Pay for universal health care with a tax on fast food

[jman507]

Tax food, sounds great. Now I’ll just need to find some fast food launders, or maybe a local speak easy. I’m sure some of the police officers may be easily bought off with free and convenient meals. Perhaps we could add fast food to the ATF, then it can be the FFATF.

 

[naffoffletch]

Your criticism of healthcare in the UK is neither fair nor accurate.

Let’s look at a few facts:

Life Expectancy

CIA World Factbook:
United Kingdom = 78.7 Years (better)
United States = 78.06 Years

UN Figures (Average from 2005 through 2010):
United Kingdom = 79.4 Years (better)
United States = 78.2 Years

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country

Infant Mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births):

CIA World Factbook:
United Kingdom = 4.85 (better)
United States = 6.26

UN Population Division:
United Kingdom = 4.8 (better)
United States = 6.3

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005

Spending on Healthcare (2006):

United Kingdom = 8.4% of GDP (better)
United States = 15.3% of GDP (more, but obviously not better)

Source: nriol.net/visitors-insurance/index.php/national-health-care-spending-72-of-gdp-outpaces-economic-growth-10-of-people-account-for-63-of-spending/

As you can see, the United Kingdom spends far less of it’s national wealth on healthcare, but the two key measures of healthcare effectiveness (life expectancy and infant mortality) are better in the UK. I think therefore it is incorrect to suggest that effective healthcare in the US means spending more. Healthcare in the US is staggeringly inefficient, far less efficient than any “bureaucracy” in any other western nation with a system of public healthcare. Restructure the system and better healthcare can be delivered for far less money.

 

[danielle2459]

So then the government isn’t really concerned about peoples’ health then? If it was, they would simply shut good tasting food joints down, rather than try to make a profit off of them through taxation under the guise of concern for folks’ health under a socialistic and discriminatory program.

I keep saying instead of taxing cigarettes and alcohol more and more… as they keep doing in OHIO… they need to start adding higher taxes to fast food… Obesity kills too!!

Most people whom can not afford their prescription drugs or even to go visit a doctor use cigarettes or alcohol to better deal with their conditions.
It is ridiculous to see such high taxes on products that help people cope.

 

[Viki63]

Your criticism of healthcare in the UK is neither fair nor accurate. . .
As you can see, the United Kingdom spends far less of it’s national wealth on healthcare, but the two key measures of healthcare effectiveness (life expectancy and infant mortality) are better in the UK. I think therefore it is incorrect to suggest that effective healthcare in the US means spending more. Healthcare in the US is staggeringly inefficient, far less efficient than any “bureaucracy” in any other western nation with a system of public healthcare. Restructure the system and better healthcare can be delivered for far less money.

Absolutely agree. The figures speak for themselves. We need universal, single payor healthcare in the US.
Anybody seen Michael Moore’s movie Sicko? Exaggerated, but still makes good points. Insurance companies exist to make a profit for the stockholders. They are an unneeded middleman.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I keep saying instead of taxing cigarettes and alcohol more and more… as they keep doing in OHIO… they need to start adding higher taxes to fast food… Obesity kills too!!

Most people whom can not afford their prescription drugs or even to go visit a doctor use cigarettes or alcohol to better deal with their conditions.
It is ridiculous to see such high taxes on products that help people cope.

Define fast food. A tax like that could never get inacted, because a definition of what fast food is would never be agreed upon. Also it would cause rioting. Some people live on “fastfood” because their life schedule leaves no trime to cook.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Your criticism of healthcare in the UK is neither fair nor accurate.

Let’s look at a few facts:

Life Expectancy

CIA World Factbook:
United Kingdom = 78.7 Years (better)
United States = 78.06 Years

UN Figures (Average from 2005 through 2010):
United Kingdom = 79.4 Years (better)
United States = 78.2 Years

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country

Infant Mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births):

CIA World Factbook:
United Kingdom = 4.85 (better)
United States = 6.26

UN Population Division:
United Kingdom = 4.8 (better)
United States = 6.3

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005

Spending on Healthcare (2006):

United Kingdom = 8.4% of GDP (better)
United States = 15.3% of GDP (more, but obviously not better)

Source: nriol.net/visitors-insurance/index.php/national-health-care-spending-72-of-gdp-outpaces-economic-growth-10-of-people-account-for-63-of-spending/

As you can see, the United Kingdom spends far less of it’s national wealth on healthcare, but the two key measures of healthcare effectiveness (life expectancy and infant mortality) are better in the UK. I think therefore it is incorrect to suggest that effective healthcare in the US means spending more. Healthcare in the US is staggeringly inefficient, far less efficient than any “bureaucracy” in any other western nation with a system of public healthcare. Restructure the system and better healthcare can be delivered for far less money.

Ever heard the old saying figures lie and liars figure? Also remember Britain is a different genepool from the USA.

 

[naffoffletch]

Ever heard the old saying figures lie and liars figure? Also remember Britain is a different genepool from the USA.

Sounds like you are suggesting I am a liar. Nice. It must be my genes.

 

[didymus]

(A) The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
(B) On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
(C) The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
(D) The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
(E) Conclusion: Eat and drink what you like. It’s speaking English that kills you.

 

[mapleoak]

A) The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
(B) On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
(C) The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
(D) The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
(E) Conclusion: Eat and drink what you like. It’s speaking English that kills you.

The tax should be on speaking English. The bigger the word, the higher the tax.

 

[danielle2459]

To raise taxes on fast food would make hungry, malnutritioned, indigenous children and families pay the price since the “new” $1.00 meals they must frequent, unfortunately whether due to their inability to know how to cook or not having appropriate tools to cook with.
For the ones whom choose to eat fast food by means of laziness or not setting aside adequate time to prepare meals for themselves… I am sure they have a medicine cabinet full of prescriptions. Ultimately for one to provide sufficient nutrition for their family - this is not only accommodation but pro-actively the best choice speaking for ones health and survival to life without foreign chemicals being added within a lifestyle.

So… I take back what I said the other evening… unless a tax on fast food would mean only for a certain tax bracket… lol!
You either hate me or love me.

The tax should be on speaking English. The bigger the word, the higher the tax.

 

[maryjk]

As you can see, the United Kingdom spends far less of it’s national wealth on healthcare, but the two key measures of healthcare effectiveness (life expectancy and infant mortality) are better in the UK. I think therefore it is incorrect to suggest that effective healthcare in the US means spending more. Healthcare in the US is staggeringly inefficient, far less efficient than any “bureaucracy” in any other western nation with a system of public healthcare. Restructure the system and better healthcare can be delivered for far less money.

That says nothing about the quality of life. Waiting lists for simple procedures. Having to call you doctor BEFORE you call the ambulance.

If health care in countries with Public Health is so good, why does the US get the overflow? And of those lives the US saves, do those numbers go in our column or yours?

 

[Squeakmew]

Actually it would make more sense to simply ban McDonald’s, Subway, and Wendy’s. That way we eliminate the root cause of a lot of health problems and heart attacks. Further, we wouldn’t even have to worry about universal health care.
Doesn’t that make more sense than collecting money from a root cause in order to doctor its evil effects?

That’s a moronic suggestion. Banning fast food would result in massive unemployment. Do you realize how many people work in fast food? Some aren’t capable of working any other type of job. Many are disabled (like me), or don’t have the intellectual ability to succeed at college.

Also, putting a prohibitive tax on fast food would cause many people to not be able to afford it, which would cause a business slowdown, which would result in layoffs. Our economy is bad enough. We don’t need self-righteous food police idiots to make it even worse.

 

[Erich]

Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.

Most national health care systems are in a state of sustained internal crisis as costs rise and the stated goals of universal access and quality care are not met. In almost all cases, the reason is the same: the politics of medicine. The problems of government-run health care systems flow inexorably from the fact that they are government-run rather than market driven.

Before Americans find themselves participating in a national health insurance or single-payer health insurance system that has failed in every country it was adopted, they should be asking themselves whether such a system is effective and efficient.

 

[mapleoak]

That’s a moronic suggestion. Banning fast food would result in massive unemployment. Do you realize how many people work in fast food? Some aren’t capable of working any other type of job. Many are disabled (like me), or don’t have the intellectual ability to succeed at college.

Isn’t it better if they are alive and unemployed than dying from medical problems due to greasy burgers and milk shakes?
Come on folks. I am turning the sarcasm generator off now, for those who find it too hard to tell.

Also, putting a prohibitive tax on fast food would cause many people to not be able to afford it, which would cause a business slowdown, which would result in layoffs. Our economy is bad enough. We don’t need self-righteous food police idiots to make it even worse.

Are you saying hefty over-taxation burdens result in economic problems?
Finally someones on to something.

 

[tm30]

I saw Howard Dean on CNBC and he said he would pay for universal health care with a carbon tax. Wouldn’t it be a better idea to put a tax on McDonald’s, Subway and Wendy’s? They are the root cause of a lot of health problems for Americans. They provide low cost ways to have a heart attack.

They also provide tens of thousands of jobs to people who might not be worried about calories and cholesterol, but where their next meal will come from if fast food businesses suffer and start laying people off.

I went by a subway, and they were advertising a huge philly cheese stake that must have had 3000 calories. If people have to pay an excise tax for beer or cigars, than there should be a tax put on the philly cheese stake that subway offers. Then, the funds collected from the tax can be put in to “Universal Healthcare”. And I blame corporations who peddle junkfood to poor communities also.

So your solution is to put up restaurants they can’t afford to eat at?

What I find to be immoral about socialized medicine is that it socializes the punishment for irresponsible behavior. I don’t abuse cigarettes, alcohol and food. I shouldn’t have to pay a lot extra taxes to pay for health care for people who do.

But in your original proposal, you want healthy people who enjoy the occasional fast food lunch or dinner to also pay the higher tax because of the people who abuse it. Aren’t you looking for a health-screened tax rate? “You’re fat, you pay an extra dollar in tax at Burger King”? Sin taxes don’t really do anything but punish everyone, including the non-abusers.