Obesity tax?

[Satty]

Linkypoo

Editor's note: David Paterson, a Democrat, is governor of New York.

New York Gov. David Paterson says taxing soft drinks could help combat obesity.

ALBANY, New York (CNN) -- Like many New Yorkers, I remember a time when nearly everyone smoked. In 1950, Collier's reported that more than three-quarters of adult men smoked. This epidemic had a devastating and long-lasting impact on public health.

Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new public health epidemic: childhood obesity.

What smoking was to my parents' generation, obesity is to my children's generation. Nearly one out of every four New Yorkers under the age of 18 is obese. In many high-poverty areas, the rate is closer to one out of three.

That is why, in the state budget I presented last Tuesday, I proposed a tax on sugared beverages like soda. Research has demonstrated that soft-drink consumption is one of the main drivers of childhood obesity.

For example, a study by Harvard researchers found that each additional 12-ounce soft drink consumed per day increases the risk of a child becoming obese by 60 percent. For adults, the association is similar.

If we are to succeed in reducing childhood obesity, we must reduce consumption of sugared beverages. That is the purpose of our proposed tax. We estimate that an 18 percent tax will reduce consumption by five percent.

Our tax would apply only to sugared drinks -- including fruit drinks that are less than 70 percent juice -- that are nondiet. The $404 million this tax would raise next year will go toward funding public health programs, including obesity prevention programs, across New York state.

The surgeon general estimates that obesity was associated with 112,000 deaths in the United States every year. Here in New York state, we spend almost $6.1 billion on health care related to adult obesity -- the second-highest level of spending in the nation.

Last year, legitimate concerns about links between consumption of fast food and the prevalence of heart disease prompted New York City to ban the use of trans fats in restaurant food.

No one can deny the urgency of reducing the rate of obesity, including childhood obesity. Obesity causes serious health problems like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. It puts children at much greater risk for life-threatening conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.

We must never stigmatize children who are overweight or obese. Yet, for the sake of our children's health, we have an obligation to address this crisis. I believe we can ultimately curb the obesity epidemic the same way we curbed smoking: through smart public policy.

In recent decades, anti-smoking campaigns have raised awareness. Smoking bans have been enacted and enforced. And, perhaps most importantly, we have raised the price of cigarettes.

In June, New York state raised the state cigarette tax an additional $1.25. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this increase alone will prevent more than 243,000 kids from smoking, save more than 37,000 lives and produce more than $5 billion in health care savings.

These taxes may be unpopular, but their benefits are undeniable. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, for the first time in generations, fewer than 20 percent of Americans smoked. Lung cancer rates have finally begun to decline. As a result, we are all healthier.

Just as the cigarette tax has helped reduce the number of smokers and smoking-related deaths, a tax on highly caloric, non-nutritional beverages can help reduce the prevalence of obesity.

To address the obesity crisis, we need more than just a surcharge on soda. We need to take junk food out of our schools. We need to encourage our children to exercise more. And we need to increase the availability of healthy food in underserved communities.

But to make serious progress in this effort, we need to reduce the consumption of high-calorie drinks like nondiet soda among children and adults.

I understand that New Yorkers may not like paying a surcharge for their favorite drinks. But surely it's a small price to pay for our children's health.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Paterson.

Discuss.

Personally, I like the measure and think we'll see it expand to more states. If parents are going to let their kids get fat, might as well make them pay. I wouldn't even complain if it were to effect energy drinks or coffee-based drinks, which I drink more often than soda.

[trinacriabob]

This is tougher than the tobacco issue. Tobacco is inherently bad for you.

We have to have food and water. That someone can't regulate it is a self-control thing. Some people are fat as teenagers and fat as adults. Some are thin/normal and morph into fat people. Very few go the other way. Metabolism changes. I used to be always be about 10 lbs. underweight as a teenager. I am now anywhere from 5 to 12 lbs. overweight at any given time. We can't dictate metabolism, stress levels, body chemistry, etc. We can, however, tax the hell out of tobacco, alcohol and beer, none of which are even necessary.

Maybe we can put a height/weight test at the entrance to buffets. Those are my nemesis. However, some people shouldn't even be allowed near one.

[Robert Hall]

I'm pretty good at avoiding most buffets...though I have a weakness for Indian ones and good Chinese ones. I'm about 25-30 lbs overweight for my height. I'm 50 pounds more than I was 10 years ago..not good. Need to exercise more and spend less time on a computer.

[Intrepidation]

I agree that obesity can genetic related, and trying to control it by taxing foods that may not be healthy is a form of controlling what we can and cannot eat. You could stretch this even further if you wanted and claim that this 1.) Goes against freedom to CHOOSE what we want to eat/drink.

If you don't want your kids to get fat and it isn't genetic, than you have the power to not buy unhealthy foods. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself if you choose to buy them and give it to your children.

[loki]

how bout just ending corn subsidies...and wheat and all those others.... lol

[Intrepidation]

Let's make eating illegal, that'll make everyone lose weight, and who needs to eat anyway?

[Satty]

People play the "genetics" card on obesity way too much. Obesity rates have been skyrocketing for the last decade or two, so unless some sort of weird natural selection is taking place wherein naturally thin people are unable to reproduce, its a completely bogus argument.

[Intrepidation]

People play the "genetics" card on obesity way too much. Obesity rates have been skyrocketing for the last decade or two, so unless some sort of weird natural selection is taking place wherein naturally thin people are unable to reproduce, its a completely bogus argument.

I do agree, however it (gut) does run in my dad's side of the family, as far back as my Great Grandfather that I know of. Nothing runs in my mom's side of the family. You can see this in the I look more like my dad, including the gut, my brother got more genes from my mother, and he's skinny as a twig, and we eat the same food. Go figure.

[ZL-1]

What will they call it: Lard Ass Tax?

[gm4life]

This whole plan is crazy. I am overweight and have started a diet... Will see how that will go.

[gmpartsgirl]

Why not add a tax to pornography online and offline and the toy stores? LOL They'd make a ton. HEHE

[Croc]

I think a tax is the wrong way to go about it. Put another way: if I'm thin and work out, why should I be charged more for a cola than bottled water?

I think the best way to go about it is the employers and insurance companies who tie health benefits to obesity.

[gm4life]

I think a tax is the wrong way to go about it. Put another way: if I'm thin and work out, why should I be charged more for a cola than bottled water?

I think the best way to go about it is the employers and insurance companies who tie health benefits to obesity.

That is just as crazy.

[balthazar]

There is also a problem in the definition of 'obese', because the simple formula does nothing to account for frame size or muscle mass. Now, this won't apply to children, but it's inheritantly flawed WRT adults.

-- -- -- -- --

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

Underweight = <18.5

Normal weight = 18.5-24.9

Overweight = 25-29.9

Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

-- -- -- -- --

I could lose 10 lbs but not -say- 20; I'm built real solid & my BMI is a whopping 30.7. According to the Gov, I'm "obese" and I would need to lose almost 60 lbs to put me in the middle of "normal". I'd have to saw off a leg at the hip and then start a diet to even approach that.

The sugared soda tax is ridiculous, IMO. Diet soda's artificial sweeteners should never have been approved, I cannot drink diet because Nutrasweet crystalizes and settles in the joints, painfully. I usually drink iced teas as opposed to soda, but those have as much sugar as soda- are they going to be taxed next ?? It's an obvious money grab for poorly managed budgets.... let's call it what one could- a bailout for the failed policies of city government. The last thing people need in this economy is a laundry list of new taxes (isn't it something like 132 proposed new taxes?).

Why not just prohibit sodas & teas & sweetened juices to kids under 18 if they were serious about health.... ohh, right; because it's really about money, not health.

[Croc]

That is just as crazy.

How so? Frankly, I think it's outrageous for thin, in shape people to subsidize the healthcare of lardasses. Which we do.

I used to be very large, but I'm fine now. It really isn't that hard, either.

ETA:

Regarding Balth's point: I don't use BMI for those reasons. When I say overweight and obese, I'm using body fat percentages. There are size 2 women out there who are nothing but lard despite thin dimensions...and they're just as poorly off as the 300+ pounders.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Croc

[Robert Hall]

How so? Frankly, I think it's outrageous for thin, in shape people to subsidize the healthcare of lardasses. Which we do.

I used to be very large, but I'm fine now. It really isn't that hard, either.

ETA:

Regarding Balth's point: I don't use BMI for those reasons. When I say overweight and obese, I'm using body fat percentages. There are size 2 women out there who are nothing but lard despite thin dimensions...and they're just as poorly off as the 300+ pounders.

Yeah, BMI isn't really accurate. I'm a bit overweight, but I'm still a size 38 waist (6'0", 225). Definitely not Ohio/West Virgina style obese (50 inch waist, barely able to get around, etc).

[FAPTurbo]

Yeah according to BMI, I'm overweight.

Anyhow, while I agree with limiting things like trans-fats, I don't agree with taxing those of us that eat 'bad foods' in moderation, and exercise.

Then again, I guess already up here in Canada with public health care, I'm already subsidizing people's unhealthy habits and lifestyles.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Captainbooyah

[Intrepidation]

How about tax intensives for the organic stuff? You want people to eat health, but the truly healthy stuff is considerably more expensive than the artificial stuff.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Dodgefan

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Wow...

I can't even drink a f*cking Dr. Pepper anymore without some douche bag sticking his nose in my business.

I think this is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Talk about LIMITATION of freedom...

Jesus, what's next? A yearly household masturbation tax because excess use of lotion and Kleenex is bad for the environment?

I got an idea... And it's a novel one... (Dr. Cox sarcastic tone) How about... PARENTS take responsibility for their kids, and stop screwing with my life. (/Dr. Cox sarcastic tone)

Yay for living in america! Home of the [supposedly] free!

Maybe we can put a height/weight test at the entrance to buffets. Those are my nemesis. However, some people shouldn't even be allowed near one.

Then people who weigh close to 400lbs, like myself, would be discriminated against. (Think I'm very obese? Check the photo thread for the answer)

Let's make eating illegal, that'll make everyone lose weight, and who needs to eat anyway?

Ah, hell... With the way things are going on Wall Street and with (GM/etc.) unemployment, soon enough they WON'T EVEN HAVE TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO EAT.

I think the best way to go about it is the employers and insurance companies who tie health benefits to obesity.

That's a GREAT idea

Someone has been 'out of commission' with a disability for a year, gains 10-15 lbs and is dropped from their insurance...

Edited December 19, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Robert Hall]

Wow...

I can't even drink a f*cking Dr. Pepper anymore without some douche bag sticking his nose in my business.

I think this is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Talk about LIMITATION of freedom...

I'm sure instead of a consumption tax, the obese can buy carbon credits to offset their consumption eventually..

[balthazar]

..but that would get offset by their increased, pro-rated GDP contribution...

[daves87rs]

Wow...

I can't even drink a f*cking Dr. Pepper anymore without some douche bag sticking his nose in my business.

I think this is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Talk about LIMITATION of freedom...

Jesus, what's next? A yearly household masturbation tax because excess use of lotion and Kleenex is bad for the environment?

I got an idea... And it's a novel one... (Dr. Cox sarcastic tone) How about... PARENTS take responsibility for their kids, and stop screwing with my life. (/Dr. Cox sarcastic tone)

Yay for living in america! Home of the [supposedly] free!

Damn FOG, that one made me fall off my chair! :rotflmao:

Granted, I do agree. And it starts with the parents...

I've lost 15 pounds in the last few months (though not all of that was be choice), and it will be nice to set an example to my little guy.

Edited December 19, 2008 by daves87rs

[Robert Hall]

..but that would get offset by their increased, pro-rated GDP contribution...

Not necessarly..the po' fat each cheap fatty foods, so they spend less on food than the healthy organic food consumers.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

There is also a problem in the definition of 'obese', because the simple formula does nothing to account for frame size or muscle mass. Now, this won't apply to children, but it's inheritantly flawed WRT adults.

-- -- -- -- --

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

Underweight = <18.5

Normal weight = 18.5-24.9

Overweight = 25-29.9

Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

So, according to this I'm WAY into the obesity range.

If I dropped 100 lbs I would STILL be OVERWEIGHT.

If I dropped 110 lbs I'd be "normal weight"

So, I'm supposed to be 6'9", roughly 230 lbs? Yeah, right....

The sugared soda tax is ridiculous, IMO. Diet soda's artificial sweeteners should never have been approved, I cannot drink diet because Nutrasweet crystalizes and settles in the joints, painfully. I usually drink iced teas as opposed to soda, but those have as much sugar as soda- are they going to be taxed next ?? It's an obvious money grab for poorly managed budgets.... let's call it what one could- a bailout for the failed policies of city government. The last thing people need in this economy is a laundry list of new taxes (isn't it something like 132 proposed new taxes?).

Yet that's exactly what we're going to get... SOMEONE has to pay for the elites to maintain their lifestyle.

Why not just prohibit sodas & teas & sweetened juices to kids under 18 if they were serious about health.... ohh, right; because it's really about money, not health.

+1

And as for the smoking that's going on right now...

My dad smoked around me all of my life... I have ab-so-lute-ly HORRIBLE allergies and sinus problems. I get headaches that I have to lie down for, I have to take meds everyday, even a change in barometric pressure will give me a headache. I HATE smoking and everything associated with it. Yet I *STILL* feel that it is wrong to tell people they cannot smoke in open air areas and "smoking sections"

And as far as 'the truth' and all that More of my generation smokes than ever before... All it did was make a bunch of lawyers filthy rich and ruin 'some' of our economy here in NC.

Edited December 19, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I'm sure instead of a consumption tax, the obese can buy carbonation credits to offset their consumption eventually..

*fixed, LOL.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Damn FOG, that one made me fall off my chair! :rotflmao:

Granted, I do agree. And it starts with the parents...

I've lost 15 pounds in the last few months (though not all of that was be choice), and it will be nice to set an example to my little guy.

LOL,

It's because I'm a Dr. Pepper FANATIC (seriously) I can literally tell what it came out of and whether it was bottled by Coke or Pepsi.

I don't drink excessively (maybe a drink or two every 2 weeks) I don't (have never) smoke(d) anything. I don't do drugs. Overall, I have one bad habit: Dr. Pepper and soft drinks... These people have killed my hobbies one by one (metal, the car companies, anything history related) Now, by god, leave me alone and let me drink my poison. (So what if I am maybe subconsciously trying to kill myself? )

[daves87rs]

LOL,

It's because I'm a Dr. Pepper FANATIC (seriously) I can literally tell what it came out of and whether it was bottled by Coke or Pepsi.

I don't drink excessively (maybe a drink or two every 2 weeks) I don't (have never) smoke(d) anything. I don't do drugs. Overall, I have one bad habit: Dr. Pepper and soft drinks... These people have killed my hobbies one by one (metal, the car companies, anything history related) Now, by god, leave me alone and let me drink my poison. (So what if I am maybe subconsciously trying to kill myself? )

I'm a Pepper fan myself...I even like the fountain flavors.....

[Robert Hall]

I'm a Pepper fan myself...I even like the fountain flavors.....

I had a Pepper today... I've pretty much cut back to 1-2 soft drinks a week. When I was in my mid 20s in grad school, I had a serious Mountain Dew habit--2-3 a day (and 1-2 more in the evenings, often mixed in with lots of vodka and Jaegermeister, microbrews, and Prozac)...

[Intrepidation]

LOL,

It's because I'm a Dr. Pepper FANATIC (seriously) I can literally tell what it came out of and whether it was bottled by Coke or Pepsi.

I don't drink excessively (maybe a drink or two every 2 weeks) I don't (have never) smoke(d) anything. I don't do drugs. Overall, I have one bad habit: Dr. Pepper and soft drinks... These people have killed my hobbies one by one (metal, the car companies, anything history related) Now, by god, leave me alone and let me drink my poison. (So what if I am maybe subconsciously trying to kill myself? )

I here ya FOG. I drink soda, nothing else tastes as good. Find me something that does, is healthy, and doesn't cost a small fortune, and I'll switch to it. Let me drink and eat what I WANT. The health nuts can eat/drink what they want. I like Dr. Pepper quite a bit, but Coca Cola is probably my alround favorite. A good root beer or cream soda is always good.

Parents need to learn some f@#king responsibility and stop trying to have other people fix their problems for them.

[FAPTurbo]

No love for Mr. PiBB?

[Croc]

That's a GREAT idea

Someone has been 'out of commission' with a disability for a year, gains 10-15 lbs and is dropped from their insurance...

W-O-W...I guess I assumed too much from you guys. There have been a lot of stories the past few years of employers who limit healthcare coverage to people who are obese, who smoke, etc. Limit, not eliminate. And it only applies for employer-based health care. Basically, if you smoke, they won't coer smoking-related conditions, or at least not in full.

[regfootball]

this tax is a very f-cking stupid socialist idea. anyone who endorses this is socialist.

isn't this why diet pop eixsts?

corn syrup is bad for ya, but its not like this is smoking.

and by the way, your weight is mostly a genetic thing. and this is from someone who has lost 75lbs in the last 8 months and still is 50-60 overweight according to BMI. (BMI is f-cked if you ask me). fogm i've seen you're pic, i know what you are talking about.

by the way there is nothing wrong with tea and coffee.

Edited December 19, 2008 by regfootball

[Satty]

BMI is retarded, body fat is a much better way to gauge weight. Just like cigarette taxes, its a way to make people think twice before doing something unhealthy. And in case you haven't notices, Americans are DUMB which is why expecting parents to be responsible for the health of their children wont work. Gee, my grandmother was a little hefty, so was my mother, that means its ok that I'm 100 pounds overweight and my body fat is 45% but 7 year old little Timmy shouldn't suffer, so we'll just let him get that Big Mac with large fries and a large Coke, after all he,'s a growing boy.

[Intrepidation]

Again, how about incentives for the organic stuff since we're going to apply tax for the purpose of making people not buy the unhealthy stuff, how about incentives for people to buy the expansive organic stuff?

You really can taste the difference, but I for one can't afford to to always buy the $8 organic version of the $3 not organic item.

[CARBIZ]

BMI is retarded, body fat is a much better way to gauge weight. Just like cigarette taxes, its a way to make people think twice before doing something unhealthy. And in case you haven't notices, Americans are DUMB which is why expecting parents to be responsible for the health of their children wont work. Gee, my grandmother was a little hefty, so was my mother, that means its ok that I'm 100 pounds overweight and my body fat is 45% but 7 year old little Timmy shouldn't suffer, so we'll just let him get that Big Mac with large fries and a large Coke, after all he,'s a growing boy.

So are Canadians. I was at a family reunion 3 weeks ago and as my Aunt (from Belize) and I looked around the room, we laughed our asses off that the only 3 people in the room that were under 200 lbs was her, myself and my partner. I have two cousins under 40 who are walking with canes! My cousin Richard is about 5'10" and must be 300 lbs. His mother can barely walk.

It's sad. But then we are required to have a dog license but everyone can spit a kid out.

[Robert Hall]

So are Canadians. I was at a family reunion 3 weeks ago and as my Aunt (from Belize) and I looked around the room, we laughed our asses off that the only 3 people in the room that were under 200 lbs was her, myself and my partner. I have two cousins under 40 who are walking with canes! My cousin Richard is about 5'10" and must be 300 lbs. His mother can barely walk.

It's sad. But then we are required to have a dog license but everyone can spit a kid out.

And in the US there are a lot of regional variations...the Denver metro area (and esp. Boulder) are relatively fit compared to the rest of the country..lots of granolas and outdoorsy folk there... at 6'0"/225 I feel fat there.... but when I go back to W. Pa and E. Ohio, I feel like I'm in the land of the lard---I'm skinny and svelte compared to a lot of people I see there.

[loki]

No love for Mr. PiBB?

that's not been in my area for ~7 years.. pibb extra... it's not the same

dr pepper is the best in "readily available" sodas.

i like cherry pepsi on the occasion too.

it is stupid these laws are brought up... they prolly just want /need the revenue to pay for "obesity related medical costs" that medicaid/medicare has to deal with... just more of your money to go to things you shouldn't be responsible for.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

W-O-W...I guess I assumed too much from you guys. There have been a lot of stories the past few years of employers who limit healthcare coverage to people who are obese, who smoke, etc. Limit, not eliminate. And it only applies for employer-based health care. Basically, if you smoke, they won't coer smoking-related conditions, or at least not in full.

Come down off that high horse...

You know as well as I do that, with the corruption in the healthcare system, it wouldn't be that cut and dry. Nor wood it be based on fairness or goodwill.

[Robert Hall]

Come down off that high horse...

You know as well as I do that, with the corruption in the healthcare system, it wouldn't be that cut and dry. Nor would it be based on fairness or goodwill.

Of course not...the insurance companies, healthcare companies, etc only exist to maximize profit. They couldn't care less for human beings.

[Satty]

There are businesses that dont exist to maximize profit?

[Robert Hall]

There are businesses that dont exist to maximize profit?

Well, there are non-profits. I'm just very cynical about insurance companies and health care in the US...there is a lot of corruption out there.

[balthazar]

Don't leave out Big Brother & Uncle Sam on every level... rancidly corrupt across the board.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Those of you who read this from the Wilmington plant will remember an employee by the 1st name of Walt who weighed like 400 pounds, he was so obese that GM actually had to cut the arms off of office chairs so he could fit in them. Sadly Walt died of weight related issues.

[haypops]

There are businesses that dont exist to maximize profit?

My health care plan is not-for-profit

Regarding taxing soda: grapes are as bad as soda

Regarding higher health care costs for fat people: thin individuals are more likely to get cancer and less likely to tolerate treatment than obese individuals when they do get it.

Regarding individuals bad reactions to equal: Coke just announced they will be introducing new diet drinks sweetened with Stevia. If you like licorice you will love this one.

[balthazar]

>>"There are businesses that dont exist to maximize profit?"<<

My car insurance Co is the best in the state, no stockholders, & has given dividend checks every year since 1918. Sure they make a profit, but in not being beholden to stockholders and quarterly statements, they are able to concetrate on efficiency & service. In 2007 they had 0 complaints with 790K insured vehicles, and I got a dividend check of $299.18 back. I would qualify that as not 'maximizing profit' in that they certainly do not owe anyone that check.

[daves87rs]

>>"There are businesses that dont exist to maximize profit?"<<

My car insurance Co is the best in the state, no stockholders, & has given dividend checks every year since 1918. Sure they make a profit, but in not being beholden to stockholders and quarterly statements, they are able to concetrate on efficiency & service. In 2007 they had 0 complaints with 790K insured vehicles, and I got a dividend check of $299.18 back. I would qualify that as not 'maximizing profit' in that they certainly do not owe anyone that check.

What? What insurance company is this?

Mine's not bad, but I don't get a check....

[balthazar]

New Jersey Manufacturer's Ins. My '04 Silverado has $100K/ $100K/ $250K coverage and costs me $732/yr before the dividend. If I take the same % out of the check that my truck is of the 3 vehicles insured, that's be $610/yr including the dividend.

[Croc]

Come down off that high horse...

You know as well as I do that, with the corruption in the healthcare system, it wouldn't be that cut and dry. Nor wood it be based on fairness or goodwill.

Of course not...the insurance companies, healthcare companies, etc only exist to maximize profit. They couldn't care less for human beings.

Well since we're talking about "what should be," instead of "what is," I merely said that something along those lines would be better at getting people to slim down. I'm certainly not suggesting that a perfect implementation is reasonably possible, or even remotely possible. But it would at least be more "fair" by targeting the obese, instead of everyone, including healthy people who exercise and eat responsibly, paying a tax on any indulgences.

[ZL-1]

There are businesses that dont exist to maximize profit?

*fights temptation to post a Detroit 3 joke after reading that sentence*

[CARBIZ]

... and the debate goes back and forth ad nauseum. Those who want Big Government, support government education/intervention; those who hate Big Government, think we should just go out and shoot fat people or people who smoke.

The reality is, medical science is getting expensive. 50 years ago, if you were fat or smoked 2 packs a day, you were probably dead by 50 years old and Society didn't have to worry about you sucking dry the hospital/medical system. Now, we can keep these people alive until they are 100. In Ontario, our 'free' healthcare is consuming HALF the government's budget - and that figure is climbing. Sooner or later, governments and/or insurance companies are going to have to start drawing lines. Triage in the future? Not entirely unbelievable.

A system I envision would be heavy taxes on foods known to be unhealthy, with those funds directed into public education/health care. Of course, we know that governments never earmark funds like that - it just disappears into a black hole somewhere. Ontario already does the taxing bit: that's why cigarettes are more than $7 a pack here and a 26 oz bottle of booze is $35.

Being as insurance companies are for profit companies, I also advocate a mixed system of public health insurance with the money directed to hospitals, who would then compete with each other like in a private healthcare system. Hospitals would be allocated funds from the public purse, based on per capita patients served, with bonuses based on efficiencies and Customer Satisfaction (surveys to be sent to patients, just like GM does to us.) Good doctors would be attracted to good hospitals, bad hospitals would see their client base (and funds) drop, which would cause their board to fire the administrators and get better management, etc. Internet government postings of hospital and doctor 'ratings,' would ensure a competitive system where quality of healthcare would be balanced by watching costs.

Of course, this makes too much sense. Unions want Big Government to control healthcare in Canada (which really results in more paperwork, less productivity) and private health insurance providers in the States are too powerful and have too many lobbyists on Capitol Hill.