Thanks Kwame!

[Filipe]

Detroit Mayor Seeks Fast Food Tax
Consumer Affairs | May 9th, 2005
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/fat_tax.html

It had to happen sooner or later: a fat tax. With concerns about obesity growing, and the independent film "Supersize Me" gaining near-cult status, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick says now may be the time to put an extra tax on fast food.

The money would certainly come in handy. Detroit is grappling with a $300 million budget deficit and Kilpatrick believes a two percent fast food tax would help fill city coffers while making consumers think twice before downing so much unhealthy fast food.

Taxes on restaurant meals are nothing new. Many municipalities levy a "prepared meals tax" on top of state sales tax to supplement local tax revenue. But what Detroit is considering goes a step farther.

The National Restaurant Association, a Washington lobbying group for the restaurant industry, says this would be the first time a specific type of restaurant has been singled out for taxation. The tax would apply to any fast food restaurant product, even a cup of coffee.

Critics charge the proposed tax is unfair, since young people and the elderly -- two groups at the lower end of the economic scale -- tend to be the most frequent fast food customers. They point out it's highly unlikely it could ever be enacted, since it would require the state legislature to amend the tax law and would need the approval of Detroit voters, who may not be ready to give up their Big Macs and Whoppers.

[Jwaksman]

I have an idea. Why not just give everyone an ID that says what they can eat? You have to get weighed every 6 months, and if you're overweight you're not allowed to eat fast food.


Another problem that needs fixing is marriages. All these bad marriages end up with kids who are children of divorcees. In order to prevent this we should have a marriage committee that must approve any marriage.

[Filipe]

I also like the bill in Texas that limits sexually suggestive movement during cheerleading.

House OKs cheerleader bill

Limits on sexually suggestive routines face uncertain future in Senate

07:18 AM CDT on Wednesday, May 4, 2005

By KAREN BROOKS / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – When it comes to cheerleaders and drill teams shimmying on the football field, how low can they go?

The House didn't answer that question Tuesday, but it did decide who should: The state's education officials, who aren't entirely sure about their proposed new role as the moral stewards of Texas high schools.

After one of the most surprising, emotional and nail-biting debates of this year's session, the House narrowly approved a bill that has brought national attention – and sometimes mockery – to Texas and the Legislature. It would allow the Texas Education Agency to set standards for sexually suggestive performances and direct state and local officials to respond to complaints about routines.

First, though, the bill may face an uphill battle in the Senate, where it has no sponsor. Lawmakers have less than a month to finish legislation.

The bill's relieved author, Rep. Al Edwards, D-Houston, declared it a "monumental vote." He said the House had "broken some barriers" by voting to discourage behavior ingrained in society – particularly in football-happy Texas – for years.

"Our 12, 14, 16, 18-year-old girls can get out and do all these overly sexual performances, and we applaud them. And that's not right," Mr. Edwards told House members. "When I am asked the question, 'Aren't there more important things to do?' I say nothing that we do up here is more important than our children. ... I say to you, this is the beginning of an era to change what we've been seeing."

Critics, though, called the legislation "sexist," "silly," "stupid," and "insulting," and after a two-hour vote, the House deadlocked in a 64-64 vote. When the vote was verified, several "no" voters had left the House floor, so the bill passed, 65-56. Supporters erupted in cheers, waving blue-and-white pompoms kept hidden until just the right moment.

"I have talked to so many parents who have to work closely with the coaches, and they say they're coming up short as far as how much influence they have. This is empowering to them," said Cathie Adams, executive director of the socially conservative Texas Eagle Forum.

Mr. Edwards, an ordained minister known for letting his moral compass guide his legislation, originally intended to allow for reduced funding for schools that allow suggestive routines. But that provision was removed after districts protested loudly.

The bill gives the education agency the authority to direct a school district to respond to complaints regarding "overly sexually suggestive" performances. If the district does not review or respond appropriately, the legislation says, the agency can take action.

Education officials are hesitant to come down on either side of the bill, saying they want to see it in its final version. But they are hesitant to decide what the standards might be.

"How vulgar a dance is may be in the eye of the beholder," said Debbie Graves Ratcliffe, an agency spokeswoman.

That very vagueness drew the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Cheerleaders Association and cheerleaders and coaches across the nation.

Mr. Edwards – the lawmaker who helped turn Juneteenth into a holiday and who once proposed that prisons cut off the fingers of drug dealers – has appeared on CNN, BBC, and Fox News to discuss his bill, and has been lampooned by late-night comics all over the nation.

The debate began with light-hearted cheering and shaking pompoms. Someone blared Tom Jones' version of "You Sexy Thing" across the House floor.

But months of laughter, teasing, and shaking of pompoms on the House floor gave way to an unexpectedly serious and passionate debate over the right of free expression, the exploitation of girls and the legislation of morality.

Mr. Edwards – who carried a pompom only after he won the vote – admonished the other members for humor surrounding "a very serious bill."

His adversaries quickly got serious, too, blasting the legislation and Mr. Edwards for bringing up "this kind of garbage" and wasting time.

"You can't legislate morality. This is a ridiculous bill. It's stupid and it's insulting," said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, a fellow Houston Democrat. "It's an embarrassment and indictment of this body that this kind of garbage has reached the floor of this House."

Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, said it created "thought police" who could "decide for the rest of Texas" what is sexual and what is not. Critics also said it insulted a sport that is respectable and requires great athletic skill.

Some House Republicans also argued that it took control away from local school districts and gave TEA a hammer to enforce what should be community standards – not statewide rules.

"I've got full faith in my coaches and principals that they'll take care of this," said Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth.

His defenders pointed out that the Legislature often legislates morality and takes the lead when the local communities don't appear to be acting appropriately.

"We have a problem in this society," said Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock. "We have a problem with throw-away marriage, throw-away children. We have a problem with social decay where there is a lack of old-fashioned morality."

Republican Rep. Tommy Merritt, whose Longview district includes the famous Kilgore Rangerettes, also supported the bill, using the dais to trumpet the squeaky-clean dancing of the world's first drill team.

Former cheerleader sponsor Carter Casteel, a New Braunfels Republican, told her colleagues that "now is the time" to take a stand and remind the state's young people that it's not necessary to be sexual in order to be artistic and entertaining.

"Sometimes we should, as adults, stand up and say there's a better way to do things," she said. "As adults, we should stand up and say there's a proper way to behave."

E-mail kmbrooks@dallasnews.com

[running high]

Jwaks...lol, we need to get thinner as a country, but that would devestate a lot of restaraunts. Also, would have to be body fat percentage.

[mzungu]

he was being sarcastic but he believes that government should not tax at all, let alone tax unhealthy lifestyles. however, anyone who accepts the principle that it is good to tax alcohol or tobacco would have to accept that it is good to tax fast food, unless you're going to view alcohol/tobacco morally as to be discouraged simply because they are drugs. fast food, like alcohol and tobacco, is extremely bad for your health. it is incredibly fatty, and people cotton to it because it's very cheap for the calories relative to other types of food and our bodies through evolution are hungry for sugar and fat--it's very easy for us to get addicted to it. The effects on society are that obesity is the leading cause of death, about 430,000 deaths a year allegedly, just a bit more than tobacco deaths, and 300,000 more than alcohol-related deaths. Society loses a great deal in productivity and increased health care costs. so, there are good arguments to be made in favor of such a step.

And did anyone else notice this paragraph in the cheerleader article?

"The bill's relieved author, Rep. TrackDaddy, D-Houston, declared it a "monumental vote." He said the House had "broken some barriers" by voting to discourage behavior ingrained in society – particularly in football-happy Texas – for years.

[exjersey1]

And did anyone else notice this paragraph in the cheerleader article?

"The bill's relieved author, Rep. TrackDaddy, D-Houston, declared it a "monumental vote." He said the House had "broken some barriers" by voting to discourage behavior ingrained in society – particularly in football-happy Texas – for years.


I was shocked to see that TrackDaddy was a Democrat and not a Republican. I heard that it took nearly 4 days to convince him that this legislation was directed at all cheerleaders and not a racist bill aimed only at the "cheerleaders of color."

[Jwaksman]

They're one step ahead of you, Layla. Several congressmen have proposed exercise tax breaks - where people who "exercise regularly" get like a $500 credit on their taxes. How you define "exercise regularly" is beyond me.


But, whatever, it's always a good dyestat thread when mzungu tries to make up a quote for me and then bashes it.

The argument that some taxes are needed does not lead to the conclusion that any tax is okay if it's for "a good purpose." That is not a sound argument.

It is not the job of government to regulate morality. That's what right-wing fanatics in the Republican Party do. And you're not a fanatical religious right-winger, are you? How is taxing "fast food" any different from regulating cheerleading outfits? It's not at all. To criticize one and not the other is hypocritical.


And when have I ever argue that we shouldn't have any taxes at all??? I support the taxes that are constitutional and that go towards constitutional purposes. We need to have an army, for example, that needs to get paid...

[exjersey1]

I wonder how much in taxes an Exercise Bulimic would have to pay...


:)

I now have a vision of some IRS agent walking up to a Bulimic and saying "OK, cough it up."

[Sebrle]

Wouldn’t an individual who lives off of Social Security and Medicare until they are 90 because they are forced financially through taxes to live a healthy lifestyle be more of a cost to the government than a guy who chooses to smoke, drink, and inhale cheeseburgers until he dies of a heart attack at 60?

[KenA55]

Undoubtedly. MacDonalds and Burger King (among other things) help many choose the early checkout option. Imagine what retirement might cost if the average lifespan suddenly shot up to 95 over the course of the next couple decades.

But seriously, on this issue- didn't they just release some press thing a few weeks back that obesity was the leading cause of death or at least had risen sharply- and then it turned out to be a groundless statement, no research to back it up? In fact research does show longer life expectancy for the moderately overweight as opposed to the very thin. I think it's a reflection of the media's failure to insist on examining real backup info before going to press that has them going forward with so much of this sort of non-science (nonsense?) in the first place. Anybody with any kind of claim is an instant expert if the press likes the story.

[Dyenimator]

Why would HIP HOP KILLpatrick want a fast food tax? Once he gets thrown out of the mayor's position and nobody will want any relation with him because he's done such a horrid job, he's not going to have his fancy Expedition to drive around. He'll be driving a 1998 Grand Am like the rest of us, eating BK a few times a week. How can you say he won't? Has anyone seen him lately?

http://www.aaujrogames.org/detroit03/sports/2003photos/day%203/day%203-Images/4.jpg

[jrun]

Isn't this the same guy who ran up over $200,000 on a governmental credit card buying champagne and fancy dinners at places like P-Diddy's restaurant?

[mzungu]

Wouldn’t an individual who lives off of Social Security and Medicare until they are 90 because they are forced financially through taxes to live a healthy lifestyle be more of a cost to the government than a guy who chooses to smoke, drink, and inhale cheeseburgers until he dies of a heart attack at 60?

social security earnings are not a 'cost to government', because they are our individual contribution to our retirement, which is why they vary depending on how much you have earned. and the people who smoke are incredibly costly in terms of health care, because lung cancer is a long-term disease requiring incredibly expensive care. the fat guy who dies of a heart attack at 60 would just cost money in trying to drag his sorry butt out the door and into the grave. however, in many cases, it's not that clean. we're talking about heart-transplant surgery, or years and years of government-funded anti-cholesterol drugs or raising the cost of health care for the rest of us. if it was so cheap to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, then why don't health insurance companies charge lower rates for them?

[mzungu]

Undoubtedly. MacDonalds and Burger King (among other things) help many choose the early checkout option. Imagine what retirement might cost if the average lifespan suddenly shot up to 95 over the course of the next couple decades.

But seriously, on this issue- didn't they just release some press thing a few weeks back that obesity was the leading cause of death or at least had risen sharply- and then it turned out to be a groundless statement, no research to back it up? In fact research does show longer life expectancy for the moderately overweight as opposed to the very thin. I think it's a reflection of the media's failure to insist on examining real backup info before going to press that has them going forward with so much of this sort of non-science (nonsense?) in the first place. Anybody with any kind of claim is an instant expert if the press likes the story.

I don't believe that recent story for a second. It was not just one study that showed obesity to be a major cause of death. The most recent story just did not sound credible. But, in any case, if you're talking about being moderately overweight, then most Americans exceed that standard, and the study didn't say that the average American in terms of weight was going to be healthier than the few of us who are at or below the 'proper' weight.

[Jwaksman]

I think what he's referring to is that the government has announced that they vastly overstated the number of deaths due annually to obesity.


It's like when California announced that an extraordinary percentage of car accidents were due to cellphone use. But the way they had come up with that number was by counting every single accident involving anyone with a cellphone on as "an accident caused by a cellphone."


Of course, obesity is a major problem. Although it says something about the luxury that we all live in that the new plague of the poor is not starvation, but obesity...

[mzungu]

Here we go again, Jwaksman posts and Mzungu takes the opportunity to bash him. This is getting old. Don't you have a day job?

But Holy Hell, that has to be the most Socialist argument I've ever heard:
"Society loses a great deal in productivity and increased health care costs. so, there are good arguments to be made in favor of such a step."

For the Good of the Whole! :rolleyes:

Alcohol and Tobacco are taxed under the heading of "Sin Taxes." Alcohol and Tobacco are taxed because they are addicting, yes, and government can make a lot of money from taxing it. I don't even know how you can compare alcohol/tobacco with fast food. Yes, they both kill, but hey, we all have a 100% chance of dying, so pick your poison. The difference is that Alcohol and Tobacco can have victims: ie, drunk driving, domestic abuse as a result of drunkenness, and second-hand smoking.

Obesity, on the other hand, you can't make the same argument for. If you're going to try to tell me that obesity kills and therefore families are affected, I'm going to try to make a case for Government regulation of sunscreen application and time spent in the sun in order to reduce skin cancer deaths. Ridiculous! But ignore that, and remember that obesity is a result of a combination of things, including but not limited to:

-Genetics
-Lack of exercise
-Overeating
-Eating normal amounts, but eating food with poor nutritional value

(And remember that the American "Normal" is Overeating in Europe, where they see far less obesity.)

Why on earth would you support the government becoming even richer by taxing something like fast food, which is NOT physically addicting like nicotine or alcohol, but psychologically addicting? But then again, so is porn. So is dyestat! Should government be able to tax porn and dyestat because they're mentally addicting and take away a lot of time that could be used for productive work? Shouldn't an uberliberal such as yourself be fighting for the right to be mentally addicted to something WITHOUT government being involved?

Adding a few cents on the dollar per hamburger isn't going to stop anybody from running to McDonalds for the occasional meal, or everyday meal, even. We won't be seeing less deaths via obesity as a result of TAX. You said it yourself, fast food is an addiction, no? Do you really think the addicted obese guy will sit in the Drive Thru at McDonald's and say to himself, "Shoot, Big Mac Meals are $5.39 now, not $5.09! I'm going to have to go home, eat a salad, work out, and call my Cardiologist!"

This proposed tax is just another symbolic move in government becoming entirely overinvolved in everyday life.

Layla, your use of labels is unhelpful. The arguments above are not socialist and I am not an "uberliberal." The statement you call socialist is based on a statement made by pro-business types in just about every article I have ever read in the newspaper about why various things in our society are bad (depression is bad because it has bad effects on productivity; obesity is bad because it has bad effects on productivity, etc.). That was not socialist at all. This is the way people think who examine the effects of individual problems on society and economy. Taxes on fast food already exist and raising them by two cents would have a negligible effect on consumption. So, what would the purpose be? Obviously, you could use the extra money to help pay for the strain on the public health care system. Would it make government richer? Government has declined significantly as a percentage of the economy over the last thirty years. (One of the results is a decline in funding for state universities.) The notion that social policy should be based on the good of the whole is hardly a socialist idea; that's enshrined in our founding documents, i.e. where it says "for the common welfare." It doesn't say for the welfare of the rich. We do all have a 100% chance of dying, other than Christians for whom there is no death, since they believe the soul is immortal, which is precisely why it is important how long and healthy our life is. As a society, we spend $300 billion in a war allegedly for the purpose of discouraging terrorism, after attacks that killed 2,700 people, when lifestyle choices are costing us about 1,000,000 premature deaths every year and our life expectancy is well below other nations. If you accept the legitimacy of tobacco taxes, as most people do, then why not the legitimacy of taxing food? In fact, there is no difference here between different taxes. There are taxes on gasoline, tobacco, alcohol, park permits, road use, sales tax on virtually everything, estate taxes for the rich, dividend taxes used to exist, and so forth. What basic line is being crossed here? All I see is that a legitimate social purpose is served. What do judges say in allowing search and seizure without a warrant to be national policy? They cite a legitimate social purpose.

[mzungu]

The direct health care costs of obesity in the United States
DB Allison, R Zannolli and KM Narayan
Obesity Research Center, St. Luke's/Roosevelt Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY 10025, USA. dba8@columbia.edu
OBJECTIVES: Recent estimates suggest that obesity accounts for 5.7% of US total direct health care costs, but these estimates have not accounted for the increased death rate among obese people. This article examines whether the estimated direct health care costs attributable to obesity are offset by the increased mortality rate among obese individuals. METHODS: Data on death rates, relative risks of death with obesity, and health care costs at different ages were used to estimate direct health care costs of obesity from 20 to 85 years of age with and without accounting for increased death rates associated with obesity. Sensitivity analyses used different values of relative risk of death, given obesity, and allowed the relative costs due to obesity per unit of time to vary with age. RESULTS: Direct health care costs from 20 to 85 years of age were estimated to be approximately 25% lower when differential mortality was taken into account. Sensitivity analyses suggested that direct health care costs of obesity are unlikely to exceed 4.32% or to be lower than 0.89%. CONCLUSIONS: Increased mortality among obese people should be accounted for in order not to overestimate health care costs.
Obesity Research 12:1936-1943 (2004)
© 2004 The North American Association for the Study of Obesity


Original Articles
Moderate and Severe Obesity Have Large Differences in Health Care Costs
Tatiana Andreyeva, Roland Sturm and Jeanne S. Ringel
RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, California.
Address correspondence to: Tatiana Andreyeva, RAND Graduate School, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. E-mail: tatiana@rand.org
Objective: To analyze health care use and expenditures associated with varying degrees of obesity for a nationally representative sample of individuals 54 to 69 years old.
Research Methods and Procedures: Data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationwide biennial longitudinal survey of Americans in their 50s, were used to estimate multivariate regression models of the effect of weight class on health care use and costs. The main outcomes were total health care expenditures, the number of outpatient visits, the probability of any inpatient stay, and the number of inpatient days.
Results: The results indicated that there were large differences in obesity-related health care costs by degree of obesity. Overall, a BMI of 35 to 40 was associated with twice the increase in health care expenditures above normal weight (about a 50% increase) than a BMI of 30 to 35 (about a 25% increase); a BMI of over 40 doubled health care costs 100% higher costs above those of normal weight). There was a difference by gender in how health care use and costs changed with obesity class. The primary effect of increasing weight class on health care use appeared to be through elevated use of outpatient health care services.
Discussion: Obesity imposes an increasing burden on the health care system, and that burden grows disproportionately large for the most obese segment of the U.S. population. Because the prevalence of severe obesity is increasing much faster than that of moderate obesity, average estimates of obesity effects obscure real consequences for individuals, physician practices, hospitals, and health plans.
Key Words: health care use • health care expenditures • body weight class


November 1999, 31:11 > Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. < Previous | Next >
ARTICLE LINKS:
Fulltext
Economic costs of obesity and inactivity.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 31(11) Supplement 1:S663, November 1999.
COLDITZ, GRAHAM A.
Abstract:
COLDITZ, G. A. Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 31, No. 11, Suppl., pp. S663-S667, 1999.
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to assess the economic costs of inactivity (including those attributable to obesity). These costs represent one summary of the public health impact of increasingly sedentary populations in countries with established market economies. Components of the costs of illness include direct costs resulting from treatment of morbidity and indirect costs caused by lost productivity (work days lost) and forgone earnings caused by premature mortality.
Methods: We searched the Medline database for studies reporting the economic costs of obesity or inactivity, or cost of illness. From the identified references those relating to obesity or conditions attributable to obesity were reviewed. Chronic conditions related to inactivity include coronary heart disease (CHD), hypertension, Type II diabetes, colon cancer, depression and anxiety, osteoporotic hip fractures, and also obesity. Increasing adiposity, or obesity, is itself a direct cause of Type II diabetes, hypertension, CHD, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis and cancer of the breast, colon, and endometrium. The most up-to-date estimates were extracted. To estimate the proportion of disease that could be prevented by eliminating inactivity or obesity we calculated the population-attributable risk percent. Prevalence based cost of illness for the U.S. is in 1995 dollars.
Results: The direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars or 2.4% of the U.S. health care expenditures. Direct costs for obesity defined as body mass index greater than 30, in 1995 dollars, total 70 billion dollars. These costs are independent of those resulting from lack of activity.
Conclusion: Overall, the direct costs of inactivity and obesity account for some 9.4% of the national health care expenditures in the United States. Inactivity, with its wide range of health consequences, represents a major avoidable contribution to the costs of illness in the United States and other countries with modern lifestyles that have replaced physical labor with sedentary occupations and motorized transportation.
(C) 1999 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

: J R Soc Health. 1998 Apr;118(2):76-84. Related Articles, Links

Burden of illness review of obesity: are the true costs realised?

McIntyre AM.

Roche Products Ltd., Herfordshire, England.

Obesity can no longer be viewed as merely a cosmetic or social problem, but must be acknowledged as a serious disease, responsible for the premature death and morbidity of millions and for significant expenditure of limited healthcare resources. In addition, there are significant costs to the individual with regard to social status and quality of life. It has been argued that obesity is one of the most important preventable causes of ill health in the UK today. This is especially important when one considers that the incidence of obesity is actually rising, with 13% of men and 16% of women in the UK in 1997 being obese. To begin treating such a disease it is essential to raise awareness of this problem, not only from the associated morbidity and mortality risks that have been well documented, but the socio-economic and psychological costs. This paper reviews the literature available globally, giving some measure of the magnitude of the associated burden of illness.

Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 1998;106 Suppl 2:7-9. Related Articles, Links

Societal and personal costs of obesity.

Seidell JC.

Department of Chronic Diseases and Environmental Epidemiology, National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), The Netherlands. j.seidell@rivm.nl

The economic costs of obesity can be broken down into three levels: 1. DIRECT COSTS: Costs to the community, related to the diversion of resources to the diagnosis and treatment of diseases directly related to obesity, as well as the treatment of obesity itself. These costs have been estimated to vary between 1-5% of total healthcare costs for various countries. Usually, the cost of obesity alone has been calculated, although it is known that the costs associated with being overweight [body mass index (BMI) 25-30 kg/m2] are also substantial because of the large proportion of individuals involved. These constitute costs to the health service (visits to general practitioners, consultations with medical specialists, hospital admissions and medication). 2. SOCIETAL OR INDIRECT COSTS: These costs are related to the loss of productivity caused by absenteeism, disability pensions and premature death. There is a lack of good economic analysis on this subject, although research from Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands has clearly shown that obesity is associated with increased sick leave and disability pensions. 3. PERSONAL COSTS: Obese subjects may earn less than their lean counterparts because of job discrimination (related to the stigma associated with obesity, or due to diseases and disabilities caused by obesity). Many insurance companies (particularly life insurance) charge higher premiums with increasing degrees of overweight. Obesity is further related to poor physical functioning and limitations in daily life. Some of these require assistance or adaptations which may be costly for an individual. In conclusion, there is much indirect information that obesity and overweight contribute substantially to healthcare-related costs. Data on aspects such as societal costs and personal costs are too fragmentary to allow calculation of the expenses involved. An appropriate analysis of all costs associated with obesity is important in order to persuade responsible bodies to develop strategies towards the prevention and long-term management of obesity.

[mzungu]

above is what i found on the new google scholar page about obesity and costs. factoring in increased morbidity, as sebrle says, does decrease costs overall, says one article, but the same article points out that it really depends just how fat you are, the fatter the more expensive for the whole system, and notice that multiple articles (all of which have been cited at least 20 or 30 times by other scholars) refer to overall economic costs, layla.

[Jwaksman]

As a society, we spend $300 billion in a war allegedly for the purpose of discouraging terrorism, after attacks that killed 2,700 people, when lifestyle choices are costing us about 1,000,000 premature deaths every year and our life expectancy is well below other nations.



This is the kind of stuff keeping far-left wingers out of office. There is a HUGE difference between someone dying prematurely because of lifestyle choice that they made themselves and because some terrorists flew a plane through their office window. To even put these two things in the same sentence is abhorrent...



Government spending on all levels (federal + state + local) has most definitely not decreased over the past 30 years. In fact, one has to go back to the 1920's to find a President who left office with Americans paying a smaller percentage of their total income in taxes to all levels than when they entered. That's not an attack on Democrats, by the way. Clinton was a big spender, but Bush is spending even more. In fact, spending under Bush has grown at the quickest rate than under any president since Lyndon B Johnson in 1964-1965. States have taken money away from things like universities because they are getting so swamped with health care and medicare payments. Tennesee's Democratic Governor Bredesen pulled Tenncare (basically, Hillarycare) because it was eating up more than 1/3 of the entire state budget and was growing at over 20% a year.


Besides, these "fat" taxes never raise much money at all. They're not about the money, they're about morality - people trying to force other people to eat better. This is just like Christians trying to ban "sexy" cheerleading in Texas - it's about legislators deciding that they know more about how to live your life than you do...

[mzungu]

if something kills hundreds of thousands of people every year, then it warrants serious attention by the society to do something about it.
most people develop life-long eating habits in childhood prior to the age of consent. and if we want to deal with voluntary choices as the basis for justifying them, then we absolutely have to deal not only with the question of public costs involved in those voluntary choices, but also what goes into the definition of the voluntary.
1. age
2. physical and/or mental health
3. legality of choices
4. knowledge of what one is choosing and what the consequences of it are
5. the power to act independently of natural inclinations

#5 is unnecessary here and would not be agreed upon by everyone.

by #1 and #4, fast food, cereal producers, etc. who target very young children with billions of dollars in advertising on tv and in schools, and who sell food without also declaring just what is in it or how many calories it has. for example, the mcgriddles that mcdonald's is now shilling. do any of its customers realize just how many calories are in it? i've never seen a single mention of this in all of their ads. did anyone realize that mcdonald's was cooking its 'vegetarian' french fries in 93% beef tallow for many years? did anyone realize that the mcdonald's chicken nuggets had more beef fat than their burgers?

[KenA55]

I don't think people eating deep-fried foods really care. They have no illusions that they're at Nutrition World or something.

I do agree wholeheartedly w/Jwacks that under no circumstances should gov't be allowed to use taxation as a tool to attempt to modify these various sorts of lifestyle behavior. If the gov't decides it doesn't want to pick up emergency health care on people because of that, then so be it. That door should have been slammed shut on people determined to mess with other people in this way, a long time ago. It's never too late.