"concern here is the burden this places on the health care industry"
no, the real concern is
how much more the health care industry charges for insurance
and
how much more taxes have to be paid to public health facilities
to pay for the $200B+/year for obesity diseases treatment.
Same with the 400K lung cancer (smoking) deaths/year. Probably $100K+ spent for each self-inflicted lung cancer death.
No doubt. It's not the junk food industry's fault that people don't want to exercise. The problem clearly goes beyond them. The junk food industry just makes a logical target when looking for potential ways the government can do something to help protect taxpayers from the costs associated with the obesity epidemic.
Lousy talk, tbh. Your replies to my simple, honest questions were silly and stupid.Thanks.
Great talk.
What's even sillier is that you think silliness makes the forum a better place.
Not a logical target. Just an easy target.
You're too lazy to use logic on this subject.
I'm putting both of you on the opposite sides of this thread.
And stop looking at each other!
Ok.I'm putting both of you on the opposite sides of this thread.
And stop looking at each other!
but it would smack of monumental hypocrisy. the government attacking certain industries that place huge burdens on taxpayers while grossly overprotecting others (all while under the guise of being concerned for public health).
Hasn't seemed to stop us when it comes to taxing cigarettes and booze. Would taxing junk food really be any different?
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 05-16-2012 at 03:15 PM.
You want to charge tax on beef sold at Mcdonalds when there is no tax on it at HEB.
Not logically ok.
because there is a huge profit to be made from taxation of these products. but if you are implying, or even arguing, that it would be fair to continue to tax products that are addictive to the point that it would not impact the industries that sell them (because people will continue to buy) then i understand. that view is certainly not a moral position by any means. rather, it appears to be a justification for taxation on the pretense that it is meant to protect other taxpayers. personally, if i'd rather see such efforts aimed against corporate oligarchies than the middle and lower class demographic. if, on the other hand, your position is that given the choice between more expensive junk food or healthier albeit expensive groceries, people will suddenly change their lifestyles, i do not feel inclined to think this would happen. it would make more sense to create stronger nutrition and fitness initiatives in certain populations to create that kind of shift.
The point I am trying to make is that there is a point where it isn't a question of merely being inconvenient, but practically impossible.
Working 40-80 hours a week, with no paid time off, and caring for kids, does not allow for a lot of time to spend on buses to shop for food several times a week.
If you go by bus, you are limited to what you can physically carry. That means you can't do all your monthly shopping in one go. No car trunk to carry things in.
If you have two or three other human beings to shop for, that means constant trips to the store, even if the store is close by.
The only way this is sustainable, is if you give up exchanging work hours for food shopping hours, adding to your costs.
time = money at some level
That is the point.
The other thing that has been found, is that whatever grocery stores are in areas like poor neighborhoods, is that they charge more for the same goods that might be gotten in the burbs.
We suck at planning out cities and urban areas to have access to decent food, and it goes beyond merely being "inconvenient".
It isn't like people are choosing to eat crap because it is a bit out of their way to get better food.
Sometimes, you have little or no choice in the matter.
As long as one had alternatives to junk food available, no.
I would be all for taxes on junk food, as long as we made sure that we are supplying these food deserts with increased alternatives to junk food.
I get your point but realistically,most people are lazy and want to do what ever is quick and easy. I see plenty of fat people walking around HEB skipping the produce section and loading up at the bakery section. While some people do work 40-80 hour weeks and have a legitimate excuse for not going to a store that sells healthy food, many people do not have an excuse. The problem is a nation wide problem and tends to skip classes.
Basic economics would dictate the switch. Some would still want junk food and pay more, but if you make healthier food cheaper than junk food, that will tend to factor into decision making for large populations.
It would seem we have to do a number of things to solve a complex problem.
This is a complex problem, and looking at just one part and solving that won't work well.
When I lived in KCMO, I lived in a dirt poor area. The closest grocery store was about 1 mile away, the prices where no different than in nicer areas. They had produce and healthy food. Most of my neighbors routinely choose the Go Chicken Go that was across the street.
There were also probably 6 grocery stores within a 5 mile radius to my house alone.
I can't speak for every major city, but I have visited and lived in plenty of cities where this is not a problem.
that appears to be the variable that would not suddenly become available
Where are these 40-80 hour work week peeps living that they are 1) working up to 80 hours a week and 2) can't easily access a supermarket? Something's not making sense here.
And also, lol blake.
in b4 "you're obsessed with me"
grocery stores typically do not stock products in higher volumes in stores located in neighborhoods not typically seeking out those products. flax seed can be found in any north side HEB in san antonio but not so much in any west side store. conversely, tripe can be readily found in the west side while probably not the most commonly sought out product in a central market.
That I can agree with.
Many don't have an excuse, but there are millions that do.
I think we have kind of sloched towards this problem, most definitely.
I would encourage anybody who wants an eye-opener, to watch Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution.
http://www.jamieoliver.com/foundation/
It is a good place to start.
Watch it a bit, and you come away a lot less judgmental about the people stuck with bad choices versus really bad choices.
It is possible to change, it just takes a kick and some education.
"if you make healthier food cheaper than junk food"
healthiest food is fresh, raw, unprocessed (fruit, nuts, seeds, veg) harvested at full ripeness and consumed a day or two later so it can be consumed before losing much of it vitality. This is the argument for local production, which also reduces transportation costs and pollution.
junk food or any dead, packaged food is engineered for shipping and long shelf life, ie, to maximize the profits for the production/distribution people, not to maximize nutritional value for consumers. BigFood's "fresh" fruit and veg engineered to grow fast, be picked before full ripeness, and grown in soil depleted of nutrients and saturated with x-icides.
The above is why food "thinkers" have decided the industrial food system dominated by corporations is badly broken, and beyond repair.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
