Senate Considers Federal Tax On Soda

[Special K]

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.

First of all, what do you definte as an "emergency?"

Second, how do you figure out if they are an emergency or not?

Answer: You have to evaluate them...that involves utilization of ER resources just for that. Someone comes into the hospital for a cold, they have to be evaluated. If they are NOT evaluated and turned away for "just having a cold" upon initial presentation, and it turns out to be something more serious, the physicians, nurses, and hospital are going to get their asses sued off.

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.

You simply don't get it, that's the bottom line here. Other people's health IS our problem.

Do you realize the implications of not treating people for infectious diseases because they can't pay? Do you get how that miight affect you and I? If you can't see that, then there is no point in wasting time discussing this any further.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I thought conservatives believed in consumption taxes?

[armstrong001]

First of all, what do you definte as an "emergency?"

I would define it exactly the way it is defined in the post you just quoted:

(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.

Second, how do you figure out if they are an emergency or not?

Answer: You have to evaluate them...that involves utilization of ER resources just for that. Someone comes into the hospital for a cold, they have to be evaluated. If they are NOT evaluated and turned away for "just having a cold" upon initial presentation, and it turns out to be something more serious, the physicians, nurses, and hospital are going to get their asses sued off.

Yes, you evaluate them. Then you send them on their way, rather than treating them when it turns out that it isn't an emergency.

You simply don't get it, that's the bottom line here. Other people's health IS our problem.

Do you realize the implications of not treating people for infectious diseases because they can't pay? Do you get how that miight affect you and I? If you can't see that, then there is no point in wasting time discussing this any further.

I do get it. I just don't agree with you. Do you realize the implications of the federal government being in charge of everyone's health care? What happens when nobody pays out of their own pocket? Everyone will go to the doctor at the slightest hint of a problem. Costs will skyrocket because of all the new tests and consultations, and prescriptions that would otherwise not be made if people had to sit back and think, "Hmm, do I really want to pay for this?" If this happens, the government will do one of two things:

a) Increase taxes to pay for it;

Limit proceedures that it deems "wasteful" (ie hip replacements for people over 65, or treatments for rare diseases that don't affect many people).

Which are you in favor of? The government has many qualities, but thrift is not one of them. Billions of dollars are wasted annually through waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare system. The Veterans Administration does a lousy job of caring for its patients, and periodically has scandals over that care. Do you really want the same people who brought you these programs to run everything?

I have no obligation to another person to provide for thier health care simply because they were born. If you can't see that, there is no point wasting my time either.

[twa]

I thought conservatives believed in consumption taxes?

I do....but not selective sin taxes

Of course I worship the God of tobacco and want freedom to associate w/o unequal taxation.

Set my people FREE:D

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I do....but not selective sin taxes

Of course I worship the God of tobacco and want freedom to associate w/o unequal taxation.

Set my people FREE:D

haha... nicely done.

[armstrong001]

I thought conservatives believed in consumption taxes?

In lieu of income tax, not in addition to it.

[desioreo87]

when I was in middle school, a can of soda cost 35c. A bottle of soda cost 75c. Now, 8 years later, soda cans are 60-80c and bottles are anywhere between 1.25-1.50. Its bull****. This hits me hard because I am the biggest soda drinker I know. I have at least a bottle of Dr.P everyday, best drink of earth. So if my calculations are correct I'll be paying 10.95 more per year. INJUSTICE!!!

But seriously, I couldn't give a ****. If anything in this country needs fixing its the ****ing healthcare system, an absolutely disgusting system presently.

[Predicto]

Wow. I thought Ayn Rand died in 1982. Yet here she is with us again.

[panel]

One thing that is cool about freedom is, that it is none of your business how I live my life. If I want to smoke, I can do that, if I want to skateboard and do risky tricks that may break my bones, thats my choice, if I want to ride a motarcycle that is less safe then a car to save on gas, that is fine.

BUT, as soon as there is public health care, it is other peoples business if you smoke, skateboard, play contact sports, what type of car you drive, how you eat, where you live, ect. because the public is paying for your hospital bills, so as the cost of health care goes up, laws to reduse risky behavior will be passed, and one by one, our freedoms will be reduced.

I view public health care as the road that will reduce our freedoms. This tax on coke is just the first tiny step in this direction.

[SnyderShrugged]

I thought conservatives believed in consumption taxes?

Thats more of a "neo" brand of conservatism, IMHO

[twa]

I view public health care as the road that will reduce our freedoms. This tax on coke is just the first tiny step in this direction.

First hell:hysterical:

I do agree with the rest of it,I wonder when I will get to tell others what kind of sex life they can have?....seeing as how it can cost public health dollars I'm a invested party.:evilg:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

One thing that is cool about freedom is, that it is none of your business how I live my life. If I want to smoke, I can do that, if I want to skateboard and do risky tricks that may break my bones, thats my choice, if I want to ride a motarcycle that is less safe then a car to save on gas, that is fine.

BUT, as soon as there is public health care, it is other peoples business if you smoke, skateboard, play contact sports, what type of car you drive, how you eat, where you live, ect. because the public is paying for your hospital bills, so as the cost of health care goes up, laws to reduse risky behavior will be passed, and one by one, our freedoms will be reduced.

I view public health care as the road that will reduce our freedoms. This tax on coke is just the first tiny step in this direction.

Yea but your diabetes from coke is costing my non-soda drinking ass money in health insurance.

[IHOPSkins]

No Poor tax here......as per Obama's promise

Poor people don't drink Soda, Smoke Cigs or have Beers

[Special K]

For the record, I tend to side with TWA in the notion that sin taxes shouldn't be cherry-picked. I would love to see tax on soda, alcohol, fast food, crappy junk food, everything. If we are going to tax those items, then freaking tax them.

Yes, you evaluate them. Then you send them on their way, rather than treating them when it turns out that it isn't an emergency.

So, what's the difference in evaluating a person with a cold and "treating" them in the ER?

To evaluate the patient, the doctors have to take a history, vital signs, etc. To treat a patient with a cold, the doctors take a history, vital signs, and print out a list of advice for the patient...sometimes even write a prescription.

Is there a big cost difference between the two? How does simply evaluating a patient going to save a bunch of money? It's not.

Do you realize the implications of the federal government being in charge of everyone's health care?

Do you realize that's not what universal health care is?

Which are you in favor of? The government has many qualities, but thrift is not one of them. Billions of dollars are wasted annually through waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare system. The Veterans Administration does a lousy job of caring for its patients, and periodically has scandals over that care. Do you really want the same people who brought you these programs to run everything?

Evidently, you don't understand what my position is on this...something I haven't elaborated on too much so far. But it certainly IS NOT total government control of health care. I don't know where you seem to keep getting this idea from.

What I am saying is that you are taking a simple-minded approach to the issue. It's not a black and white issue, it's not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. I don't know if you work in health care, but I don't know many people who do who hold your mindset.

I realize our system needs to be fixed, but denying people basic treatment shouldn't be one of the solutions.

I would like to see PCP screening in ER's. The problem is, we don't have enough PCP's to refer these people too. Diminishing reimbursement rates for hospitals and physicians and increasing debt from medical school and residency are deterring people from going into medicine. The **** is REALLY going to hit the fan (although it certainly pretty much already is) when our baby boomer generation starts getting into the 65+ category and require increased care from PCP's, internists, general surgeons, orthos, pretty much every medical specialty.

I think we need to create more incentives for people to go into medicine because we are facing a drastic shortage as less people are applying and more physicians are getting the HELL out of medicine for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lawsuit-happy American society, or the fact that they can't afford to support their practice overhead anymore with the decreasing reimbursements and increasing malpractice insurance premiums.

American health care is currently a big ****ing mess, but to just say it can be fixed by denying medical care is both absurd AND against the interests of our public's health.

I would like to see the government ensure that ALL citizens can access primary health care. Beyond that, I think a person should have either private insurance or qualify for Medicaid to receive further treatment. But primary health care for all is something that is in our nation's best interest in terms of dispensing vaccinations, maintaining surveillance on infectious disease, etc.

You just deny a bunch of people care, you are going to have a major, major public health problem that has implications for all of us, whether we pay for our healthcare or not. This is what I continue saying you don't seem to understand.

[armstrong001]

For the record, I tend to side with TWA in the notion that sin taxes shouldn't be cherry-picked. I would love to see tax on soda, alcohol, fast food, crappy junk food, everything. If we are going to tax those items, then freaking tax them.

Then what about things that are "bad" one day and "good" the next? Taxed? Not taxed? Taxed only when bad? Who decides what is bad?

So, what's the difference in evaluating a person with a cold and "treating" them in the ER?

To evaluate the patient, the doctors have to take a history, vital signs, etc. To treat a patient with a cold, the doctors take a history, vital signs, and print out a list of advice for the patient...sometimes even write a prescription.

Is there a big cost difference between the two? How does simply evaluating a patient going to save a bunch of money? It's not.

That's why you have to change the mindset of going to the ER all the time. If you tell people, "Look, you need medical attention, but it's not serious. Either go somewhere else where it's more affordable to treat you, or we're going to make you pay", they'll either go to the less expensive place, or just deal with the cold themselves. If someone comes in to the ER with a cold, damnit charge them for taking up valuable resources. When people start to realize that the ER isn't a free health clinic, they'll stop going for anything other than emergencies.

Do you realize that's not what universal health care is?

Well, with a title like "universal", I have a pretty good idea.

Evidently, you don't understand what my position is on this...something I haven't elaborated on too much so far. But it certainly IS NOT total government control of health care. I don't know where you seem to keep getting this idea from.

So, going to a single payer health care system is NOT the same as government control? Who pays the bills? Who do you think is going to make the rules?

What I am saying is that you are taking a simple-minded approach to the issue. It's not a black and white issue, it's not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. I don't know if you work in health care, but I don't know many people who do who hold your mindset.

That's because people in the health care industry just want someone who pays the bills. They don't care where it's coming from.

I realize our system needs to be fixed, but denying people basic treatment shouldn't be one of the solutions.

From where do you derive a right to health care?

I would like to see PCP screening in ER's. The problem is, we don't have enough PCP's to refer these people too. Diminishing reimbursement rates for hospitals and physicians and increasing debt from medical school and residency are deterring people from going into medicine. The **** is REALLY going to hit the fan (although it certainly pretty much already is) when our baby boomer generation starts getting into the 65+ category and require increased care from PCP's, internists, general surgeons, orthos, pretty much every medical specialty.

Then make it less difficult to get in to basic medicine. Does setting a broken bone really take as much education as heart surgury? Allow basic medical tasks to be done by people other than doctors. It wouldn't take nearly as much training to teach a guy how to set a basic fracture, what complications to look for, and when to refer them to a doctor immediately if things are bad. That person then wouldn't have to attend 8 years of higher education (or whatever the course load is now), but would also be limited in their scope of work. They could then charge less because they weren't paying off all those med school bills.

Reduce liability issues with doctors. No, that doesn't mean zero liability. But awards of tens of millions of dollars makes it difficult for any doctor to get insurance.

I think we need to create more incentives for people to go into medicine because we are facing a drastic shortage as less people are applying and more physicians are getting the HELL out of medicine for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lawsuit-happy American society, or the fact that they can't afford to support their practice overhead anymore with the decreasing reimbursements and increasing malpractice insurance premiums.

Then do that. But big brother doesn't need to be involved.

American health care is currently a big ****ing mess, but to just say it can be fixed by denying medical care is both absurd AND against the interests of our public's health.

I never said that everything can be fixed solely by denying non-essential medical care. But it'd be a hell of a start.

I would like to see the government ensure that ALL citizens can access primary health care. Beyond that, I think a person should have either private insurance or qualify for Medicaid to receive further treatment. But primary health care for all is something that is in our nation's best interest in terms of dispensing vaccinations, maintaining surveillance on infectious disease, etc.

I would like to see us go back to everyone pays for themselves. This is a good example of what we could do for basic services for those who don't carry health insurance. Regardless of how many people don't have health insurance, there aren't that many people who can't truely afford a $60 clinic fee. Those that cannot afford even that can turn to charity. It worked before, it can work again.

You just deny a bunch of people care, you are going to have a major, major public health problem that has implications for all of us, whether we pay for our healthcare or not. This is what I continue saying you don't seem to understand.

Like I said above, there aren't that many people in this country that can't afford $60 every six months to go to the clinic While there, they can get immunizations, etc. With the way these 'sin taxes' are adding up, they probably equal what it would cost for a person to go see a doctor anyways.

[Peeping Wizard]

I have an idea. The government could pay for people to live in all of our homes and monitor what we eat. They could tally up our consumption and assess a tax on any sugar, fat, carbs or alcohol we consume.

Not only does this generate more tax dollars, but it also creates millions of government jobs.

[Special K]

That's why you have to change the mindset of going to the ER all the time. If you tell people, "Look, you need medical attention, but it's not serious. Either go somewhere else where it's more affordable to treat you, or we're going to make you pay", they'll either go to the less expensive place, or just deal with the cold themselves.

Yeah, that's illegal under our current laws.

So, going to a single payer health care system is NOT the same as government control? Who pays the bills? Who do you think is going to make the rules?

:doh: I'm not advocating a single payer system either

That's because people in the health care industry just want someone who pays the bills. They don't care where it's coming from.

:hysterical: Oh really?

From where do you derive a right to health care?

I don't know...maybe people derive the right for BASIC health care from the same place they derive the right for education...or use of interstate highways...or police protection...you know, like things that benefit the general welfare of the public?

Does setting a broken bone really take as much education as heart surgury? Allow basic medical tasks to be done by people other than doctors. It wouldn't take nearly as much training to teach a guy how to set a basic fracture, what complications to look for, and when to refer them to a doctor immediately if things are bad. That person then wouldn't have to attend 8 years of higher education (or whatever the course load is now), but would also be limited in their scope of work. They could then charge less because they weren't paying off all those med school bills.

We already have that. They are called PA's, nurse practitioners, medical assistants, ortho techs.

And I don't know if you are aware, setting a broken bone is actually a pretty big deal. There is a lot of stuff that can go wrong.

Maybe you should check into the laws and red tape regarding malpractice before you go around saying other people should be able to do those jobs. I get the distinct feeling you have no clue what the legal ramifications are of specific medical treatments... :doh:

Reduce liability issues with doctors. No, that doesn't mean zero liability. But awards of tens of millions of dollars makes it difficult for any doctor to get insurance.

Good luck dealing with that cluster****. :thumbsup:

You seem to think everything is just so easy to do. Change this law, change that law, take away this red tape, clear this red tape. I wish life were that easy, but it's not. That's why we have to think of solutions that fit within the context of our current laws, or laws similar to our current laws...because the way you are addressing the situation is completely unrealistic.

[paredskinsfan]

I was too lazy to read through the entire thread so sorry if this clip has been posted.

Soda Tax.....

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/227615/may-13-2009/stephen-s-coke-party-protest

[armstrong001]

Yeah, that's illegal under our current laws.

No, it's not. It is not illegal to turn away non-emergency patients.

:doh: I'm not advocating a single payer system either

If the government is doing it, it's single payer.

:hysterical: Oh really?

Yes really. People responsible for keeping health care businesses afloat would let the devil himself pay for everything if the check cleared.

I don't know...maybe people derive the right for BASIC health care from the same place they derive the right for education...or use of interstate highways...or police protection...you know, like things that benefit the general welfare of the public?

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

You'd get an argument from me that those other programs you mentioned (education, federal police, highways) are also not federal powers.

We already have that. They are called PA's, nurse practitioners, medical assistants, ortho techs.

And I don't know if you are aware, setting a broken bone is actually a pretty big deal. There is a lot of stuff that can go wrong.

Maybe you should check into the laws and red tape regarding malpractice before you go around saying other people should be able to do those jobs. I get the distinct feeling you have no clue what the legal ramifications are of specific medical treatments... :doh:

So, you want to set up new laws, with more red tape, and more beaurocracy, instead of cleaning up the existing laws, red tape, and beaurocracy. :doh: right back at you.

And I never said that a guy could take 12 hours of training, and get right to setting bones. But do you deny that a person could learn how to set bones a hell of a lot quicker than how to be a doctor? Honestly, how much time in med school does one take to learn this vs. all the other time spent learning other things. Hell, a person could take a full year of studying nothing but setting bones, and his education costs would still be a fraction of what a full doctor would be. Wouldn't a person who specializes in that practice be even better at it than someone who only does it for a fraction of his patients?

Good luck dealing with that cluster****. :thumbsup:

Wow, way to explore other alternatives to increased government spending. "It's too hard to do anything about the problem, so let's throw more money at it. Yeah, that's the ticket..."

You seem to think everything is just so easy to do. Change this law, change that law, take away this red tape, clear this red tape. I wish life were that easy, but it's not. That's why we have to think of solutions that fit within the context of our current laws, or laws similar to our current laws...because the way you are addressing the situation is completely unrealistic.

I never said it would be easy. I never said it would be quick. But its the right thing to do. What is right is not always easy. What is easy is not always right. And the majority of what I am saying COULD be done with existing laws. More cash only clinics to provide basic service wouldn't require any new laws, or modifying existing ones. Turing people away from the ER that aren't emergency cases also violates no law. You could even set up the clinic right outside the ER, and non-emergency patients could be sent right over.

[panel]

Yea but your diabetes from coke is costing my non-soda drinking ass money in health insurance.

Sort of, but not really, you should be paying reduced premiums because you have a healthier lifestyle. In a well run health insurance system, all of the high soda drinkers would pay a higher enough rate so that non-soda drikers would not have to pay more for someone else's bad behavior.

[China]

Public Health Leaders Propose Soda Tax

Opponents Say Tax Won't Stop Obesity Epidemic

By JOSEPH BROWNSTEIN

Sept. 17, 2009

Several of the nation's leading health experts are calling for a tax on soda as a means of curbing America's obesity-epidemic.

Their paper, appearing in the most recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, calls for a tax on "sugar-sweetened" drinks in order to reduce the consumption of the drinks and lower health costs as well as fund government-run health programs.

"A tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is really a double-win," said Dr. David Ludwig, a co-author of the paper and director of the Optimal Weight for Life program at Children's Hospital, Boston.

"We can raise much-needed dollars while likely reducing obesity prevalence, which is a major driver of health care costs, the paper states. "Ultimately the government needs to raise more money to cover the deficit, and in terms of ways of raising that revenue, a tax on sugar sweetened beverages is really a no-brainer."

Click on the link for the full article

[Duncan]

They need money for health care, and they are thinking of raising it from an item which increases health care costs. This is one of the few times your taxes actually go towards what is being used.

Or, the guy next to me is drinking 5 sodas a day and MY taxes have to go up to pay for his health care. If you read Obama's most recent health care plan, you would see that one of the key issues is to reduce costs.

First of all the cigarette tax was folded into the general fund and they spent it. Second, if your taxes weren't going to pay for the guy drinking 5 sodas why would you care.

[twa]

As a diet Dr Pepper drinking smoker I love the idea.

[SnyderShrugged]

What happened to "No tax increases on income under $250k?"

[Thiebear]

Tax anyone over the Government approved Body Mass Index.

Tax anything over the Government approved Visual Acuity 20/20.

Tax smoking: Check

Tax drinking anything other than water and milk.

Tax eating anything over the approved caloric intake for your age range.

Tax participation in sports, extra tax on xtreme sports.

TV tax if its on longer than 2 hours a day.

And we will not tax anyone under the top 5% while doing it.