| 2 years ago :: Jun 05, 2011 - 4:36PM #21 | |
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 05, 2011 - 5:00PM #22 | |
I quite agree. If we task gov't with looking after our physical health, why not have gov't see to it that all citizens are well-educated, properly socialized, spiritually developed and mentally well-balanced? Why, we could cede gov't control over every single aspect of our lives - all in the name of personal improvement. Every person would be developed to their fullest potential - in all respects. Wow-wee! I'll pass. Irene. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 05, 2011 - 5:21PM #23 | |
"Sin taxes" only make sense in countries that have national healthcare (we have them here on tobacco and alcohol). I do hope the rest was sarcasm. I'll usually support giving the consumer more information but not forcing them to eat better.
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31
Fiat justitia, ruat caelum
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 05, 2011 - 6:07PM #24 | |
|
In the United States or at least in New York State we have "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco. In New York City a pack of cigarettes cost tweleve dollars. I think that at least half of that is in taxes. In New York City a law was recently passed making it illegal for resturants to use "transfats" in cooking food. We don't have national healthcare we got Obama care. It is my understanding that one of the purposes of "sin taxes" is to discourage people from "sinning". I think that another purpose of "sin taxes" is use the money gained from the sin taxes to offset the healthcare costs incurred by those who "sin". I don't know how effective the "sin taxes" are in preventing people from "sinning" but I am sure that they do help to some degree in offsetting the healthcare costs incurred by "sinners". It would therefore be reasonable to apply "sin taxes" to salt and sugar . The same line of reasoning would apply to junk foods like donuts and soda. People, like me are contributing to the rise in healthcare costs by eating such foods so it makes sense that people like me should pay for our "sins". It is not forcing people to eat good foods it is forcing people not to eat bad foods!
They are not "my" standards. Eating poorly and not excerising is bad for your health. But I am a nice guy. I am willing to comprimise and take out the requirement that people have to exercise. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 05, 2011 - 6:23PM #25 | |
We have high sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol in the US today. Certainly we have no desire for more government interference in what we purchase. Research and publication of information is better. I like the new visuals and Mrs. Obama's work, especially with the young. We never gave our children soft drinks; as they entered their teens we let each choose one package of sweets per week : all were athletes and thin. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|