributors to an unhealthy population that requires more health care. Make them responsible for bearing their fair share of the health care cost that result from eating their unhealthy products. They don't deserve the free ride they are currently getting.
1. How can you legitimatley say that the production, handling or storage of junk is causing health problems? That is the only possible explanation I could see for charging tax on production. If the junk is never ingested, it never causes a health problem, and youve still collected tax on it.
2. If you charge tax on to production, that is likely going to eventually find its way to the shelf price any how, and be borne by the consumer purchasing the junk.
We had to read that book in high school. I didn't understand the concept back then, but do now. Probably because I see more and more what the book was about in our every day lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
