I need a mathematician

[toomuchtime_]

Proposing another "sin" tax again ... what's next, taxing beef?

Look up the obesity rate, dear. As a health problem, it now surpasses cigarette smoking. Yes, I'm ALL FOR taxing shit that causes people to unnecessarily need costly health care. It's a no-brainer.

Except while you are indicating that the obese and smokers are a drain to the health care system, science has proven otherwise.
Obese people, smokers cost the health system less than healthy do, study finds
Now that you are armed with that information, are you prepared to suggest that healthy foods get taxed at a higher rate? How about imposing a "health tax" on people that join fitness clubs or the Y?

First, this was not a study of actual case histories.

In their study, van Baal and his co-workers created three hypothetical populations of 1000 men and women, all aged 20 years at the start: a group of obese, never-smoking individuals; a group of healthy-never smoking individuals of normal weight; and a group of smokers of normal weight. The model produced an estimate of the likely proportion of each group who would encounter certain long term (chronic) diseases, and then estimated what the approximate cost of medical care associated with each disease was likely to be. The researchers found that the group of healthy, never-smoking individuals had the highest lifetime healthcare costs, because they lived the longest and developed diseases associated with aging; healthcare costs were lowest for the smokers, and intermediate for the group of obese never-smokers.

Lifetime medical costs of obesity; nurses as 'soft targets' of drug company promotion

Second, nursing home care was the main factor that raised the cost for thin non smokers.

Study: Healthy People Cost Governments More : NPR

Not only does the study not average the real costs of actual cases, but it makes linear assumptions about how costs will change over time, assuming they will always increase without allowing for newer technologies that may decrease the costs of caring for common age related medical issues; the two cataracts I just had removed cost a tenth of what they would have cost several years ago, but this study does not allow for decreases in costs. So while the conclusions are interesting, they are speculative.

Here is the study.

PLoS Medicine: Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure

 

[alan1]

Look up the obesity rate, dear. As a health problem, it now surpasses cigarette smoking. Yes, I'm ALL FOR taxing shit that causes people to unnecessarily need costly health care. It's a no-brainer.

Except while you are indicating that the obese and smokers are a drain to the health care system, science has proven otherwise.
Obese people, smokers cost the health system less than healthy do, study finds
Now that you are armed with that information, are you prepared to suggest that healthy foods get taxed at a higher rate? How about imposing a "health tax" on people that join fitness clubs or the Y?

First, this was not a study of actual case histories.

In their study, van Baal and his co-workers created three hypothetical populations of 1000 men and women, all aged 20 years at the start: a group of obese, never-smoking individuals; a group of healthy-never smoking individuals of normal weight; and a group of smokers of normal weight. The model produced an estimate of the likely proportion of each group who would encounter certain long term (chronic) diseases, and then estimated what the approximate cost of medical care associated with each disease was likely to be. The researchers found that the group of healthy, never-smoking individuals had the highest lifetime healthcare costs, because they lived the longest and developed diseases associated with aging; healthcare costs were lowest for the smokers, and intermediate for the group of obese never-smokers.

Lifetime medical costs of obesity; nurses as 'soft targets' of drug company promotion

Second, nursing home care was the main factor that raised the cost for thin non smokers.

Study: Healthy People Cost Governments More : NPR

Not only does the study not average the real costs of actual cases, but it makes linear assumptions about how costs will change over time, assuming they will always increase without allowing for newer technologies that may decrease the costs of caring for common age related medical issues; the two cataracts I just had removed cost a tenth of what they would have cost several years ago, but this study does not allow for decreases in costs. So while the conclusions are interesting, they are speculative.

Here is the study.

PLoS Medicine: Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure

Well, dayam, doesn't every claim that smokers and the obese also ignore decreases in medical costs? Oh wait, the liberal mantra is that health care costs are increasing at exponential rates as compared to everything else.
Never mind.
It's all a shell game to support more government control, you win again.

 

[hjmick]

Pulling a few statistics off the Internet, Americans drink 15 billion gallons of soda and 15.7 million gallons of beer every year.

Broken down into 12-ounce cans (recyclable!), how much could be accumulated if a mere $.05 were taxed on each can? (My calculator won't go that high.)

Could some sort of equitable health care reform be paid for with such a tax?

Your calculator won't go that high? Get a damn pencil and a piece of paper! Quit asking others to do your work!

Why just soda and beer? Why stop there? Hell, tax wine as well. How about whole milk? 2% milk too, it still has fat in it. Butter and margarine, tax the shit out of those while your at it. Tax, tax, tax, tax... tax it all... and when that fails to achieve your Utopian dream, slap an extra tax on toilet paper. No way people will find a way to live without that. It will provide a constant source of revenue.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Pulling a few statistics off the Internet, Americans drink 15 billion gallons of soda and 15.7 million gallons of beer every year.

Broken down into 12-ounce cans (recyclable!), how much could be accumulated if a mere $.05 were taxed on each can? (My calculator won't go that high.)

Could some sort of equitable health care reform be paid for with such a tax?

Your calculator won't go that high? Get a damn pencil and a piece of paper! Quit asking others to do your work!

Perfectly displays the mentality of the typical Obamaphile, whose alliance is totally faith based.

As shown in my siggy!

What, we think they can deal in NUMBERS??? None of them even understand what a billion is, much less a trillion!

 

[KittenKoder]

Pulling a few statistics off the Internet, Americans drink 15 billion gallons of soda and 15.7 million gallons of beer every year.

Broken down into 12-ounce cans (recyclable!), how much could be accumulated if a mere $.05 were taxed on each can? (My calculator won't go that high.)

Could some sort of equitable health care reform be paid for with such a tax?

Your calculator won't go that high? Get a damn pencil and a piece of paper! Quit asking others to do your work!

Perfectly displays the mentality of the typical Obamaphile, whose alliance is totally faith based.

As shown in my siggy!

What, we think they can deal in NUMBERS??? None of them even understand what a billion is, much less a trillion!

Hell, do they even know where those words come from?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Your calculator won't go that high? Get a damn pencil and a piece of paper! Quit asking others to do your work!

Perfectly displays the mentality of the typical Obamaphile, whose alliance is totally faith based.

As shown in my siggy!

What, we think they can deal in NUMBERS??? None of them even understand what a billion is, much less a trillion!

Hell, do they even know where those words come from?

Yes, they do. They come from The Obama, therefore they are okay!

 

[KittenKoder]

Perfectly displays the mentality of the typical Obamaphile, whose alliance is totally faith based.

As shown in my siggy!

What, we think they can deal in NUMBERS??? None of them even understand what a billion is, much less a trillion!

Hell, do they even know where those words come from?

Yes, they do. They come from The Obama, therefore they are okay!

Not what I meant, but that works to. I mean the origins of words like "billion" and "trillion".

 

[loosecannon]

Pulling a few statistics off the Internet, Americans drink 15 billion gallons of soda and 15.7 million gallons of beer every year.

Broken down into 12-ounce cans (recyclable!), how much could be accumulated if a mere $.05 were taxed on each can? (My calculator won't go that high.)

Could some sort of equitable health care reform be paid for with such a tax?

I somehow doubt that Americans consume 1000 times as much soda as beer. That can't be right.

So you want a regressive tax on flavored water.

Why?

 

[Meister]

Pulling a few statistics off the Internet, Americans drink 15 billion gallons of soda and 15.7 million gallons of beer every year.

Broken down into 12-ounce cans (recyclable!), how much could be accumulated if a mere $.05 were taxed on each can? (My calculator won't go that high.)

Could some sort of equitable health care reform be paid for with such a tax?

I somehow doubt that Americans consume 1000 times as much soda as beer. That can't be right.

So you want a regressive tax on flavored water.

Why?

Have you even considered all the children in America, and what their drink of choice is? Having said that....I'm not for regressive taxes.

 

[Care4all]

luxury taxes may not work, but i really think you guys are wrong, in general, about true ''sin'' tax products...

of course they work! (until a certain point, but a much higher echelon than one would think)

i say this, because sin taxes are put on to ''ADDICTIVE'' products, not that everyone that smokes a cigarette is addicted to the nicotine but i would venture to say that 90% of them are, in varying degrees...

and liquor can also be an addictive product(alcoholism) as well...a ''feel good'' product to the mind that is used by many, just to unwind.

and soda has caffeine in it which is addictive...

our government is NOT trying to punish the sinners in to not sinning...they are preying on the vulnerable who are addicted to these type products...they are preying on an ADDICT to pay for someone elses healthcare, or some other businesses tax break, or whatever project or pet peeve of SOMEONE ELSE!

if smokers were taxed, then given a healthcare policy for this tax specifically designed for themselves, that'd be one thing.

or if liquor drinkers were taxed and they were given a healthcare policy specifically designed to be best for them and their health needs would be another thing...

but to tax these so called vices, (when they truly have people hooked already due to the prominent drug in its addictive quality) for someone elses kid's healthcare or pet project or a tax break to their favored industry, is simply unethical!

NOT to mention, these are regressive taxes that hit the poor and middle class more in mere numbers...

more so than the wealthiest.

care

 

[KittenKoder]

luxury taxes may not work, but i really think you guys are wrong, in general, about true ''sin'' tax products...

of course they work! (until a certain point, but a much higher echelon than one would think)

i say this, because sin taxes are put on to ''ADDICTIVE'' products, not that everyone that smokes a cigarette is addicted to the nicotine but i would venture to say that 90% of them are, in varying degrees...

and liquor can also be an addictive product(alcoholism) as well...a ''feel good'' product to the mind that is used by many, just to unwind.

and soda has caffeine in it which is addictive...

our government is NOT trying to punish the sinners in to not sinning...they are preying on the vulnerable who are addicted to these type products...they are preying on an ADDICT to pay for someone elses healthcare, or some other businesses tax break, or whatever project or pet peeve of SOMEONE ELSE!

if smokers were taxed, then given a healthcare policy for this tax specifically designed for themselves, that'd be one thing.

or if liquor drinkers were taxed and they were given a healthcare policy specifically designed to be best for them and their health needs would be another thing...

but to tax these so called vices, (when they truly have people hooked already due to the prominent drug in its addictive quality) for someone elses kid's healthcare or pet project or a tax break to their favored industry, is simply unethical!

NOT to mention, these are regressive taxes that hit the poor and middle class more in mere numbers...

more so than the wealthiest.

care

Excellent perspective, and I agree with it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

luxury taxes may not work, but i really think you guys are wrong, in general, about true ''sin'' tax products...

of course they work! (until a certain point, but a much higher echelon than one would think)

i say this, because sin taxes are put on to ''ADDICTIVE'' products, not that everyone that smokes a cigarette is addicted to the nicotine but i would venture to say that 90% of them are, in varying degrees...

and liquor can also be an addictive product(alcoholism) as well...a ''feel good'' product to the mind that is used by many, just to unwind.

and soda has caffeine in it which is addictive...

our government is NOT trying to punish the sinners in to not sinning...they are preying on the vulnerable who are addicted to these type products...they are preying on an ADDICT to pay for someone elses healthcare, or some other businesses tax break, or whatever project or pet peeve of SOMEONE ELSE!

if smokers were taxed, then given a healthcare policy for this tax specifically designed for themselves, that'd be one thing.

or if liquor drinkers were taxed and they were given a healthcare policy specifically designed to be best for them and their health needs would be another thing...

but to tax these so called vices, (when they truly have people hooked already due to the prominent drug in its addictive quality) for someone elses kid's healthcare or pet project or a tax break to their favored industry, is simply unethical!

NOT to mention, these are regressive taxes that hit the poor and middle class more in mere numbers...

more so than the wealthiest.

care

Very good! Yes, it's predatory, punitive, targeted taxation, which is NOT what taxation is supposed to be for.

However, the problem is they project how much revenue they think they're going to get, then spend it already at that rate, and then a year later, they realize the actual revenue never shows up. It winds up being about half of what they projected.

 

[toomuchtime_]

luxury taxes may not work, but i really think you guys are wrong, in general, about true ''sin'' tax products...

of course they work! (until a certain point, but a much higher echelon than one would think)

i say this, because sin taxes are put on to ''ADDICTIVE'' products, not that everyone that smokes a cigarette is addicted to the nicotine but i would venture to say that 90% of them are, in varying degrees...

and liquor can also be an addictive product(alcoholism) as well...a ''feel good'' product to the mind that is used by many, just to unwind.

and soda has caffeine in it which is addictive...

our government is NOT trying to punish the sinners in to not sinning...they are preying on the vulnerable who are addicted to these type products...they are preying on an ADDICT to pay for someone elses healthcare, or some other businesses tax break, or whatever project or pet peeve of SOMEONE ELSE!

if smokers were taxed, then given a healthcare policy for this tax specifically designed for themselves, that'd be one thing.

or if liquor drinkers were taxed and they were given a healthcare policy specifically designed to be best for them and their health needs would be another thing...

but to tax these so called vices, (when they truly have people hooked already due to the prominent drug in its addictive quality) for someone elses kid's healthcare or pet project or a tax break to their favored industry, is simply unethical!

NOT to mention, these are regressive taxes that hit the poor and middle class more in mere numbers...

more so than the wealthiest.

care

Very good! Yes, it's predatory, punitive, targeted taxation, which is NOT what taxation is supposed to be for.

However, the problem is they project how much revenue they think they're going to get, then spend it already at that rate, and then a year later, they realize the actual revenue never shows up. It winds up being about half of what they projected.

The Dem efforts to change our health care system are all about politics and ideology and not at all about achieving good health outcomes for the American people or good outcomes for the American economy. The Democrats in the House and in the Kennedy-Dodd committee were prepared to pass legislation committing the US to spending as much as $1.6 trillion without any plans for how to fund it until the polls showed voters would not tolerate this kind of irresponsibility and the various tax schemes they put forward now in support of their health insurance schemes should most appropriately be considered political gestures aimed at damage control rather than sincere and rational efforts to pay for their bizarre health insurance schemes. When the Speaker of the House defines the health insurance debate as a battle between good and evil, good Dems vs. evil insurance companies, ravings one might expect to hear in a psych ward rather than in the Halls of Congress, it is no surprise that a sin tax would seem appropriate to those who support her schemes.

 

[Care4all]

simply rhetoric toomuchtime...

The Dems do want to pay for it and they have always wanted to pay for it....only they really want to tax the wealthiest for it, but there has been too much lobbying and resistance.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

simply rhetoric toomuchtime...

The Dems do want to pay for it and they have always wanted to pay for it....only they really want to tax the wealthiest for it,

We just established that's wrong. The "sin" taxes target the poor. So, they don't really want to tax the "wealthiest."

 

[Care4all]

they want the wealthiest to pay for it...those over $250k, but there has been too much political resistance to such and alot of lobbying on the part of the wealthiest while the poor have no one to lobby for them, and the Republicans screaming from the rooftops about how unfair it is to those over $250k, so they yellow bellied to their vocal, tax those over $250 k and are sneaking in more taxes on to the poor which repubs won't reject in the long run.

Isn't Congress lovely?

God forgive me but I really am developing hatred, pure hatred, towards the sob's....every one of them....

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Wolfram|Alpha

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

8,250,000$ for beer.
Enough to pay for the war on drugs for about a day and a half

 

[xsited1]

Pulling a few statistics off the Internet, Americans drink 15 billion gallons of soda and 15.7 million gallons of beer every year.

Broken down into 12-ounce cans (recyclable!), how much could be accumulated if a mere $.05 were taxed on each can? (My calculator won't go that high.)

Could some sort of equitable health care reform be paid for with such a tax?

That's what will have to happen. When people are required to pay for the healthcare of others, the government will have to find new ways to tax the people.

BTW, $15B*$.05 = $750 Million. To pay for this, you'll have to start thinking in the trillions.

 

[toomuchtime_]

simply rhetoric toomuchtime...

The Dems do want to pay for it and they have always wanted to pay for it....only they really want to tax the wealthiest for it, but there has been too much lobbying and resistance.

Simply not true. Other than vague Obama promises that the health insurance overhaul would be revenue neutral and assurances he had found ways to save money the CBO said were too vague to count, there were no concrete efforts by the Dems to pay for this enormously expensive scheme until voter outcry over the huge deficits it would produce forced the Dems to try to devise tax schemes that would have popular appeal.

The income tax increase the House Dems proposed would only have paid for 1/5 to 1/3 of the cost of their plan, and to have paid for the entire cost with a tax on high earners would have given the US by far the highest personal income tax rate in the world, making the US an unattractive destination for talented people around the world, doctors, scientists, engineers, etc, we need to keep our economy growing, and economists are unanimous in agreeing that tax increases on any segment of society will mean less money being spent in the private sector and that has a negative impact on economic growth and job creation.

Obama claims to be a big fan of government run comparative effectiveness studies that will reduce health care costs by telling your doctor what diagnostic and therapeutic procedures he should prescribe for you and a big fan of government run cost effectiveness studies to determine how much should be spent to keep you alive or to improve the quality of your life, so if better health outcomes for all Americans at the lowest possible cost is the purpose of this plan and it is not just driven by political and ideological motives, why hasn't Obama ordered comparative effectiveness studies to see if this is the best way to achieve better health outcomes for all of us or cost effectiveness studies to show us just what gains in health outcomes will be achieved and at what cost?

If Obama is really that scholarly, careful, open minded person his campaign promised us he is, why hasn't he appointed a blue ribbon panel composed of doctors and other medical experts, economists, insurance experts, as well as representatives of both parties to compile data to show us exactly how we can achieved the best health outcomes at the lowest cost before trying to rush this enormously expensive plan through Congress? The answer is that this plan is entirely about political and ideological ambitions and not at all about better health outcomes for the American people or better outcomes for our economy so facts, costs, economic impact are entirely irrelevant to Obama, Pelosi, etc.