I've been discussing lack of preventing health initiatives and how the health industry is basically encouraging people to be diagnosed ("sick" for healthcare industry purposes) so there are more medicines sold and medical services provided.
Heart related diseases are affected by eating habits with tons of research showing how people with higher consumption of sugars/fats are more prone to suffer such diseases and/or get them much earlier in age (average) compared to two three decades ago.
Many argue that food choice is/should be personal and population should be free to eat whatever they want regardless of the consequences; such argument basically disregards the financial burden on healthcare system as people need treatment for heart related disease much younger and tie up resources (increasing insurance premiums across the board) that could be better spend in other diseases for which there is no cure/prevention known yet.
Fat Tax sounds like a good compromise, it still leaves the option available for people to chose to keep consuming sugars/fats. Due to higher food prices it will encourage people to look for alternatives diminishing the consumption of such foods and improving their health as a byproduct.
In the long run it would be similar to cigarrettes: they're still available, some people still smoke and cigarrettes carry a high tax. We don't hear about lung related diseases due to smoking as much these days (real improvement in health for everyone), and not many people feel their "right of free choice" severed by the policy.
Food industry could find alternative products made from the same raw materials (sugar, oils) so the issue of unemployment generated by the tax (increased consumer price) would have a smaller impact. Ethanol could be an example. There's 10% ethanol in the gas we use today, current gas engines could use at least twice as much ethanol in the solution and still work fine.
So, what say you? FAT TAX: yay? nay? why?
Heart related diseases are affected by eating habits with tons of research showing how people with higher consumption of sugars/fats are more prone to suffer such diseases and/or get them much earlier in age (average) compared to two three decades ago.
Many argue that food choice is/should be personal and population should be free to eat whatever they want regardless of the consequences; such argument basically disregards the financial burden on healthcare system as people need treatment for heart related disease much younger and tie up resources (increasing insurance premiums across the board) that could be better spend in other diseases for which there is no cure/prevention known yet.
Fat Tax sounds like a good compromise, it still leaves the option available for people to chose to keep consuming sugars/fats. Due to higher food prices it will encourage people to look for alternatives diminishing the consumption of such foods and improving their health as a byproduct.
In the long run it would be similar to cigarrettes: they're still available, some people still smoke and cigarrettes carry a high tax. We don't hear about lung related diseases due to smoking as much these days (real improvement in health for everyone), and not many people feel their "right of free choice" severed by the policy.
Food industry could find alternative products made from the same raw materials (sugar, oils) so the issue of unemployment generated by the tax (increased consumer price) would have a smaller impact. Ethanol could be an example. There's 10% ethanol in the gas we use today, current gas engines could use at least twice as much ethanol in the solution and still work fine.
So, what say you? FAT TAX: yay? nay? why?
