Healthy food will never be cheaper than junk food. Producing a food item with actual health benefits takes time, money, and dedication. Pink Slime nuggets probably cost less than a penny each to make. So what's the answer? Raise prices on junk food? Unless we increase inflation by increasing minimum wage, poor people with shoestring budgets wont even be able to eat. That means more welfare, more food stamps, and a greater dependency on government handouts. The problem is and always will be a lack of proper education. No sin tax will ever change that.

One of the reasons junk food is so much cheaper is how it's preserved. Look at canned tuna or salmon compared to fresh fillets, it's preserved, it will hold its value longer. We are really in uncharted territory here, it's only within the last few centuries that we have been able to purchase food that can stay "good" for a nearly indefinite period of time. It's so much cheaper to can something, or freeze something than it is to sell it fresh.

Canned tuna or salmon? Canned or frozen food? None of that is junk food (necessarily).

Even if it doesn't make healthy food more affordable than junk food, the tax revenue would be funneled into other health initiatives. And the amount saved from reducing the number of people with diabetes and heart problems would offset any additional increase in state welfare many times over.

Strong government regulation of junk food has proven effective in NYC. Relying on lame PSAs, public education, and individual will power to exercise has not.

They were examples. How about canned ravioli? My point is that it is easier to refine and preserve food, mostly junk food.

Again, look at the lottery. In Florida they say the tax revenue collected from it is responsible for paying out "Billions" in education. In reality, all they did was take the previously allotted money and spent it elsewhere. The lottery funding simply replaced the hole, and didn't improve a goddamn thing. Sin taxes will be no different.

Quote:

Strong government regulation of junk food has proven effective in NYC. Relying on lame PSAs, public education, and individual will power to exercise has not.

Well there you go. In one instance you claim government taxation and regulation will improve eating habits, but then you blame the government and their public schools for their failure to educate. The reason why public education has failed so miserably is because we continue to cut education funding and instead put the funding towards bombing brown people. Long summers and over crowded classes are horrible for young impressionable minds, not to mention it is fairly easy to become an educator. The reason why people eat shitty food is because they are too stupid to realize it is slowly killing them. I could watch ten thousand Taco Bell commercials and still avoid a diarrhea attack by choosing not to eat one of their burritos.

One big problem is that the government pays for a lot of the junk food that is being consumed. Food stamps, you can buy nearly anything with them, there is little regulation as far as what can be purchased. If it was set up more like a WIC program, people would be eating a lot healthier. Right now, you can buy 20 cases of soda with foodstamps if you want.

That's more the fault of corrupt Floridian lawmakers. And you can apply the same scenerio to your proposal to increase education. There's no guarantee increasing the education budget will increase health ed. Not when the bulk of it goes towards prep for standardized testing, math, and science.

In my proposals, fast food tax revenues would go toward creating new programs and not expanding old ones. While I'm all for improving education, we already spend an enormous sum on secondary education, spending more isn't going to put a dent in the obesity rate. Republican-led cuts on higher education primarily targeted universities--after all, you can't have an educated public as they'd never vote Republican--not primary and high school where health education is most effective.

No, it is far simpler to regulate certain fast foods, for instance, than it is to educate the public and change attitudes on healthy eating. Here's just a few reasons why:

1. It's the culture, stupid. There's a reason why you seldom encounter obese asians, but obesity is rampant among latinos and blacks. You can tell people until you're blue in the face that their eating habits will kill them, but so long as their culture glorifies eating crappy food, they're still going to want their bucket of extra-crispy Popeyes fried drumsticks.

2. Humans are weak. Just because you know something is good for you doesn't mean you'll do it. It's why so few people stick to new year's resolutions. Most people already know eating fatty, fried food isn't good for you; they do it anyway because it's cheap, readily available, and they've been conditioned to think it tastes good.

3. Suburbs. It's been shown that people who live in cities are healthier and live longer than those who reside in suburbs, yet America is littered with inefficient suburban housing. It's bad enough most Americans don't exercise, but encouraging them to drive everywhere isn't helping. Forget cutting subsidies to farmers. If you want to reduce obesity, stop subsidizing suburban housing and non-urban roads.

4. There will always be a large class of stupid Americans immune to education. Americans excel at stupidity, and while it's honorable to think we can fix this problem with a top tier education system, you're still going to be left with millions of uneducated, poor, fatassed consumers.

You're really only advocating more of the status quo. Face it, forcing every student to eat a health lunch would do more good than forcing students to listen to yet another lecture on good nutrition. In fact, I'm going to add another point to my proposal to reduce obesity:

7. Have the US government close every overseas American-owned fast food restaurant.

It's bad enough fast-food is poisoning America, now we spread it across the globe. Kuwait is the second most obese nation in the world after the US. Guess why.

I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with anything you just said, but it will never happen. Just look how neutered Obama's healthcare plan is now compared to the original proposal, and he's STILL labeled a Marxist socialist by an alarming number of idiots. We live in a massive, corporate friendly society that is heavily based on consumer spending. Many of these companies have Billions of dollars at stake and would fight tooth and nail with lobbying and litigation if they were regulated down to zero to stop serving the awful **** they consider food. The mere mention of what you are proposing would be political suicide. All that is left to do is sit back, open a cold one, and ride the wave as this country circles the toilet bowl. Wohoo! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/excited1.gif

Honestly, your opinions are alarming. Everything is someone else's fault. Everything must be regulated.

Really... if you're fat... it's generally your fault. End of story. Everyone makes a choice with every spoon they put in their mouth.

Where did I say it was anyone else's fault if they're fat?

And because clearly, your libertarian, it's-up-to-individuals bullshit is working... I'm sure any form of government regulation is alarming to someone who deems universal healthcare "Bolshevism." You bitch about the costs of health care, what do you think one of the major contributors is? [hint: it isn't malpractice suits]

Given your professional background, you of all people should know better. There's no pancea to eliminate obesity, but you damn well better at least have alternative ideas to reduce it before you criticize mine. Doing nothing isn't an option.

You spent so much time putting words that I haven't said in my mouth, that you forgot to have a point in there, besides a personal attack.

... would you like to eat your foot if I put up some links of me talking about the healthcare costs of obesity? Or would you like to find where I call the concept of universal healthcare Bolshevism? [hint: it's hard to find, given that I haven't said it]

You rely an awful lot on the so-frequently used lines of the faux progressives. That Bolshevism accusation is a dead giveaway.
I do know better. Nobody listens.
Well, actually neither of the latter two clauses is true. 1) I can certainly criticize an idea without knowing an alternative, 2) because doing nothing is a real option. It's not necessarily a good option, but it's the null hypothesis that you have to dismiss before embarking on creating a mountain of regulation that will impose restrictions yet likely do nil to remedy the situation.

I think your problem is that you think that some problems can be solved tomorrow, if you just write a law to solve them. I have news for you - people are slow, conservative, selfish, predictable animals, and changing them is damn hard. You can appeal to their self-interest, or you can make them afraid... but constructive forces come mostly out of historical inevitability rather than regulation. If you doubt it, consider how well the Prohibition did... or the "war on drugs". ****, even gun control. Think of the latter 1980s->late 1990s = tons of new regulation... crime goes down, people cheer "it's working -> more regulation, less crime". Mid 2000s->early 2010s = almost all the previous regulation (and more) rolled back... crime goes down. The left: "dead silence". Should take it as a lesson. Correlation != causation. Not everything in the world is a single variable equation that can be affected by regulation. In fact, very few things are.

That Bolshevism accusation came from you. Describing Obama's healthcare plan as Bolshevik. They're hard to find because the mods deleted the R&P board.

Uhuh... You know, Obama's plan isn't the end-all be-all of universal healthcare. It is to universal healthcare, as Soviet Era is to the Marxist idea of communism.

Yes, let's not get into single-payer health care. We know how unpopular Medicare is. Obama's version of universal health care was endorsed by the Heritage foundation in the 1990s and passed into law by a Massachusetts Republican governor. But when a Democrat adopts the same plan... Look out! It's one slippery slope to Bolshevism.

That was an answer to some post. Unfortunately it wasn't my post.

... especially since I was warning against the problems with Romney's plan from the beginning. And behold, the same issues made it into Obamacare.

Honestly, you should give it a rest. If there's one person on this board who can't be accused of voting on party lines, it's myself.

How would any of us know that, Gnius? When it comes to articulating your own ideas on health care reform, you're as evasive and vague as you are on your personal views of religion.

I know you better than just about anyone on here, and it doesn't surprise me that you're further to the right than Romney on health care. Like most Republicans, you can criticize efforts to fix the economy or health care, but you can't offer viable alternatives.

I am curious as to what steps you would make to improve our current health crisis.

As you know, people with expendable cash are proving time and time again that they are not concerned with the notion of being without health insurance. Considering most people are in some sort of debt, adding a few thousand to their bills by using a hospital's services without health insurance seems like a reasonable notion, especially since it's fairly easy to walk away from an unsecured debt.

I see people time and time again more than willing to spend their money on beer consumption rather than being insurance protected, so the only answer I can come up with is forcing people, somehow, to purchase health insurance (or face a penalty). Seeing my insurance premiums nearly triple in the last 4 years when I rarely even use it, while doing my best to stay healthy, is quite disheartening. It's perfectly reasonable to understand that hospitals will not force those without insurance to die in the streets, but I am starting to grow tired of being punished for trying to be responsible.

People with expendable cash are not the ones who are not paying. Consider your next sentence.
While I can understand that you need to take care of yourself and your loved ones, and taking on debt doesn't and probably shouldn't stop anyone, the problem is that without an incentive to be ensured against such a circumstance, there really is no incentive, because relying on people's sense of morality and social responsibility is pretty much idiocy.

Interestingly, this is what inevitably happens in a system when insuring people is mandatory, but maintaining insurance isn't*... which is really what is being set up with Obama's healthcare plan. In a system when the average per-capita health spending is $8500/person/year, a penalty of $800 for not being insured, sounds like the most efficient way to maintain your health.
... but clearly you already understand what I am talking about.
Well, that's the kicker. As long as doctors and hospitals are compelled to treat patients whether or not they will ever get paid (which is the way it should be, we do take an oath after all), there is no easy solution to this problem.

Insurance works when it comes to driving because we do not assume that everyone has an inaliable right to drive, and you are simply not allowed to own or drive a car if you don't have insurance. That isn't the case with health insurance under either a purely private system, or the current hybrid model, either in its current iteration, in its past incarnation, or in the way it will be after Obama's plan fully takes effect.

Other than making the penalty something truly ridiculous (like being equal to per-capita spending), I have trouble coming up with a better idea. If everyone else thought like you and me, and elected to make intelligent choices when it comes to insurance, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately that isn't the case.

*Of note, some major deficiencies in the current system, including its incredible billing complexity, and variable payments, have resulted in a situation where responsible people seeking insurance independent of group rates such as universities or jobs, are pretty much screwed. With less than 60% of the employable age population employed, that's a real problem.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate having someone in the field's point of view and expertise in giving advice. So as it stands, the penalty is simply too low when opting to be uninsured to sway most people into purchasing insurance. Inevitably people will simply opt to pay the penalty instead of paying for insurance. Which leads to my other question. Lets say something magical happens and we see a large increase in the uninsured becoming insured. Is there any clause in the Obama Healthcare Plan that even requires the insurance companies to reduce their rates?