Philadelphia soda tax

[CBB_Fan]

I am definitely NOT in favor of the government telling me waht to eat/drink or how much to sleep or have sex.

If you think taxing soda is going to result in fewer obese individuals or encourage a significant number of obese people to become significantly less obese that it will have any effect on the cost of medical care for them, then I think you are in for a huge surprise. It ain't gonna happen!

An externalities tax (properly applied) doesn't tell people what to do, it tells them that society won't foot the bill.

If everyone continues buying soda, that isn't a problem. If they all chose to switch to fruit juice, not a problem. If they decide to start buying Child size drinks (you know what I mean), they can do that. But if their actions cause my insurance rates to climb or take more of my tax dollars, then an externalities tax like a (properly applied) soda tax give me back that money and stop the subsidization.

[im4wsu]

An externalities tax (properly applied) doesn't tell people what to do, it tells them that society won't foot the bill.

If everyone continues buying soda, that isn't a problem. If they all chose to switch to fruit juice, not a problem. If they decide to start buying Child size drinks (you know what I mean), they can do that. But if their actions cause my insurance rates to climb or take more of my tax dollars, then an externalities tax like a (properly applied) soda tax give me back that money and stop the subsidization.

Let's tax cell phones and make-up so that drivers who use them while driving don't cause our car insurance to go up.

Let's tax clothing that is deemed to be attractive to men so we don't have to pay more for health insurance because of the additional babies that are born.

Let's tax music that portrays violence so that we don't have to pay more for law enforcement or the higher costs of imprisonment for violent offenders.

Let's tax and tax and tax.

Not a solution.

[im4wsu]

Gotcha.

So no taxes aimed at curbing this behavior, right? I like that. But I don't like paying ~30% more for my health insurance for folks whose rates are capped by federal and state regulations to subsidize a rapidly worsening trend.

What should we do? Conform health insurance to life insurance from a rate assessment standpoint? This change involves less government (or different government, depending on your perspective) and would be less intrusive (in terms of governance; just the opposite from the medical side). Downsides, however, are many and obvious.

Or just leave it alone and let things take their due course while the gaps and rates continue to explode?

30%? Are you pro ACA or against ACA?

[WuDrWu]

There are plenty of people that drink guzzlers every day and have no weight problem.

Are you equally concerned with their rates staying low because of the things you do that increase their costs?

[Play Angry]

30%? Are you pro ACA or against ACA?

Against the ACA. In fact, I wrote a long and boring article about its constitutional overreach that nobody reads or cares about, but it makes for a fine CV line. If your concern is that I'm a big gov liberal, you'd be incorrect.

Would you care to answer any of my questions since I answered yours? Really, I'm looking for something more substantive than "get ya gubmint nose out my biz" because it's already in everyone's biz on this issue. The question is what to do.

[Play Angry]

There are plenty of people that drink guzzlers every day and have no weight problem.

Are you equally concerned with their rates staying low because of the things you do that increase their costs?

Sorry if this was meant for CBB and not me.

I agree that a lot of folks drink pop without a problem and don't like the idea of taxing it as a deterrent. I'm not sure what ya have in mind with your second question, but (like you) I'd be fine with paying up for discretionary activities that put me in a higher risk category so long as I get the benefit of the corresponding reductions in areas where I don't engage in a high-risk activity.

The big prob is what do you do with conditions that aren't caused by discretionary actions (birth defects and what not). So tough to find a fair outcome in the end with purely market-based proposals.

I disagree, however, with folks that believe inaction is the right course - some people believe incentives are the key (whether rebates/breaks to individuals or companies) instead of taxes and I think that's an avenue worth discussing. CBB's tax proposal is the best possible implementation if the tax route is taken, but I have no confidence that it could be cranked out from a revenue neutral (dollar in, dollar out) standpoint in the U.S. I also imagine the market may eventually find a way to work this out without any nudging although the time horizon would span multiple generations at a pretty huge cost (not just monetary), but I'm not really sold the end result is a stonecold lock there.

[CBB_Fan]

Let's tax cell phones and make-up so that drivers who use them while driving don't cause our car insurance to go up.

Let's tax clothing that is deemed to be attractive to men so we don't have to pay more for health insurance because of the additional babies that are born.

Let's tax music that portrays violence so that we don't have to pay more for law enforcement or the higher costs of imprisonment for violent offenders.

Let's tax and tax and tax.

Not a solution.

No offense, but that is a textbook slippery slope. And it doesn't even really cover what I'm talking about. I've repeatedly said that it isn't about legislating morals. There has to be a Product B to make taxing Product A make sense, and a definite link to a negative externalities.

None of your slippery slope arguments match the criteria. They don't clearly relate to a $ figure, and they don't obviously compete with a product that doesn't have a $ cost to society. Soda competes with water, beer, coffee, tea, juice, etc. Cell phones aren't competing with anything.

[rrshock]

Just why isn't health care insurance treated like life insurance? When I got my life insurance policy, I answered a **** load of questions, had blood work and my height and weight measured. This is what they use to determine payments and eligibility and coverage. Why isn't health insurance the same way?

[im4wsu]

Just why isn't health care insurance treated like life insurance? When I got my life insurance policy, I answered a **** load of questions, had blood work and my height and weight measured. This is what they use to determine payments and eligibility and coverage. Why isn't health insurance the same way?

ACA and everybody has to be the same price throughout the exchange.

[ShockTalk]

Just why isn't health care insurance treated like life insurance? When I got my life insurance policy, I answered a **** load of questions, had blood work and my height and weight measured. This is what they use to determine payments and eligibility and coverage. Why isn't health insurance the same way?

ACA and everybody has to be the same price throughout the exchange.

@rrshock: probably already knew that, however, his question is most likely "but why should ACA qualification not be the same way".....political leanings aside.

[im4wsu]

@rrshock: probably already knew that, however, his question is most likely "but why should ACA qualification not be the same way".....political leanings aside.

In many respects, it was that way before ACA, especially for individual insurance. Employer provided insurance allowed open enrollment once a year; otherwise pre-existing conditions were not covered for some period of time. The Congress decided to change that. So it comes back to politics

[ShockTalk]

In many respects, it was that way before ACA, especially for individual insurance. Employer provided insurance allowed open enrollment once a year; otherwise pre-existing conditions were not covered for some period of time. The Congress decided to change that. So it comes back to politics

I think that much of what has been said in this thread is that maybe it should change. Not necessarily to the extent that life insurance is "rated", but that those that choose to have undesirable life styles, as it pertains to good health, pay a surcharge, and maybe have higher deductibles, depending on particular parameters. Something to encourage better lifestyle health.

Currently, the healthy and quality health style people pay for those with unhealthy lifestyles. Lessen some of the cost burden of that from those that didn't create the higher health costs and place it where it belongs.

[im4wsu]

I think that much of what has been said in this thread is that maybe it should change. Not necessarily to the extent that life insurance is "rated", but that those that choose to have undesirable life styles, as it pertains to good health, pay a surcharge, and maybe have higher deductibles, depending on particular parameters. Something to encourage better lifestyle health.

Currently, the healthy and quality health style people pay for those with unhealthy lifestyles. Lessen some of the cost burden of that from those that didn't create the higher health costs and place it where it belongs.

Are you prepared to create surcharges for things that might affect healthcare costs, such as:
eating red meat
Being vegan
Being vegetarian
Driving a compact car
Not working out three times a week
Working out three or more times a week
Eating cake or pie
Drinking milk
Not drinking milk
Riding a horse
Piloting a plane
Riding a bicycle
Driving a motorcycle

Just where would such surcharges or ratings end?

[ShockTalk]

Are you prepared to create surcharges for things that might affect healthcare costs, such as:
eating red meat
Being vegan
Being vegetarian
Driving a compact car
Not working out three times a week
Working out three or more times a week
Eating cake or pie
Drinking milk
Not drinking milk
Riding a horse
Piloting a plane
Riding a bicycle
Driving a motorcycle

Just where would such surcharges or ratings end?

How many of these things am I rated for in getting life insurance? I'm guessing piloting a plane unless you have certain number of hours/experience on an on going basis. I'm sure each item above, and others not shown, have varying degrees of effect on health and health care costs. Consider those that have the greatest negative effect. What items create the biggest problems in health costs and the biggest gain in quality personal health if changed. I'm looking at this as a potential win-win for everybody, if they want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

[RoyalShock]

Are you prepared to create surcharges for things that might affect healthcare costs, such as:
eating red meat
Being vegan
Being vegetarian
Driving a compact car
Not working out three times a week
Working out three or more times a week
Eating cake or pie
Drinking milk
Not drinking milk
Riding a horse
Piloting a plane
Riding a bicycle
Driving a motorcycle

Just where would such surcharges or ratings end?

I'm fine with all of those, except the ones that affect me.