If this doesn't include you - if you're not reading this while shoving a Twinkie down your throat - it surely includes people you know and care about. And even if it doesn't, it includes your money. Because the obesity epidemic is costing us big.
And by "big" I mean obesity-related illnesses (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) cost Americans nearly $150 billion annually. That's ten times the cost of the new jobs bill Harry Reid is so proud of (an issue I'll be tackling tomorrow). That's one fifth of a TARP. It's about one quarter of our annual defense budget.
Fatties are officially bending the cost curve, to borrow the political jargon of the day. Problem is, they're bending it in the wrong direction.
It's with that in mind that Michelle Obama started her "Let's Move" program, which is aimed at fighting childhood obesity. And even better, New York's commissioner of health, Dr. Richard Daines, today talked about Governor Patterson's proposed soda tax on the always excellent Brian Lehrer show.
Listen here.
Some highlights:
- More than 10 million New Yorkers are overweight or obese
- The tax aims for three goals: reducing sugared beverage consumption, reducing long-term health-care costs, and bringing in $450 million dollars in new revenue to be spent on health care
- drinks that have more than 10 calories of added sugar per 8 ounces would be taxed 1 cent per ounce
This is both significant and sensible. Significant because giving people an economic incentive to take more personal responsibility for their health has worked before - look at how much smoking has decreased in America as cigarette taxes have gone up.
Sensible because this is both a long and short-term solution. Long term it has potential to slow or halt the obesity epidemic. Short term it puts money in the state's coffers for other health-related programs while only taking a chunk out of an industry (sugared drinks) that runs at a 20% profit and can afford to rejigger their business model.
It doesn't get much better than that.
Now, people will argue (and presumably, vote) against this because the word "tax" provokes a Pavlovian response from most of the populace. And there is a certain percentage of Friedman disciples who will argue against it because they're inhuman sociopaths.
But the reality is we don't live in some fantasy land where people make the right choices all the time. Or even most of the time. We live in a reality where sixty percent of adults allow themselves to become overweight. We live in a reality where kdis and teenagers get as much as 10% of their daily calories from sugared drinks.
In this instance, it's the state's job to step in and protect the populace from those who are irresponsible.
And there's no question that the obese and overweight are being irresponsible. But they're not just gambling with their health or the health of their kids. They're gambling with your money and mine.
Tax 'em. Tax 'em like they're smokers. Just because they can't show some common sense doesn't mean that we can't.
EDIT: It's come to my attention that this may have come off with too snarky and mean-spirited. Which wasn't really my intention (ok maybe a little bit).
Anyway, the point isn't to make fat people feel bad for being fat. Especially since studies have shown that even people of normal weight are at greater risk of developing expensive/deadly diseases down the road if they consume an overabundance of sugar and/or corn syrup.
So no, the point isn't to be a dick. The point is to add some short-term consequences to an action that already has a ton of long-term consequences.
And as a reader pointed out, taxing nutrition-less drinks is just one part of it. Following Finland's model of subsidizing produce instead of, say, corn, wheat and dairy, is another worthwhile step. One that's maybe even more important.
But probably more farfetched as well, since anyone who proposes cutting corn subsidies is guaranteed to lose Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and a few others out there. Maybe Evan Bayh was right - this shit's broken.
Posts
