Pst. Fat people also eat:
Chicken, pork, beef, eggs, bread,pickles,potatoes,strawberries, tortillas, beans, etc etc etc. Gonna tax all that as well?

Now I do believe that yes, we seem to need bigger ambulances for those occasions where MORBIDLY OBESE people need accommodations. Then should we give a rebate to the 50 pound child they drive to the hospital?

If we took money from obese people in the form of tax on "junk food" and gave it back to thin people in the form of a rebate there would not be much point in having the the tax to fund services.

True. But it would be fair. Seeing the tax is being based on FAT which would be WEIGHT. And again, they eat all sorts of food. And skinny people also eat all sorta of junk. Should we just like put cameras in markets making sure which foods fat people eat? Really now.

We're calling it a fat tax on this forum but really its a tax on foods deceptively high in empty calories.
People can put on weight before they know it. The role of food is to build new blood, bones and muscle, and provide energy. Of course it has a social role to and is a comfort and great pleasure.
A great chef once said the secret to being a good cook was to use the minimum of water and the maximum of love. I try to remember this during my work as a cook.
Some manufacturers however are adding too many chemicals to food to fit this definition, see below. They are cooking, if not with hate then with supreme indifference to the welfare of their product's consumers.

http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm

arry wrote:

...... Do you think it is the right way to deal with the obesity problem in Australia? If not, what would be a better way?

Why not let private enterprise assist here?

Let the health insurance funds discriminate by charging different premiums to individuals based upon the individuals overall health, one factor of which is weight/height/body mass or a similar measure. Then the decision lies with each person to manage their own health and select the appropriate health fund insurance organisation. I believe this is as ethical as anything in our modern society.

Those who opt out of private health insurance, receive basic care funded from the Government levy applied to all taxpayers, well, anyway, most tax payers.

Let health insurance companies offer products that reward those that make the effort to live a healthy life.

This is currently illegal in Australia. And for good measure.
The private sector does a lot of good, but it has to be regulated and boundaries put around these things, otherwise they can turn into a "corporate cancer" growing and profiting, regardless of fairness, ethics and at the expense of the broader society.

The reason why Australia has "community rating" (i.e. you have to accept everybody warts and all) is to prevent something called "cream skimming" where the private fund skims the young and healthy (who probably don't need health cover so much at all) and leaves most who need it (old, sick, obese etc) with out cover to then have to bill the public account (and public hospitals).

The same logic is behind leaving out pregnancy and cardio-thoratic (i.e. if you have a heart bypass) from all but the most expensive private plans.

A good suggestion, but can't be used. On the other hand, some private funds do offer weight loss and other incentives to stay healthy (free such and such, giveaways etc).

Good post 101 I agree with everything you wrote. Geshtinnanna wrote:



I've never heard of anyone getting fat from eating too many beans
The point is, it is certain foods that are more likely to cause obesity- foods that are high in sugar, salt and fat. People are more likely to over- eat these foods because they taste so good. Ask any nutritionsist, doctor etc. and they will tell you the same.

The fat tax as a tax on high fat/salt/sugar foods has a number of benefits as opposed to simply taxing overweight people:

1) It is not a form of direct discrimination; consider the reality of implementing such a policy; all fat people must wear yellow stars? (by Godwin!) and 'weigh in' at a government measurement camp? :S

2) It taxes people at the point of sale, creating an immediate deterrant for buying bad food. The law of demand states the higher the price, the lower the demand. In contrast, taxing fat people doesn't actually deter them where the problem starts- the food choices they make.

3) People with high metabolism who also have bad eating habits will also be targeted. This is good because bad health can be related to diet without the person being overweight. In contrast, taxing only fat people allows people with high metabolism to eat whatever they like (doing whatever damage to themselves) and not having to pay the price for their choices.

4) The fat tax comparatively lowers the price of healthy food, therefore it provides an incentive for people to eat healthy (a 'carrot' rather than 'stick' approach).

Note: I think the fat tax can be used for the greater cost of healthcare as a whole that is caused by people making unhealthy eating choices including ambulances etc. I think it is best justified if argued that all money raised by the fat tax will go into campaigns to make healthier lifestyle choices and healthcare.

Some experts are suggesting that generation y may be the first generation to not live as long as their parents because of poor eating habits!!?! Crazy.

101 wrote:

This is currently illegal in Australia. And for good measure.
The private sector does a lot of good, but it has to be regulated and boundaries put around these things, otherwise they can turn into a "corporate cancer" growing and profiting, regardless of fairness, ethics and at the expense of the broader society.

The reason why Australia has "community rating" (i.e. you have to accept everybody warts and all) is to prevent something called "cream skimming" where the private fund skims the young and healthy (who probably don't need health cover so much at all) and leaves most who need it (old, sick, obese etc) with out cover to then have to bill the public account (and public hospitals).

The same logic is behind leaving out pregnancy and cardio-thoracic (i.e. if you have a heart bypass) from all but the most expensive private plans.

A good suggestion, but can't be used. On the other hand, some private funds do offer weight loss and other incentives to stay healthy (free such and such, giveaways etc).

Yes, I am aware it is illegal in Australia. I am questioning not the legality but its ethics. I also recognise that many health insurance companies are dabbling in this area by offering incentive to stay healthy - and reducing premiums if this is the case. This is almost a way around the legality aspects of my suggestion, interesting!

I understand that you have put the view that you believe it is unethical in that health funds could increase profits from certain demographics such as the young and healthy.

I accept some of this, but would like to make two points assuming my proposition of allowing health insurance funds to charge different rates for individuals depending upon the assessment of that person's risk of incurring expenditure from the health fund.

1. If one health fund built a lot of profit into their pricing, in an attempt to skim the cream, then a low cost health fund would take advantage of this pretty quickly and create a low cost fund and gain that market segment that put price as their number one priority. There are other ways apart from price to differentiate in a market place, price being the easiest to measure.

This is of course normal market forces at play. Skimming is opportunistic and doesn't last long in an informed market. And the collusion of competitors is illegal so prices could not be held artificially high - but of course we all know that collusions does sometimes occur. Making something illegal does not mean it prevents it from occurring.

2. In effect, by not permitting health insurance companies to charge more to those they assess to be at risk, it means those same companies must average their charges across their customers. This means the customers who would be assessed as low risk are penalised by being charged more than if they were assessed.

So, I will argue for the case that health insurance companies should be permitted to charge based upon their assessment of the health risk of the individual concerned.

I guess I am also saying, that our taxes should be directed to those who need and deserve them the most. It is up to the Government to define deserve of course, but I do not think that people who lived a very unhealthy life eating fast food, no significant exercise, drug abuse, binge drinking, smoking etc deserve in any ethical sense, a greater proportion of the health budget from a private or public purse than someone who has lived a healthy life. yet this is the situation today.

How to implement what I suggest? I don't know! So I guess I agree with your last statement, I think it is a good idea, but not something that can't be done, but something that there is no political will to do.

This is the American System. It has been tried and does not work well at all. It is a most inefficient system, hence they want to change it.

Low cost health fund for people who have high cost health care needs that possibly run into thousands and thousands of dollars? If that fund were to exist, it would not last very long as it would go broke very quickly.

Secondly, it would have to be a very very large fund enrolling very many people to survive as the profit margin would be so low. And thirdly, it is possible for something to be economically unprofitable for a private firm, but socially beneficial for everyone that uses it.

About comments regarding cameras in supermarkets and a totalitarian state. We have cameras down every aisle at the supermarket already, recording everything continuously and analysing consumer behaviour. But it is the private sector that does that. Ditto for that!

People don't get fat because it is fun, they want to be fat or think it is a good idea. Something to ponder...

This statement seems paradoxical. The very people who need the services the most are those very people with bad health because they cannot control themselves (yes people like this DO exist!). Yet a system based purely on "personal responsibility" alone would exclude those very people. So that those people who could get proper health care would be the ones who don't use it at all or use it only rarely.

And secondly, it seems these measures are based less on concern about fixing or managing the problem, and rather more do with conforming to the notion that taxes are the highest form of evil possible (whatever the context) and that they must be avoided at all costs.

airzone wrote:

...I guess I am also saying, that our taxes should be directed to those who need and deserve them the most. It is up to the Government to define deserve of course, but I do not think that people who lived a very unhealthy life eating fast food, no significant exercise, drug abuse, binge drinking, smoking etc deserve in any ethical sense, a greater proportion of the health budget from a private or public purse than someone who has lived a healthy life. yet this is the situation today.

101 wrote:

...This statement seems paradoxical. The very people who need the services the most are those very people with bad health because they cannot control themselves (yes people like this DO exist!). Yet a system based purely on "personal responsibility" alone would exclude those very people. So that those people who could get proper health care would be the ones who don't use it at all or use it only rarely. ...

Yes, my statement is confusing and can be interpreted in different way. My apologies. What I meant to say was:

"... that our taxes should be directed to those who meet both the following two criteria: [1.] require those taxes/health care and [2.] deserve them the most.

I trust that makes my thoughts clearer.

And as I wrote more or less previously, I do not think that people who lived a very unhealthy life eating fast food, no significant exercise, drug abuse, binge drinking, smoking etc deserve in any ethical sense, a greater proportion of the health budget from a private or public purse than someone who has lived a healthy life. Yet this is the situation today.

Those who opt out of private health insurance should be eligible to receive basic health care funded from the Government levy applied to taxpayers.

Let health insurance companies and the Government offer services that reward those that make the effort to live a healthy life.

I agree to an extent. It is frustrating to see people trash themselves and then expect that the hospital will act like some kind of magical mechanic and fix them up completely (which BTW isn't always the case).

On the other hand, defining what is "basic" requires a subjective judgement. Is pregnancy "basic"? or what about C-section? Or pregnancy drugs that are not strictly neccessary, but preferable to use?

And on another note, specialist programs are required for people who have drug abuse, are overweight etc. This usually delivered through grants to the third sector (charities, health associations) and supplemented (to a smaller degree) by donations, and not directly through government.

Are you implying that there should be some means test to determine who should pay a surcharge for diseases where "personal fault" is significant, and would it be ethical/how should doctors/nurses make these value judgements???

101 wrote:

....Are you implying that there should be some means test to determine who should pay a surcharge for diseases where "personal fault" is significant, and would it be ethical/how should doctors/nurses make these value judgements???

Essentially yes, but the health professionals and health care insurance companies would make such decisions based upon Government guidelines. This is done now regarding pre-existing health conditions etc. Our Government, which represents our society, must make the ethical guidelines. They will never be perfect of course ... and ethics for an individual are often different for a society as a whole.

Your point about some people seeing hospitals as providing a cure for a person's health problems is definitely a significant issue for society in my view. As a generalisation, once some people understand there is a cure for a disease, then people do not worry much about the behaviour which results in that disease. Obesity etc is one example. Binge drinking, drugs is another. Look at the number of the beautiful people who behave rather badly and then check into a clinic to be "cured". Because there are such places offering so called cures, these people excuse their own irresponsible behaviour by saying the will go in for a cure next month, next year etc and get someone else to "fix" them. It doesn't really work like that. Also many businessmen/women who work long hours under stress with poor diet and little excersize end up with heart problems, which are then "cured" by an operation and drugs for the remainder of their life. Such cures encourage suboptiminal behaviour.

I am not promoting no "cures", just pointing out that cures do have a negative aspect which should be taken into account by the health industry and Government. But there are few votes today for a Government that penalises so many in their electorate.

In my view, people should be rewarded for good behaviour (ethical) and not-rewarded (punished/penalised/ignored) for poor behaviour.

A "Fat Tax" sounds like a fantastic proposal. Nowadays people are simply too ignorant to look after their own health, and as the educated and rational members of our society, it is our duty to protect those who are simply too naive to watch their own weight. I teach a class on social ethics at a high school in London, and I personally believe that the health issues associated with obesity, such as diabetes, osteoarthritis and gallbladder disease , are simply God's way of punishing those who are gluttonous and overeat. However, it is down to the more sophisticated members of society to halt this atrocity. I have spent a long time trying to convey this message to my students, and fortunately they understand what it means for a third party to combat issues such as obesity, hereby following God's example, but many people simply don't understand the blight caused on humanity by these hideous individuals.

If anyone wishes to debate these issues further, please do not contact me through e-mail or through this forum.
My mobile number is 447766828169

Please, anyone feel free to contact me about the issues raised in this post. These facts make up a large portion of my syllabus and I simply love to talk on these somewhat disturbing subjects.

447766828169- please dial.

Your rather emotional response fails to provide a solution for the two problems:

1) Obesity is on the rise and leads to health consequences

2) People who make healthy choices are paying the health bills of people who are not making healthy choices. Why should they?

A fat tax is an easy way to make those who make poor eating choices pay for their decisions. The tax should be levied according to the level of sugar, fat and/or salt in the product.

arry,

If there should be a fat tax, it should be based strictly on the mass of the person in kilograms and the percent of fat that makes up that mass. Now the only one subsidizing the increased cost is the person responsible.

By your logic, if the amount of sugar or fat in the food item is the root cause of obesity than, a pencil is the root cause of spelling errors.

Has anyone reached Dr Kelley or is his 'phone tied up by eager debaters?

Three main things contribute to obesity:

1) Diet

2) Genetics

3) Exercise

If you are genetically predisposed to have a high metabolism then you may eat poorly (causing high cholestrol and the poor health effects of this) without being overweight. This is why a tax according to the food is more preferable and accurate.

Writing with a pencil and consuming food is not the same thing.

arry

If I genetically predisposed to be skinny, and/or I run 10 km 4-5 time a week why should I have to pay more for food strictly because of its nutrional content.

Because it has a poor effect on your health; sweet food rots your teeth and increases your risk of type 2 diabetes, fatty food increases your cholestrol etc. go to nutrition australia for more information. And the health costs of poor diet are picked up by the govt at present. We are constantly hearing the health system is under- funded, this could be a way to increase their funding, while a the same time preventing sickness by encouraging a healthier diet.