Forget a "Fat Tax." Tax the Fat.

A thought as the health care debate reignites. I promise you I'm not trying to malign fat people, or the weight challenged or Hefty Americans. Trying not to malign them, mostly because there are so many of them. Obese people in America now outnumber the merely fat. The National Center for Health Statistics reported this year that more than 34 percent of Americans are obese, compared to 32.7 percent who are "just" overweight. Just under 6 percent are "extremely" obese. The bottom line is that we're a slovenly lot and getting more so by the year.

The financial hit on health care is pretty staggering. A study by the Center for Disease Control released at their first ever "Fat Summit" in July finds:

The prevalence of obesity rose 37% between 1998 and 2006, and medical costs climbed to about 9.1% of all U.S. medical costs.

Obese people spent 42% more than people of normal weight on medical costs in 2006.

With all the talk -- and screaming and gun-toting -- that's going on around the health care reform debate, maybe the answer as to how to pay for it is orbiting our ever-expanding guts.

A tax on the fat. If you're out of shape, you've got to carry your weight, so to speak. Why tax, after all, the purveyors of junk food as we have cigarette manufactures? While there's no such thing as a safe cigarette, a cheat day full of Whoppers, Jolt cola and Doritos won't kill you. For those who want the Feds to "keep their Government hands off my medicare," this hits them directly in the organ of self-reliance. Except for a true sliver of individuals with medical conditions -- who would be opted out (and not by a death panel) -- obesity is a lifestyle choice. Yes, it's hard to stay in shape, but it's also hard to raise kids. That doesn't mean you get to drop them off at your local fire station when they get to be a handful.

For those who say there's no standard for determining obesity, there is.

And for those who say that taxing the fat isn't fair, I say: how fair is it that healthy people are subsidizing the lifestyles of the fat? The CDC estimates the medical costs of obesity had risen to $147 billion per year by 2008. Writing in the New York Times, David Leonhardt breaks that down to $1,250 per American household, mostly in taxes and insurance premiums.

That's three times the cost of an annual membership at a gym I recently joined in Manhattan. Why am I paying that so somebody else can squat on their hind end?

The odds of any elected official actually raising this logical solution to the health-care problem? You thought there was some yelling going on before at town hall meetings. Wait until lazy Americans have to take responsibility for their expanded state.

Comments

[Watermoose]

As a fat person, I can tell you that I already pay extra on my insurance for being overweight. My job's overweight insurance rep advised me of that.

So, what did this accomplish?

More money comes out of my paycheck, giving me less take home pay and resulting in my having to buy inexpensive food for my family - translate: junk.

Why not put a tax on junk food? The myth was shattered years ago that skinny people are immune to heart disease and if healthy foods were more affordable, people might actually buy it.

If I have 20.00 left before payday and apples cost me $2 a pound, I'm only getting two or three apples before I've spent 2.00 of my already limited budget. Why wouldn't I buy cheap frozen pizzas, chicken nuggets and ramen noodles if I can make meals for the week left before payday instead of buying one or two healthy meals and letting my kid starve the rest of the week?

People may be shocked to hear that fat people sometimes go to the doctor for reasons other than obesity issues. My husband smashed his hand in the car door. My daughter, who is not overweight, had the flu and is covered under my insurance policy.

If the government really wants to help, make healthy living more accessible. Make parks safe again for walking. Make gym memberships affordable. Make healthy food accessible and raise the prices on junk food. It would benefit us all.

[nanoonanoo]

In an odd way, the obese already do pay their fair share, regarding their difference in health care cost. The New York Times article you quote in estimating a cost of differential of $1,250 per household, continues as follows:

"[Y]et it turns out that the obese already do pay something resembling their fair share of medical costs, albeit in an indirect way. Overweight workers are paid less than similarly qualified, thinner colleagues, according to research by Jay Bhattacharya and M. Kate Bundorf of Stanford. The cause isn’t entirely clear. But the size of the wage difference is roughly similar to the size of the difference in their medical costs."

You conveniently neglect to mention this.

[nanoonanoo]

You fail to mention that the new guidelines for identification of overweight and obese adults was published in September 1998 by the NHLBI (part of the NIH). The guidelines were far different than the previous guidelines and were very contreversial when they were released; many doctors, then and now, questioned the validity of these guidelines. Their complaint: the overweight/obese bar was set too low. For example, I am 6 feet tall, 222 pounds; according to the guidelines, I am obese. Yet, I have a 36 inch waste and am very fit.

My doctor(s) told me to ignore these guidelines -- they are nonsense. He told me 162 would be my so-called ideal weight . . . and then he laughed. I got reasonably close to 162 in college and looked sickly. People thought something was wrong with me, as should for any 6 foot man near 162 pounds.

While your statistics look impressive at first, especially the 1998-2006 numbers, they fall flat in light of the 1998 NHLBI guidelines. What would be surprising is if obesity DID NOT rise after the new guidelines were released. Like my doc said, they are total nonsense. Go look for yourself.

[DocTwain]

We should not only tax fast food, we should tax caloric sweeteners, tax all dessert products, tax candy, etc. and should outlaw trans fat. We should also raise the tax on tobacco by a dollar a pack.

According to this blog,

http://www.examiner.com/x-19087-Special-Interests-Examiner~y2009m9d3-How-to-save-13-trillion-a-year-reform-healthcare-and-lose-weight-doing-it ,

Americans consume 100 pounds of caloric sweeteners (high fructose corn syrup and sugar) every year. This is grotesquely unhealthy and contributes not only to obesity, but to type II diabetes. Taxing caloric sweeteners a dollar a pound would raise 30 billion dollars a year.

Those who argue that such a tax would be regressive because poorer people tend to eat more junk miss the point. The whole point is to change behavior. The biggest favor we could do for lower-income Americans would be to give them incentives to eat healthier. A high enough tax on the unhealthy foods at fast food restaurants might even encourage the restaurant industry to switch to much healthier options.

[-0013]

The government shouldn't be dictating eating habits - period.

[DocTwain]

The government shouldn't be starting unnecessary wars.
The government shouldn't be handing over hundreds of billions in tax dollars to bail out criminal bankers.
The government shouldn't cut taxes 70 times on the rich in a time of war and exploding deficits.
The government shouldn't use tax dollars to pay graft to private health insurance companies to insure government employees who could be covered far more cheaply under Medicare.
The government shouldn't let the drug companies write a law requiring American seniors to pay two to three times as much for drugs as foreigners do, and prohibiting Medicare from negotiating fairer prices for them.
The government shouldn't stop states like California from passing better fuel efficiency laws.
The government shouldn't let the fossil fuel companies and oil speculators game energy markets and gouge ordinary Americans.
The government shouldn't let a bunch of bankers extort a federal bailout for their mortgage-backed security scheme, declare themselves "too big to fail," and plunder the US Treasury.
The government shouldn't push the consumption of caloric sweeteners by subsidizing the overproduction of corn, when agrobusiness is already making money hand over fist.
There's a lot of things "the government" shouldn't do.
Outlawing trans fats is not one of them.

[-0013]

How about not raising taxes and people just taking some personal responsibility for the crap they choose to eat?

[DocTwain]

Why does the government subsidize the production of excess corn and the putting of HFCS into almost all processed foods?

It's about time we used government incentives to improve the health of Americans, not destroy it.

[Tyler-Durden]

THIS approach would be similar to banning abortion.

you cannot just restrict something that has a high demand, unless you replace that demand or eliminate it.

before banning/taxing unhealthy food, you must FIRST SUPPLY HEALTHY FOOD THAT IS AFFORDABLE.

taxing fast food so that poor people can't afford it will simply starve people, because healthy food is sold at premium prices. once there is a supply of healthy, AFFORDABLE food, then you can tax the bad stuff. no more cart-before-horse suggestions, please.

[intelliwoman]

Thank you! Someone else who sees how much more expensive the "healthy" food is!

[Christober]

S it's the governments job to "change behavior?" Everytime there is a social ill does it becomes the governments job to "tax" it out of existence? Using your logic we should tax people who are openly racist in the hope it will "encourage" them to change their behavior.

Look, when you buy insurance for your car it is more expensive if you have speeding tickets, DUI's, etc. etc. If you are fat, you should pay more for your insurance.­...period. That includes recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, private and a public option if hopefully we get one. The increases in premiums certainly shouldn't be punitive to the point where people choose between eating and paying their insurance but the reality is that if somone can afford cigarettes or McDonald's value meals they can afford an additional monthly amount for health coverage. If you lose weight, quit smoking, etc. you get your premiums lowered.

Taxing soda's, candy, and other things that are bad for you do nothing to curb behavior unless they are extremely punitive. People who normally buy a Coke for a dollar will gladly pay $1.08 or $1.10 for what they want. You won't be curbing anybody's behavior by charging them a little more for something they like already. I'm sorry, but I think your idea is not well thought out and quite frankly silly in terms of feasibility and effectiveness.

[intelliwoman]

Some how you're missing something.

People who have medicare and medicaid don't pay any premiums. You pay for their insurance

[mamameow]

how about a tax on the processed food industry and their advertising? i agree that the poorer people tend to reach for a poor choice of food but who is teaching them what they can reach for and why an apple is a better choice? for years the sugar industry has kept stevia out of this country. it a natural sweetener that has been used in south america and asia. it does not raise the blood sugar, it does not leave an after taste and is 200 times sweeter than sugar. now suddenly we have truvia, which is stevia but the corporations now have control of it. we need to take our country back from special interests and start educating about food and what it does to us. most of yoiu do not even know why processed foods are just as bad as sugar for a dibetic.

[MusicCityMessenger]

I wish I was able to move this debate out into the open and shine some light on the truth. The medical community does not have much in their 21st-century arsenal to help those who struggle their entire lives and end up feeling like losers when their own self-will is not enough to maintain a thin, healthy body like "normal" people. Other than barbaric bariatric surgery and more diets that don't work but only prime the body to gain more weight, more quickly than before the dieter began, there is no mainstream medical help for those who live with obesity.



I really hope for a breakthrough regarding the disease of obesity in my lifetime, but so do those who want to cure cancer. We haven't even found a cure for the common cold yet, but I doubt anybody has been trying too hard, because colds are temporary and don't terribly harm those who are not immunocompromised, and they generate a massive, profitable market for somewhat-s­ymptom-rel­ieving drugs.



I'm not a conspiracy theorist in this regard. I'm just observing the pattern of the medical and pharmaceutical community when it comes to helping the masses with what we call diseases. But how do you begin when you can't even convince good people there is one in the first place?



Any ideas?

[mackbolan]

there is no money in a cure....th­ink of it like free energy...h­ow would anyone make money on free energy....­and think of what the average person could do with the money they no longer spend on energy....

[jcwtts1]

Look, there are multiple reasons people are obese. What do you do to the people who, while young were clinically depressed and took meds that have weight gain as a side effect? What about the people with thyroid issues, glandular problems. But let's also tell this truth, weight often deals with class as well as race. Let's take a fast food salad as an example. The salad costs 5 times what the cheese burger costs. Let's talk about fresh food, veggies fruit, etc. way more expensive than processed food. I'm living in a college town right now. A group of us were out and Dominoes was the choice for the night. No problem they have great salads I had access to fat free dressing. But it was a dramatically more expensive choice than my friends. They kicked in about 2 bucks each, I kicked in almost 8. So, yeah, fine, I have the money to make good choices, I have some training in nutrition, and cook a lot, but fresh fish and skinless chicken breast are way more expensive than ground beef. Double and triple the cost. For me it is worth it but I don't have two kids and a husband to feed, it is just me. So, while I get your point, basically you are being a tbag, there are no simple answers to complicated questions.

[Jazzcomedian]

What I find odd is that all I see on televsion are weight loss commercials, abdominal crunch equipment, and bowflex machines, and the rate of obesity is accelerating. I'm 60, and I've seen the type of the obesity change. The obese people of my youth had big stomachs and flat asses. But now the obese have big stomachs, and huge asses. Far, far wider than asses of yesteryear. It's like the asses have grown asses. What's the reason for that anatomical change, and where do they buy their underwear?

Obesity caused by a medical condition or a lack of willpower ultimately creates serious medical problems. I had a writing partner who weighed 350, and he was a connoiseur of food, and loved to eat. Great guy. He told me weighed 190 in college. I was the the trim, active one, and we'd talk about his weight--but he was comfortable with it, and the eating. He suddenly developed type 2 diabetes, and started a walking regime, lost 50 lbs, and got it under control. But he didn't try to lose any more weight. Well last year, he had a severe heart attack which left permanent heart damage, and is being evaluted for a transplant. Now, by necessity he's 215 lbs, but the damage is irreversible. His was a lifestyle choice, and he would've grumbled, but he would've paid a fat tax rather than lose weight back when he was 350.

The GOP would offer tax cuts to forego prime cuts.

[kbella]

Using the BMI scale as a way to determine obesity is absurd. It discriminates again the extremely short and extremely tall people. In addition, it does not take into account muscle mass. Many people with high percentages of lean body mass and very little muscle could be considered obese by the BMI scale. If anything, the only way to determine if someone is obese or not should be through the calculation of body fat percentage.

[politicky]

Obese 6 month old babies?

Born to be Big
Early exposure to common chemicals may be programming kids to be fat.
By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 11, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Sep 21, 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215179

[greymen]

Hail to the truth!

[Lorianne]

Obesity and African Americans
http://www.omhrc.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6456

African American women have the highest rates of being overweight or obese compared to other groups in the U.S. About four out of five African American women are overweight or obese.

In 2007, African Americans were 1.4 times as likely to be obese as Non- Hispanic Whites. From 2003-2006, African American women were 70% more likely to be obese than Non-Hispanic White women.

In 2003-2004, African American children between ages 6 -17 were 1.3 times as likely to be overweight than Non-Hispanic Whites.

_______________ OK, so you're saying we should tax African Americans more (and African American WOMEN most of all). ... right ?

[semoto]

There are so many reasons fat people are fat -- from bad heredity to their own damn fault -- but taxing people who are perhaps ill and at the very least need the money for fresh fruits and vegetables seems unworkable.

Taxing things people can live without, from cigarettes to soda, is okay. But those things are "things." It's outrageous to tax a physical condition.

And if you think taxing a physical condition is all right, then let's tax people who are too thin, too, especially those bulimics. Because if anything's within your control, it should be throwing up. Yeah, let's tax bulimics.

/end snark

Mr. Ridley, don't you realize how ridiculous this idea is?

[DocTwain]

You don't tax them for being fat. You tax the junk foods that make them fat. If you tax those foods highly enough, they will buy healthier food.

Countless studies of a supply and demand show that this approach works. Just look how smoking has declined since the fed cig tax went up to a buck a pack. Raise it another buck and smoking will drop even more. And it will be the poor who will quit first, and that's the best possible gift we could give them.

[gs-425]

Unless you have a pre exisiting condition and need to avoid certain foods, it is not what you eat, but how much you eat. Period.

[mamameow]

wrong, wrong, you can eat very little but if it is high in bad carbs and sat fat, you will not lose weight. total starvation would do the trick. people do not understand food and how it is processed and how we process it. first eliminate all food ads on t.v. eliminate all ads aimed at children, disparaging vegetables. oh boy a full days vegetables in a can of chef boyardee ravioli. forget the high sat fat and the bad carbs.. with this kind of advertising, we will have generations of obese people. we are continually bombarded by food ads.. why is it that with all these lows fat to no fat foods available, we still have this problem? watch ads, there are subtle hints in those ads that you can eat twice as much because they are lower in calories.. how much do we spend on orthopedic treatment for foot problems because when we are young, shoes that are not suitable for the human foot, are pushed on us. do any of you know the difference between processed rice/grain and whole rice/grain? . read dr. mirkin, dr. james mc dougall, dr steven sinatra , dr dean ornish.

[Policon]

Sounds like social justice in action to me!!!

[semoto]

I certainly hope you're perfect -- that there's not one single thing about you anyone could tax because they're critical of it -- because according to what you posted, you'd be FOR that. Social justice indeed.

[OldHick]

Fat chance getting people to lose weight by taxing them. It would just make them more neurotic and then, in go the fries smothered in ketchup. What we need is "Cash for Chunkers", people get a check if they lose more than 50 pounds. I asked one fat person if $1000/50 pounds would be enough? Not for her - not enough.

[LogicCircuit]

lol ... cash for chunkers ... good one!