Dr. T’s….. oh wait, I guess I should say Dr Tufte’s blog website (since the other Dr.T site is not Dr. Tufte) has a new blogger link called Common Knowledge I thought I would check it out. I found an article on The Economics of Obesityinteresting. I would like to add some information missing from Common Knowledge so that it will be common knowledge to the class. In April 2002 the IRS began allowing write off’s for obesity treatments. That’s right a tax break for being overweight.
This month the flood gates were finally fully opened when an article in the New York Times Medicare policy might spur obesity research stated
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced Thursday that Medicare was abandoning a long-held policy that said obesity was not a disease, opening the way for the government to pay for a whole range of possible treatments, from surgery and diets to psychotherapy.
The article also states, “With weight-loss surgery costing $30,000 to $40,000 if there are no complications, the cost to Medicare of obesity treatments could be astronomical”, and concludes with Medicare is convening an advisory committee this fall “to help us think through these issues”.
Maybe the government should have thought through the issues first before making the announcement and what it will end up costing the normal weight people.
Where’s the tax breaks for being healthy?
2 comments:
Spelling problems in Ned's and Kid's posts.
This is a good discussion, but it is verging on microeconomics.
Here is some food for thought (no pun intended).
1) What if you're fat because you were raised by fat people with poor eating and exercise habits? Is that something you should have to pay for?
2) Lizzie's idea amounts to a "sin tax". We already have those on cigarettes and liquor. Should we have them on food too?
3) WRT Kid's comment, I think the point is well taken. But, maintaining that sort of position in alternative circumstances is hard. In 1991 there was a big stink in SLC because they wanted to limit assessments for per child school taxes to two kids per family. If you had more than two, you got off cheaply. There were very similar arguments about self-control and discipline being made about that issue too.
Dr. Tufte asked a question regarding the idea of a "sin tax" in an earlier comment. The question was should this "sin tax" be applied to the food we eat. I believe wholeheartedly the answer is no. Although people may be genetically predisposed for obesity, there is no empirical evidence suggesting they are addicted to food. People love Big Macs, but McDonalds should not be taxed further because the Big Mac does not contain any addictive substances that may be found in alcohol or tobacco products. The Big Mac is merely consumed more or not exercised off by obese people. There is a difference between an addiction and a bad habit.
Post a Comment