Sorry, I didn't read the (whole) article on Yahoo:
Denmark has decided that from now on, if you want to eat a fatty/fattening diet, you are going to have to pay more for it. In other words, prices for foods like pastry will soon go up in Denmark, if they are fattening. Apparently, it will work like the "sin tax" on cigarettes in many countries.
Imagine a "world" where a trip to the local Dunkin Donuts/Krispie Kreme will be considered a luxury...like eatting caviar, or a Kobe beef?
I like it. We as a nation are a bunch of fat pigs. Think of the revenue! Think of the improvement in health! It's a win-win.
1988RedT2 wrote: I like it. We as a nation are a bunch of fat pigs. Think of the revenue! Think of the improvement in health! It's a win-win.
Yep. We could pay off the deficit with this. 
I like it! 
Social engineering via taxation... I hate it.
The price of unhealthy food doesn't cover its cost to society. The price of a good should cover all negative externalities associated with it.
Jay wrote: Social engineering via taxation... I hate it.
But it's been going on for years. This is just one proposal that actually makes sense.
Otto Maddox wrote: The price of unhealthy food doesn't cover its cost to society. The price of a good should cover all negative externalities associated with it.
While I agree with what you propose in spirit, cars would become awfully expensive under this model.
Fatty foods being more expensive than a healthy alternative doesn't bother me, though. It would actually be kind of a nice change...good food is expensive!
Sounds like taking away freedom and liberty to me...
If they don't want fat or unhealthy people in their country they should round them up and send them to concentration...er... I mean health, yes health camps until they are conditioned properly.
I like it!
Cars will handle better with less lard on board.
How do they define "healthy"? Calorie content? Fat content? Sugars?
What may be "unhealthy" for one dieter/fatass may be perfectly healthy for someone else.
It sounds like a slippery slope to me. But then again, we're almost at the same place with Michelle trying to regulate school cafeteria foods and such. These things always seem harmless and possibly even good, but if the trend continues, where will we be in the future? See Cone_Junky's post above....
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: If they don't want fat or unhealthy people in their country they should round them up and send them to concentration...er... I mean health, yes health camps until they are conditioned properly.
...or eaten.
bravenrace wrote: It sounds like a slippery slope to me. But then again, we're almost at the same place with Michelle trying to regulate school cafeteria foods and such. These things always seem harmless and possibly even good, but if the trend continues, where will we be in the future? See Cone_Junky's post above....
I think the gov't has every right to regulate the cafeterias that are funded by the gov't. If parents are OK with feeding their little fat kids crap food, they can supply it themselves. I don't mind that the First Lady gives a E36 M3 about the health of our nation. I just hope it's more successful than Nancy's "Just say no" campaign.
We've already started going down the road of a fat tax here. Sodas and sugary drinks are taxed at a higher rate. Just like smokers, other people's lack of health affect us all in healthcare costs. I'm pretty sure most of the scooters that fat people have to use because of their "disability" are subsidized my Medicare too.
I don't like subsidizing the unhealthy habits of others.
If you want to treat your body like a trash can, that is your business. But my taxes, medical expenses, health insurance, etc. reflect the high cost to society of cheap unhealthy food.
This won't end well, I'm sure.
Otto Maddox wrote: The price of unhealthy food doesn't cover its cost to society. The price of a good should cover all negative externalities associated with it.
It would make more sense to simply allow insurance companies to base their rates on body fat percentages. Unless someone discovers a problem with secondhand fat.
In reply to MadScientistMatt:
Health insurance rates based on a full annual physical? If you are a fat, alcoholic smoker, you pay huge rates?
If I am not mistaken Denmark has a public health plan so since everyones tax dollars are paying the extra amount for the extra care required by the fatties then the fatties should have to pony up a bit extra to "pay their own way".
Makes sense to me.
In reply to Cone_Junky:
Funny, that's not what I got from your prior post.
I understand about our taxes and health care payments paying for fat people, but you guys need to see the big picture. Seriously, it's this kind of stuff that eventually leads to socialism.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to MadScientistMatt: Health insurance rates based on a full annual physical? If you are a fat, alcoholic smoker, you pay huge rates?
YES!
In my ideal healthcare model, very basic lifesaving care would be free to everyone (every legal citizen). If you wanted the best care, buy insurance that would be based on your current health. gov only supports the basic care, and industry is still free to develop expensive "cures" and treatments to prolong the lives of the terminally ill.
as to the taxation of fatty foods, we already have that here in WA state. unprocessed fresh foods arent taxed, while processed foods are.
I have no problem with sin taxes
only if the funds are used to offset the negatives associated with the sin.
Talk about a great way to tank the US economy - suddenly raise prices on all the really cheap food that people near the bottom of the economic pole have to live on. Yikes. It ain't cheap to eat healthy...or, more correctly, all those fats and chemicals are part of what makes it possible to produce cheap, shippable, storable food.
But having said that, I don't think that price is the reason people in the US eat so poorly. I think it's marketing. Otherwise rich people would all be healthy, right?
On a counter note, a couple of our local farmers' markets are participating in a gov't program that matches any dollar spent off food stamps programs. Basically, if you're on foodstamps and buy fresh stuff from the farmers market, you can get double the money to spend. The match money may actually be through some private company, I don't really know. Pretty cool idea, but no one takes advantage of it.
At any rate, any form of social engineering through taxation makes my skin crawl. And yes, I know how prevalent it already is.
Cone_Junky wrote: I think the gov't has every right to regulate the cafeterias that are funded by the gov't. If parents are OK with feeding their little fat kids crap food, they can supply it themselves. I don't mind that the First Lady gives a E36 M3 about the health of our nation. I just hope it's more successful than Nancy's "Just say no" campaign. We've already started going down the road of a fat tax here. Sodas and sugary drinks are taxed at a higher rate. Just like smokers, other people's lack of health affect us all in healthcare costs. I'm pretty sure most of the scooters that fat people have to use because of their "disability" are subsidized my Medicare too.
Well said. I have always felt that your rights end where my rights begin. If you choose to be unhealthy then you should pay for that choice. You are still free to make your own decision one way or the other but in the end I am not stuck paying for your choice.
You'll need to log in to post.
