Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Premium Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier »

Unrealist42 wrote:As we are all well aware conceptions of words like individual freedom vary widely. Where conceptions of individual freedom conflict is there a mechanism for peaceful resolution, is it just might makes right or is some other mechanism involved?
My answer to your question can best be summed up by Frédéric Bastiat, in his 1850 work "The Law" ...
Frédéric Bastiat wrote: What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
User avatar
Unrealist42
Posts: 343
Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post by Unrealist42 »

So, Bastiat posits an individual conception of "natural rights" that come from god and then extends this right to the collective. He then goes on to realize that the collective is prohibited from coercion.

I am always happy to read Bastiat but I am skeptical that god or any "natural right" exists in the first place and besides, Bastiat leaves the "law" toothless where individuals disagree and no collective consensus for defensible action is forthcoming.
User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Premium Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier »

Unrealist42 wrote:So, Bastiat posits an individual conception of "natural rights" that come from god and then extends this right to the collective. He then goes on to realize that the collective is prohibited from coercion.

I am always happy to read Bastiat but I am skeptical that god or any "natural right" exists in the first place and besides, Bastiat leaves the "law" toothless where individuals disagree and no collective consensus for defensible action is forthcoming.
Unrealist42,

Please see my new post What Are Human Rights, and Where Do They Come From?.

In it I discuss why it doesn't matter "Who" or "What" you consider "imparting" rights upon us. We exist, and it is very apparent that existence naturally fights to protect itself from extinction.

As to your point about his leaving law "toothless" when it came to men's personal interactions, I think he preferred it that way :wink:
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
User avatar
dparrott
Posts: 496
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 11:24 pm
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by dparrott »

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?
They already do pay more in taxes. The more you eat the more food taxes you pay. The more you smoke, well when you buy smokes your paying more in taxes then the smokes are worth. Same goes for alcohol.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1578
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by UniversalAlien »

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?
This has become the mantra of the anti-smoking crowd especially. They claim smokers {especially cigarette smokers} are costing taxpayers because of smoking causing more disease. However, and this also applies to obese people, they forget to read their own statistics. According to them the latest statistics say cigarette smokers give up an average of 10 years of life {used to be 8 but you must adjust the data to fit the paradigm when you want to force people to do what you want}. These people will die on the average 10 years sooner than non-smokers. And how much money will this save you? Ten years when they will not be able to collect Social Security; Ten years when you will not have to worry about their Medicare medical bills or cost of senior citizen lodging. And next to smoking the other early contributor to an early death is obesity.

Therefor it follows that to save the taxpayer money we should encourage cigarette smoking, especially heavy cigarette smoking, and overeating. And of course don't forget alcohol drinking but be sure it is heavy drinking because the latest statistics show light to moderate drinkers outlive non-drinkers {many years ago when the Prohibitionists ruled America the smallest amount of alcohol was considered to be very dangerous - but these self-righteous SOBs can hardly be heard today except maybe at AA meetings}.

Now we should also consider other dangerous forms of behavior which may cost you money. For example motorcycle riders are much more likely to get in an accident where there is serious injury which will then cost the taxpayer more money but then again they are more likely to die in the accident and again think of all the money that will be saved by not having to pay for their Social Security and Medicare when they get older.

And finally we must consider the cost of the most dangerous of all human behavior - thinkers and philosophers. Thinkers and philosophers with their ideas of enlightenment, etc. have generated countless wars and revolutions where many have died for such insane cause as freedom, democracy and the Rights of Man. So aren't we lucky that we have our friends the Bankers to finance all of it and profit off of hell and high water no mater who is right.

But do you really want these banksters and money counters to be regulating your life and behavior? That too you will pay for and the price will be your soul if you have one!
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

UniversalAlien, you make a wise point about the fact that these unhealthy habits take years off people's lives and that that saves us the money it would have cost to insure them all those years. But did you run the numbers? If so, can you please share them. I do not think the numbers add up as you have specified. I think the drastically increased cost for the few who do continue to live, plus the increased costs for the extra healthcare the years before the early death of the rest, plus the lost revenue from taxes the dead person does not pay more than makes up for the savings via an early death. Even if -- for the sake of argument -- being a morbidly obese smoker on average causes someone to die 20 years sooner -- at 55 let's say -- then someone who is relatively healthy, maintaining a health weight, healthy diet and not smoking, drinking, etc. Did it really cost less to insure that first person for the 27 years (since they were 18 let's say when they started smoking and became obese) then the second person for the 47 years? How many morbidly obese smokers live to 77 (10 years after retirement age in the USA) compared to healthy people? The lost tax revenue from a dead person is more significant from an unretired person.

Nobody is denying that is costs more per year to pay the health care costs of a obese smoker than a non-smoker. However, you want to count the total lifetime cost of paying for a person's medical costs, but that is indeed a pandora's box because then you need to count the other lifetime effects of an early death such as lose in total tax revenue as well as address the rational differences for why it makes more sense to charge a smoker more taxes per year to cover their agreeably higher per year health care costs as opposed to financially encouraging people to die early to save money on health care for elderly people. In other words, there is a big difference in throwing 'being elderly' in with smoking and being morbidly obese, which is effectively what is being done when one tries to count dying early as a net reduction in costs. But I repeat that is a pandora's box which leads us in a more complicated way back to the same per year conclusion: smokers need to pay more per year in taxes than non-smokers to make everyone pay for the costs of increased health care that results from their own decisions. Looking at it through lifetime stats only gives the more complicated rational that we have less years to use for the smoker to divide up the total lifetime costs.
UniversalAlien wrote:Now we should also consider other dangerous forms of behavior which may cost you money. For example motorcycle riders are much more likely to get in an accident where there is serious injury which will then cost the taxpayer more money but then again they are more likely to die in the accident and again think of all the money that will be saved by not having to pay for their Social Security and Medicare when they get older.
Under a single-payer auto insurance system funded by taxes, do you want motorcyclists who speed to pay the same insurance/tax as safe drivers who buy safe cars?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"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.
Stuartp523
Posts: 30
Joined: August 21st, 2012, 1:19 am
Location: California

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by Stuartp523 »

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?
Scott, your argument is the equivalent of asking poor people to pay a poor tax. I think (sarcastically) there should be a tax for people who never had a problem in their life insulting those whose existence has been suffering from day one. When my health has enabled me to work I outworked everyone in the store. No one was faster, stayed more overtime, and came in on the days off more. I have a completely clean conscience. I've never bullied, stole, cheated, done drugs, voted ignorantly, ran my mouth against the defenseless or even broken someone’s heart. I quit my last two jobs because my employers were putting the public at risk. Yes I’m overweight. Should I send you a check??????
knowthyself.forumotion.net
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1578
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by UniversalAlien »

Scott wrote:UniversalAlien, you make a wise point about the fact that these unhealthy habits take years off people's lives and that that saves us the money it would have cost to insure them all those years. But did you run the numbers? If so, can you please share them. I do not think the numbers add up as you have specified. I think the drastically increased cost for the few who do continue to live, plus the increased costs for the extra healthcare the years before the early death of the rest, plus the lost revenue from taxes the dead person does not pay more than makes up for the savings via an early death. Even if -- for the sake of argument -- being a morbidly obese smoker on average causes someone to die 20 years sooner -- at 55 let's say -- then someone who is relatively healthy, maintaining a health weight, healthy diet and not smoking, drinking, etc. Did it really cost less to insure that first person for the 27 years (since they were 18 let's say when they started smoking and became obese) then the second person for the 47 years? How many morbidly obese smokers live to 77 (10 years after retirement age in the USA) compared to healthy people? The lost tax revenue from a dead person is more significant from an unretired person.

Nobody is denying that is costs more per year to pay the health care costs of a obese smoker than a non-smoker. However, you want to count the total lifetime cost of paying for a person's medical costs, but that is indeed a pandora's box because then you need to count the other lifetime effects of an early death such as lose in total tax revenue as well as address the rational differences for why it makes more sense to charge a smoker more taxes per year to cover their agreeably higher per year health care costs as opposed to financially encouraging people to die early to save money on health care for elderly people. In other words, there is a big difference in throwing 'being elderly' in with smoking and being morbidly obese, which is effectively what is being done when one tries to count dying early as a net reduction in costs. But I repeat that is a pandora's box which leads us in a more complicated way back to the same per year conclusion: smokers need to pay more per year in taxes than non-smokers to make everyone pay for the costs of increased health care that results from their own decisions. Looking at it through lifetime stats only gives the more complicated rational that we have less years to use for the smoker to divide up the total lifetime costs.


Under a single-payer auto insurance system funded by taxes, do you want motorcyclists who speed to pay the same insurance/tax as safe drivers who buy safe cars?
My basic point was if you are going to tax people for behavior where are you going to stop - or should we tax people based only on an ultimately materialistic agenda? Smokers, over-eaters, drinkers, those who use too much salt, those who do not control their blood pressure, those who practice un-safe sex, etc, etc. Where does it end and how are you going to enforce all the tax collection. Cigarettes are easy, just keep raising the per-pack tax rate. But you note the Mayor of NYC now wants to outlaw soft-drinks that are over-size; Over-size for who a 5'2" 110 pound women or 6'7" 300 pound football player? One size fits all in that mayors save the people from themselves agenda.

I believe Scott in one of your posts you indicated your philosophy was basically Libertarian as to human behavior. So I might ask how could you advocate taxing human life-style choices when to do so inevitably is going to lead to attempts at control? I understand what you are saying as to it costing the public more for dangerous life style choices but it would seem to me that we can't have it both ways. Either we allow people their own choices in life or go down the dangerous path of control for a materialist agenda and what other agendas government decides upon.

As far as the cost to the public being less because people die sooner who lead dangerous life styles that would seem to me to be obvious but I doubt anyone has to date done a statistical analysis to determine what the real cost would be in dollars. Most statistical analysis {by the way V.I. Lenin father of the old Soviet Union was known to love statistics} seem to be done with a pre-conceived agenda and I take many of them with a grain of salt. For example there is an on-line book written by a lawyer who swears he does not and never did work for big tobacco where he goes through the original data on cigarette smoking which led to the Surgeon Generals report fingering cigarettes as a leading cause of lung cancer. He claims most of the data was obtained from second hand sources; I know cigarette smokers who died of lung cancer and yet you often meet people who tell you about their grandmother who smoked into their 80s or 90s. Should no one be allowed to smoke because of the higher rates of lung cancer among smokers? Should no one be allowed to eat meat because of the greater risk of colon cancer and heart attack?

Because there is no money in it the following statistical survey will probably never be done, but it would be interesting. I would like to see a survey of say 10,000 people; Group A basically follows good life-style behavior and group B doesn't give a dam and does whatever they feel like. Do you think there will be a significant difference in illness and longevity between the two groups?
User avatar
Ethanphoto
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: September 7th, 2012, 3:47 am

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by Ethanphoto »

I notice a large number of people saying certain groups should pay more based on habits they have formed over years and the implications these habits have. I find it very interesting that when they try to distinguish between groups of people based on habits that may be detrimental they believe they should pay higher prices. I find it even more interesting that many people keep bringing taxes and government into this when all of these factors are already considered in the the free market by private insurers and that that since they are not there to lose money they will take this into account and charge based on the risk of investment. This will ensure that everyone pays their fair share for the costs they incur. Using the free market will more fairly charge and distribute money based on on risk and need than a government employee who merely follows directions and sucks money from taxpayers.

please if you have any criticism let me know im open to everything.

ethan
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Stuartp523,
Stuartp523 wrote:Scott, your argument is the equivalent of asking poor people to pay a poor tax.
In what relevant ways? Are those common traits really the ones that make asking poor people to pay a poor tax objectionable? I can think of numerous relevant differences between taxing poor people for being poor as opposed to taxing unhealthy things like cigarettes, fast food and soda:

1) Poor people cannot afford the tax and need the money for other more important things like food, clothes and shelter. In contrast, someone buying a luxury item like a cigarette, soda or a 6-pack of heavy beer can instead use a portion of that money to afford the tax without cutting into their rent money and so forth. (Granted, addicts do not behave like rational agents, such as by spending rent money on booze, but that hardly means enabling them even further makes sense.)

2) Poor people, by definition as I use the term (see note), do not choose to be poor. If someone gets mugged out of all their money and then their house gets struck by lightening and then their insurance company screws them over and so on and so forth, what sense is there is in penalizing that person for that? In contrast, someone who smokes themselves to lung cancer or eats Big Macs into obesity is responsible for the long-term consequences of those decisions, and it makes sense to have them pay for those expenses in a way that does not make sense to charge poor people. (Note: As for people who choose to live in poverty-like conditions, I do not consider them to be poor just like I do not consider an anorexic to be suffering from world hunger.)

3) Taxing and/or raising interest rates on cigarettes, fast food, motorcycle driving, soda discourages these often compulsive behaviors. Poverty is its own financial discouragement so the issue of financial discouragement is yet another thing which is inapplicable to the poverty tax.
Stuartp523 wrote:I think (sarcastically) there should be a tax for people who never had a problem in their life insulting those whose existence has been suffering from day one.
I don't understand your point. Can you rephrase this in literal terms rather than sarcastic ones?
Stuartp523 wrote:When my health has enabled me to work I outworked everyone in the store. No one was faster, stayed more overtime, and came in on the days off more. I have a completely clean conscience. I've never bullied, stole, cheated, done drugs, voted ignorantly, ran my mouth against the defenseless or even broken someone’s heart. I quit my last two jobs because my employers were putting the public at risk.
You sound like the kind of person who would have a lot of wealth in a merit-based distribution of wealth, which I believe is the economic ideal.
Stuartp523 wrote: Yes I’m overweight. Should I send you a check??????
My main proposal is to tax the kind of things that make a person overweight, like fast food, candy and soda. Just like a cigarette smoker, you can give the metaphorical check over to the clerk at the store if you buy these kinds of things. I also propose, all things the same, that an overweight person pay more for health insurance than a person of healthy weight. You can send that check over to the insurance company, or if you live in a place with a single-payer insurance system you can send that check to the appropriate government branch.

***

UniversalAlien,
UniversalAlien wrote:My basic point was if you are going to tax people for behavior where are you going to stop - or should we tax people based only on an ultimately materialistic agenda? Smokers, over-eaters, drinkers, those who use too much salt, those who do not control their blood pressure, those who practice un-safe sex, etc, etc. Where does it end and how are you going to enforce all the tax collection. Cigarettes are easy, just keep raising the per-pack tax rate. But you note the Mayor of NYC now wants to outlaw soft-drinks that are over-size; Over-size for who a 5'2" 110 pound women or 6'7" 300 pound football player? One size fits all in that mayors save the people from themselves agenda.
This line of thought runs the risk of the camel's nose fallacy.

You say cigarettes are easy. It seems to me taxing soda, candy, unhealthy fast food, and unhealthy food is very easy as well. Unhealthy food can be defined by any number of simple measures which can be used separately or simultaneously, including the ratio of protein-to-calories, or whether the product has refined sugar or other sweetening additives, or whether the product has trans fat. Are cigarettes more unhealthy than trans fat and refined sweeteners (or by extension obesity and diabetes)? They seem no easier to tax.

I agree that taxing portion-sizes is impractical.
UniversalAlien wrote:I believe Scott in one of your posts you indicated your philosophy was basically Libertarian as to human behavior. So I might ask how could you advocate taxing human life-style choices when to do so inevitably is going to lead to attempts at control? I understand what you are saying as to it costing the public more for dangerous life style choices but it would seem to me that we can't have it both ways. Either we allow people their own choices in life or go down the dangerous path of control for a materialist agenda and what other agendas government decides upon.
Great question! But let's look even just at what I wrote in the OP of this topic with some freshly added emphasis: "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, in some later posts I make a similar but even more general argument:
Meleagar in post #31 wrote:No, because it's an erosion of freedom. I'm not in favor of the government establishing a system of fining people for non-criminal behaviors, which is what such taxes are.
Scott in post #32 wrote:Okay. But IF the government is going to "fine people for non-criminal behaviors" (a.k.a. tax people), wouldn't you prefer the government collect at least some of the revenue by "fining" people for engaging in unhealthy things like smoking cigarettes rather than solely collect the revenue by "fining" people for receiving income or owning property?
Scott in post #35 wrote:A tax can be complicated, it is punitive, it discourages people from engaging in the taxed activity, it can be said to be infringing on the 'right' of a person to do the taxed activity, and it can lead to an increased prevalence of the taxed activity on the black market. But I don't see why we would want the government to create a complicated tax system to punish people for and discourage people from trading labor for income instead of to punish people for and discourage people from engaging in unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes especially since the latter behaviors increase overall health care costs whereas merely having a job doesn't.
In theory, I would rather have the anarchist or minarchist society of my idealistic dreams, but all this discussion about taxes and who pays more has been under the assumption that I do not have that. So it's contextualized by those 'ifs' to make it matter of the so-called lesser of two evils. In that way, I think my proposals fit in more with my anarchist/minarchist views which do indeed share a lot in common with even right-wing libertarianism than the opposing views under that context. In other words, I'm proposing government policies that mimic the benefits of truly free markets and free societies, such as people having to pay for the costs of their own unhealthy habits rather than being subsidized by unfair taxes on healthy people.
UniversalAlien wrote:Because there is no money in it the following statistical survey will probably never be done, but it would be interesting. I would like to see a survey of say 10,000 people; Group A basically follows good life-style behavior and group B doesn't give a dam and does whatever they feel like. Do you think there will be a significant difference in illness and longevity between the two groups?
Yes, I do. But I do not find it wise to encourage people to kill themselves so that the rest of us who are part of the same insurance pool can save money on the would-be insurance/retirement payouts.

There is a myriad of factors to consider if trying to measure by total lifetime costs and then using that to come up with amounts to tax, since taxes are collected by the moment or year. I agree with your suspicions that it is too complicated to settle. Logically, I think it must work out the same as it will if we use a per year system. When I say I want to charge smokers, obese people and people who engage in other known unhealthy behaviors more for taxes/insurance, I mean it on a per year basis. Indeed, they may end up paying less taxes and costing less to insure on a lifetime basis because they die early, but the numbers would logically work out the same, wouldn't they? You can't get ripped off year after year, then add it up and find out you are ahead. (I hope I'm being clear, but if not let me know.)

***

Ethanphoto,
Ethanphoto wrote:I find it even more interesting that many people keep bringing taxes and government into this when all of these factors are already considered in the the free market by private insurers and that that since they are not there to lose money they will take this into account and charge based on the risk of investment.
They would be taken into account by the free market if we had a free market. However, the discussion is under the context of the fact that we do not have a free market and we do have to pay taxes to big governments. I feel -- IF there is not a free market and/or IF we have to pay taxes -- my proposal is for that government/taxes to mimic the free market in this specific respect you mention by making people who choose to engage in unhealthy behaviors pay for the additional health care costs created by those unhealthy behaviors by charging them more for insurance and/or by putting simple taxes on the agreeable unhealthy items like soda, cigarettes, candy, beer and most fast food.

People who buy a below average amount of such items would theoretically actually save money on their taxes since they wouldn't have to pay for this health care through income taxes instead.
Ethanphoto wrote:This will ensure that everyone pays their fair share for the costs they incur. Using the free market will more fairly charge and distribute money based on on risk and need than a government employee who merely follows directions and sucks money from taxpayers.
I agree. Those are the benefits a free market has to an unfree market and those are the benefits my proposal of taxing unhealthy things to pay for any health care spending by the government has over funding health care costs solely by taxing income paid for labor. Overall, of course, I would prefer less spending and less taxes, in theory. But my proposal is in regards to the ratios of the methods at which the taxes that are collected are collected and the ratio of that to health care spending and individual's taxpayer's unhealthy habits.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"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.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1578
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by UniversalAlien »

Taxing people because of health/lifestyle issues is a Pandora's Box of unlimited problems. I receive at least several emails a day with updates on the latest in health and nutrition. It has now been established that a major threat to your health is sitting in front of the TV for long periods per day; same might be said for computers and for sitting sedentary type jobs or lifestyles. Should we apply more taxes for people sitting around too much as they are at a greater risk for more disease and shorter life span. Now you can say no substance is involved {like tobacco or sugar} but still why should a cigarette smoker {or obese person} who otherwise has a healthy lifestyle pay more in taxes when the lazy individual or person stuck with a sedentary job does not pay more? - we know the risk, it has been established; let's force those TV watchers to get up every hour and walk around the block or make them pay more too in taxes. Basically what I am asking is if you are going to tax lifestyle choices where do you draw the line? What I fear is there is no line when you allow government to tax lifestyle.
User avatar
Aila
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: August 13th, 2012, 9:54 pm

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by Aila »

Scott,

Like many proposals regarding health, the devil is in the detail! I would like to offer two examples that indicate your proposal may require further fine-tuning/thinking.

1) My daughter is a Type-1 Diabetic. Please note this is an auto-immune disease NOT the 'self-inflicted' Type-2 that gets the most press (a source of great annoyance to her). Basically her pancreas is dying. When she exercises her blood glucose levels (BGL) go low and, if not rectified quickly, she could lose consciousness/die. The quickest way to resolve the problem is with high sugar snack like jelly beans or a can of coke. Should someone in her condition, who already has to pay for insulin, BGL meters, etc, etc, have to incur a further taxation for something that (for them) is life saving?

2) I have a couple of health conditions (under-active thyroid, very high cortisol levels) that render me overweight, yet I lead a healthy lifestyle. (The thyroid condition is an auto-immune condition that is genetically linked to my daughter's diabetes.) Should people in my position be penalised for being 'overweight' when we are on medication to try to correct our condition already? Should a genetic profile be done on every single person seeking health insurance to see what may/may not impact their health now or later? (That would open Pandora's box, I'm sure!!)

These are a couple of the problems that can arise when we make generalisations. I am interested to hear your thoughts. At first glance your proposal seems very logical, and perhaps there is an argument that some must pay for the overall benefit to all.

Edited to add: I'm not sure if you have read an article that appeared on the BBC website 6th September 2012 titled "Nudge tactics 'no magic bullet'" (sorry I am unable to link). Interesting and forward-thinking view on how governments can perhaps deal with challenging behaviours in society utilising various branches of science.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

UniversalAlien,
UniversalAlien wrote:Taxing people because of health/lifestyle issues is a Pandora's Box of unlimited problems. I receive at least several emails a day with updates on the latest in health and nutrition. It has now been established that a major threat to your health is sitting in front of the TV for long periods per day; same might be said for computers and for sitting sedentary type jobs or lifestyles. Should we apply more taxes for people sitting around too much as they are at a greater risk for more disease and shorter life span. Now you can say no substance is involved {like tobacco or sugar} but still why should a cigarette smoker {or obese person} who otherwise has a healthy lifestyle pay more in taxes when the lazy individual or person stuck with a sedentary job does not pay more? - we know the risk, it has been established; let's force those TV watchers to get up every hour and walk around the block or make them pay more too in taxes. Basically what I am asking is if you are going to tax lifestyle choices where do you draw the line? What I fear is there is no line when you allow government to tax lifestyle.
This argument is the camel's nose fallacy. I also think it is also disproved by current policy. The government already does tax lifestyle by taxing cigarettes and alcohol. It even goes further than I would ever suggest in being nanny-state to completely outlaw things like drugs and driving without a seat belt. If taxing unhealthy things like cigarettes would lead to this lineless taxing nightmare, then it already would have. Thus, by modus tollens and then reducio ad absurdum, we can clearly see that the premise of linelessness for taxes on unhealthy behavior (e.g. if we tax some lifestyle choices like cigarettes, it will get out of control) is false.

I think the line is between what is known to be unhealthy and is practical and simple to tax via a consumer good or service purchases, like taxing eating unhealthy food by taxing the purchase of that food.

I suppose taxing TV purchases and TV service makes sense. Thanks for the suggestion. :wink:

In my estimation, taxing computers or computer-usage would not work because they are too multi-purpose. Sure someone could just be playing with themselves all day in front of the computer screen, but they could also be attending online school. Multi-purposeness is also why we, for instance, wouldn't tax wheat flour even though someone could be using it to make cookies even though we would tax the pre-made cookies.

***

Aila, I am sorry about your daughter. As to the topic at hand, excuse my ignorance, but why is a can of coke or jelly beans better than something moderately more natural like unsweetened 100% fruit juice (which is still very sweet) or raisins for rectifying that problem when it occurs? Also, since my proposal is to use these taxes to pay for health care costs, overall wouldn't your daughter/family be financially better off under my proposal since the small tax you pay on a can of coke and jelly beans would be offset by the amount you get back to help you pay for her relatively large health care expenses? It seems to me your daughters case is exceptional, but the solution is not to not tax the vast majority of coke-buyers as a way to fund health care spending, but rather to increase your daughters coverage (theoretically using the extra revenue from the taxes) to more than offset the increased taxes she pays. If the government is not helping pay for your daughter's health care, then I think you are correct that it makes no sense for the government to tax you for buying what is practically over-the-counter medicine for your daughter in the form of coke. My proposal is under the assumption the government is or is going to be spending money on health care anyway, and under the assumption I think it is only fair that people pay more unhealthy activities. I also think there is an argument for providing your daughter more benefits, not only on grounds that she might be paying this tax, but on grounds that she is not at all responsible for her condition. Insofar as a diagnosis speaks clearly to fault, I think it makes sense to accommodate that in copays and deductibles so that your daughter saves money while if I go in with a motorcycle accident I would pay more percentage-wise for the two reasons that (1) it seems fairer and (2) it can act as a financial discouragement for me riding a motorcycle which can lower health care costs.
Aila wrote:2) I have a couple of health conditions (under-active thyroid, very high cortisol levels) that render me overweight, yet I lead a healthy lifestyle. (The thyroid condition is an auto-immune condition that is genetically linked to my daughter's diabetes.) Should people in my position be penalised for being 'overweight' when we are on medication to try to correct our condition already? Should a genetic profile be done on every single person seeking health insurance to see what may/may not impact their health now or later? (That would open Pandora's box, I'm sure!!)
I do not want to tax people for being overweight, even if simply to avoid issues of medical privacy. I want to tax the known unhealthy behaviors that significantly help cause them to be overweight like eating Big Macs, coke and candy. Similarly, I do not want to tax having lung cancer, but I want to take the known unhealthy behaviors that cause lung cancer like smoking cigarettes. A skinny person with healthy lungs who buys a bag of candy, a cigarette and a coke would pay the tax just the same, and an obese person with lung cancer would not pay the tax if he does not buy those things which presumably means he got obese and got cancer through some other means that's cause is either too impractical to tax or is not a matter of lifestyle choice.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"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.
Godless Truth
Posts: 153
Joined: September 4th, 2012, 8:39 pm

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by Godless Truth »

Obese: Don't eat what your body does not correlate with. It makes no sense to destroy your body, after childhood. Your body may stop growing and only age, but the mind is always expanding as much as our outside universe. If you do not like your body, do not throw it away like it was some kind of vegetable. Understand why you do not like your body, work with it, you are going to be living with it until you die. Why are we concerned with death so much, but are not concerned with our bodies?

Smokers: Stop smoking, your lungs will give in, and I will make you collapse a lung if you get in an argument with me in regard to your smoking - to make a point.

Other: Is it not that difficult to tell your mind 'no'. It is time to understand self-discipline and that this world is not just our own, so that we can take responsibility for our actions and ideas. Any act that harms you, only harms others. This is a ripple effect. Perhaps not in the same sense, but when you act on weakness, you are a bad influence and a terribly pathetic role model.
User avatar
Aila
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: August 13th, 2012, 9:54 pm

Re: Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

Post by Aila »

Thank you, Scott, for the reply.

Without wishing to hijack the topic at hand, I will briefly answer your (very valid) question regarding coke vs. raisins, fruit juice. Fruits are a slower acting carb. When a diabetic has low blood glucose levels, they require a very fast acting (ie high sugar) instant 'fix', if you will. If they go too low they can lose the ability to speak, chew, etc before losing consciousness. At that point even jelly beans are no good, though they can still drink. Juice is an option but, if she is not carrying any on her, it is easier to mumble "coke" & have someone run for it. And it is usually more readily available. Perhaps that is the problem with fast foods - their ready availability and the difficulty that can sometimes arise in looking for healthy alternatives. In the situation described above there simply isn't time to look as time is of the essence & the 'good' thing about coke is that it is so very high in sugar that the results that come from drinking it are almost instantaneous. The only reason I mentioned it at all, was because she happened to walk past me as I was reading the topic and it caused me to stop and think about it from her point of view :)

In the interests of full disclosure I ought to have mentioned that I am Australian so am already living in a society that has universal health care (though we also have private health insurance) and, as pointed out in an earlier post, our government already has the sort of taxes you are proposing. Interestingly, our society has not become any 'thinner' in the years since the GST was implemented (that is, Goods & Services Tax which is not placed on essential food items, only 'luxury' goods). The discussion over here at the moment is more to do with the impact of advertising. You may have heard that as of December 2012 all cigarettes here will be sold in plain, olive green packaging with graphic imaging on them. And there is strong debate about fast food advertising during children's viewing hours on TV to try to combat childhood obesity.

The only reason I mentioned my own condition was in response to a much earlier suggestion of yours in the topic. I believe it was post #22, and I quote:

"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."

My reason for bringing my condition up was to highlight that the numbers on the scale are only part of the medical history. So should premiums be based solely on the numbers on a scale? And does the fact that medical conditions causing overweight problems really exist affect the wider view of the board regarding the weight issue? (I say that having noticed that some posters seem to take no account of this and merely address it from the stance that overweight people must be doing it to themselves. This is not directed at you personally at all.)

Overall my opinion is that your proposals are sound though, judging from the Australian experience, they do not appear to be reaping the results one would hope for. Unless you were to make the taxes so exorbitant that the cost of the luxury items were prohibitive, I believe that humans will continue to do what they want and will not think of the consequences. Hence why I suggested the BBC article. My feeling is the solution lies in a re-think of our current position.

Thank you for a very thought provoking topic.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021