Bit soon to prescribe public policy, isn’t it?

Why does so much health research seem to have a policy ax to grind? And why is it all seemingly taking the premise that the thing being studied is bad? That seems pretty biased. In fact, forget “seems.” It is biased. “Junk” does not have a meliorative sense, unless you are Fred Sanford.

Are all hot dogs bad for you? Has there been research showing Ritz peanut butter crackers are bad for you? In what way? And even if they are, why the broad label of “junk food?” What does that mean? Ice cream? After dinner mints? A hamburger? A delicious BBQ pork sandwich? Hot Pockets? Toffee nuts? Cheese? Olive oil? Avocados? Any ol’ thing with “dense” calories?

And are these researchers really advocating we raise the price of any food that falls into that broad category by 12 percent to 25 percent? Where does the logical leap come from? If some people consider an activity immoral or unhealthy, we need to whip out the iron fist of public policy to stop it?

I wonder if a tax on junk research could curtail this kind of thing. Maybe we should do a study on it.

Recent economics work on why fat taxes don’t work are far more convincing: http://www.ses.wsu.edu/PDFFiles/WorkingPapers/fat15.pdf

What if the powers that be are wrong about what is unhealthy?

For so long we have been told that saturated fat is bad for us which is almost certainly wrong (see http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2010/01/15/two-major-studies-conclude-that-saturated-fat-does-not-cause-heart-disease/ or read Gary Taubes’ Good Calories, Bad Calories).

Before we think about taxing we ought to make sure science supports our conclusions. A tax on refined carbohydrates, which would be politically impossible, is far more justified based on the evidence.

just another group looking for an ‘easy fix’ for our obesity problem. Just tax it more and we’ll all eat more healthily…. If you want to make a policy change – have the manufacturers of these ‘junk’ foods find a way to make them more healthy or stop producing them in the first place. It’s America people, we’re free to make stupid choices unless it hurts other people…

When it comes to issues such as this one, I tend to take a constitutional approach, rather than a scientific one. Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution empower our employees to levy taxes to “punish” us for “bad” behavior. Punitive taxation, whether on cigarettes or “junk” food, is tantamount to paying a civil penalty for something that is not illegal, without having been charged with any crime, and without being found guilty of any crime. It’s unacceptable.

It’s not that we, as American’s who are free to make the choices we want, are being punished for “bad” behavior. There have been others studies that have showen that if you lower the prices of health foods and put a tax on the foods that aren’t so good for you, the more likely people are to buy the health foods.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124610428

People say that obesity is all based on either genetics or lifestyle, but it’s really both. Just because someone is “bulit” to be obesis does’nt mean they are going to be. It’s not that the crackers are bad for you, it’s just the fact that people are more likely to reach for those because they are cheaper.

If the government was to pay the farmers who grow the fruits, and vegetables that are good for us, instead of the farmers that mass produce things like corn (Watch “King Corn” to see what I mean) which is in pretty much all of the foods that are bad for you if you eat too much of it. If they were to pay these farmers than it would more than likely lower to costs of the “good” foods.

Alyssa, I would say that a lot of people here would question whose business it is what they eat. There’s a pretty obvious agenda in these kinds of studies–that is, behavior modification for the purpose of cutting costs for public health systems or preserving insurance company profits in private/hybrid systems. These studies take as a given that government-led behavior modification is a legitimate practice (as opposed to, say, the older government practice of providing helpful information without requiring anyone to change their lifestyles or punishing them for leading certain lifestyles.)

I happen to agree with you about corn, by the way. But I can’t say for a fact that corn syrup is worse for me than something else. Some scientists say corn syrup is identical to sucrose on a molecular level. Maybe that’s true. I don’t know. Others are beginning to say it’s bad for you, worse than table sugar. There was just a study released today that given the exact same caloric intake, mice fed high fructose corn syrup put on more weight than mice fed sucrose.

But how good are these studies? It’s so hard to say. A study like the one here seems so anecdotal. It seems so easy to get bogus results. And these are the kinds of studies that sort of just build on each other. Anecdotes compounded by more anecdotes. To me anecdote plus anecdote doesn’t equal data. Maybe I’m wrong. But then again, if I’m wrong, I’m not forcing anyone to change their lifestyle or pay new taxes for food or artificially inflate the prices of some foods.

Alyssa, putting “a tax on the foods that aren’t so good for you” is a punitive tax, designed to control behavior. It’s not our employees job to micromanage our lives. As free people we have the right to eat whatever we want, without being coerced via punitive taxation. If you want to eat “good” food, go right ahead. But, it’s none of your business what anyone else eats, nor is it our employees’. Perhaps you don’t mind other people telling you what you can and cannot do with your own body, but some of us think that kind of government intrusion is antithetical to freedom.

Bette D. Here is the problem with the perspective people like Bette D.
In the past, if you chose to make poor health decisions, ultimately you would suffer from various maladies, same as you do today. If you had money, or extensive children willing to take on your financial burden, then you lived, otherwise you died.
Thus, in previous times, only the wealthy could afford to live badly, the poor would just die, which is actually good for society since the land/resource use could then be redistributed.

Now we have people who say no one should have to suffer, anyone with any health problem has to be treated by any hospital. Its “inhumane” to let people not receive emergency medical treatment.
Ok, so what do we have now? The poorest segments of our population eat the worst kinds of crap and think its their “right” to eat whatever they want to, and its also their “right” to have the rest of society keep them living for as long as possible.

As long as people are “entitled” to receive all kinds of things on the dime of people like myself, who are paying the largest % of the taxes, I think the rest of society are “entitled” to put taxes back on those people who are making bad choices.

I wouldn’t be opposed to an opt out system where people could choose to not receive any free anything, but likewise be free of punative taxes. Of course these people wouldn’t be allowed to smoke or otherwise pollute in such a way that I ever get exposed to their poisons, but they could choose to ingest all manner of calories and such w/o me ever complaining, as long as they either pay cash for their eventual heart bypass or are outright denied access to medical service. They could live free right on to the county morgue (which still costs us money, but heck, no system is perfect)

Richard, I’m not going to argue public versus private healthcare. What I will say is I think you’re simplifying things too much, and you’ve made too broad a leap correlating a person’s lifestyle with your out-of-pocket expenses. That’s the old insurance industry argument, but, in fact, individual behavior has zero impact on your bankroll. Behavior modification campaigns are about enhancing revenues and, to a lesser extent, cutting costs for private insurance companies (enhancing net income), although those costs, in context, are miniscule compared with overall costs and can’t be correlated with the premium you pay. Premiums are only half of the story in the health insurance business model.

You know, with behavior modification campaigns, there’s also a serious risk that the campaign itself will not bear the expected fruit. The insurance industry will spend $99 million on a campaign if it thinks it will get back $100 million. But what happens when it doesn’t work out that way? What happens when just as many people get injured in car accidents after a $100 million seatbelt campaign? What happens when just as many people get sick from emphysema after a $1 billion anti-tobacco campaign? Now you’re paying for the insurance industry’s miscalculation on top of the expenses you were paying before. And those are significant.

I’m also not sure what mythical past you’re referring to. Mortality rates among the poor involve far more factors than what you suggest. It isn’t like doctors were kicking people off their stoops and into the mud just because they didn’t have wads of cash. Two people at different income levels can have the exact same healthcare (say a medicine for controlling flu symptoms, for example), and the poorer one of the two is going to be more likely to die for reasons like living conditions, working conditions, and many other factors. In some situations, extremely rich people do have the definite advantage, and it has nothing to do with their health insurance policy. Look at Steve Jobs and his expedited liver transplant. Insurance didn’t pay for that.

It isn’t easy being poor, and adding to the cost of existence by placing extra fees on food–just because you don’t like the fabricated idea of paying extra for someone else’s health insurance–isn’t going to make it any easier. Food should never be taxed. It is too basic to existence. I don’t care what you think of a particular food, we can’t open this up to the arbitrary and capricious whims of policymakers or to the profit motive of the insurance industry.

Individual behaviors don’t impact my bankroll? I don’t care about individuals, I care about mass numbers of people.

Also, I don’t see where health insurance comes in, unless its because its a BFD right now ;) so everything has to do with it, but in this case it has nothing to do with public or private anything.

If a large percentage of poor people eat high fat, high salt foods, their health costs are going to go up. They will be unable to pay for these costs, so the public will have to pay for these costs. Thus the public can discourage behavior that is negative to the whole as long as it does so without harming essential rights.

It doesn’t matter if there is public or private insurance footing the bill, the public still ends up paying for these people.

I’m not even saying we “should” have a tax, I’m saying society has the “right” to tax these unhealthy foods. Yes I’m also ignoring a whole bunch of factors to simplify it, because once again I’m not saying we need to have this tax, I’m saying we have the right to have this tax.

I “believe” things need to be done, and personally I’m willing to give up some things for the improvement of society. Regardless of what you say, junk food costs me money, encouraging people to eat healthier food isn’t a bad thing, or if people want to eat junk food, fine, but their own tax money will pay for their eventual increased health costs.

An ideal system, to me, rewards or punishes people for good or bad decisions, as appropriate. A horrible system gives the same rewards to everyone despite their good or bad decisions.

I see, and I apologize for oversimplifying your response.

Its ok, with congress currently all abuzz about the current BFD, its understandable for anything to be taken into context as if it were talking about insurance. ;)

I do think your statements about how if a campaign doesn’t work, then whoever started the campaign not only has to pay the old cost, but also has to pay for the cost of the campaign, so obviously thats a valid worry. In theory research like this one, should help us make good judgement calls on what will work and what doesn’t.

Another article, not sure if it was here or not, talked about how making healthy food cheaper actually had the reverse effect of causing people to purchase “more” unhealthy food than they did before, because the healthy food cost less % of their budget.

I think its all interesting, I like to be proactive rather than reactive, but we have to make smart decisions too, not just whatever sounds good.

Richard M., making medical care available to everyone does not give anyone the right to control behavior. Should women with certain genetic backgrounds or medical conditions not be allowed to reproduce because their offspring might be unhealthy, or be born prematurely, thus costing the system more money? Should we levy a tax on risky behavior, such as skydiving, or driving race cars?

My taxes pay for roads, schools, libraries, etc., that I don’t use. Should I ask for my money back? My parents, brother, and sister all paid into Social Security, and none lived long enough to collect. Should I ask for refunds on their behalf? Of course not. It’s part of living in a society in which everyone contributes, regardless of whether they ever need the services we pay for.

Some might consider certain aspects of my lifestyle “risky.” However, I’ve outlived all of my family members and most of my friends, including those who had very “healthy” lifestyles. If the only way to get medical coverage is to allow others to control my behavior, I’ll do without it. Unfortunately, from what I understand, I won’t have that option.

Actually Bette, providing medical care to everyone DOES give people the right to control behavior. You see, anytime you receive anything at all, you’re giving up control. Merely by the “chance” that you will receive free healthcare (not talking about the congress thing now, I’m talking about the fact that everyone for the last several decades receives free emergency care in the US), means you give up some control, because that “free” comes from somewhere, taxpayers, and taxpayers are voters, voters are in control.

If you feel your taxes are going towards something you don’t use, by all means you should send a letter to your representative that you want taxmoney to pay for things you “do” use. Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how many other people like yourself agree. The government stops paying for things all the time, sells off, closes properties, etc.

Is it impossible that they could one day setup a system where social security was paid out to remaining living family members? No, its not impossible, it already works that way for widows I believe, it only takes enough people bothering their representatives to change it. Would it be a good change? Probably not IMO, but thats why we live in a representative democracy.

99+ rights, but junk food isn’t one of them. ;)

We live in a symbiotic ecology. Our individual actions do affect others (for better or worse).
HCFN foods are the new tobacco. Just as it was difficult to suggest tobacco had broader social externalities in the ’50s – so too is it difficult to broach the HCFN topic now.

And that is exactly why it is so important to continue this conversation and educate on the true cause/effects of obesity upon individual families, social classes, economics, and political powers.
The tension between smoker’s rights vs. society provides a pretty good backdrop.

Obesity is now a top killer in America – and is a main contributor to rising health care costs.

Taxation is simply a way to “internalize” the cost that is now imposed upon society as a whole. It is working for tobacco – I don’t see why it couldn’t work for HCFN. For carbon, taxation has worked well in Europe and is getting serious consideration here (it is suggested the true cost of a gallon of gas is about $15.00).

If you look at most significant social progress (democracy, anti-slavery, civil rights, health reform) – they did not come about from free markets or individual freedom – they came about from intelligent (albeit unpopular) policy. There are too many vested interests in status quo for common sense change to manifest on its own. It will require constructive conflict and friction to elevate humanity.

Why does everything that is wrong need to be fixed by the government? It’s like the Truth anti-smoking commercials. If the government thought it was really bad, than ban smoking. But then they would lose their big revenue stream of taxes on tobacco. So lets just tax it higher so no one can have the personal choice to smoke, unless they pay a ransom (personlly I do not smoke). Do the same for junk food? Why don’t we tax Lobster, because you may use butter with that. Potatoes the same thing, but tax them more because if their baked potatoes, you may add sour cream. When will people take on some sense of accountability. The government should fix the problems like the flow of drugs across the border, the creation of jobs by taxing less and letting the innovative masses grow small businesses. Thanks, but no thanks Big Brother. Now let me go enjoy my Pepsi and Nutty Bars.