Tax the Fat and Sick

The Government WILL Do This In Obamacare. They said so.

Hey folks,

Anthony Massucci, a Senior Writer and Columnist for Daily Finance spells out how the Government should implement a "Fat Tax" and a Tax on people who get certain diseases. I'm not kidding. Here is what he says.

Daily Finance- Massucci's Take: Can a fat tax fix our health care system? Anthony Massucci Dec 9th 2009 at 2:15PM

How much does your illness cost you and your insurer? According to a recent study by General Electric (GE) and the U.S. Department of Health's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a 50-year old with diabetes will rack up more than $6,600 in medical bills over the course of a year; someone who has acid reflux will incur $5,500 in annual costs.

The high cost of illness, insurance and treatments is one of the key factors driving the U.S. health care reform debate in Washington. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which was published last week, allows people to see just how much certain illnesses will cost them and their insurer based on age and, of course, the condition. After looking at these charts you'll pray you never get diagnosed with diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis or emphysema.

No. It's not the high cost of Healthcare, driving the debate. It's Power, Control, and Money. The Money the Government would then be totally in charge of. One sixth of the entire US economy. The MAJORITY of Americans LIKE their Healthcare as is.

Keep in mind that the personal costs referenced in the study aren't necessarily coming straight from the insured person's pocket. Employers cover the bulk of the cost, says Alan Miller, CEO of Universal Health Services. 'It doesn't cost that much to the individual. It certainly costs a lot for the employer to have you covered."

You bad Citizen, uh, Employee.

This could help explain an interesting shift I've noticed in workplace dynamics regarding sick days. As the costs associated with illness continue to rise for employers, they're more likely to encourage workers to use sick days. After all, it's in the employer's best interest for workers to recover sooner rather than later, and it's a better way of preventing other employees from falling ill as well. Especially since the H1N1 outbreak, it seems as if co-workers are less likely to snipe about someone being out sick than they are about a sick person coming into the office and spreading their germs around.

Playing Offense Is Key to Cutting Costs

Maybe this is a sign that the U.S. is turning the corner in how we approach illness. If getting sick is costing everyone more -- me, you, your company, my company and U.S. taxpayers -- isn't it in our best interest to beat the illness before it starts, as much as that's possible?

Prevention is, and always HAS been better than Treatment. Problem is, all we keep hearing coming out of Government funded Healthcare Research is that we do not need Preventative Care. Mammograms? Not important anymore. Pap Smears? Not important. Now Men, all that screening for Prostate Cancer? Never mind. Not that important. Do not worry. Under Obamacare, THEY will decide what is important, and what illnesses, and people, are worthy of treatment. But I bet you they LOVE this plan.

"The U.S. health-care system has historically focused on cures for illness and disease rather than effective prevention," Christopher Fey, CEO of U.S. Preventive Medicine, said in an e-mail. "An estimated 10% to 20% of the workforce either has, or is at high-risk for developing, a chronic condition. Subsidizing expensive interventions that treat sickness rather than prevent it is a burden taxpayers and employers can't afford."

So TAX THEM! Right?

Assume that's true, are we willing to adapt? The culture in the U.S. is a long way from being proactive toward illness. The government needs to consider whether they will take a carrot or stick approach.

The Government needs to get the hell out of people's Private Lives, and they need to leave the Vast Majority of Healthcare alone.

If there were a so-called "fat tax" or a similar tax for not being healthy in the U.S., a mob would descend on those trying to enforce such a law. As it is, some resent the police because of an occasional ticket, which is, in essence, a tax for faulty driving or parking. Imagine the outrage against the Twinkie-police.

It is not any of the Government's business whatsoever, what YOU eat, drink, or how you live, unless you are violating a law. However, that is the whole point of something like this. They want it to BE Law. You would be breaking the Law by not living the way THEY chose. Get the point?

Should the U.S. government take a more charitable route and consider reforms that encourage folks to lose weight or otherwise be healthier, they need to take into account that Americans are likely to demand no one tell them not to smoke, eat, or drink, in excess. Perhaps the U.S. should keep an eye on things in the U.K., which is testing a plan in 2010 that allows people to earn money by losing weight.

Yeah? The INCENTIVES to lose weight, or be healthy. Give someone money for doing such? Should be interesting to see if it works in the UK. Problem is here, we already can not pay for Obamacare to begin with. They would, and some Liberals would, rather FORCE you into living the way THEY decide by TAXING you for not.

"[The government is] still fighting over what the [health care] bill ultimately will be. None of the details have been ironed out, it's very complicated," said Miller, who recently wrote Health Care Reform that Makes Sense.

Yeah they are. Like Harry Reid comparing anyone opposed to Obamacare to those opposing the end of Slavery. {Which were 80 percent the Democrat Party} Like the fact the "Public Option" Socialized Healthcare, {Which is the whole point for Obamacare} is still there. Like Dianne Feinstein said when asked if it was Morally Correct to have Pro-Life Americans, which is the Majority, pay for Women to have Abortions?

"Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is."

So BOTH of what publicly some are saying have been removed from the Bill, ARE STILL THERE! Not only are they still there, they are the CORE REASONS this Bill exists in the first place. The Writer of this piece seems to think taxing the Fat and Unhealthy is a good idea. He wraps it up with this.

The complexity of health care and who should pay for it could cause the debate to rage on for years. Meanwhile, I think we're fighting the wrong side of this battle. Sure, if you lead a so-called "clean lifestyle," you may still get sick, but is that reason enough not to be healthy? Putting a price tag on certain illnesses entices people to look at the actual expense. If a problem hits you in the pocketbook, it's more likely to move you to action than a philosophical argument regarding the systemic cost of illness.

Idiot. But make no mistake about it. This is how most Liberal Loons think of you. You are either to stupid to know what is best of you, to lazy in general, or stubborn, so they need to FORCE you to live up to their standards. In their ignorant mind, they are smarter than you. Hey, if they make some money along the way, GREAT!

Of course THEY will be exempt form all this themselves. But YOU? Do what we tell you or else. Just like Cap and Tax, which is still alive. GWBS in General. Which they are working overtime to repair the damage of the TRUTH getting out of this all being a SCAM. Still taking over Private Industries. All the back room deals they are passing, like Embryonic Stem Cell Research, THEY want total Power, Control, and of course all the MONEY, they can get over and from YOU. THEY MUST BE STOPPED! They no longer care what you think. They do not have to. If they can get this stuff passed, They will CONTROL you. Oh, you can disagree all you want, but YOU will no longer have a choice. The Freedom to choose, well, ANYTHING in your life. The Government and whomever is in charge at the time, WILL choose for you.
Peter

Sources:
Daily Finance- Massucci's Take: Can a fat tax fix our health care system?