Draconian Soda Ban Considered in Liberal Cambridge

Soft drinks are the profit margin for a lot of mom and pop joints.

Yes, liberals, kill some more goddamned jobs.

They'll never admit they're idiots, so they'll "compromise", with size limits. Hike business fees, hire some sugar cops to ensure compliance.

What tortuous stupidity.

How many calories in those super-sized sodas? I may not be in favor of such bans, but I wonder what your answer to the kind of "tortuous stupidity" that accounts for an estimated 50% obesity rate by 2020. Surely, "mom and pop" aren't really intentionally poisoning their customers, are they? Any idea what this costs "mom and pop" - as well as everyone else - in mounting medical costs? Got any suggestions - or are you just confusing "freedom" and "liberty" with rampant irresponsibility?

Btw, the AMA favors a one-cent tax per ounce, which is estimated to save $17 billion in medical costs over ten years. That sounds like a better approach to me than a ban.

They have lots of calories, like hundreds of confectionaries.

Maybe you're not in favor of banning them. Your second post approves taxing them. OK, you want something done by government on this. So, how much tax, on how many sugar containing products? On all of them? Just soda?

I don't have an answer. I have a question. To what degree do you think government should be allowed to mandate what you do with your body? With your business?

By 2020. That happens to be when government expenditure meets debt servicing, at the current arc. If you have a couple extra layers at that point, you'll be glad of it.

I'm not sure you need quotes on the mom and pop business. They're not an anomaly yet, just seriously under seige. The economic impact of this idiocy is real. No, Coca Cola isn't poison, it's delicious. If mom and pop give it to you, say "Thank you". Now, THAT'S an anomaly, these days.

I'm not stopping you, mom, pop, or anyone else from making political choices which result in bad decisions being paid for by the people that made them, and the rewards of wise action being enjoyed by the progenitors. I'm actively ridiculing a government that has the brass balls to maim commerce under the ludicrous assertion this tsunami of lard will be dispersed by the prohibition of one of 10000 products that use sugar.

You can't dissect some stricken fatty and enumerate an exact percentage of how much of their downfall was due to that single factor, as well as genetic predisposition, stress, smoking, drinking, pedestrian lifestyle, etc. You can guess, that's all. What does it cost us? Something, if you elect a government that uses your money to pay for treatment. But you knew that was the case, the resentment seems unfounded. If you get hit by a truck and the reconstruction costs the system more than you paid in, do you get a pass on that sentiment because you drank orange juice and jogged? Because you're responsible, pure? Suppose obese dude paid 10 times more in taxes, insurance, charity, etc. How do you or anyone else break down their economic impact and apply it to the mercy of the ER?

Again, quantify what YOU believe is the uppermost limit of jurisdiction the government should have on your body, your life, your decisions, your property.

As for suggestions, a few:

If you can't accept liberty and freedom, and its guardianship as the sole task and responsibility of government, if you MUST have your superstate, at least insist it tyrranize within the boundaries of sanity. Show people who would prevent some immigrant from making a buck on a Dr. Pepper the contempt they deserve.

Realize you're advocating taxing a subsidized product. Remove the subsidy, perhaps?

That would remove two layers of beauracracy. No, God, not that. OK, nevermind.

But as long as rampant irresponsibility is on the table, do you have any idea what unnecessary, duplicated or triplicated beauracracies cost mom, pop, and everybody else?

I'm a little confused as to how the AMA suggestion"saves" money, unless their theory is if you tax the hell out of people's food, they'll be too poor to eat shit. Of course, that might lead to other health complications, poverty usually does. I suspect the idea is to TAKE that seventeen billion. If this results in a few less gelatinous blobs on the street, I'd like to see the math.

Toss comments directed at me in "reply". I'll answer sooner. Take it easy.

So you don't have an answer to the obesity epidemic that is already bad and getting worse, except maybe personal responsibility. From a social and business perspective, that ain't working very well.

I believe that our individual decisions affect the society we live in, and some entity must speak for the well-being of the society, and the individuals, who live in it. That's basic systems theory. You can elevate the individual and ignore society, but all you gain by that is devastation for the individual you want to elevate. In our society, government is the entity that speaks for society's well-being. What are the limits? That depends on the specific issue, and I've indicated specifically what I think the solution is.

One thing you seem to not consider - the 50% of folks that will be clinically obese by 2020 are going to cost you and me (I'm not obese and I'm assuming you are not either) money in higher medicare, medicaid taxes, and insurance premiums. They are going to cost us more in higher prices for products, because corporations are going to be hit also with higher insurance premiums. Now I guess that you may want to do away with government programs like medicare and medicaid - VA benefits, etc., but are you also saying we should do away with insurance? Should employers not offer insurance as a benefit? Should you and I have some degree of protection from having to pay for many complications of obesity? Yes - there are alot of questions - just on the specific issue of obesity.

Seriously, aside from government rants, do you have any suggestions for addressing obesity - specifically?

So you don't have an answer to the obesity epidemic that is already bad and getting worse, except maybe personal responsibility. From a social and business perspective, that ain't working very well.

Personal responsibility hasn't been tried.

the 50% of folks that will be clinically obese by 2020 are going to cost you and me (I'm not obese and I'm assuming you are not either) money in higher medicare, medicaid taxes, and insurance premiums

If the obese were paying for their increased risks, then they wouldn't be costing you more. Government always seems to prefer growing government and limiting liberties to more personal responsibility.

And seriously, do you have an upper limit for state involvement? What is it?

Because without knowing where that ceiling is, how do you expect me to give a satisfactory answer, even within your paradigm?

"So you don't have an answer to the obesity epidemic"

People, eat less, eat healthy, know what you're eating, exercise regularly. Understand the consequences of doing otherwise.
Public Service announcements cut deeply into tobacco use. The president has a bully pulpit. That's reasonably non-intrusive and non-coercive.
It's not an epidemic. It's a sin. Gluttony, to wit. But it's not contagious. No maybe on the personal responsibility. Neither the AMA offering or the Cambridge stupidity will prove superior to the above, socially or commercially.

I'm all for someone speaking for societys' well being. Speaking. Well being isn't enhanced by coercion.

"What are the limits? That depends on the specific issue."
Well, you specified obesity. What are the limits? I haven't been vague as to where I draw the line. Please reciprocate.

"I've indicated specifically what I think the solution is."

I directly refuted the notion a tax grab will shed American poundage, if that's what you were being specific about. At first, I thought maybe you were talking about another post. Maybe you are. "...sounds like a better approach." Didn't come off as definitive, to me anyway. It's no solution.

"One thing you seem to not consider..."

I have considered it, ricochet. I consider the percentage of my tax dollars that go towards a system I can access myself, next to the percentage that goes into the pockets of the beauracracy, the war machine, the debt service, and the corporatocracy. My conclusion is that on balance, it's a pittance in comparison. And the percentage of that which eases the plight of some fat slob in the operating room is less than that. I don't resent it. Really, that's your problem. And their problem. This war on fat is a non starter. At its root, the problem is individual.

"Now I guess..."

You sure do. Both your guess, and the assertion coming from a man who demands specificity, are rather far afield, don't you think?
Government has to keep its promises. The more they take on, the less likely they will. They badly need to ease up and ease off. We're headed for bankruptcy, buddy. That debt, if we cool our jets, will stand at 50 trillion by 2025. And Obama and Romney haven't BEGUN to promise good things. Bankruptcy, with the subsequent crash of the World reserve currency. Think it over.

"...we should do away with insurance?"

WE won't. We the People?
No. The State shouldn't abolish legitimate business. THAT'S MY POINT.

"Should you or I have some degree of protection..."

In a libertarian framework, we would, inherently.
In a statist framework, what "should" be? Sure, if you can pull it off. You need a cap on insurance and price controls on medical goods, services, and wages. I think it was Belgium who drafted all their doctors.

"Seriously"

Tall order. How serious can I get? A fellow demands a solution, refuses the possibility said solution doesn't lie with government, then asks for the problem to be addressed without reference to government. Seriously. This just happened to me.
Seriously? Those taxes are gonna get collected, they won't get less if every pig lined up at a Vegas buffet is liposuctioned and stomach stapled. Education and options may alleviate the weight of the issue. But it's their life. They aren't fat because they hate you, let it go.

@ mike p. Jun 20, 2012, 11:09am EDT

If personal responsibility "worked", we wouldn't be in the midst of an epidemic.

Taxing products that contribute to the problem, e.g., high calorie sodas, actually makes sure that those, who buy those products pay for the medical consequences of using them.

@ les f. Jun 20, 2012, 12:38pm EDT

If you have another issue, other than obesity - which you brought up btw - then I'll be glad to give a specific answer.

Public education is very helpful in decreasing smoking incidence in this country. Of course, those education campaigns are often paid for by taxes on tobacco products. It is also the case that taxes on tobacco products inhibits use, especially among young people. The AMA has also endorsed taxes on tobacco products for that reason.

Well, it is an epidemic, whether you recognize it or not. When half of the population is going to be clinically obese within a decade, it is an epidemic. I don't buy into the "moralism" that you mention. But I would wonder if you also think it's a "sin" to sell things that poison people? There are very good reasons why this is happening, and I'll even join you in your criticism of government, if it has to do with corn subsidies. Because of those subsidies, corn is very cheap, and that is why there is so much high-fructose corn syrup in alot of the cheap food that so many consume. End the subsidies - stop making it cheaper to be sick.

The AMA endorsed tax approach has had an effect on inhibiting tobacco products, so while it may not be a panacea, it is "a solution" - or at least part of one. Another, which I mentioned above, is ending subsidies for corn. You mentioned public education. Interesingly, Michelle Obama has been doing just that, for which she has been criticized for "telling parents what to feed their kids." Public education is important. I agree. So does the AMA.

You bring up a legitimate concern in any tax - where does the revenue go? I would not support a tax on soda if it were not exclusively dedicated to medical programs - medicare, medicaid, VA, research.

The problem is individual. It is also familial, communal, and societal. Nothing is done in isolation, and everything we do affects everything else. Part of responsibility is realizing that. All levels are important, and all levels are points of intervention - that is, if you are really wanting to solve the problem.

So you don't want to do away with medicare, medicaid, and the VA? Good. Then a tax on fake food, like high calorie soda, should make sense. People who consume that crap should pay for the medical consequences themselves, not people who don't. I also don't want to pay higher premiums because of the medical risks associated with obesity. Unlike you, though, I have no interest in shaming obese people. That certainly doesn't work. I just want them to pay for their own risks. Taxing products that make them obese is one way for that to happen. It's also another way to move us away from bankruptcy. Stop subsidizing crap that makes us sick, and make us pay up for it, if we're going to buy it.

I don't want to do away with LEGITIMATE business, either. I just don't want to pay higher premiums for risks I don't present. Businesses that contribute to the problem, and thereby increase risks - they should pay.

I don't have a political ideology. So I don't start with libertarianism, or socialism, or anything else. My frame is simply on seeing problems and addressing them.

Government is an institution I don't hate, like you apparently do. It has a role to play in how well or ill functioning a society is.

If personal responsibility "worked", we wouldn't be in the midst of an epidemic.

That statement assumes we have been relying on personal responsibility. Your other statement shows that is not the case:

"the 50% of folks that will be clinically obese by 2020 are going to cost you and me (I'm not obese and I'm assuming you are not either) money in higher medicare, medicaid taxes, and insurance premiums."


Taxing products that contribute to the problem, e.g., high calorie sodas, actually makes sure that those, who buy those products pay for the medical consequences of using them.

Are all high calorie food going to be taxed (in both restaurants and grocery stores)? How about buffets? How about TV's, computers, and video games since they also contribute to obesity? Movies? Automobiles and mass transit? Couches?

Products can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. It's the irresponsibility that is the problem, not the product. If the obese were paying more for medical insurance proportional to the additional risk they are creating then they wouldn't cost you extra. Simple and the government wouldn't need to take away our liberties.

I also don't want to pay higher premiums because of the medical risks associated with obesity.

The answer is charging for those risks, NOT taxing sugary food. There are millions of people who consume those products responsibly who shouldn't need to pay for the added risks either.

The failure of personal responsibility is assumed. If people were individually and personally responsible, there wouldn't be a problem. Also, there wouldn't be jails, or drugs, or any of the other messes we individuals get into. Alot of folks simply are not responsible. I don't know why making it relatively easy for them to be irresponsible, and relatively hard for them to be responsible is confused with freedom or liberty. It's neither.

It is known, what foods contribute to obesity. If they are taxed, then it doesn't matter if it's soda, cereal, fake juice, or whether it's bought at a grocery store or buffet. I do think that some attention should be paid to zoning laws. Communities need not be organized around the automobile. Communities that re-introduce walking are actually very highly desirable, and therefore expensive. More local governments should look at that.

I agree that people, who are eating crap should pay for the medical consequences. Your solution is different, and is actually in place for many insurance companies. My solution is less intrusive, but no less specific to the individuals using the products. Responsibility is a broad variable here. Is it responsible to sell products that make people sick? I don't think so. Is it responsible to subsidize crap? No. Is it responsible that healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food? Hardly. None of that is "liberty", either. It's just a rationalization of irresponsibility - if you can make money at it.

I'll return at some point - gotta go eat my salad. See ya'.

End the subsidies - stop making it cheaper to be sick.

We agree here.

My opening post was about government stupidity. Then you came in with the calories. This is your party. Sure, give me a specific answer to my first question, which I had asked for the third time, on my 12:38. Thanks for the offer.

Tobacco tax doesn't pay for anything specific. All funds are fungible. Any monies from a soda tax just gets thrown into the pot.

Soda pop isn't poison, however many times you say it. You don't know 50% will be fat. National issue, individual problem. Honestly, it's like saying how many people will be swearing, or smoking, or any bad habit, 10 years down the road. Go with fifty. If you're planning, plan for the worst, I guess.

The butterfly effect for butterballs. ALL levels must intervene, more levels must be created blahblahblah. Like alcoholism, this begins and ends with the choices of the afflicted. If they want help, it exists. It's none of my business.

Bumping taxes is completely irrelevant in relation to my feelings about Medicare, Medicaid, the VA. Yes, I know you have a money issue. A "fat tax" on Soda isn't shaming? "Unlike you, though..." Whatever, buddy. It ain't true just cuz you said so.

You don't pay higher vehicle insurance because someone else got in a car crash. Maybe you should be thinking about altering the insurance racket, rather than peoples' bodies.

You have a political ideology.

Yes, I'm a shame hurling government hater. Enough. It's kind of like soda is to you. The less the better.

The failure of personal responsibility is assumed.

It's hard to say we are operating on personal responsibility when the consequences of our actions are being paid by others (you're paying for the risks of the obese).

If people were individually and personally responsible, there wouldn't be a problem. Also, there wouldn't be jails, or drugs, or any of the other messes we individuals get into. Alot of folks simply are not responsible.

Operating on personal responsibility does mean everyone will be responsible. Does taxing high calorie foods mean no one will be obese? We both know the answer is NO.

Your solution is different, and is actually in place for many insurance companies.

I doubt it's in effect for a significant portion of the population. The insurance industry is highly regulated. The government pushes insurance through employment and government programs rather than through individual policies. In every policy I've been in, it wouldn't matter if I were 600lbs with 70% body fat or 150lbs with 18% body fat; I would pay the same rate.

My solution is less intrusive, but no less specific to the individuals using the products.

I would say your solution is more intrusive as it provides for politicians and special interests to dictate how I live my life. It may be specific to the individuals using the products, but it is NOT specific to those creating the additional risk. There are millions of obese who don't drink high calories sodas and millions of fit individuals who drink them.

Whoa. You and Mike have been busy. Anyway, my 4:12 goes paragraph for paragraph with your 3:13. Enjoy your salad.

Obviously the elected officials don't trust to the intelligence of the Cambridge citizens. Do they know something about those who are going to school and teaching in their community that would indicate they really can't be trusted to make smart health choices?

I wonder if the elected officials are concerned about the other side of the sugar drink calories, are they going to start requiring the citizens to start walking 3 miles everyday.

How do you feel about corn subsidies, which make high-fructose corn syrup so cheap? The reality is that unhealthy food is cheap - that's why people, especially poor people, buy it.

If the citizens of Cambridge were making smart health choices, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and there wouldn't be estimates that half the population will be obese (not just overweight) by 2020. Do you want to pay for the consequences of that - higher medicare, medicaid and VA taxes, highter insurance premiums, higher prices for products because businesses are going to be slammed with increasingly escalating insurance premiums?

I don't know how you enforce people walking 3 miles everyday. Taxes, on the other hand are fairly easy to collect. How about ending the corn subsidies and transferring them to gym memberships? How about giving tax breaks to companies that install gyms on site? How about looking at zoning laws, which centers everything around the car? How about promoting communities, which are designed to walk or bike?

ricochet,

I belive all subsidies should be ended, corn, oil, mortgage, all of them becuase they are trying to make peoples decsions for them. Government paying to grow the corn is that far away from a city mayor telling people what they can or cannot eat or drink.

"If the citizens of Cambridge were making smart health choices, we wouldn't be having this discussion" so you are telling me that you know what smart decisions are for other people to make. I may disagree with peoples choices, they may not be the ones I would make, but does that make me smarter then they are? What makes you or the mayor so sure that you have more intelligence and will make smarter decisions for people?

As best I can tell it is each individual's life and their decision on constitues the quality of their life.

I think each person shold pay the consequences of their own choices. If obesity is a medical problem then let the obsese pay a higher fee for their meidcal converage. We have ban drugs, has that stop people becoming addicted to illegal drugs? We have ban kids under 18 from smoking, under 21 from drinking, has that stop them?

I don't believe in tax breaks for gyms or anything else. If it is to the benefit of the compnay because the employer has healthy employees then why should my tax dollars go for them doing what is good business?

Why have laws for everythign you think is good and laws for everything you think is bad? In the end everything has a law and there is nolonger freedom or liberty.

Why can't people be allowed to make their own choices and life with the consequences of those choices?

Is it obsesity that needs to be regulated or is it the health issues and quality of life issues that the governement associates with obesity? What if there are obses people that don;t have those health issues should they be controlled by the laws you want to regualte obesity?