Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare

When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.

 As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."

In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.

If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)

"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal  policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows.

Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.

If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty:  The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes;  a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.

And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says.

Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area.

And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.

That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.

There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."

-- Melissa Healy

Comments

[justavoter]

I say tax all government employees from Congress and the House down to the janitors. Government and state employees make more money than the private sector and receives more benefits. California pays teachers $70,000 a year with benefits to sit in classrooms all day because they were repremanded on something. Some of them have been there for 4 and 5 years. Government and state employees have the job security and the income to pay back to their community. Think of all the money Washington has received over the past 30 years. Washington wastes so much of our tax dollars to line their pockets. When Washington wants to destroy the best healthcare system in the world instead of just simply regulate health costs, something is wrong. When Washington wants to destroy companies and jobs to tax us for the air we breathe, something is wrong. Washington needs to learn how to pay their bills and cut their waste spending before imposing more and more taxes. How many roads do we need? How many buildings do we need? How many parks do we need? Why do we need a study on why men do not like to wear condoms during sex? I mean that money could go to someone's healtcare. Washington needs to prioritize and come back to earth. The millions spent on an airport in Pennsylvania that only has 4 customers a week is outrageous. How many retirements could that pay for? Our government could be causing high levels of stress which could be causing obese levels to rise. Ever think about that? The new healthcare will cost taxpayers more money than the whole world has. Why would Washington put America in that position? It's not about our health. It is about taking over every aspect of our life. Washington is already trying to tax the air we breathe. Give us a break. Out of control spending has got to stop and they have to stop forcing heavier and heavier tax burdens on companies and taxpayers for themselves.

[Ed]

Let's call this what it is: just another effort by big government to control our lives by using the tax code to abridge our freedoms.

I knew this day was coming and predicted it more than 20 years ago, when LA banned cigarette smoking in restaurants and other public places. As a lifelong non-smoker, I was happy I no longer had to deal with the second-hand smoke. As an American citizen, I was deeply concerned about a government that had decided to restrict consumption of legal products. (Restrictions that, in some communities, now include their consumption within the user's own home. So much for privacy rights.) If these products are so injurious -- and I'm not claiming they aren't -- why not pass legislation making them illegal? I'll tell you why. One: money. Two: power.

What I have always found threatening about government-run health care (including what Obama calls "the public option") is that it allows government to exert ever more control over the citizen's life: "Since we're paying for your health care, we have every right to insist that you refrain from making lifestyle choices that we deem likely to affect your health. It's for your own good, you know."

This is a dangerous road we're walking down....

[Jason]

I am tired of the king telling the peasants what they can and can't eat, smoke, drink ... This is supposed to be the land of the free and not the land of the herded cattle. Our rulers have dictated too much of our lives and have begun down that slippery slope. It is the slope where only the elite will have those God given rights. Where most men will be born into servitude to the ruling class. Where the pursuit of happiness is exchanged for the hope to survive another day.

Our government has decided to tax away our rights. The right to buy the car we wish, to take the vacation we desire, to buy the home we dream. They tax the gifts we give and everything we offer after we have passed. They tax our communication, our transportation, and the services we perform.

My govenrment is too large. It dictates too much. It no longer allows freedom. Today it is a potato chip, a donut on Sunday, and a soda to go with my burger. What will they take away tommorrow?

[Karen]

Problem is all obeisity is not caused by what people eat. There is an assumption made about people who are fat that isn't true and any doctor will tell you that. Besides which, when did we as Americans decide that some all-knowing few should be given the approval to make all our choices for us? Part of freedom and liberty is the ability to make bad choice as well as good ones. I'll be willing to bet that we pay more in health care costs for illegal immigrants than obese people, particularly when Mexico deliberately sends their poor to emergency rooms in the southwest because they know we will treat them.

[Purple Koolaid]

Tax fat people, not their food. I eat a lot and am quite svelte. Why should I be punished for fat people??

[JWS]

First they tax the rich to make themselves richer, now they're taxing fatties to make themselves fatter.

[JWS]

First they tax the rich to make themselves richer, now they're taxing fatties to make themselves fatter.

[Julie Cochrane]

Oh. By the way. I'm one of that 33% who are neither overweight nor obese. But at 5'2", I used to weigh 200 pounds. Don't assume all we thin people are in your corner.

It was not only not easy to lose, it was expensive to buy better food and get more motivating workout options.

Poor people eat bad food because they have no choice. I am not about to raise taxes on a single mom scraping buy on a low-wage job and make it so she not only can't make her rent, she can't feed her kids. I'd rather the kids get macaroni and cheese for dinner and be fat than get no dinner at all.

[Julie Cochrane]

Oh. By the way. I'm one of that 33% who are neither overweight nor obese. But at 5'2", I used to weigh 200 pounds. Don't assume all we thin people are in your corner.

It was not only not easy to lose, it was expensive to buy better food and get more motivating workout options.

Poor people eat bad food because they have no choice. I am not about to raise taxes on a single mom scraping buy on a low-wage job and make it so she not only can't make her rent, she can't feed her kids. I'd rather the kids get macaroni and cheese for dinner and be fat than get no dinner at all.

[Reyn Mansson]

The Founding Fathers of this country were unified by opposition to unjust taxation. Our only hope is that history repeats itself.

Interesting that the story quotes the increase in obesity since 1998 but doesn't mention that 1998 is when the standards for BODY MASS INDEX were changed so that overnight the new calculations added millions to the roles of the new social pariahs, happy eaters.

Where in the Constitution does it say "Thou shall micro-managed the lives of all Citizens because Gov't knows best" - huh?

[Beef]

Be careful of what you wish for. Whipping the populace into shape may make them more capable foes of the fascist Obamanation.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2295460/posts

[Matt]

Taking money from someone to give it to someone else (taxation) is simple? Since when? I've never heard of a tax that wasn't claimed to be for a noble purpose either. Until individuals begin to care more about the upkeep of their own bodies more than their possessions, we will get nowhere on this. In the meantime, I am not willing to do it for them.

[Karen]

The study was flawed. Not all obese Americans stuff their faces with Twinkies and drink liters of pop. This is a fallicy that most leading researchers on obesity have dispelled. This article does nothing but perpetuate the negative fat person stereotype. It's biggoted, harmful, and useless.

In order for this measure to work, you would need to tax ALL food. Everything sold in restaurants, produce stands, health food stores, grocery stores, anywhere food is sold. That would mean that EVERYONE, thin to obese would be paying more for their food.

If you really wanted to tackle the obesity issue, you should look to the mind of the patient, not to the stomach. The solutions to their struggles will be met by science and therapy.

[Linda]

They'll get it wrong and tax healthy foods, like meat and butter, and encourage fattening foods like grains, beans and sugar, thus increasing the obesity/diabetes problem

[Chris]

This is a slippery slope. Whether obesity is a problem is not in question. However, whether battling it is a funtion of government should be. This is why the government should not be involved in institutions like healthcare. When entitlement programs increase, civil liberties decrease. I believe we will live to regret this level of activism in government.

[MTE]

It is amazing to me how stupid the people are who come up with these ideas. Fat and Obese people get that way by consuming mass amounts of calories not necessarily from sodas and snacks. How are you going to regulate the guy that eats a dozen eggs for breakfast, consumes a pound of ham and cheese for lunch and bakes a cake for desert? You can get fat eating good food if you eat to much and the only way to reduce obesity levels in the US is to reduce the supply of all foods. Is that what we want.

[MTE]

It is amazing to me how stupid the people are who come up with these ideas. Fat and Obese people get that way by consuming mass amounts of calories not necessarily from sodas and snacks. How are you going to regulate the guy that eats a dozen eggs for breakfast, consumes a pound of ham and cheese for lunch and bakes a cake for desert? You can get fat eating good food if you eat to much and the only way to reduce obesity levels in the US is to reduce the supply of all foods. Is that what we want.

[shoals]

Another lunatic left wing/liberal idea to push through bad health care policy. Give it up loser liberals!!!

[Irene]

Okay, so Britain has led the way in food-labeling. Is there a notable statistical drop in fat people?

This reporter can hardly keep from rubbing his hands at in glee what he really thinks is great about taxing "wrong" foods - not the prospect of more thin people, but more money raised for government programs.

By the way, if the CDC would look into thin "success" stories about weight in the population, it might examine homeschoolers. I've been a homeschooling Mom for ten years, and a member of homeschooling groups in various parts of the country. Most homeschooled children have the right weight - neither too thin, and certainly seldom fat. (Now I know someone will dredge up a story about the few fat homeschoolers he once spotted somewhere.) In fact, most homeschool parents seem to have a lower obesity rate than the adult population at large. I would imagine that it's a combination of Mom-staying-at-home, ergo, less fast-food suppers; simple lunches, like small sandwiches and fruit; more time to play (so much time is saved on those bus rides alone), less exposure to junk-food commercials (homeschoolers watch far less TV) ... it would be interesting to analyze. Maybe whatever homeschool families are doing in the way of weight could be picked up by other families.

[Rick]

I'm against raising taxes. However...how about banning High Fructose Corn Syrup? Similar to how the use of Trans Fats were banned, Corn Syrup could also be banned. The body does not regulate Corn Syrup as well as natural sugar (not that natural sugar is any better for you, but at least it is natural and NOT processed/refined).

[Jack]

Why not make it really simple: if you are more than 50 lbs. over the recommended weight for your height - you don't get admitted to the hospital for a weight related ailment. Problem solved.

[DeepThought]

Congratualtions! More government intervention into our lifes. They tax us every opportunity they can get and say it's to help us.

When is enough government ENOUGH! Stop interfering in our lifes.

[Kevin]

I am part of the 1/3. This article talks about the cost to me because of the other 1/3. The proposed tax is to save me money? But I enjoy those same foods, so it will just shift where I end up spending that money.

If you want to have people see a direct effect of their weight on what it costs them, give deep discounts in health insurance premums to the 1/3 the are not overweight. Then there is not the need to infer the cost of being overweight, it will be shown as an incentive to loose weight.

[Dennis Shaper]

What about sex? What price does the public pay for that? Disease, abortion,
pregnancies, welfare. What do you tell he AIDES victims? Your long term
health concerns aren't worth it? What about sporting injuries? When you let the government in they'll control everything in your life. No coke for you, no sex with that person, no bicycle for your child( he might fall off and cost money). These screaming nanny state liberals are begging for a civil war. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is a big word. And people said Bush wanted a police state.

[Emilio Estevez]

I have been calling for PRECISELY these type of taxes for years.

The best taxes are the ones which are coupled to the cost of the activity to society.

So, not only should junk food taxes pay for obesity health care costs, but gasoline taxtes--and gasoline taxes alone--should pay for road construction and maintenance, cops patrolling roads, car crash hospital costs, US troops in the Middle East fighting for cheap oil, etc. Tolls should be outlawed. Sales taxes on fuel effiicient cars should also be outlawed.

In return for higher junk food and gas taxes, however, I want the overall tax burden to be revenue neutral, so I would do things like lower income taxes.

--A conservative Republican