Senate Considers Federal Tax On Soda

[KingGibbs]

You know what makes healthcare costly? Lack of preventative maintenance, more so than the food that you eat. Add big brother on top and it's sure as hell going to be expensive.

This is just another thing that the government can tax because enough people enjoy it to make it worthwhile. If all of a sudden rutabaga became a huge fad and people started eating it in the bucket loads, the government would tax that too.

1.1+ Trillion dollars in debt and massive social spending doesn't pay for itself.

I agree with preventative maintenance. But it starts with indiviuals and their willingless to take those measures. It saddens me to see so many people have their lives shortened when it didn't have to be that way.

I was just as guilty by consuming all the things that are bad for you. Hell, I started having heart plaputations and went to the doctors. When she even muttered the word heart disease (din't have it) I looked in the mirror and said those late night 7-11 nachos have got to stop.

I've since then completely changed my diet, exercise and on the way to being in the best shape since my teenage years.

[Dictator]

Well at least turkey bacon would probably be exempt .

not accoridng to the newest bacon thread.

[PokerPacker]

Glad I quit drinking the stuff so it doesn't affect me. Personally, I'm all for taxing anything that's detrimental to health and makes our health care costly, especially cigarettes.

But SPORTS DRINKS? This isn't just on sodas, its any drink with sugar in it. specifically including Gatorade. Its got electrolytes!

[KingGibbs]

But SPORTS DRINKS? This isn't just on sodas, its any drink with sugar in it. specifically including Gatorade. Its got electrolytes!

Now I do agree that SOME sports drinks should be exempt, but energy drinks should definitely be taxed. Teenagers are addicted to that ****. I know this first hand.

[Special K]

Then stop paying for him. If he wants to go down that road, his choice. Not mine. I will not have all the responsibility to pay for his choices while he has all the rights to make them.

Then the choice is to stop paying. Not to pay more. This is throwing good money after bad.

The problem with your "stop paying for him" attitude is that it is a completely simplified view of the problem that displays a completel lack of understanding regarding our health care infrastructure.

Stop paying for him? Okay, stop paying your taxes, let me know how that goes for ya...

Stop paying for your own health insurance...because after all, even when you are paying for your "private" insurance, you are still partly paying for the costs of others' health care.

Seriously, where do you think the people with no health insurance but have health problems go? The ER...where, coincidentally, we end paying for them again.

Do you see how intertwined all this is in our system? That's why it's completely unrealistic to simply state "well, just stop paying for him." I wish things in life were always that simple though...

[armstrong001]

The problem with your "stop paying for him" attitude is that it is a completely simplified view of the problem that displays a completel lack of understanding regarding our health care infrastructure.

Stop paying for him? Okay, stop paying your taxes, let me know how that goes for ya...

The government should stop paying for him. I realize that I "have" to pay taxes. But there is no law that says we "have" to have medicare, medicaid, prescription drug benefits, and now, universal healthcare.

Stop paying for your own health insurance...because after all, even when you are paying for your "private" insurance, you are still partly paying for the costs of others' health care.

And I'll continue to pay for my own health insurance. I would rather have an inefficient private system than an inefficient federal system.

Seriously, where do you think the people with no health insurance but have health problems go? The ER...where, coincidentally, we end paying for them again.

If it isn't an emergency, don't treat them. There are urgent care clinics and other less costly places to go. Even charitable organizations provide free health care in many places. There is no good reason to go to an ER for a non-emergency other than pure laziness. When you stop all of the unecessary spending, costs will come down.

Do you see how intertwined all this is in our system? That's why it's completely unrealistic to simply state "well, just stop paying for him." I wish things in life were always that simple though...

If someone makes a conscious decision to do unhealthy things, they have no right to expect others to foot the bill for him when they have health problems. Let them die in the street for all I care. If you don't take care of yourself, why should anyone else?

The only way to reduce costs is for consumers to have to pay for themselves. When people feel the costs of going to the doctor, they won't abuse it. Have a cold? Take some over the counter medecine instead of getting antibiotics from the doctor. Break a finger? Go to the urgent care clinic instead of the ER.

By going the route of universal health care, you make the system more intertwined than it already is. From your last paragraph, I assume you wouldn't like that. I know I wouldn't.

[Darth Tater]

perfect, another "sin" tax. Why does the government suck so much?

Well, a COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE system does legitimize sin taxes and any food/drug prohibitions. It also eliminates any validity to the "my body" argument.

[Johnny Punani]

I think it is a great idea and the tax ought to be ten times as high,hell expand it to all sweets.

It's for your and society's best health interest,refined sugar and corn syrup are destroying lives and resulting in higher public health costs.

If you care about America and your loved ones ,no sacrifice is too high.

signed...a smoker that drinks diet Dr Pepper

HAHAHAHA!! I couldn't agree more.

Wait...I thought the democrats weren't going to raise taxes on lower and middle class americans? Oh, just the non-smoking/non-soda drinking lower and middle class americans.

[PokerPacker]

Well, a COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE system does legitimize sin taxes and any food/drug prohibitions. It also eliminates any validity to the "my body" argument.

Which is why I ****ing hate this. The government always gets its fingers into things under the guise of "helping", but once they "help", they now have the right to completely control.

[twa]

Come now,don't be bitter...they are only trying to help PP

They are even looking at taxing HSA's (health savings accounts),which to me is a violation of reason they were created.:redpunch:

I'm a bit more open to the suggestion of taxing company paid health ins,especially since I am not afforded the same deduction.

Since the *******s raised the taxes on my cigars 800% I am kinda open to ya'll sharing the load.

[HighOnHendrix]

Well, on one hand we hear all the whining about the deficit and where they're going to get the money. Then they propose a way to get some of the money, and everyone whines.

Or Congress could just spend less. They are worse than an identity thief with someone else's Platinum AmEx.

fish contains mercury. fruits and vegetables, unless organic, probably have pesticide in/on them.

And if it's organic it has poop in/on it. Because that's what they use instead of chemicals. See, if I was in charge of naming things it wouldn't be called 'organic'; it would say in big letters on the side of the package "Grown in ****!" I would also change the name of "rutabaga" to "Big-ass turnip".

As for my opinion on the subject of this thread: NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I average one of these a day:

[Thiebear]

Stop all medical care on people over 70: It's a lost cause to try and keep the twilight years.

Stop all medical care on people with any addiction to alcohol or drugs of any kind: they are sucking up all the funds.

Stop all medical care on people that are above 30% BMI

Stop all medical care on smokers.

Problem solved 1939style.

[HighOnHendrix]

I average one of these a day:

Oh, and as far as the fat blob theory for drinking soda goes, not everyone has that happen to them. I'm skinny as a rail even though I drown in soda (or pop as we call it where I grew up) and eat like a pig.

[Special K]

If it isn't an emergency, don't treat them.

Well, under the current laws, that is completely illegal. Good luck getting these specific laws changed too. It will never happen.

There are urgent care clinics and other less costly places to go.

That require insurance or payment before treating a patient.

There is no good reason to go to an ER for a non-emergency other than pure laziness. When you stop all of the unecessary spending, costs will come down.

Sure there is, if you don't have insurance or do not have a means to pay, ER staff is still required by law to stabilize you.

The only way to reduce costs is for consumers to have to pay for themselves.

No, that's not a way to reduce costs. It is a means by which we can reduce unnecessary visits, but not overall costs. And again, good luck getting any type of law like that passed.

[Stew]

Im all for a tax on soda and junk food in general. Companies are getting rich off of making things that are not good for you and not fully disclosing the nutritional info. Fast food is the same way. Tax all the bad foods.

If people pay for their insurance or work for their insurance, its not my place to say what insurance should and should not pay for.

For me personally, Id rather pay for universal healthcare for all americans, rather then pay for welfare. At least the universal healthcare will go to help indivduals who are genuinely sick, not just provide money for lazy, drug addicted baby makers looking to profit off of their kids... but that's just me.

[armstrong001]

Well, under the current laws, that is completely illegal. Good luck getting these specific laws changed too. It will never happen.

BS. If it's not an emergency, they don't have to treat you. All they are required to do is screen you for what ails you, provide stabilizing care, and provide appropriate transfers. Anything beyond that, they can ask if you can pay, and deny you if you can't. Hospital policy might force them to provide additional care, but not the law.

That require insurance or payment before treating a patient.

You conveniently skipped my next sentence. Here it is again:

Even charitable organizations provide free health care in many places.

Sure there is, if you don't have insurance or do not have a means to pay, ER staff is still required by law to stabilize you.

Only in actual emergencies. If you come in with a cold, they can screen you, determine that you are "stable", and send you on your way.

No, that's not a way to reduce costs. It is a means by which we can reduce unnecessary visits, but not overall costs. And again, good luck getting any type of law like that passed.

How in any world does reducing unnecessary visits NOT reduce overall costs?

You want to pass all kinds of new laws forcing others to pay for these people, yet changing existing laws is "too hard"? Perhaps you just don't want to change them.

You still have not answered my question. What have I done to become indebted to these people? If I am responsible for paying for other people's health care, what is the reasoning behind it? How did it become my responsibility?

[armstrong001]

Im all for a tax on soda and junk food in general. Companies are getting rich off of making things that are not good for you and not fully disclosing the nutritional info. Fast food is the same way. Tax all the bad foods.

You are going to sit here and with a straight face tell me that people don't know that fast food, greasy food, and fatty foods are bad for them? Last time I checked, every food package tells you how much fat, sodium, cholesterol, sugar, carbohydrates, etc. is in what you are eating. If you choose to ignore it, how is that the company's fault? And how does "getting rich" from providing a service mean that now your product should be taxed more?

If people pay for their insurance or work for their insurance, its not my place to say what insurance should and should not pay for.

And it also isn't your place to say who I pay for. By taxing me on things I buy to pay for other people's health care, that is what you are doing.

For me personally, Id rather pay for universal healthcare for all americans, rather then pay for welfare. At least the universal healthcare will go to help indivduals who are genuinely sick, not just provide money for lazy, drug addicted baby makers looking to profit off of their kids... but that's just me.

There is no law that says you can't send in an extra $5000 check to the IRS on top of what you already pay, or donate to your local hospital to defray the costs of poor patients. If you want to do good, great. Just don't force me to do good through the government. I'll choose how to be charitable with my own money.

[Special K]

BS. If it's not an emergency, they don't have to treat you. All they are required to do is screen you for what ails you, provide stabilizing care, and provide appropriate transfers. Anything beyond that, they can ask if you can pay, and deny you if you can't.

You are wrong. Reread the EMTALA legislation.

A participating hospital may not delay provision of an appropriate medical screening examination required under subsection (a) of this section or further medical examination and treatment required under subsection ( of this section in order to inquire about the individual’s method of payment or insurance status.

http://www.emtala.com/law/index.html

You want to pass all kinds of new laws forcing others to pay for these people, yet changing existing laws is "too hard"? Perhaps you just don't want to change them.

No, I just like to think in terms of reality. The cold, hard reality is that EMTALA will never be repealed, so get used to it and start thinking of solutions within those parameters instead of burying your head in the sand and saying you just don't want to pay for others.

As for your claim that charities give free health care...um, really? There are charities out there that try to help, but they aren't widespread and they certainly could not handle that type of influx of patients.

You still have not answered my question. What have I done to become indebted to these people? If I am responsible for paying for other people's health care, what is the reasoning behind it? How did it become my responsibility?

I don't know, maybe something to the effect of: these people are going to continue placing a burden on our health care system, something that will affect all of us.

Or maybe it's because other people's health is a public health concern and affects all of us?

[jimster]

Tofu has no taste and looks like an eraser lol

Men shouldn't eat tofu anyway - it negatively affects hormones.

[jimster]

You are going to sit here and with a straight face tell me that people don't know that fast food, greasy food, and fatty foods are bad for them? Last time I checked, every food package tells you how much fat, sodium, cholesterol, sugar, carbohydrates, etc. is in what you are eating. If you choose to ignore it, how is that the company's fault? And how does "getting rich" from providing a service mean that now your product should be taxed more?

And it also isn't your place to say who I pay for. By taxing me on things I buy to pay for other people's health care, that is what you are doing.

There is no law that says you can't send in an extra $5000 check to the IRS on top of what you already pay, or donate to your local hospital to defray the costs of poor patients. If you want to do good, great. Just don't force me to do good through the government. I'll choose how to be charitable with my own money.

I agree with what you're saying on the health care, but its already happening in our current tax system, like your local/state taxes are paying for schools even if you don't have kids.

[AAARedskin]

This is the kind of great "LEADERSHIP" you get with the Dems! Wow! Such leadership.....let's all stand back in awe of them! Hey, how bout we hand over more CIA memos to the enemy! How bout we teach all the nations that sponser terrorism how to build missles that can reach America! Every week it's a new blunder from these wonderful Dems that offer ZERO leadership.

[armstrong001]

You are wrong. Reread the EMTALA legislation.

A participating hospital may not delay provision of an appropriate medical screening examination required under subsection (a) of this section or further medical examination and treatment required under subsection ( of this section in order to inquire about the individual’s method of payment or insurance status.

http://www.emtala.com/law/index.html

(a) Medical screening requirement

In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.

In this section:

(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

( with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

I don't see anything in there other than life and limb type conditions "ie EMERGENCY" that they have to treat. Once it is determined that it is not an emergency, send them on their way.

No, I just like to think in terms of reality. The cold, hard reality is that EMTALA will never be repealed, so get used to it and start thinking of solutions within those parameters instead of burying your head in the sand and saying you just don't want to pay for others.

I will not "get used to it". It is not morally or ethically defensable to force me to pay for others when I owe them no debt.

As for your claim that charities give free health care...um, really? There are charities out there that try to help, but they aren't widespread and they certainly could not handle that type of influx of patients.

If you want to help people who cannot afford health care to get it, this is the best solution. Force them to stop using the ER, and find other places for care, while donating to these clinics. They have a much lower operating cost than hospitals, and certainly lower costs than any government program. It worked for decades before medical care became a government program.

I don't know, maybe something to the effect of: these people are going to continue placing a burden on our health care system, something that will affect all of us.

Then stop allowing them to affect all of us. Non-emergency care should not be handled by an ER. That in itself will drastically reduce the burden.

Or maybe it's because other people's health is a public health concern and affects all of us?

Other people's health is other people's problem. Not mine. If I choose to make it my problem by donating to a charity, or helping in a clinic, that is my choice. It is not the government's place to force that problem on me.

[armstrong001]

I agree with what you're saying on the health care, but its already happening in our current tax system, like your local/state taxes are paying for schools even if you don't have kids.

I'm not a fan of government funded schools either.

[twa]

For me personally, Id rather pay for universal healthcare for all americans, rather then pay for welfare. At least the universal healthcare will go to help indivduals who are genuinely sick, not just provide money for lazy, drug addicted baby makers looking to profit off of their kids... but that's just me.

It is not a either /or ,but rather a both :munchout:

I don't object to consumption taxes,especially on things that are known to be detrimental to health.....But tax them all and quit cherry picking

[armstrong001]

It is not a either /or ,but rather a both :munchout:

I don't object to consumption taxes,especially on things that are known to be detrimental to health.....But tax them all and quit cherry picking

I don't object to consumption taxes, unless it is in addition to income taxes rather than in lieu of.

What about things that are determined to be "detrimental" to ones health now, but next year a study says they are actually beneficial? Eggs and coffee are two items that come to mind that routinely swing between "good" and "bad" for you. Do you only tax those things when they are bad, or do you tax them all the time? Who decides what is "bad"? Red wine has been said to be beneficial to your health. Should it be taxed along with other alcohol, which people say is "bad"?