Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 11:20 pm
Keep asking for your legislation.
We are headed for too much legislation.
We are headed for too much legislation.
And if you don't realize that, you are part of the problem.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 971
- Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am
Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People
Are you a vegetarian Scott? How much physical exercise do you get each week? Do you want someone to scrutinize your life style and diet, before determining how much you should pay? Perhaps, we should charge more for people with bad family health histories? We might do genetic screening to help determine how much a person should pay?Scott wrote:On a newsgroup I recently saw someone complaining about obese people and smokers because he feels we will have to pay more in taxes to pay for these unhealthy people's increased health care costs. He then asked if government could tackle weight gain without intruding into the citizens' kitchens, restaurants and grocery stores? I think that is a very interesting question, and it can easily be made in regard to other unhealthy behaviors such as smoking. So what do you think?
In my opinion, if we are forced by the government to be in a health care plan with people who don't take care of themselves (e.g. overeat, smoke, etc.),
then I would like the government to also make them pay more for it. Also, if the government is going to use taxpayers money to fix the problems caused by those unhealthy behaviors (overeating, smoking and so forth), then I think it is fair to make those people pay more in taxes, which is most easily done by taxing unhealthy behaviors like smoking and eating unhealthily. I do not want to be forced to pay for someone else's unhealthy habit; it's not fair to me, and it's enabling to them. Don't you agree?
Locke said something to the effect that God gave us free will and government should not attempt to rule it away. I think this boils down to a matter of our spirit. Are we going to be mean spirited and controlling, or kind spirited and in favor of liberty?
Homicidal Pacifist, I asked Scott if he is a vegetarian, because regardless of one's weight, those fatty foods are a health risk.
-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: November 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Cicero
- Location: N.C., USA
I can’t help but think generally in government’s increasing role in day to day life. This subject narrows matters to a more arguable surface. It seems to be located in our constitution’s preamble, namely;
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Especially, an understanding of the words ‘domestic tranquility’ and ‘welfare’ are significant to me. My understanding is that tranquility refers to interrupt and arbitrate between states, but maybe others believe it to infer what is due to one group from another. ‘Welfare’ means federal applications that apply equally to all - such as roads; others may believe it is public assistance programs, again from one group to another.
If federal government is more involved in health care, it will, as a practical matter, apply to some from the largess of another.
Because I am of age to use Medicare I appreciate it. I do recognize my use will undoubtedly consume more than I invested eventually. Since my natural urge to persist will be greater than my concern for my children I am unlikely to refuse medical attention when it is needed. I am convinced, though, this nation would have been far better served had the program never been enacted. It is going to bring our nation to destitution, or, more likely reach a point of impossible continuance as is. Since it is the incubus of the added policies it must be reigned in soon by increasing the age of admittance, increased taxes, and decreased service. Specifically, the concerns expressed by this topic, i.e.; obesity, smoking, etc, bring special dangers. A government has no business concerning itself with personal habit unless one’s habit negatively impacts another’s. As expressed in the initial thread opening, it will! Harsh as it may seem I believe the opening to our constitution and the idea it expresses contains the proper attitude. Let volunteer services aid the needy, let government concentrate to the whole. Only in the direst circumstances should government inject into special needs.
-
- Posts: 13
- Joined: March 13th, 2010, 7:06 pm
- Unrealist42
- Posts: 343
- Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
- Location: City of Dreams
Somewhere in the middle is increased taxation. This raises the opportunity cost of such behavior and reduces its practice while not prohibiting it entirely. In nations that value individual rights and personal freedoms this is the preferred approach.
If undesirable social consequences are to be avoided it would be wise to take a considered approach with a set program of escalating government intrusion that matches social expectations if the government is to be successful in the behavior modification. It is not a quick fix and can take a few generations before previously ubiquitous and acceptable behavior becomes socially unacceptable.
As far as smoking goes the government discouragement campaign is a fairly new thing since until lately smoking was not considered a problem by anyone. The public education campaign, a first step, is only one generation old but has had an effect both in decreased undesirable behavior and increased social expectations. These increased social expectations have pushed government to the next level, increased taxation specifically targeted to reduce undesirable behavior and mitigate its social costs.
We should pray that social expectations do not go so far as prohibition because the consequences of that will create new more grave problems that will be quite costly and socially destructive. It is questionable whether prohibition brings more social benefits than costs. The "war on drugs" should be a caution to those keen on prohibiting individual behavior that impacts others only indirectly.
As far as being overweight goes, that is in its infancy as a socially undesirable behavior and is more a biological problem for many people than a strictly behavioral problem. Not everyone is naturally skinny. Besides that, the perception that all fat people are an automatic health risk has not been proven. Inferences have been made and statistical studies point to an increased probability but that is about it.
Increasing taxes on certain foods to combat obesity is not targeted like increased taxes on cigarettes. Increasing health care premiums on overweight people who pose no health risk is discriminatory. Prohibition is out of the question.
So, what tools can the government deploy to combat obesity without encouraging discrimination against those who pose no risk and are thus innocent?
P.S.
There are also many smokers who require no increased health care than anyone else throughout their lives but that is a strictly voluntary behavior so any excuse to discriminate against smokers is far less fraught than the issue of obesity.
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: March 24th, 2010, 3:39 am
Smokers pay huge taxes in Australia because to smoke is to partake of an unhealthy option. The majority of Australians support this concept. On some level even I support this concept.
It is a shame that alcohol is not as heavily taxed as cigarettes, since the excessive consumption of alcohol is an unhealthy option which like smoking should be discouraged.
Driving is one of the greatest of unhealthy options which dominates our society adding pollution locally and green house globally. There is an even stronger argument than that for smoking and drinking, to heavily tax road users.
Increasing the cost of unhealthy foods via taxes is also, according to this argument a worthy pursuit. It would have to be broad based affecting all snack foods, take out's, fast food outlets and restaurants. The rationale could be that these are exceptional food options and not representative of daily food consumption so should not impact the household budget.
Of course, to act in this way requires further actions to support these new taxes and their intent.
Primary food sources (meat, vegetables, fruit, nuts, flour, sugar, cream, milk etc) need to be cheaper so that household will be more inclined to purchase them. Then of course these people could use these cheaper primary sources of food to produce their own unhealthy options, but, I would suspect that most would not, rather, most would become more skilled in cooking instead.
There would need to be a significant increase in public transport infrastructure with more trains, buses and light-rail moving the people without increasing the cost of same. It needs to be significantly cheaper than private driving if people are to use it.
With smoking and alcohol however, there is no alternative and the additional reality of humans through out all ages seeking out certain substances for recreational pleasure. Smoking and drinking and drugs in general would quite simply revert to the unregulated black market and quite possibly increase the cost of health care needed to address the consequences.
Then there is the issue of what to do with all these additional tax receipts gleaned from the people for the purposes of improving their health. Sensibly, it should go towards health care and education... but would it?
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
I do think the government would be stepping into dangerous ground by opening itself up to discriminating between people based on their weight. But generally speaking I firmly expect a private health insurance company to charge an obese, alcoholic smoker more than a non-smoking, non-drinking person who maintains a health weight just as a private car insurance company will charge a driver in a higher risk category more than one who drives more safely.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13820
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Unrealist42 wrote
There is a theory that over-eating is a naturally evolved predisposition in some populations. This is because genes for over-eating were life savers for populations at risk from unpredictable and frequent famines. Body fat was a store of nutrients. Even now fat people are more prized as spouses, labourers, and parents than thin ones in such societies.Among some populations the genes persist.It's therefore more difficult to eradicate over-eating than smoking or even alcoholism.As far as being overweight goes, that is in its infancy as a socially undesirable behavior and is more a biological problem for many people than a strictly behavioral problem. Not everyone is naturally skinny.
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: March 24th, 2010, 3:39 am
All very worthy, I agree, except that when re-reading my post, I failed to acknowledge a significant flaw... where would the money come from that would ensure more public transport and cheaper primary food sources?Scott wrote:The revenue could go towards health care and education. It could compensate for other tax breaks. I wouldn't mind seeing the revenue gained by taxes on unhealthy behaviors and the purchase of unhealthy items to go up by increasing those taxes while simultaneously equally reducing income or property taxes, particularly those on working class folks.
It would have to come from the revenue gained by taxing unhealthy options.
In other words, there is no nett gain in socially manipulating a society into healthier lifestyle options, rather, I suspect that it would be, as it is for households, more expensive... (in terms of price, since primary food is more expensive than processed food and in terms of time since public transport is less time efficient than cars... in the main. And they are not the only opportunity costs entailed to such ideas.)
But then... is it about a net gain or a moral imperative?
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
When a country becomes socialistic, a in increasing section of the population works for the government. This increases the amount of money the government needs, and so in order to satisfy the costs the government will eventually have to run for-profit businesses.
The only way to prevent the USA from become a socialist state is through the perspective that health care is not a right.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 195
- Joined: March 20th, 2010, 11:21 am
I said the same as you on another thread in the philosophers lounge on Wannabe`s, The Health Care Bill Passed thread, but it is just as relevant here. Who is going to generate the revenue if not those smokers they tax? I agree with Alethia is this really about health or ones own subjective ideals of morality in society? Is it the right of government to babysit others and treat them incapable of making decisions good or bad for themselves? Statistics show smoking is the lesser health risk compared to obesity, car fumes, toxic engines and aircraft.
If there is to be any discrimination regarding smokers it should surely be positive discrimination.
Since they contribute £8Billion and their treatment only costs £5Bn they are net contributors to the tune of £3Bn per annum.
In the unlikely event that smokers in the UK all collectively gave up tomorrow where would the £3Bn excess come from - that's right, non-smokers.
This does not take into account that if smokers did not die of smoking related illnesses they would live longer and not die of other illnesses.
The argument is media driven, and governmentmental social engineered, that if a smoker should be struck down with a life threatening illness, who is going to pay for their treatment? Obviously that`s a red herring,smokers already have paid their entitlement to treatment [and yours] they are 300% overtaxed on purchases of cigarettes.
IF like you believe Scott that the governments were serious about preventative measures, then they would ban the sale of cigarettes altogether, but then where and from whom would their £3billion humungus excess profits in taxation on them come from?
Alethia wrote
I find it highly amoral for the bullies in suits in Westminster to penalise known drug addicts [smoking is more addictive than heroin] with supplying their fix in major retail outlets just to claim extornationate revenue. Heroin addicts get prescribed methodone free from NHS. We have a government that doesn`t take seriously the known addiction of cigarettes. We have a society that encouraged smoking for your health when I was growing up, today smokers are outcast and treated worse than lepers in biblical times were. They then see consumers of alcohol encourged with low taxation on beer. There are more are health risk and committed to outpatients every day due to drinking related offenses than due to smoking related illness.But then... is it about a net gain or a moral imperative?
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
I don't understand your logic.Meleagar wrote:When health care is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country.
There are plenty of non-socialist countries where education is a right. Why is health care different than education in that respect?
Regardless, I don't see what health care being considered a right has to do with the topic of this thread. Meleagar, if the government even in a non-socialist is going to be spending money on health care, do you want unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol and soda to be taxed to help pay for ensuing health care costs? If not, then where do you suggest we get the revenue to pay for the extra health care costs caused by some people's unhealthy choices?
Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not? In other words, would you rather discourage and punish through taxation unhealthy behaviors like cigarette smoking or discourage and punish people for earning more money at their job?
In an ideal society maybe nobody would be taxed at all. But right now in are unideal society governments all over the world are spending money. Someone and something has to be taxed to pay for that. Do we tax income and property solely, or do we at least get some of the tax revenue from taxing unhealthy behaviors so that income and property taxes don't have to be so high?
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
That's like asking me why an apple is different from an orange. If government provides everyone with healthcare, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that healthcare; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy.Scott wrote:There are plenty of non-socialist countries where education is a right. Why is health care different than education in that respect?
The short answer is that private healthcare companies get to decide who they will and will not contractually cover via privately-held insurance agreements or through other means that they deem appropriate and according to standard contractual law. IOW, those who cannot afford health care and cannot find a way to obtain it privately (through charitable organizations, family, etc.) do not get health care.Regardless, I don't see what health care being considered a right has to do with the topic of this thread. Meleagar, if the government even in a non-socialist is going to be spending money on health care, do you want unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol and soda to be taxed to help pay for ensuing health care costs? If not, then where do you suggest we get the revenue to pay for the extra health care costs caused by some people's unhealthy choices?
I don't wish to discourage unhealthy behavior at all.Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not? In other words, would you rather discourage and punish through taxation unhealthy behaviors like cigarette smoking or discourage and punish people for earning more money at their job?
There's no reason to tax for an expense if you cut out the expense. I'd rather my taxes go to national defense, not correcting the bad health habits of others.In an ideal society maybe nobody would be taxed at all. But right now in are unideal society governments all over the world are spending money. Someone and something has to be taxed to pay for that. Do we tax income and property solely, or do we at least get some of the tax revenue from taxing unhealthy behaviors so that income and property taxes don't have to be so high?
-
- Banned
- Posts: 977
- Joined: March 25th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Tobacco is farmed illegally and is sold on black market - to stop this, one has to apply a special enforcement mechanisms, which hurts these farmers and limits their legal production effort. Alcohol can be easily produced in the home conditions from sugar, potatoes, proso millet, rice, barley etc etc. The prohibition laws never managed to reach the target, but were only causing the destruction of the society itself - in Russia prohibition caused 1917 revolution, in USA it helped to form organized crime structures, in Finland it ruined thousands of families.
The higher are the taxes, the more Consumers turn to alternative supply sources, and as all illegally produced products are produced without following the required expensive heath-related procedures and with breaches in technology, the public health starts to be affected negatively, and the government (which income is reduced by the black market revenues) also has to take a burden to care of the health of those affected by the low quality drinks and the chemicals used to spray the illegally grown tobacco. And if it refuses to do so, then it risks to lose control over the social stability...
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
***
Scott wrote:There are plenty of non-socialist countries where education is a right. Why is health care different than education in that respect?
It is like asking why an apple is different than an orange if you said that government providing universal access to oranges was socialist but government providing universal access to apples is not socialist. In the context of leading to "complete socialism," I don't see the significant difference between oranges and apples or between education and health care.Meleagar wrote:That's like asking me why an apple is different from an orange. If government provides everyone with healthcare, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that healthcare; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy.
What you say to one who argues, when education is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country? What if they claimed, if government provides everyone with education, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that education; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy?
Scott wrote:Regardless, I don't see what health care being considered a right has to do with the topic of this thread. Meleagar, if the government even in a non-socialist is going to be spending money on health care, do you want unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol and soda to be taxed to help pay for ensuing health care costs? If not, then where do you suggest we get the revenue to pay for the extra health care costs caused by some people's unhealthy choices?
Okay, but that's not what I asked you.Meleagar wrote:The short answer is that private healthcare companies get to decide who they will and will not contractually cover via privately-held insurance agreements or through other means that they deem appropriate and according to standard contractual law. IOW, those who cannot afford health care and cannot find a way to obtain it privately (through charitable organizations, family, etc.) do not get health care.
In this thread, I'm not saying I support the government spending money to subsidize health care. If a government is spending money on health care, then I would prefer that that government at least in part tax unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes to pay for that spending than solely tax things income and property; wouldn't you?
Scott wrote:Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not? In other words, would you rather discourage and punish through taxation unhealthy behaviors like cigarette smoking or discourage and punish people for earning more money at their job?
Okay, but you agree that taxing an activity discourages it, right? If there is any government debts to be paid, would you rather pay them by taxing and thus discouraging unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes or pay them by taxing and thus discouraging having a income-paying job or buying a modest-sized home?Meleagar wrote:I don't wish to discourage unhealthy behavior at all.
I'd rather my taxes go towards preventative care than to handouts, subsidies and unneeded welfare for the private military industry. But that's not really of consequence to the topic at hand as far as I can tell. If the government is going to spend money on anything be it defense or health care, would you rather the government solely pay for it by taxing and thus discouraging getting income and buying modest amounts of real property or by, at least in part, taxing and thus discouraging unhealthy behaviors that increase overall health care costs. I would rather it tax at least in part the unhealthy behaviors than tax the trading of labor for income or tax the owning of a modest-sized home especially if the government is spending money on health care meaning the people engaging in unhealthy behaviors are increasing the total amount of government expenses needing to be paid by taxation.There's no reason to tax for an expense if you cut out the expense. I'd rather my taxes go to national defense, not correcting the bad health habits of others.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023