Tackling the obesity problem by making fast-food harder, and more expensive, to eat:
If the low “cost” of eating fast food is adding to the obesity problem, the solution involves increasing the cost, even in a nominal way. How do we give individuals the incentive to pay a little more -— increased physical exertion, lack of convenience -— to get their food? This is where a drive-through tax comes in.We could tax the drive-through purchases at, say, 10 percent, while leaving the purchase of walk-in meals alone. At the very least, it may entice some to park and walk rather than waiting in the car.
Now, this may seem an invasion of personal choice or another step toward a nanny state. Maybe. But there are other arguments to be made. We tax cigarettes in part because of their health cost. Similarly, the individual’Â’s decision to lead a sedentary lifestyle will end up costing taxpayers. In 2001, the surgeon general issued a report noting that obesity and its complications cost the nation $117 billion annually, much of it through Medicare and Medicaid.
Related posts:
- Fast food medicine
- Can universal health care lead to a restriction of individual freedoms?
- The allure of free food
- Junk food at Children’s Hospitals
- Are drug reps tainting physician food?
- Food-borne outbreaks
- Texas malpractice: "A case were politicians actually delivered"
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 7 comments }
You could make the same case for adding a health tax on cars, due to accidents, or on swimming pools, or on steak, or on chain saws, or ladders, or kitchen knives – all are health hazards.
Nanny state social engineering is obnoxious, and in the end, just another way to take our money. Let’s treat people like adults, and let them take their chances in life as they see fit. It’s a free country, right?
Nanny-staters always make the argument that it “costs society” such and such – but what the heck does that really mean? And why should it matter?
Lets tax everything so the idiot lawyer politicians have more money to spend on important projects like air ambulance supplies in IRAQ (where they have no air ambulances), and bridges from islands that end in the ocean.
The logic on this is BS. FAst food is NOT more cheap than good food.
McDonalds combo meal = $4.50
Corn, beans, and bread from your local grocery store = $2.50
Its absolutely ridiculous to suggest that fast food is “cheaper” than grocery store food. The only way its cheaper is if you buy potato chips and sugar cereal, which are no healthier for you than fast food is.
This is most retarded thing I have ever heard. At best, you might burn 5 calories by walking in to buy your fast food instead of driving through. Considering 1000 calorie burgers are routinely available this would have no beneficial effect. If you are going place a tax on fast food, tax all fast food.
This is retarded. It makes no sense whatsoever. Are people actually being paid to think up this stupid s***?
It’s a good idea because is an alternative. And although, there are many alternatives to this problem the fact remains, we are an unhealthy nation cause we are spoiled whinney Americants. Get of the couch, stop defending companies and corporations and make changes. Fast food is not the problem people in American are the problem. It is up to the true American ideal to live on and this psychological hoaxing and propganda to diminish.
DO SOMETHING!
Kevin, contrary to the troll commenters here I think this is an interesting idea and at least worth exploring. I actually found your post after having posted an entry on my own blog with a similar idea:
http://www.scrollinondubs.com/2009/09/01/fast-food-tax/
I understand the objection to the “nanny state” and I’m not entirely sold on the idea of tax being the right instrument. But the point is we should come up with some mechanism to make the people who are making poor eating decisions bear more of the indirect costs of their choices. There were a few good suggestions in the comments on my post – chime in with your thoughts if you like.
sean
Comments on this entry are closed.