Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

phazed0

(745 posts)
7. I can appreciate that, but is it not a big overreach?
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 03:29 AM
Mar 2016

I can appreciate the idea of taxing in order to offset bad behaviors/unnecessary costs, however it largely doesn't work(in making behaviors change) and it's also a regressive tax.

Changing our food culture and the behavior of bad habits needs to be carried out in the form of public health and awareness campaigns. If we had an FDA that actually accepted facts... much of the crap on the shelves would be gone or re-formulated, in turn, fixing the root of the issue as opposed to punishing the people of whom have been taught (advertised to) what to eat by corporations or limited in their choices.

If you want to smoke a pack a day, knock yourself out.
Want to eat a steak 4 times a week, knock yourself out.
If you want to smoke marijuana everyday, knock yourself out.
Want to commit suicide or have assisted suicide, your choice.
Want to drop Ecstasy, go ahead.
Want an abortion, your body.

I would like gov't less involved in what I choose to do with MY body.

Knowledge and an informed populous is a large part of minimizing these issues, while other dynamics are at play as well... like corporate advertising and lobbying.. among others.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

As always, Cenk tells the truth. R&K nt longship Mar 2016 #1
I needed to hear that this amount was over a 10 year period at the beginning of the video instead of DhhD Mar 2016 #14
That doesn't even explain how much Doctors, healthcare facilities and hospitals Dragonfli Mar 2016 #2
Yeah, I too was surprised a lot of this wasn't even mentioned. passiveporcupine Mar 2016 #6
Hard to do in keeping with facts. phazed0 Mar 2016 #8
Excellent point, and it's a saving we could go for immediately D Gary Grady Mar 2016 #12
The best choice is to eliminate the role of private insurance to the greatest extent possible. Enthusiast Mar 2016 #22
The Plan Would Be Fully Paid For By: sansatman Mar 2016 #3
I think they should add a "self-responsibility health" tax too. ErikJ Mar 2016 #4
I can appreciate that, but is it not a big overreach? phazed0 Mar 2016 #7
Sin taxes on cigs and alcohol go to ErikJ Mar 2016 #9
Yup.. phazed0 Mar 2016 #10
Early onset Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes is very expensive when it starts in childhood. A school DhhD Mar 2016 #15
We should quit subsidizing sugar before we start taxing people for drinking it. n/t jtuck004 Mar 2016 #11
Yes! We could drug test for nicotine, THC, excess sodium and sugar! Enthusiast Mar 2016 #23
His top tax bracket should start at $5 million not $10m. ErikJ Mar 2016 #5
Beginning with the 1963 tax year 1939 Mar 2016 #13
Reporting the costs over 10 years is always so annoying. rickford66 Mar 2016 #16
I imagine the first 1 to 3 years of implementation would be much higher than the average. A Simple Game Mar 2016 #17
The 10 year span isn't emphasized as much. rickford66 Mar 2016 #18
You're right and it is confusing, but I'm sure the Pentagon does also have a 10 year plan. A Simple Game Mar 2016 #19
My quick GOOGLE search showed a yearly defense budget. rickford66 Mar 2016 #21
Kicked and recommended a bazillion times! Because fuck this status quo shit! Enthusiast Mar 2016 #20
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Single-Payer Universal He...»Reply #7