Reply With Quote
I'll gladly pay. (slurps Icee)
Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care
Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.
The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.
Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.
The Congressional Budget Office, which is providing lawmakers with cost estimates for each potential change in the health overhaul, included the option in a broad report on health-system financing in December. The office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years. So far, lawmakers have not indicated how big a tax they are considering.
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.
The main beverage lobby that represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and other companies said such a tax would unfairly hit lower-income Americans and wouldn't deter consumption.
"Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," said Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association. Instead, the association says it's backing programs that limit sugary beverage consumption in schools.
Some recent state proposals along the same lines have met stiff opposition. New York Gov. David Paterson recently agreed to drop a proposal for an 18% tax on sugary drinks after facing an outcry from the beverage industry and New Yorkers.
The beverage-tax proposal would apply to drinks that many Americans don't consider unhealthy -- such as PepsiCo's Gatorade and Kraft's Capri Sun -- based on their calorie content.
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.
The White House, meanwhile, is pulling together private health groups to identify cost savings that will help fund the health overhaul. Mr. Obama on Monday held a White House meeting with groups that represent doctors, hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical-device makers. They pledged to help restrain cost increases in the health-care system in an effort to save $2 trillion over the next decade.
"When it comes to health-care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses and government itself," Mr. Obama told reporters.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1242...96608647.html#
I'll gladly pay. (slurps Icee)
don't drink soda. problem solved.
HaHa. That would only create more problems. Think about how much the soda industry puts in to our economy. How may people work in the soda industry. You are joking. My bad.
Wow, this tax is really progressive. While we're at it, let's slap on a one or two dollar tax for fast food meal deals. That will really soak the rich.
Lower Taxes. More Taxpayers. Less en lements. Lower spending.
No need for slippery slope tax ideas.
Common Sense overload.
Because clearly the Dems who want to control our lives because they know 'what's best for us' will stop at a soda tax...
Clinton would not pull this
Meh, I don't really like it but if people drink less soda in the end, well... good.
Maybe there should be a "free refill on a large Mountain Dew" tax instead.
This tax is unfair to gamers and meth users.
I drink Diet Coke with Lime, or Diet Dr Pepper, so I would be unaffected. Crappy idea though. Pretty much all juice drinks are sugary.
Maybe they can also come up with some kind "non-exercise" tax, where people that don't exercise would have to pay a tax. Dems could call it the "Couch Potato Tax".
I'm glad the enlightened have decided to steer us towards a better life.
Let the masses drink Fiji!
Taxing anything unhealthy is the only way to pay for a single payer health care system. If you do not detour people from unhealthy practices, it will bankrupt this nation.
Think about it people. If you want universal health care, this will happen!
I will even support it. You all tend to vote for what benefits you rather than this nation as a whole. I will do the same on this issue if universal health care becomes a reality.
I eat healthy, so it won't affect me!
Big daddy, save us! We don't know how to feed ourselves! We need taxes and technocrats to show us how!
That is so not conservative, gravy train.
So long as the tax doesn't affect you, you're cool with it.
Please tell me this was another misfired another comedy bit.
I don't worry about all that "healthy" eating crap. Talk about Americans being pussified. When your time is up, your time is up.
I imagine Dijon mus and arugula will be exempted from the health taxation cam-pain, of course.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ajfZZtGpIemc
Cheerios Cereal Isn’t So Wholesome as Package Claims (Update3)
By Catherine Larkin and Duane Stanford
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Cheerios, the world’s best-selling cereal, isn’t so wholesome as its maker General Mills Inc. claims, U.S. regulators said.
Packaging and Internet advertising for the toasted oats violate federal law with promises to lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer, according to a warning letter posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s Web site today. General Mills, ordered to fix the issues or risk product seizure, said it would try to resolve the letter with the regulator.
The FDA allows food companies to make nutritional claims backed by scientific studies, and restricts wording. Health claims have helped food and beverage makers boost sales as more consumers struggle with obesity. Food companies are testing the regulator’s “relatively subjective view” of how much scientific proof is needed, said Christopher Shanahan, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan Inc. in Mountain View, California.
“We certainly don’t have any issues with the safety of Cheerios,” Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in an interview today. “We just believe that the labeling on this particular product has gone beyond what the science supports.”
The FDA started its Cheerios review after the National Consumers League, a Washington-based advocacy group, complained in a September letter that the cereal’s health claims made it out to be a drug, Sundlof said.
The warning letter represented the FDA’s first action against a “mainstream food product” in more than nine years and showed the agency is exerting its authority under President Barack Obama, said Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, in Washington.
Doctor’s Advice
“Consumers are influenced by food claims on labels,” Silverglade said in a telephone interview today. “To the extent that they’re misleading, it’s as bad as a doctor giving out poor medical advice.”
General Mills, based in Minneapolis, rose 74 cents to $53.65 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The company is the second-largest cereal maker, after Kellogg Co., of Battle Creek, Michigan.
Cheerios was introduced in 1941 as the world’s first ready- to-eat oat cereal, according to the product’s Web site. The honey-nut variety came out in 1979, followed by apple cinnamon, multigrain and frosted flavors. The cereal box has said for more than two years that the product can “lower your cholesterol 4 percent in 6 weeks” for more than two years, according to General Mills.
Rising Sales
General Mills’ cereal sales rose 13 percent in the third quarter ended in February, helped by the marketing of Cheerios health benefits, Chief Executive Officer Ken Powell said during a March 18 conference call.
“Cheerios, which is the largest franchise in the category, is also one of the fastest-growing brands in the category,” Powell said during the call. “So that’s a great story.”
The company believes “the science” behind the cereal’s claims “is not in question,” Tom Forsythe, a spokesman for the cereal company, said in an e-mailed statement today. “The FDA is interested in how the Cheerios cholesterol-lowering information is presented on the Cheerios package and Web site. We look forward to discussing this with FDA and to reaching a resolution.”
Cereal or Drug?
The FDA took issue with Cheerios boxes that say the cereal can lower cholesterol. That statement qualifies Cheerios under U.S. regulations as an unapproved new drug, the FDA said. While the agency allows a health claim linking soluble fiber from whole grain oats to a reduced risk of heart disease by means of lowering cholesterol, Cheerios boxes have cholesterol as a prominent, stand-alone claim, the FDA said in its letter, dated May 5.
Cheerios’ online marketing of heart disease and cancer benefits also fails to include language the FDA requires about other foods that help reduce risks, according to the agency.
“The claim on your Web site leaves out any reference to fruits, vegetables, and fiber content,” the FDA letter said. “Therefore, your claim does not convey that all these factors together help to reduce the risk of heart disease and does not enable the public to understand the significance of the claim in the context of the total daily diet.”
Kellogg’s box for Frosted Mini-Wheats also has fallen under U.S. government scrutiny. In April, Kellogg settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it falsely advertised the cereal to improve children’s attentiveness. The FTC said the clinical study Kellogg cited found that only half the children who ate the cereal showed any improvement in their attentiveness.
“We stand behind the clinical results,” Kellogg Chief Executive Officer David Mackay said in an April telephone interview. “Their concern was that it may have tried to say something that we weren’t intending to say. We made that modification and we move on with life”
To contact the reporters on this story: Catherine Larkin in Washington at [email protected]; Duane D. Stanford in Atlanta at [email protected].
Last Updated: May 12, 2009 16:42 EDT
The vast majority of the healthcare dollars a person (or other payor) spends on their healthcare are during the death-throes at the end of life. Guess what? You can delay that, but you cannot put it off forever. As illogical as it may sound, making people "Healthier" will NOT significantly reduce the amount we spend on health care in this country. Ultimately, everyone WILL die, and most are going to die of something expensive (in many cases, a healthy body simply allows a person to deteriorate mentally for a longer period before they kick; costing tons in nursing and assistance). That doesn't even address the problems additional life expectancy would do to the SS trust fund! We NEED smokers who die at 61 & never collect! We need diabetics that die before their time! Over the course of a lifetime people with BAD health, who die young, ultimately cost society LESS, not more. Taxing unhealthy items in order to save money, or pay for healthcare, is not financially sensible.
bull . you spend all your time and money in that strip joint eating pot stickers served up by that skanky ho.
Of course, individuals could be responsible for saving enough for their retirement, procuring health care services for themselves, and their lifestyle choices. Perhaps we don't have a tax code that ultimately encourages individuals to pay for small, routine medical expenses through insurance, at a fraction of the true cost.
At this point I could live with some kind of nationalized, catastrophic insurance plan provided by private insurers, so long as we move away from the use of insurance for routine, small medical expenditures.
give us an example. are you talking about office visit co-pay?
Imagine the cost of auto insurance if there was a "Copay" for oil changes, car-washes, window cracks & paint dings!
Yes, yes he was. (and ridiculously low deductibles).
Before the advent of the copay (+- 1987), the average American saw a doctor 2.5 times PER YEAR. Now it's closer to a dozen. And remember, with each visit comes and tests, and usually, a prescription.
System DOES provide a LOT of jobs in this country, however - both on billing, and paying, sides.
Exactly.
i'm sure it works both ways.....unnecessary test and procedures advised and performed by the physician....greed.
That's what most people seem to want. Cradle to grave protection.
Maybe not in a strict sense, but we are applying this to a social program. Look at it this way. If my tax dollars are being used to provide for others, I want a say in how it's spent. I say if someone wants those benefits, they don't get them if they don't take care of themselves.
No, limiting unhealthy food won't affect me. I am for eliminating unhealthy foods to reduce my tax burden. Don't you understand my point?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
