Judge Posner has an interesting discussion on the links between education, income, and obesity as part of a larger discussion about health care and obesity. A detail that surprised me a bit is that there is a correlation between education and obesity. Less educated people tend to be more prone to obesity, and this is apparently true even in cases where people are highly educated but make a low or moderate income.
If the part about high education with low income is true, that sort of controls for the fact that people with more money have more options for keeping the weight off — they can afford healthier foods and they can afford more time for exercise. As an explanation for high education, low income people also being less inclined toward obesity, Posner suggests poor impulse control as a potential explanation: getting an education suggests an understanding about the potential advantages of delayed gratification. I would guess (and he may well say this) that parenting plays a factor here as well: people who get a good education are probably people whose parents put an emphasis on the value of education. Such parents are probably also more likely to have a better understanding of good eating habits and teach their kids accordingly.
It occurs to me that, while the discussion about obesity is probably necessary to have, it’s also one of those things that is likely to be used as a red herring in the larger discussion about health care and how to fund it. Weight is a complicated thing — the inputs and outputs between human bodies varies wildly. For example, I have what an old friend described as an “irate metabolism.” Other people eat right and exercise religiously and still fight to keep the pounds off. Even with these wide differences in body types, the topic seems to lend itself to simplistic moralizing. Rather than figure out how to pay for and deliver health care to the general public, there is a certain political faction who would much, much rather stand on a soapbox and lecture about a person’s moral failings as evidenced by their extra weight. (I’m not lumping Judge Posner into this category, by the way — in case my transition away from his piece was less than clear.) The line of moralizing goes something like, “You’re sick, poor, and dying without health care because you’re fat. You’re fat because you are lazy and stupid. Why should we pay for you? Loser.” And then, abracadabra, you can largely ignore figuring out the vast majority who are having problems despite not fitting into that particular narrative.
Doug, this is an important concern– if we have significantly more health care rationing in our future. Along with expensive end-of-life care, lifestyle choices are next on the list of things to be rationed more severely.
Posner’s “sugar tax” was an interesting idea — basically impose a tax on those foods and other products that lead to greater health problems. This obviously sucks and is unfair for those who use a lot of the harmful foods/drinks but never suffer any ill health effects. But, then again, speed limits suck for those with quicker reflexes who are able to drive their vehicles more safely at higher speeds.
And, of course, the lobbying on such a tax would be *insane* with every product claiming that it didn’t cause any problems.
So, a lot of potential pitfalls, but the notion of taxing the use of substances that impose costs down the road isn’t something I’d find inherently objectionable.
Another goofy-ass tax just meant to increase the revenue stream at the expense of some picked upon segment of society without political power.
Hey, they’re picking on the fat kids again. Nobody’ll care if we kick ’em with some taxes too.
People who want to eat poorly – will. Taxes or not.
Why not tax runners who make driving down streets unsafe?
Why not tax political consultants for being tax-money leeches?
Why don’t we make poor kids work in coal mines again? It keeps them off the streets at night, and get rid of a bunch of over-paid union layabouts.
If they thought they could get taxing drug users and sex workers past the bible thumpers, they would.
The idea is that:
*If (to pick an example) high fructose corn syrup leads to increased health costs; and
*If the public ends up picking up the tab for a significant portion of these health costs; then
Imposing a tax on products with high fructose corn syrup makes sense. It may or may not discourage consumption, but the idea is that health costs created by consumption of such products will be paid for. And, it might reduce consumption – thereby reducing costs.
And, you’re not picking on the fat kid, since skinny people who drink a bunch of soda or eat pork rinds or whatever will be paying the tax as well.
Not to say that there aren’t good, solid arguments against it. But, that’s the theory.
If high fructose corn syrup is causing health problems, don’t tax it. Quit frickin’ certifying it for use in food products.
Taxing anything and everything is the government way. If it moves, find a way to tax it. And preferably, multiple times.
High taxes on alcohol and tobacco products hasn’t lessened usage of those kinds of items, just because of them being taxed.
This only “sense” this idea makes is that it is just one more way for politicians to make money off the citizenry.
Wading in where I have impressions but not citations of the facts behind my impressions, but maybe impressions will do.
This is just such a complicated situation, practically a perfect storm involving
agribusiness, the changing nature of work and play from physical to sedentary, healthcare both preventive and treatment, and now the government trying to do something about it, probably too late.
Over time growing use of high fructose corn syrup benefited the corn industry (agribusiness). But, it’s not a necessary ingredient, just a convenient, cheap and marketable one.
Some people are concerned enough about its negative effects that they can (and do) cook “from scratch” without it (like our hard-working skinny grandmas did), making simple syrup from plain sugar and water – probably actually cheaper at home.
So, why can’t the industry also find an acceptable, less harmful substitute, and I don’t mean artificial ingredients? No incentive to do so. Heavily marketing the products high in the cheap High Corn Fructose has produced more profits. (And, the marketing is to children via TV – products with bad effects presented on a media dependent on/promoting sedentary lifestyle.)
Not saying that “they” all knew the products were harmful from the beginning, but they certainly have fought against acknowledging it once the facts started to emerge.
Now we all get to pay, one way or another, for the unintended consequences of “progress”.
Of course, the presence of chocolate covered bacon at the state fair may indicate that, as a people, our heart may not be entirely into this healthy living thing.