Tax the fat

[yavoon]

ur not taxing fat ppl. ur taxing fat foods. so ur entire post is jumping off into irrelevance. saying we should tax obese ppl for being obese and that we should tax cheeseburgers is a definite distinction.

[yavoon]

yes kid I know u do. and thats a socialist value. previous post was in reply to templar just to properly distinguish.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

LoA :
That only works if you consider that healthcare shouldn't exist.

There are more costs to being fat then healthcare.

Getting stared a, joked about, looked at funny, you have to eat more, so it costs you more, you need to buy two seats on an airplane, you need to get your clothes specially fitted.

Being fat will cost you more, and not just in the healthcare department.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

(1) Smoking in bars: imposes risks on patrons and especially employees. And don't give me that "find another job" bullshit - you can't expose people to carcenogens in the workplace without proper safeguards.

(2) Driving Cars: gives kids in urban areas asthma. Exposes me to particulate matter. Increases global warming. Drivers should have to pay a fee to represent these costs that they impose on everyone else.

(3) Fat People: huffing puffing wheezing bastards who need two seats on an airplane and three on the subway. They get heart attacks and then we get to pay in the form of higher insurance premiums - even in the private sector - so don't give me any nonsense about socialism.

The worst, of course, is some obese bastard sucking down Micky D's or, god forbid, White Castle, smoking a cigar, and while driving through the city with a faulty emissions control system.

1. People don't have to go to bars which allow smoking if they are afraid of the health risks.

2. I agree. Tax gasoline. But this doesnt have anything to do with fat people.

3. Thats why fat people pay for two seats on airplanes. If public transport was privite, then they would pay double too. But then it wouldnt be called public.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Consider: If obese people and fit people are in the same PPO (a private health plan), then the obese people will drive premiums and costs up for the healthy people. In other words, the fit will subsidize the fat. The fit will likely seek (in the absence of regulation to the contrary) to join a plan that excludes the fat thereby driving down their costs. This means either the PPOs will charge unaffordably high rates to insure fat people or the market will not offer plans for fat people because there is no profit to be made off of obese people. So you will have demand for a product - PPOs for the fat - but no supply (either priced out of range or non-existant). Thereby, you have a market failure.

Except that fat people pay more anyways because those firms arnt stupid. They know that the fatter you are, the more likely you are to have lots of hospital bills, so they charge you more. Thats why the fit will not subsidize the fat.
Market failure doesnt occur when there is no supply. It occurs through monopolies, and externalities. There is none of that in this case.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by yavoon
ur not taxing fat ppl. ur taxing fat foods. so ur entire post is jumping off into irrelevance. saying we should tax obese ppl for being obese and that we should tax cheeseburgers is a definite distinction.

But taxing fat people will not discourage them from eating fatty food. Taxing the food does. And it's not socialism. I think socialism should have something similar to it though.

[yavoon]

yes kid a socialist would like something more radical but its a compromise towards socialism for sure. the point is though you are taxing ppl who receive no benefit. why not just tax everyone? u r only statistically gaining validity there are still many ppl who eat fatty foods and are not fat who are being ganked by you cuz u don't like the cost of heart surgery.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


1. People don't have to go to bars which allow smoking if they are afraid of the health risks.

2. I agree. Tax gasoline. But this doesnt have anything to do with fat people.

3. Thats why fat people pay for two seats on airplanes. If public transport was privite, then they would pay double too. But then it wouldnt be called public.

1. I'm talking mostly about the risk to employees. Non-smoking bars would be an acceptable market solution from a number of perspectives.

2. Just talking about externalities - of which Micky D's is one.

3. Fat people always get pissy about it though. And I don't mind standing in on the subway - I sit most of the day at work.

[yavoon]

also I think taxing someone who is fat is incentive to lose weight "another 10 lbs and I dont owe the gov't 2k a year!" I mean hell thats a socialist incentive if I ever saw one. and its actually better targeted than simply taxing cheeseburgers. u could also tax high cholesterol, above 150 u owe us 500 dollars. below 110 u owe us nothing! start eatin healthy!

mind u I dont like both. if the gov't wishes to take on the burden of health care it should take it knowing that ppl have bad habits. and not reigning in free choice. I would be much more for large operations that ppl complain about not being free then for this incentive taxing system that appauls me.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon
yes kid a socialist would like something more radical but its a compromise towards socialism for sure. the point is though you are taxing ppl who receive no benefit. why not just tax everyone? u r only statistically gaining validity there are still many ppl who eat fatty foods and are not fat who are being ganked by you cuz u don't like the cost of heart surgery.

Taxing is an efficient way to internalize the costs of obesity. Would you prefer that every obese person pay a fraction of a cent to every citizen they impose a cost on?

Besides, if Micky D's and the rest get to sell their obesity inducing food cheaply, while you and I pay the medical costs thereby generated, then we are in effect subsidizing Micky D's. Our taking the hit on the externalities drives costs for fatty food transactions below their true cost. I thought libertarians were against corporate welfare?

[yavoon]

ur assuming I believe in universal health care aren't u?

[yavoon]

and I'd also point out that the liability for eating fatty foods as a libertarian lies on the side of the person buying them not the person making them=D

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon
ur assuming I believe in universal health care aren't u?

I'm only assuming PPOs (which are private) enroll both fit and fat people. The fat people will drive up premiums if premiums are set equal. If they are not set equal, then it is likely fat people will not be covered either because (a) the fat can't afford the premiums or (b) the business providing coverage as a benefit will not provide the benefit to fat employees. ((b) evokes a number of complex labor and business issues that would take to long to go into here).

So what if fat people aren't covered? Are you saying your willing to allow private hospitals to turn uninsured fat people away when they are having a heart attack? Aside from the fact that this would violate the doctors' code of ethics, most people simply aren't that cold hearted. Ergo - you have a market failure: demand but no supply. Taxing fatty foods can ofset these costs. Nothing socialistic here, just standard market economics. Unfortunately, libertarians tend to gloss over externalities - and internalization of externalities is central to a healthy market economy.

Thus libertrianism is wrong. But that's another thread.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yavoon
taxing someone on a choice is absurd.

Taxes in this form is the same as fines. Just that taxes are put on items and fines are used against actions. Unless you think ticketing parking violations is a bad idea, I fail to see how you could make such an assertion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
1. People don't have to go to bars which allow smoking if they are afraid of the health risks.

I argued the same thing elsewhere. Anyway, the point is bars are public places, that it must obey certain rules and regulations, e.g. fire safety, food hygiene, etc. Therefore, it is completely within a society's power to prohibit smoking as well.

[Dis]

how stupid are New Yorkers?

How many times do I have to say it. Fatty food does not make you fat.

Eating more calories than you burn makes you fat.

If anything, they should institute a tax once you consume a certain amount of food.

[Solly]

It's bad diet that cuaes someone to gain weight, not fat as such.

Indeed, most independent studies in the last five years have shown the importance of fat in the diet. More important than carbohydrates, for example. Should carbs be taxed?

Fat consumption has risen in Mediterranean countries in the last few decades, with a striking correlation with life expectancy.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
As long as computer games aren't included, I also support this.

Taxing computer games does sound like a tax on children.

I suppose a tax on computer games would be followed by a tax on movies ("couch potato entertainment)?

So I don't see that part happening in a hurry.

Personally I think a tax on sugar would be a good idea, in line with tobacco and alcohol - only the sugar companies would argue that's also a tax on children.

Damn, I can't see a way out of this one.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


I'm only assuming PPOs (which are private) enroll both fit and fat people. The fat people will drive up premiums if premiums are set equal. If they are not set equal, then it is likely fat people will not be covered either because (a) the fat can't afford the premiums or (b) the business providing coverage as a benefit will not provide the benefit to fat employees. ((b) evokes a number of complex labor and business issues that would take to long to go into here).

So what if fat people aren't covered? Are you saying your willing to allow private hospitals to turn uninsured fat people away when they are having a heart attack? Aside from the fact that this would violate the doctors' code of ethics, most people simply aren't that cold hearted. Ergo - you have a market failure: demand but no supply. Taxing fatty foods can ofset these costs. Nothing socialistic here, just standard market economics. Unfortunately, libertarians tend to gloss over externalities - and internalization of externalities is central to a healthy market economy.

Thus libertrianism is wrong. But that's another thread.

ur working under some absurd assumption that fat ppl are at infinite risk. or that simply increased risk patients are not worth insuring, both are inane assumption. yes if u r unhealthy health insurance costs more. but it is not an infinitely increasing curve. u need to think about what u type more.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon


ur working under some absurd assumption that fat ppl are at infinite risk. or that simply increased risk patients are not worth insuring, both are inane assumption. yes if u r unhealthy health insurance costs more. but it is not an infinitely increasing curve. u need to think about what u type more.

On the simplest understanding of insurance, you want many more fit than sick people. This allows a profit to be made after paying out expenses. Ideally, you would want only fit young people (whose greatest risks are accidental in nature). Each obese person with their increased risk cuts into the profit margin by raising the amount going out in expenses.

Real insurance is a bit more complicated with investments and all, but the basic principle is sound.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
How many times do I have to say it. Fatty food does not make you fat.

It's called positive correlation. Besides, fatty foods bring other risks as well, such as heart diseases.

[yavoon]

if u increase the premiums for increased risk ppl then u can maintain profit. u also can maintain market share.

I don't see waht your large objection is. u keep trying to skirt it by implying that insurance companies wont insure higher risk than 20 years old and fit. which is just ridiculously untrue.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon
if u increase the premiums for increased risk ppl then u can maintain profit. u also can maintain market share.

While pricing fat people out of insurance. Hence your market failure.

[yavoon]

what? look first of all ppl don't usually reinsure themselves at 50 when they become much higher risk. and insurance companies like bank loans will find that 20 year olds aren't retards and don't want policies that kick them out should they become high risk.

ur argument is flacid and uninteresting because its just not true.

[Urban Ranger]

This is beautiful. Some smokers used to tag fat people with a red herring whenever there's some new anti-smoking regulation on the floor. Now they don't have any excuses.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yavoon
if u increase the premiums for increased risk ppl then u can maintain profit. u also can maintain market share.

Doing this will penalise those obese people who got that way because of genetics. Not very fair.

[yavoon]

yah I hate how ppl who don't have 50 inch verticals are punished by not joining the nba too. or ppl w/ ocd who have a hard time getting jobs or or or etc etc...libertarianism isnt overly concerned w/ being fair. especially in comparison w/ socialism.