| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/20/2009 7:14:11 PM | When the senate sends the health care reform bill to the president if he signs it and it includes a sin tax that includes junk foods you will either pay more for your Big Mac or eat some thing else it will be your choice
This is what I want to know.
Who will be the one who determines which foods are bad and which ones aren't ?
Rice, bread and fresh fruit are bad for those following the low carb life style and will cause them to become obese in no time. Are we going to appoint Martha Stewart the food czar so she can pin the appropriate tax on pizza, pasta and little green apples ? | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/20/2009 7:35:08 PM |
Do you even bother to read what you write? Go back and reread what you have written you contradict yourself your having an internal debate with you. Thank you again for your generous donations to my government run health care, BTW it is much more efficient, courteous and the level of care far exceeds any thing I received through private care
I was addressing another poster in addition to you.
Someday, on the assembly line for Obama's end of life counseling, people will be in for a rude awakening. They will no longer be an individual, but a statistic on a cost vs benefit ratio table. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/20/2009 7:57:03 PM |
I was addressing another poster in addition to you.
I am not confused it's apparent that you can change your arguement mid stream.
Someday, on the assembly line for Obama's end of life counseling, people will be in for a rude awakening. They will no longer be an individual, but a statistic on a cost vs benefit ratio table.
Now you are turning to distortion in an attempt to scare people, don't you think that people are capable of making a decision based on facts? Some day you will realize that President Obama has the best interest of our country in mind | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/20/2009 9:15:49 PM |
Someday, on the assembly line for Obama's end of life counseling, people will be in for a rude awakening. They will no longer be an individual, but a statistic on a cost vs benefit ratio table.
Since it is already known that the other universal health care systems have already seen some problems with rationing of medical treatment., I have a feeling it would not be unusual to see it if our country voted in this farce of a plan. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/20/2009 10:32:39 PM |
Since it is already known that the other universal health care systems have already seen some problems with rationing of medical treatment., I have a feeling it would not be unusual to see it if our country voted in this farce of a plan.
The public option IS NOT a take over medical plan it's is an option, I have a feeling you don't understand the public option part of the reform bill or I have a feeling that you are trying to scare older people from supporting health care reform | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:07:23 AM |
The public option IS NOT a take over medical plan it's is an option
Give it time. That's been a long term goal of the Demoncratic Party. Since the public won't go for that, like the proverbial frog in water, the Demoncrats are slowly turning up the heat. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:28:36 AM | This quote is appropriate to this discussion. Proposed legislation should be scrutinized first for Constitutionality.
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can. -- Barry Goldwater | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:08:14 AM |
Let's start with the basics.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the govt, has the right to manage health care?
Answer = Nowhere
More uneducated right-wing b.s.
Yes they do have the constitutional power
It's called the "Necessary and Proper Clause"
End of discussion - next | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:09:36 AM |
Since it is already known that the other universal health care systems have already seen some problems with rationing of medical treatment., I have a feeling it would not be unusual to see it if our country voted in this farce of a plan.
Is health care in America not already rationed? In other words, if you have money, or the right insurance (as long as your insurance company does'nt refuse your claim) you can get care. If you don't have insurance or money you don't get care.
To me thats rationing.
And all those stories you hear about rationing in Canada are just that. Stories the insurance companies put out to scare people. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:25:21 AM | The Dems secretly want completely government sponsored healthcare for everyone? Nooo!! Those sneaky **stards! It was justified when they sent our troops to invade another country. That was patriotic and American... but this... this is socialism! Eeewww!
Seriously, though, it won't happen as CountIbli et al fear, even if it were favored by the public. Many of the Dems are sponsored/lobbied by health insurance companies just as are many of the Reps. Corporate sponsored politics as usual... | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:44:29 AM | I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can. -- Barry Goldwater
Actually this is an interesting quote and does open up the potential for much discussion, hopefully civil.
I have always wondered, how much government do conservatives want? What is an acceptable level of taxation? They always talk about shrinking government but are never specific about what they would eliminate.
Judging from what I read on these boards and elsewhere , obviously health care is one of those areas they don't want government involved in. Does that include Medicare and medicaid? While conservatives are now standing up claiming to be the protectors of Medicare right now, saying Obama wants to gut it by billions and billions of dollars, it wasn't too many years ago that Medicare was on the hit list. What about the military hospitals?
We already know George Bush would have liked to get rid of social security. Is that something most conservatives would like to see gone? Are there any conservative seniors here who would like to see it gone? Are there conservative seniors willing to dump medicare?
What else should government get out of? Regulating financial markets? Having watchdogs over utilities? What about disabled people? Who would take care of them?
Should there be welfare? Should there be FEMA? Rick Perry is a closet separatist but he sure loves those federal dollars and will fight to get them. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/11739/
How about schools, roads, your police and fire departments. Should these be paid for and part of government. What if I don't drive, I could make an argument that I shouldn't have to pay for roads.
I am hoping to get a reasonable and honest feedback and find out what do conservatives think government should do and what would be a proper level of taxation. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:35:11 PM | Yes they do have the constitutional power
It's called the "Necessary and Proper Clause"
End of discussion - next
Necessary and Proper Clause
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Since the "foregoing powers" do not include health care your assertion is incorrect.
=================================================
There are some problems with this line of thinking of sin taxes.
1) Politicians took our social security money from a "locked box" and dumped it into a general fund during the Johnson administration. I think many people are aware of this, but we have been usable to reverse it. Instead of the money being set aside and earning interest, it is now a ponzi scheme headed for bankruptcy.
I have no confidence that a snack tax would be used to pay for the costs related to people eating snacks.
2) I am sure there are olympians and millions who eat snacks and are extremely healthy.
3) Once you go down the road of sin taxes, where will it end? Politicians are addicted to our money. They will always want more of it. More and more items will be hit with a sin tax.
=====================================================
Actually this is an interesting quote and does open up the potential for much discussion, hopefully civil.
I have always wondered, how much government do conservatives want? What is an acceptable level of taxation? They always talk about shrinking government but are never specific about what they would eliminate.
The govt must be confined to the powers/areas innumerated in the constitution. The level of taxation should be limited to support those areas
Judging from what I read on these boards and elsewhere , obviously health care is one of those areas they don't want government involved in. Does that include Medicare and medicaid? While conservatives are now standing up claiming to be the protectors of Medicare right now, saying Obama wants to gut it by billions and billions of dollars, it wasn't too many years ago that Medicare was on the hit list. What about the military hospitals?
I think we need to keep the commitments to the people who depend on medicare and medicaid today. However, it needs to be phased out over time.
As for military benefits, soldiers deserve treatment for illnesses related to their service. I would allow them to choose a health care plan from the private sector with a voucher system.
We already know George Bush would have liked to get rid of social security. Is that something most conservatives would like to see gone? Are there any conservative seniors here who would like to see it gone?
Politicians took our social security money from a "locked box" and dumped it into a general fund during the Johnson administration. Instead of the money being set aside and earning interest, it is now a ponzi scheme headed for bankruptcy.
I doubt that social security will ever be returned to it's original form. I believe it needs to be phased out. Young people especially should be able to opt out of SS and replace it with private plans.
What else should government get out of? Regulating financial markets? Having watchdogs over utilities?
I think corruption in financial markets needs to be rooted out by govt. Oversight is what has been lacking.
What about disabled people? Who would take care of them?
The govt is a very inefficient provider of services. Usually 50% of every dollar is consumed by waste. I'd rather see these services provided by private charities funded by tax dollars.
| |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:46:13 PM |
There are some problems with this line of thinking of sin taxes.
1) Politicians took our social security money from a "locked box" and dumped it into a general fund during the Johnson administration. I think many people are aware of this, but we have been usable to reverse it. Instead of the money being set aside and earning interest, it is now a ponzi scheme headed for bankruptcy.
I have no confidence that a snack tax would be used to pay for the costs related to people eating snacks.
2) I am sure there are olympians and millions who eat snacks and are extremely healthy.
3) Once you go down the road of sin taxes, where will it end? Politicians are addicted to our money. They will always want more of it. More and more items will be hit with a sin tax.
The senate and the President will have the final word on sin taxes, I am writing mine and telling them to push for a sin tax on all junk food and drinks
End of discussion-NEXT | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:46:27 PM | Simple question do Supporters of the "Public Option" really believe that other companies will be able to compete with the Government option? For any length of time before they just give up and go out of business?....I think that many who support this option are the same people who don't want their to be any Private Options and for the Government to take over the whole thing......Universal Health Care....
I don't like the Government mandates that have been written into the Bills...I don't like the IRS coming after me if I decide not to get Health Care Insurance.....I don't like having all of the projected costs and savings based on BS numbers...I don't like the Government potentially having any input as to what treatments would be best for me...I don't like the Fact that people with preexisting and very costly conditions will pay the same or less or nothing depending on their work status as People who live a healthy life style and are relatively Healthy....
Proper level of taxation would be a system that is not Punitive....
Your argument is flawed, very few are advocating for the Government to get OUT of Everything they are Advocating for them to QUIT getting INTO things....
The biggest problems I have with the Health Care debate is the Fear mongering by the Left that goes unquestioned...and the fallacious argument that the System can not be improved without a total overhaul and Government expansion..... | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:56:41 PM |
The senate and the President will have the final word on sin taxes, I am writing mine and telling them to push for a sin tax on all junk food and drinks
That is your right. It will probably result in more lost jobs, but that's what the Dems do well. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 2:07:53 PM | Since the "foregoing powers" do not include health care your assertion is incorrect.
No, it is not incorrect...
Healthcare, healthcare coverage and the revenue sources necessary to administer the regulations are issues which have an impact on inter-state commerce, they also fall under the category of "general welfare" in section 8, and as such are within the purvue of Congress' powers.
Just as they can regulate growing marijuana even contrary to state "medicinal marijuana laws" (Gonzales v. Raich) and any number of other applicable cases in which the Commerce Clause was held to apply (Katzenbach v. McClung, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Wickard v. Filburn, Swift v. United States, Stafford v. Wallace, etc.), they can regulate healthcare and healthcare coverage as well as legislate taxes related to the administration of those regulations.
Not one single issue ruled on in those cases were explicitly covered in the "foregoing powers" but they ALL impacted on inter-state commerce and/or "general welfare of the United States".
Beside that, the notion of "sin taxes" to help cover this are CLEARLY covered under the Commerce Clause.
The Constitution does NOT mean whatever you choose it to mean based on your own personal feelings about a particular issue. It's functional meaning is determined by the applicable jurisprudence relating to it. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 3:09:55 PM |
Simple question do Supporters of the "Public Option" really believe that other companies will be able to compete with the Government option?
Well according to conservatives the government can't run a shoe stand let alone an insurance company. So why are they so worried? I would have thought they would be thrilled to have a place to send all those people will preexisting conditions to.
I think that many who support this option are the same people who don't want their to be any Private Options and for the Government to take over the whole thing......Universal Health Care....
This is probably very true. Progressives want UHC. That's because they know it is the cheapest, most efficient way to get health care to everyone and the present system will soon bankrupt everybody. Besides it works in every other industrialized nation in the world, it should work for Americans.
I don't like the Government mandates that have been written into the Bills...I don't like the IRS coming after me if I decide not to get Health Care Insurance.....
I actually agree with you on this one. In the Baucus bill this is nothing but a windfall for the insurance industry. They have given them 40 million new customers and forced them to buy junk insurance. I hope this doesn't survive.
I don't like the Government potentially having any input as to what treatments would be best for me...
Well in Canada this would be bunk. My doctor decides my treatments, not the government. Of course there are limits. For example, my doctor cannot just out of the blue order me up an MIR just because I ask for one. She needs to have a medical reason for it, and depending on the urgency will decide how fast I get one.
Recently I had a health scare and ended up in emergency. I had a CAT scan done, along with a bunch of other tests within 2 hours. No waiting, no asking if I could pay. And no bill when I left.
I don't like the Fact that people with preexisting and very costly conditions will pay the same or less or nothing depending on their work status as People who live a healthy life style and are relatively Healthy....
If those people can get coverage at all. You think if someone has survived cancer or has was born with a disability, they shouldn't be able to get affordable insurance? You may live well and take care of yourself but you could get hit by a truck through no fault of your own and find yourself with preexisting conditions. ( a health insurance invention)
Proper level of taxation would be a system that is not Punitive....
Again, this is being ducked. I have asked this question before and it never gets answered. Ok, what would a punitive level of taxation be? Americans are among the lowest taxed nations on the planet. How much lower can you go?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tax_fre_day_bur-taxation-tax-freedom-day-burden
Your argument is flawed, very few are advocating for the Government to get OUT of Everything they are Advocating for them to QUIT getting INTO
This is more than just health care. I have seen you in posts complaining about unemployment and how Obama isn't doing anything and in the next sentence complain about government spending. It isn't rocket science to know that if you cut back spending in a recession you make it worse.
There is a quote by Grover Norquist
"I want to shrink government to where I could drown it in a bathtub"
How much government do people want? That is the question.
When Obama ran for president he talked about health care. He asked why shouldn't the average citizen not be able to buy the same insurance that federal employees get. Why not indeed. It isn't like this was a secret. Obama won the election. The people spoke. And if there is disappointment from the liberal side, it's because they feel they won the election and Obama should forget all this stuff about bipartisanship and ram through the type of bill he wants and the type of bill he promised when he ran for president. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 9:53:28 PM |
It isn't rocket science to know that if you cut back spending in a recession you make it worse.
What evidence do you have to back this up? As a counter-example I point you to the Depression of 1920-21. The first year of the depression was as bad as the first year of the Great Depression. The government's response was to cut spending and the whole thing lasted 18 months. This is quite unlike the 43 month long Great Depression which was characterized by an increase in government spending. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:16:05 PM | I find it funny that the liberals want to tax soft drinks or whatever. I remember the oBama saying taxes will not go up. Taxes will not be raised to pay for reform. Taxes will not go up...yet there is a 40% tax on Cadillac insurance plans...seems he is going to tax those of us with good insurance..I thought we could keep our plans with no increase in tax? HE LIED!
By the way my lil liberal buddies...when your messiah gets his health care reform rammed through...what about the 15-30 million people it will not cover? They will still be without insurance...what good is it if it does not do what he said it will do?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...........LLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEDD! | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:16:30 PM |
The Constitution does NOT mean whatever you choose it to mean based on your own personal feelings about a particular issue. It's functional meaning is determined by the applicable jurisprudence relating to it.
There are times when the courts are wrong. Then it is up to the executive and legislative branches to make a correction.
The purpose of the Commerce clause was to PROMOTE commerce between the states. It has long been used as an excuse to REGULATE commerce. We are hardly a constitutional republic any more.
The General Welfare clause was meant to restrict the reasons for taxation. This too has been **stardized to cover almost anything. The Constitution is a document designed to LIMIT federal power, has been misinterpreted to give Congress unlimited power.
The Constitution does NOT empower Congress to run private companies, take over companies or drive them out of business. They also do not have the power to COMPEL someone to purchase a product or service. Therefore the health care plan is unconstitutional.
I have NOT heard a single liberal claim that it is constitutional. They simply say it is necessary.
Congress does have the power to tax only to provide revenue for constitutional purposes which are few.
A sin tax is permissible. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/22/2009 4:50:09 AM | Out of all that I wrote, you picked out that one line to complain about? I guess it really depends on what school of economics you go to.
What evidence do you have to back this up? As a counter-example I point you to the Depression of 1920-21. The first year of the depression was as bad as the first year of the Great Depression. The government's response was to cut spending and the whole thing lasted 18 months. This is quite unlike the 43 month long Great Depression which was characterized by an increase in government spending.
Most mainstream economists believe that recessions are caused by inadequate aggregate demand in the economy, and favor the use of expansionary macroeconomic policy during recessions. Strategies favored for moving an economy out of a recession vary depending on which economic school the policymakers follow. Monetarists would favor the use of expansionary monetary policy, while Keynesian economists may advocate increased government spending to spark economic growth. Supply-side economists may suggest tax cuts to promote business capital investment. Laissez-faire minded economists may simply recommend that the government not interfere with natural market forces.
Since interest rates are pretty much zero and can't go any lower you can't get money into the system that way. As for tax cuts, Obama's stimulus package consists of at least a third of it in the form of tax cuts.
Government spending seems to be the preferred vehicle for fighting this world wide recession.
And the worst response would be to do nothing.
Which way do you think the government should tackle this recession? | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/22/2009 5:22:24 PM | Miss not so cools children will end up with heart disease, cancer or some other illness brough on by her poor dietary choices, group insurance rates are calculated on percentage's, how many will have heart trouble, diabetes , cancer. A tax on junk food will be a down payment on their future health care needs. Diet is a choice so paying a little extra is a choice Sounds like a mighty fancy way of justifying enforcing ideology on folks, if you ask me. 
Besides, if we start to tread down this road of so called "sin tax", we will find that there is an infinite number of goods we could impose this "sin tax" on.
Anything we think are undesirable or "bad" goods are next. When does it end?
*Interestingly, neither consuming sugar nor alcohol nor tobacco is a sin according to the Torah and the Holy Bible, while treating people unfairly is. | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/22/2009 5:45:19 PM |
Sounds like a mighty fancy way of justifying enforcing ideology on folks, if you ask me.
Besides, if we start to tread down this road of so called "sin tax", we will find that there is an infinite number of goods we could impose this "sin tax" on.
Anything we think are undesirable or "bad" goods are next. When does it end?
It is not a way of enforcing any thing it is a way to have those who enduldge in unhealthy dietary choices pay in advance for the medical care that their choices contribute too, and who knows maybe a parent will think about what they are feeding their children and make better choices, we already have tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, a tax on junk food to help pay medical costs sounds like an excellant way to help reduce some of the worst diseases and illnesses we suffer today
*Interestingly, neither consuming sugar nor alcohol nor tobacco is a sin according to the Torah and the Holy Bible, while treating people unfairly is.
It could have been better named maybe called a junk food and drink tax, I think it is unfair for those who watch their diets to have to pay for those who don't, | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/22/2009 6:43:28 PM | I think it is unfair for those who watch their diets to have to pay for those who don't,
Wow...the shoe on the other foot has landed...come on Earl...get your warm and fuxzzies around this...You do not think it is fair for you to pay for something that other will benefit from? Kind of sounds like what I have been saying all along!!!!!!!!!!
Why should I pay for the likes of you? You who want to be on the federal teet? You who thinks everyone should pay for this health care sham...you who thinks it is OK to take my money and pay for you and countless others to have something...HELLO...POT CALLING KETTLE!
This is called talking out of both sides of your ass...your getting pretty good at it ol buddy! | |
|
| Sin Tax to help fund Healthcare costs?
Posted: 10/22/2009 7:06:16 PM | *Interestingly, neither consuming sugar nor alcohol nor tobacco is a sin according to the Torah and the Holy Bible
I can think of a whole lot of "good Christians" who would quite strongly disagree with you on that...
... AND, quite a few people who live in 'dry' countes that would love for you to come over and correct them on that....
...But, I think you are overlooking the Judaic concept of yetzer hara and the 'sinful' (against the will of God) relationship to indulgence in such things... or the Christian concept of lust (extravagance, 'luxuria') and gluttony as 'sinful' in relation to indulgence in such things...
... You see... the name "sin tax" is far more related to THAT conception of 'sin' ... | |
|
Home
login 
