Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Since we all have a stake in each other now... (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Since we all have a stake in each other now...
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The healthecare bill creates an incentive for each citizen to be more concerned about the activities of every other citizen.

In order to reduce the cost of health insurance to me personally, I propose the following, to be put into effect at the same time that the healthcare law will be in effect.

A nationwide ban on: Sallon tanning, all tattoos, all piercings, rock climbing, bungee jumping, sky diving, cliff jumping, boxing, wrestling, any martial art whatsoever, cigarettes, cigars, all alchohol ( except red wine, which I'll detail in a different list ), soda, horseback riding, guns, knives, swimming pools, "fake" sugars and any cosmetic surgery.

An added 3% tax on: Any food item that contains 10 grams of sugar or more per serving ( ice cream, cakes, iced tea, yogurt ) any processed food (such as sausage, hamburgers, hot dogs, potato chips, spam, I can't beleive it's not butter, spray on cheese ) anything fried, "white grain" items ( rice, bread, pasta ), corn oil, vegtable oil, any and all "fast food", matches, lighters.

Tax free items: Olive oil, nuts, fruits and vegetables, chicken breasts, car seats, any safety equipment ( hard hats, goggles, heat proof gloves, etc ) first aid kits and items that are used for first aid ( band aids, gauze, cleaning wipes ).

Furthermore, families will be limited to 1 child per family with no penalty. For each child more than 1, there will be a $1,000 co-pay to be paid at the time of birth. Twins and triplets will be counted as one birth.

A mandate on all car designs which will demand a body structure as safe as a hummer. Any car that doesn't have specific safety specs ( such as four wheel drive, dual air bags, steel chasis ) are banned.

Nation wide speed limit maximum of 40 mph. Any music playing devices are banned while driving, also eating, drinking and talking while drving is banned. ( No more "drive thru" sections of restaraunts )

Mandate each citizen over the age of 15 must drink two glasses of red wine ( no more no less )per day. All citizens must be a member of a fitness center or gym of their choice, and must show they spend minimum 7 hours/week exercising at the gym. Any who are not will be fined $200/ year. Any citizen who is averagely 35 lbs. or more over weight for the year will be fined $200/year as well.

50$/yearly tax break for any citizen who does the following: Passes a federaly run safe driving course, passes a federaly run first aid course, maintains their body weight within 5 lbs their "norm".

Tax breaks for the following professions: Nutrtionist, doctor, nurse, ambulance driver, life guards, police, firemen, safety inspectors.

I will be submitting this proposal to my congressman at the end of the month, if you have any other suggestions, I'll take the time to listen, but they will be added or subtracted at my discretion.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Prior to passage of this bill, you already had such a "stake" in each other. Why did you wait so long?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most of your proposal could easily be handled by externality taxes they are a nonintrusive type of tax that basically takes the lifetime estimated harm of an activity and hence the 'true cost' of that activity after externalities and taxes the activity such that true cost is paid at the time of purchase, so that the individual can make a rational decision.

quote:

A nationwide ban on: Sallon tanning, all tattoos, all piercings, rock climbing, bungee jumping, sky diving, cliff jumping, boxing, wrestling, any martial art whatsoever, cigarettes, cigars, all alchohol ( except red wine, which I'll detail in a different list ), soda, horseback riding, guns, knives, swimming pools, "fake" sugars and any cosmetic surgery.

Dangerous physical activities generally require additional hazardous insurance. Ie when I did judo and aikido it required additional fees for such insurance, so do bungee jumping, cliff diving, and most other extreme sports.

Cigarettes, alcohol, and soda could be handled by externality taxes.

Cosmetic surgery and tanning - again an externality tax could be done.

Weapon ownership - I favor mandatory safety training, possibly with a one time tax on weapon purchases to fund such training.

Swimming pool ownership already require higher insurance rates.

quote:
An added 3% tax on: Any food item that contains 10 grams of sugar or more per serving ( ice cream, cakes, iced tea, yogurt ) any processed food (such as sausage, hamburgers, hot dogs, potato chips, spam, I can't beleive it's not butter, spray on cheese ) anything fried, "white grain" items ( rice, bread, pasta ), corn oil, vegtable oil, any and all "fast food", matches, lighters.
A flat tax doesn't take into account the actual harm and thus distorts the market. You need externality taxes based on estimated actual harm so that current market distortions are reduced or eliminated. Those who are bad at economics and nutrition generally go the flat tax based on threshold value.

quote:

Tax free items: Olive oil, nuts, fruits and vegetables, chicken breasts, car seats, any safety equipment ( hard hats, goggles, heat proof gloves, etc ) first aid kits and items that are used for first aid ( band aids, gauze, cleaning wipes ).

Subsidys targeted at healthy food and safety equipment are considered to be worthwhile.

quote:

Furthermore, families will be limited to 1 child per family with no penalty. For each child more than 1, there will be a $1,000 co-pay to be paid at the time of birth. Twins and triplets will be counted as one birth.

This sounds rather idiotic - I know that is your intent is to do a reductio ad absurdum, but I can't even imagine what you think the basis for this proposal would be as far as health (I suspect that more children tends to result in long term better mental and physical health, and reduces education costs, and reduces daycare costs).

quote:
A mandate on all car designs which will demand a body structure as safe as a hummer. Any car that doesn't have specific safety specs ( such as four wheel drive, dual air bags, steel chasis ) are banned.
Safety equipment is generally already mandated, and higher premiums are already charged for less safe vehicles. Ie there is already externality taxes on vehicles based on safety.

quote:
Nation wide speed limit maximum of 40 mph. Any music playing devices are banned while driving, also eating, drinking and talking while drving is banned. ( No more "drive thru" sections of restaraunts )
Considerations of what to do about 'driving while distracted' is an interesting question. We really do enjoy the convenience of multitasking, although it is fairly clear that response times can be reduced to that of drunk driving. I'm a bit surprised you didn't propose banning of other people in the car or mandating muzzles for children though [Smile]

quote:
Mandate each citizen over the age of 15 must drink two glasses of red wine ( no more no less )per day. All citizens must be a member of a fitness center or gym of their choice, and must show they spend minimum 7 hours/week exercising at the gym. Any who are not will be fined $200/ year. Any citizen who is averagely 35 lbs. or more over weight for the year will be fined $200/year as well.
See recent research, grape juice is about as effective as red wine. Tax incentives - ie tax breaks for healthy behaviour such as exercising seem difficult to do. Possibilities are tax deducatbility of purchase of exercise equipment including bikes and partial deducability of athletic shoes, and gym memberships.

quote:

50$/yearly tax break for any citizen who does the following: Passes a federaly run safe driving course, passes a federaly run first aid course, maintains their body weight within 5 lbs their "norm".

There are already insurance deductions for safe driving courses, and for having taken first aid instruction.

quote:
Tax breaks for the following professions: Nutrtionist, doctor, nurse, ambulance driver, life guards, police, firemen, safety inspectors.
Most of those professions are already heavily subsidized by the federal government. You might be a bit shocked how much in federals dollars we pay for the education and internships of each doctor. We also pay heavy subsides for doctors that decide to live in podunk kansas (ie rural doctor subsidys).

I definitely favor tax deductions for volunteers in any of those positions.

An actual useful idea that you didn't mention is safety training in schools. Things like ladder safety, hearing and eye safety, and safety around hazardous chemicals could save numerous billions per year.

LetterRip

[ March 29, 2010, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As DonaldD points out you already had such a stake in your fellow Americans - Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, and Local government employees, and Military account for a huge amount of health care spending. Also public employer health care is based on the average risk of the pooled risk group so your premiums go up if the average health deteriorates, and could in theory go down if the average health improved.

LetterRip

[ March 29, 2010, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to mention that the cost of these behaviours was also built into your "free-market" premiums.

but maybe you didn't realize that.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...or mandating muzzles for children [in cars]...
Now there's a proposal I could get behind! [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Letterip and DonaldD: Do you think there is anything that edgmatt proposed that the federal government isn't allowed to do?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

I would think that banning of behaviours that don't harm outhers would likely be unconstitutional - but then we ban drug usage, and suicide is illegal, so perhaps not.

Gun and knife bans would be presumably unconstitutional under the second amendment.

I would think mandated consumption of anything would likely be unconstitutional though no idea what grounds.

Banning behavior while driving seems like it would be analogous to DUI so I'm not sure what sort of legal challenge could be raised.

Most other things he lists are taxation which the federal appears to have the right to do.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LetterRip: For the most part, we only have one main disagreement. There are a few small points I disagree with in your post, but I'm going to keep my post constrained to my big point.

quote:
Most other things he lists are taxation which the federal appears to have the right to do.
Do you believe it would be constitutional for congress to increase the income tax to 100% and then give tax breaks for sanctioned purchases? Despite the fact that congress certainly wasn't granted the power to micromanage our personal finances, if we accept the premise that they can tax us at whatever rate they wish and then give tax breaks for sanctioned behavior, we concede absolute financial power of our lives to congress; we are conceding that the enumerated powers were nothing more than wasted ink and this exercise in limited government was a complete farce.

Does that seem like a rational interpretation of congress's power to tax to you?

[ March 29, 2010, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Are you really asking whether Congress can make unpopular laws? The answer would be an unequivocal "yes". That is why you have elections.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Are you really asking whether Congress can make unpopular laws?

No. I'm asking whether the power to tax grants congress near unlimited power to micromanage our financial lives.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Define "unlimited". The legislature is inherently limited by its own procedures, by the executive, and by common law (including precedent and the constitution).

It also answers to the electorate every 2 years. Are you asking whether the citizenry is constrained from electing representatives who will implement 'draconian' tax laws?

Simply put, the only absolute constraint that cannot be immediately overcome by a determined legislature having the support of its citizenry and proposing a clear and unambiguous bill is an unamended constitution. Where in the constitution is the legislature so limited?

Now, in general new laws can be found to be in conflict with previous case law and could be interpreted based on precedent or even completely thrown out if so conflicting, but a law that is clearly written to address case law is much less likely to be overturned. The question you then need to ask is where in the case law is the legislature so limited, and could new, narrowly constructed legislation be written to address previous case law.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

legally it is far from clear whether that would be constitutional or unconstitutional, of course it really comes down to the practical matter of what the public feels is reasonable.

I don't think taxes on goods are particularly unreasonable if consumption of the good induces costs to the public and the tax can be done in an unintrusive manner (ie a tax on the production and/or import).

Fine, tax, or imprisonment for behavior is only reasonable if it places other members of the public in danger.

I don't think private behaviour that provides no public danger or cost should be legal to regulate - although we already have evidence that much of the US disagrees, and it appears to be constitutional to do so.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A short description on my view of what should be allowed,

1) Externality taxes on things that cause public harm so that the price reflects the true long costs and the individual shoulders more of the burden for their behaviour

2) Education and information so the public can make informed decisions

3) Restrictions on advertising (or elimination of the tax deductability for advertising and marketing expenses) for harmful products and strong truth in advertising laws

LetterRip

[ March 29, 2010, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think private behaviour that provides no public danger or cost should be legal to regulate - although we already have evidence that much of the US disagrees
I think, actually, that much of the disagreement is on what constitutes harm (i.e. danger or cost).
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The healthecare bill creates an incentive for each citizen to be more concerned about the activities of every other citizen.

If we live in a country where a comment like this is even considered palatable, then we have created an era of empathy towards our personal freedoms.

Good luck with that, comrade.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Michelle,

quote:
f we live in a country where a comment like this is even considered palatable, then we have created an era of empathy towards our personal freedoms.

Good luck with that, comrade.

Most of the participants in the thread decided to ignore his trolling and focus on ways of reducing costs without actually being interested much in the actions of the individual.

However both you and he get an epic fail in logical thinking since the new law doesn't actually change the motivations since those motivations already existed due risk pooling in insurance, and the fact that most of the US population is covered directly or indirectly by government funded health care. If you were unaware of this fact, them I am sorry that your bubble has been burst.

LetterRip

[ March 29, 2010, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They are correct though in that now insurance is mandatory so people who weren't in the system have little to no choice about it now. If you had insurance before, you had pretty much volunteered. Now, you are "being volunteered" to join in.

With the wine thing, I had heard that you could get the same benefits from grape juice. I think Larry King told me. Also, I don't think this goes so far yet as to force Americans to drink the wine. All we have to do is buy the wine and show the politbureau our receipts.

But it won't be long before we are getting forced vaccinations. A lot of members here have already advocated that anyway. There should be a harsher term for the coming government intrusions into our personal lives than the kind of cheery "big brother". This is quickly going far beyond big brother into "molestor uncle" territory.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Letterip,
The only bubble that has burst is this is a great country to live in. I've always understood we were a nation of people that governed ourselves. You govern yourself and I govern myself, and we create laws that we share -- based on principles, that we share. A line has been crossed.

Your right. The rest of you found a way to look at the topic in a more productive and dignified manner: edgematt is trolling and I'm whining. Sorry. I will bow out, but not before I write:
I can't wait till the baby boomers die out and take their return of yoga, brotherly-can't mind-my-own-business-politics, and communal sharing with them.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherrypoptart,

quote:
With the wine thing, I had heard that you could get the same benefits from grape juice. I think Larry King told me. Also, I don't think this goes so far yet as to force Americans to drink the wine. All we have to do is buy the wine and show the politbureau our receipts.
To be clear I wasn't agreeing with his 'force' to do such and such behaviour - ie consume wine or exercise. Was just pointing out that wine doesn't appear to provide any benefits that are not attainable elsewhere. At most I might support price subsidys for wine or grape juice.

quote:
But it won't be long before we are getting forced vaccinations. A lot of members here have already advocated that anyway. There should be a harsher term for the coming government intrusions into our personal lives than the kind of cheery "big brother". This is quickly going far beyond big brother into "molestor uncle" territory.
Vaccinations are a tough problem. On the one hand there is a slight risk to any particular individual when getting a vaccine. On the other hand if enough people opt out of vaccines it eliminates group immunity and thus can have a large social cost in terms of lives and health expenses. This is also complicated by the issue of disinformation on both sides regarding vaccines (ie the promoting of flu vaccines for strains of flu they were expected to not reduce the risk of and the false claims of ineffectiveness of vaccines by poor understanding of math and science, and overstatement of actual risks and understatement of actual benefits).

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it's never been done before and infringes on laws that while not explicitly protected, have never been infringed (or infringed to such a degree), there's always a chance that a new law falls afoul of the 9th Amendment.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well first of all, I am dead serious. I have a financial stake in the health of every single one of you, as you do in me. We certainly did not have that before, not directly. I now have an incentive to be directly and intimately involved in all of your personal lives. Most prominent is your eating habits. I have no intention of paying more in taxes because you eat crap all day and have to go to the doctor more times than a healthy person would.

Since the government is spending all this money on health insurance for all of us, and the money it gets to pay for that health insurance comes from me, anything that health insurance would pay for costs me more money. So whether you like it or not, I'm going to cut down on my costs.

Health insurance would pay for the hospital visits every time someone would have a baby, so I don't want people having babies more than necessary.

As for sports and such that have their own separate insurance, well I think we need to make sure people have that insurance as well. If they don't and get injured, government insurance will have to pay for them, and that's out of my pocket.

I will edit that Yoga ( a martial art ) could be off the ban list, and maybe even on the tax free list.

quote:
LETTERRIP: I would think mandated consumption of anything would likely be unconstitutional though no idea what grounds.
Ok we won't SAY we're forcing people to buy certain foods, we'll just tax everyone more, and give tax breaks for certain foods bought.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It appears that edgematt may be engaging in reductio ad absurdum or perhaps reductio ad incommodum in order to illustrate some concerns about the potential ramifications of this bill. Since, if I recall correctly, edgematt is a martial arts instructor I doubt that he would seriously suggest banning martial arts.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
edgmatt,

quote:
Well first of all, I am dead serious. I have a financial stake in the health of every single one of you, as you do in me. We certainly did not have that before, not directly.
It was almost exactly as direct as you do now.

quote:
I now have an incentive to be directly and intimately involved in all of your personal lives. Most prominent is your eating habits.
No you don't I already have demonstrated exhaustively how externality taxes could be done so that poor eating habits are pretty much exactly balanced by externality taxes.

quote:
I have no intention of paying more in taxes because you eat crap all day and have to go to the doctor more times than a healthy person would.
You already do so as has been frequently pointed out to you, nothing has really changed in that respect. Actually the risk pool could likely improve since a lot of healthy people avoid getting insurance, playing the odds that they won't get sick or injured.

quote:
Since the government is spending all this money on health insurance for all of us, and the money it gets to pay for that health insurance comes from me, anything that health insurance would pay for costs me more money. So whether you like it or not, I'm going to cut down on my costs.
And you were already paying taxes to pay for insurance of roughly 60% or the US population that is on government funded insurance, and your premiums pay for the bad eating habits of the rest of the insurance risk pool.

quote:
Health insurance would pay for the hospital visits every time someone would have a baby, so I don't want people having babies more than necessary.
Ah that was your reasoning. You might consider public funding of RISUG (male birth control - appears to be 100% reversible, no side effects, some anti HIV effectiveness, dirt cheap to do and dirt cheap to reverse) that would drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies - massive drop in the teen pregnancy rate and in the abortion rate.

Along with that make the males have greater financial responsibility for costs related to raising children since it would entirely preventable.

quote:
As for sports and such that have their own separate insurance, well I think we need to make sure people have that insurance as well. If they don't and get injured, government insurance will have to pay for them, and that's out of my pocket.
I'm having difficulty parsing what you are saying here, could you try and restate?

quote:
I will edit that Yoga ( a martial art ) could be off the ban list, and maybe even on the tax free list.
Heh. Yoga is definitely not a martial art, were you thinking Tai Chi perhaps?

quote:
Ok we won't SAY we're forcing people to buy certain foods, we'll just tax everyone more, and give tax breaks for certain foods bought.
Favoring some classes of economic purchases in a particular class is already well established as constitutional. For instance there was a big tax deduction for light duty vehicles or such which happened to include SUVs.

Also as pointed out - externality taxes and subsidies are quite a reasonable way to compensate for the costs of externalities.

LetterRip

[ March 29, 2010, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well first of all, I am dead serious. I have a financial stake in the health of every single one of you, as you do in me. We certainly did not have that before, not directly. I now have an incentive to be directly and intimately involved in all of your personal lives. Most prominent is your eating habits. I have no intention of paying more in taxes because you eat crap all day and have to go to the doctor more times than a healthy person would.
What's so obnoxiously obvious to some of us edgematt is that the Frito Lays will now be featured on the 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' next to do the Begula caviar. Rich people won't be affected with the intrusion on their privacy like the rest of us. They have the money to laugh in your face, while you attempt to control the mass populous eating habits.

Personally, I think people who sit at computers for a living -- risking carpal tunnel syndrome, or eye-strain --are also a big drain on our health care. School sports always reels in either a broken rib, or leg, or arm every season. Why, when you are done dictating what we can eat, and how much we can eat, I can line you up with other areas of our life you stick your fat nose into. Just holla.

Look, life is hard enough, without taking away some dad's weekend of hot dogs, chips, beer, and family, if these things bring him joy.

BTW, I set a high standard for myself when it comes to eating healthy. I do so by choice. I've always considered it a personal interest, not a civic duty. I don't advocate my choices be forced on others.

Don't make me break out the Lil Debbie's.

[ March 29, 2010, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Michelle,

quote:
What's so obnoxiously obvious to some of us edgematt is that frito lays will now be featured on the 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' next to do the begula caviar. Rich people won't be affected with the intrusion on their privacy like the rest of us. They have the money to laugh in your face, while you attempt to control the mass populous eating habits.
You get another epic fail at logic. A nickel or one cent increase on hotdogs will not result in dear old dad being unable to indulge. However if he does it day in and day out, then it will contribute towards the cost of his triple bypass surgery 30 years down the line that such long term behaviour tends to cause.

quote:
Personally, I think people who sit at computers for a living -- risking carpal tunnel syndrome, or eye-strain --are also a big drain on our health care. School sports always reels in either a broken rib, or leg, or arm every season
Look at actual injury and cost statistics instead of pulling stuff out of your derrier please [Smile]

quote:
Why, when you are done dictating what we can eat, and how much we can eat, I can line you up with other areas of our lifs you stick your fat nose into. Just holla.
Noone is having anything dictated to them. You can still gorge yourself on whatever you care to. However for those that lack self control, or like to regularly consume garbage, the costs of the behaviour will be accumulated over time. So instead of 30 years down the line going 'oh noes I need a triple heart bypass but spent all my money on twinkies, I guess the rest of you suckers will have to pay for it or just let me die' - the couple of pennies or nickel per twinkie will have slowly accumulated to pay for his behavior.

quote:
BTW, I set a high standard for myself when it comes to eating healthy. I do so by choice. I've always considered it a personal interest, not a civic duty. I don't advocate my choices be forced on others.
I'm getting the impression that you have a reading comprehension problem or don't actually read anything that others say.

There is no 'civic duty' inherent in an externality tax, instead it is purely a personal responsibility thing. There is no 'forcing a healthy choice' on others.

[ March 29, 2010, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and your premiums pay for the bad eating habits of the rest of the insurance risk pool.

I don't have health insurance for the exact reason that I don't want to pay a higher premium because other people are not as healthy as me.

quote:
As for sports and such that have their own separate insurance, well I think we need to make sure people have that insurance as well. If they don't and get injured, government insurance will have to pay for them, and that's out of my pocket.

I'm having difficulty parsing what you are saying here, could you try and restate?

You said that people usually get a separate insurance for for things like rock climbing etc. I am saying that we should make getting that insurance mandatory. This will prevent them from using government insurance if they get hurt, and raising my premiums.

quote:
Heh. Yoga is definitely not a martial art, were you thinking Tai Chi perhaps?
Yoga is most certainly a martial art. Let's not derail though.

quote:
However for those that lack self control, or like to regularly consume garbage, the costs of the behaviour will be accumulated over time.
This mindset is the problem that Michelle and I have with you and others who support this bill.

It's none of anyone's business how little self control I have. You have no right to take more money from me based on how much I eat or how much I exercise. Nor do you have the right to manipulate me by taxing the behavior that you don't agree with.

Even if it's already being done, which seems to be your fall back excuse every time, that doesn't mean it should be continued and amplified.

I am not happy about this position I am taking. I don't want to have to be this interested in everyone else's life. This law creates this situation for me, and it's not unique to just me. How long do you think it will be before the sorts of things I am proposing are proposed by someone else and made into law?

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
This mindset is the problem that Michelle and I have with you and others who support this bill.

I'm pretty sure Michelle is opposed to the bill. So I think you are wrong to single her out for having this attitude.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know, I agree with her. I'm not singling her out, read what I wrote. [Smile]
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
whoops, my bad. Somehow the order of those words got flipped in my head.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
edgmatt,

Doh you are right, yoga is indeed a martial art - even I can be wrong upon occasion [Smile]

quote:
I don't have health insurance for the exact reason that I don't want to pay a higher premium because other people are not as healthy as me.
Ok then this brings up the opposite problem - if you or a family member needed emergency care that you could not pay out of pocket - would you accept the care or let them die? If you let them die you are consistent but callous; if you take treatment then by your lack of insurance you are actually being subsidized by everyone else (ie part of the cost of premiums etc is to pay for the small probability of risk).

So if you go with the choice 'I don't have insurance but if I or someone I care about gets sick beyond my means of immediately paying for it I will accept the care anyway and to heck with my principles' - then you are in effect forcing everyone else to pay for your lack of insurance.

A health coop is likely the best option for you.

quote:
You said that people usually get a separate insurance for for things like rock climbing etc. I am saying that we should make getting that insurance mandatory. This will prevent them from using government insurance if they get hurt, and raising my premiums.
Any commercial entity generally requires such insurance, and most public lands require such insurance before you are allowed to use them for such purposes.

quote:
It's none of anyone's business how little self control I have. You have no right to take more money from me based on how much I eat or how much I exercise. Nor do you have the right to manipulate me by taxing the behavior that you don't agree with.
With externality taxes no one cares how little self control you have - because the cost of your behavior pays for itself. You aren't being manipulated, you are just ensuring that the cost of your behavior is accounted for.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
edgmatt, note that one child per family is actually one child less than replacement. Congrats! You may have just saved social security.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First step is to actually get the stake in one another, and I suggest we begin with vampires, who are already driving a stake into our wallets, what with all the blood-bank heists.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
edgmatt, note that one child per family is actually one child less than replacement. Congrats! You may have just saved social security.

Hmmmm...given the choice between saving future generations of the countries citizenry or the socialist - collectivist government redistribution ponzi scheme program...we need to save the PROGRAM!

[Exploding]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You aren't being manipulated, you are just ensuring that the cost of your behavior is accounted for.
You don't have the right to account for my behavior in a monetary fashion.

And that is certainly manipulation.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, if by "right" you mean "power" than, yes, the government (i.e., "you") does. If you mean "authority" then again, you live in a democracy and by doing so have acknowledged that authority.

Just to be clear, though - do you believe the results of your actions (the "cost") should not be the concern of those affected by your actions (those paying that "cost")? Or do you simply feel that you should not be financially responsible for your actions (suggesting that some other form of responsibility would be appropriate/acceptable)?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Complete misrepresentation Donald. Eating cheez doodles didn't affect anyone but me, up till now. Now me eating cheez doodles affects everyone else, at least financially.

I am financially responsible for my own actions, I do not want to be financially responsible for everyone else's actions. Nor do I want everyone else to be financially responsible for me.

The government should not have this power or authority, yet it insists that it does, as evident of the healthcare law.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Complete misrepresentation Donald. Eating cheez doodles didn't affect anyone but me, up till now. Now me eating cheez doodles affects everyone else, at least financially.

Because before you were eating them on an island all by yourself, completely divorced from any economic connections with other people?

People have all has a stake in each other since the first stirrings of proto-civilizations. Living together in the same society is inherently having a mutual stake in each other.

And as was pointed out- if cheese doodles really cost society that much then the upfront price of cheese doodles should reflect that price as much as possible, rather than letting it incur a hidden price at the end. If no effort is made to make sure that healthy food is obviously cheaper than unhealthy food, then people with limited resources will naturally make bad choices out of a need to spread those resources as far as possible.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once again, edgemont, you appear to be ignorant of the current state of affairs in the U.S.

Do you have health insurance? Then eating your cheese doodles affects everyone in your insurance group, because a decrease in your health increases the outlay from your insurance company, which is passed on to you and everyone in your group.

Are you uninsured? Then if you do develop a health problem from eating those cheese doodles (and statistically, a certain percentage of people will), then you affect everyone in the country, from increased cost of hospital care from those who cannot afford to pay for it.

The only exception I can see is if you are independently wealthy, and can afford any health care related to your consumption of cheese doodles. Whereas, what are you worried about? You are one of those who can easily afford an increase in the price of cheese doodles. You probably won't even notice it. [Smile]

Unless you advocate letting people die if they can't afford health care, we are all financially responsible for everyone else's actions.

And have been, for as far back as anyone around here can remember.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you think was misrepresented, and what do you think was a misrepresentation?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1