Taxing Poor Health (or Banning it)

[geoffrey]

According to this StatsCan report , most Canadians are overweight.

Needless to say, just about every disease out there (heart disease, diabeties, muscle/joint diseases, cancer) can be in many cases linked to poor health, poor diety and generally low activity. These diseases cost us billions, take up valuable hospital beds, and most importantly, are killing people everyday.

Now in a private, user pay system, I'd gladly take the libertarian stance and have people damage themselves as they wish. But hey, it's not a private system in Canada, I pay for these people's choices and risk to the system.

So, I propose that these people need to start paying for their damage to society. Tax, as the liberals would say, the 'root causes' of obesity... junk food, trans-fats, ect., ban them so people can't get fat, or make the abusers pay for the added risk to our system their habits cause... a weight tax (I can see numerous problems with that specific example... or a fitness tax, less fit, you pay more health care fees.

This is a real deal issue that needs to be dealt with by this government, the costs will be enourmous once these fat kids grow up to be fat adults. What will the government do to protect our money from this added risk? What can they do with the Charter limiting discrimination based on age/disability, ect.?

[Charles Anthony]

All taxes are bad. Therefore, I object to this tax.

But hey, it's not a private system in Canada, I pay for these people's choices and risk to the system.

That is a bad excuse.

I could easily say that the junk food industry employs people in Canada and generates tax revenues in Canada more than vegan diets or supernatural health-food stores ever will. Even if people are healthier, you might be paying more for your health care because you would have more unemployment.

If you are not willing to take the libertarian view, shut up and pay your taxes.

[Figleaf]

'

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Renegade]

Now in a private, user pay system, I'd gladly take the libertarian stance and have people damage themselves as they wish. But hey, it's not a private system in Canada, I pay for these people's choices and risk to the system.

You can still take a libertarian view even in a public health system and penalize people for bad health choices. Simply have people pay a premium for health care, based upon their risk factors. Those risk factors can be as simple or as complex as we choose. For example, premium can be based upon weight, age, smoking status, etc. Simply put, a libertarian view would agree that those who are more at risk of using the system, should pay correspondingly more.

[Renegade]

Finally, why focus on food? Skiers are constantly running to the hospital with blown knees and broken ankles. Should we not on the same principle tax other health hazards?

It shoudl not be ristricted only to food. Any activity or condition which puts the person being covered at higher risk of needing medical coverage should be required to pay more.

[Figleaf]

You toe vac.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Charles Anthony]

It shoudl not be ristricted only to food. Any activity or condition which puts the person being covered at higher risk of needing medical coverage should be required to pay more.

Should people born with congenital disorders be required to pay more too?

[Remiel]

How exactly would you spend these tax dollars, anyway? Just toss them at health care, or spend them on subsidizing solutions to the problem?

[Renegade]

It shoudl not be ristricted only to food. Any activity or condition which puts the person being covered at higher risk of needing medical coverage should be required to pay more.

Should people born with congenital disorders be required to pay more too?

It would depend upon how we structured the assessment of risk. If we asked the parents to put up a health premium at the time when they found out they were pregnant, but before they were aware of any congenital defect, then no extra premium is required, as the risk and cost of treating the congenital defect is spread among all pregnanicies.

OTOH, if for example, someone was immigrating to Canada and suffered from a congenital disorder and wanted Canadian healthcare coverage, then yes, they would also be required to pay more.

[blueblood]

I think that in our modern healthcare system that those are obese should be at the bottom of the line in the wait lines, if they want to skip ahead in the lines they can shell out the dough for health insurance and let the insurance companies penalize them. I don't think that taxing food is a good idea, it punishes the people that are not obese. This could lead to another rural vs. urban issue as if you go out to the country side there are not nearly as many obese people due to our lifestyle. i have a sweet tooth and i shouldn't have to suffer because some fat ass is too lazy to exercise. Crank up the phys-ed program in school with mandatory programs, if a person knows they can't eat junk food then they shouldn't eat it. the parents should set better examples. And change the labour laws so that it gives time for parents to be parents, nothing wrong with shifts. It's a change in society thats going to fight obesity, I believe in time that obesity will become the new smoking and numbers will drop like with smoking as society despises it, for example you can express disgust at a smoker, but God help you if you call a girl fat.

[geoffrey]

I think that in our modern healthcare system that those are obese should be at the bottom of the line in the wait lines, if they want to skip ahead in the lines they can shell out the dough for health insurance and let the insurance companies penalize them. I don't think that taxing food is a good idea, it punishes the people that are not obese. This could lead to another rural vs. urban issue as if you go out to the country side there are not nearly as many obese people due to our lifestyle. i have a sweet tooth and i shouldn't have to suffer because some fat ass is too lazy to exercise. Crank up the phys-ed program in school with mandatory programs, if a person knows they can't eat junk food then they shouldn't eat it. the parents should set better examples. And change the labour laws so that it gives time for parents to be parents, nothing wrong with shifts. It's a change in society thats going to fight obesity, I believe in time that obesity will become the new smoking and numbers will drop like with smoking as society despises it, for example you can express disgust at a smoker, but God help you if you call a girl fat.

Unfortunately blueblood, rural people are as likely if not more likely to be obese. Some quote lack of gym services... who knows? Obesity is the new smoking (maybe all those quiting smoking are in fact worse off?)... we tax unhealthy activities like smoking but not being fat. Why not?

Why is criticism of fat people (a now larger burden on our system then smokers, no pun intended) taboo but smokers ok? It's a good question, and I don't really have an answer.

I think it rests with the attitude that they can't do anything about it, so how can we be critical. Well, that's just the lazy attitude that gets them there in the first place. Maybe society should be more critical, harder for fat people. Then like smokers, they'll adapt to the reality that their activities are a burden on everyone, and clean up their act?

[blueblood]

I think that in our modern healthcare system that those are obese should be at the bottom of the line in the wait lines, if they want to skip ahead in the lines they can shell out the dough for health insurance and let the insurance companies penalize them. I don't think that taxing food is a good idea, it punishes the people that are not obese. This could lead to another rural vs. urban issue as if you go out to the country side there are not nearly as many obese people due to our lifestyle. i have a sweet tooth and i shouldn't have to suffer because some fat ass is too lazy to exercise. Crank up the phys-ed program in school with mandatory programs, if a person knows they can't eat junk food then they shouldn't eat it. the parents should set better examples. And change the labour laws so that it gives time for parents to be parents, nothing wrong with shifts. It's a change in society thats going to fight obesity, I believe in time that obesity will become the new smoking and numbers will drop like with smoking as society despises it, for example you can express disgust at a smoker, but God help you if you call a girl fat.

Unfortunately blueblood, rural people are as likely if not more likely to be obese. Some quote lack of gym services... who knows? Obesity is the new smoking (maybe all those quiting smoking are in fact worse off?)... we tax unhealthy activities like smoking but not being fat. Why not?

Why is criticism of fat people (a now larger burden on our system then smokers, no pun intended) taboo but smokers ok? It's a good question, and I don't really have an answer.

I think it rests with the attitude that they can't do anything about it, so how can we be critical. Well, that's just the lazy attitude that gets them there in the first place. Maybe society should be more critical, harder for fat people. Then like smokers, they'll adapt to the reality that their activities are a burden on everyone, and clean up their act?

Well from what i've seen with my own two eyes, i couldn't find an obese person fresh off the farm, but in town and in the city there's a pile of them. It's pretty hard to have an outdoor job and be obese at the same time, I haven't seen a obese person at an outdoor job, maybe you have, whatever.

You can't tax junk food because it is unfair to those who eat junk food and aren't obese. If we tax all unhealthy activities we might as well tax farmers, oil field workers, miners, lumber workers, and fishermen extra, those jobs are all dangerous and they take up hospital beds too and it's their choice to live this lifestyle. Putting the obese people on the bottom of the of the waiting list and forcing them to go private is punishment enough.

If plugging up the hospitals is the concern then go after the universities to put more people thru med school, make it a nightmare for canadian trained doctors to go to the states, invest more in hospitals, this might cost money, but i think those special interest groups that the liberals like to "buy off" can be cut. It's better to invest heavily in a program that works and all can enjoy instead of catering to a wide range of special interest groups with half assed programs and a half assed medicare to boot.

[BubberMiley]

I pay for these people's choices and risk to the system.

You're unhappy paying for people's healthcare costs but have no problem paying for the administrative burden of monitoring people's behaviour, evaluating it according to risk, and establishing added fees based on their behaviour. It sounds like this system could cost more than just paying the hospital costs to begin with, especially when you consider that most obese people make less than $20K a year and will need social assistance to pay for their healthcare anyway.

[geoffrey]

I pay for these people's choices and risk to the system.

You're unhappy paying for people's healthcare costs but have no problem paying for the administrative burden of monitoring people's behaviour, evaluating it according to risk, and establishing added fees based on their behaviour. It sounds like this system could cost more than just paying the hospital costs to begin with, especially when you consider that most obese people make less than $20K a year and will need social assistance to pay for their healthcare anyway.

Or they could get off their ass and not have to need social assistance. Sheesh.

Your secondary health insurance does this already, and they turn mighty profits. It's possible to do this on the cheap.

[cybercoma]

Everyone pays taxes and if the majority of people are overweight, than the majority of people are paying for the hospital bill.

Why not charge people more for healthcare based on a risk assessment? Anyone who has a family history of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. should pay a health premium. Anyone who has a disability and will use the healthcare system more, should pay more taxes. Anyone who drives. Anyone who plays sports. Anyone that has a dangerous job.

Oh wait, that'd be everyone in the country.

Or we could all continue to pay what we're paying into the system and continue to be covered for what we're covered.

[cybercoma]

most obese people make less than $20K a year

This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on these forums.

Better provide a reference on that one, Bubba.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Why is criticism of fat people (a now larger burden on our system then smokers, no pun intended) taboo but smokers ok? It's a good question, and I don't really have an answer.

Fortunately, hearts are very forgiving and fatsos and smokers alike can make their hearts sing with some dedicated aerobic exercise.

Unfortunately, lungs are unforgiving, and THAT'S where we smokers lose to nonsmoking fatsos.

But smoking is lots of fun and I still encourage people around me to:

"Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! that cigarette.

Puff! Puff! Puff!

And if you smoke yourself to death,

Tell Saint Peter at the golden gate,

That you hates to make him wait,

But you gotta have another cigarette."

[BubberMiley]

This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on these forums.

You should really read what you write before you post. Didn't you once start a whole thread all about something I said, which I didn't say, and then you disappeared when I asked you to back it up?

Now that was dumb.

Better provide a reference on that one, Bubba.

“Obesity disproportionately burdens low-income, ethnic minority populations,” said Rebecca E. Lee, PhD, of the Department of Health and Human Performance at the University of Houston, in Houston, TX and lead researcher on the study. “The results of our study suggest that one reason may be that these populations have less access to healthy foods.”

http://www.naaso.org/news/20041118.asp

I dig Phil Harris too.

[cybercoma]

Better provide a reference on that one, Bubba.

“Obesity disproportionately burdens low-income, ethnic minority populations,” said Rebecca E. Lee, PhD, of the Department of Health and Human Performance at the University of Houston, in Houston, TX and lead researcher on the study. “The results of our study suggest that one reason may be that these populations have less access to healthy foods.”

http://www.naaso.org/news/20041118.asp

"One study compared the availability and quality of produce in high-income versus low-income urban neighborhoods in Kansas City. The study found that people living in low-income, urban neighborhoods had access to at least one convenience store and a liquor store that sold convenience foods but very few supermarkets or grocery stores."

American statistics.

"Predominantly African-American neighborhoods were more likely to have fewer chain grocery stores and more independently owned operations (which typically offer more limited food choices). "

All those predominantly African-American neighbourhoods in Canada, like they have in the US?

I lived right next door to Detroit, MI... my sister was engage to a guy who lived near 5 Mile Rd... we don't have "predominantly African-American neighbourhoods" in Canada, with the living conditions they have in the US.

Ever step foot into an American grocery store? The FDA is a little more relaxed than their Canadian counterparts. It's a little scary what you can get on their shelves and the study is right... in black urban areas, the choices are crap. That still doesn't mean BECAUSE they're poor they're obese. The study does show any sort of cause and effect relationship.

At the end of the article, it goes on to state how this society grasps at straws to find reasons for obesity because that's their raison d'etre.

You're going to have to come up with something better than that and a little more applicable to Canadian society if you want to promote a "tax-by-risk" basis for healthcare. Like I said, anyone could be levied for a number of different reasons, so it doesn't make sense to just pick out one group. Everyone should just continue paying into it what they're paying into and quit their bitching.

[cybercoma]

I'm dumb, you weren't defending the plan.

Regardless, I know the studies say there is a corelation between poverty and obesity, but none of them definitively show a cause and effect.

[Remiel]

Anyone who equates eating with smoking, drinking (alcohol) or drugs is just plain dumb. You quit smoking, drinking (alcohol) or doing drugs to live. You quit eating to die. Eating is not a zero-sum game like the others.

[geoffrey]

Anyone who equates eating with smoking, drinking (alcohol) or drugs is just plain dumb. You quit smoking, drinking (alcohol) or doing drugs to live. You quit eating to die. Eating is not a zero-sum game like the others.

Over eating and being lazy are though. One will die of it.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I dig Phil Harris too.

If I was forced to get rid of all of my old songs collection, "Smoke Smoke Smoke That Cigarette" would be the hardest to part with.

http://great-song-stylists-uk.com/Phil%20H...Philharris2.htm

[betsy]

They've just discovered that lung cancer is rising among those who don't smoke at all, or not exposed to second hand smoke.

So is this taxing or banning just going to be for what we eat...or it could very well extend to other things.

For all we know, it's all in the genes. Some people are more susceptible to these diseases.

[Renegade]

You're going to have to come up with something better than that and a little more applicable to Canadian society if you want to promote a "tax-by-risk" basis for healthcare. Like I said, anyone could be levied for a number of different reasons, so it doesn't make sense to just pick out one group. Everyone should just continue paying into it what they're paying into and quit their bitching.

Life insurance is a "tax by risk" endevour. While everyone of us has risk factors we still don't pay the same amount for life insurance because the risks are different for each. The same can apply to health insurance.

The current system basically amounts to paying for health by income, which has nothing to do with consumption of healthcare or risk thereof.