Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] OP t1_itotvnp wrote

Reply to comment by Foxcecil in Massachusetts should have a Tax Sugary Drinks. This would discourage consumers from buying products that may lead to chronic illness, and high long term costs to the health system. by [deleted]

[deleted]

−18

Foxcecil t1_itox1qa wrote

If it's largely preventable, then let free people prevent it if they want. If they don't want to prevent it, let them get diabetes. I often wonder why the progressive logic for assisted suicide and abortion is 'let them do what they want to do' but when it comes to giving the government power to tax things like sugary drinks, or force us to drink from paper straws, the same progressive logic is 'let the government make decisions for you'.

6

SLEEyawnPY t1_itqsmm3 wrote

Even close to brain-dead people are aware that conservatives tend to love the government making all sorts of decisions, when it's conservatives that have the power to do so.

They only slip on their "live and let live" sheep-disguise when it's someone else who's calling the shots.

> I often wonder why the progressive logic for assisted suicide and abortion

I guess if you were suffering from an excruciatingly painful terminal illness, or dying from a pregnancy or abortion gone wrong you wouldn't have to wonder no more, eh?

Your last thoughts would probably be "Gosh I wish those progressives hadn't stopped me from having the opportunity to use more plastic straws in my life"

0

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_itpe2td wrote

So we should have an extra tax on fast food. How about oil, should we tax that more so people dont fry foods. Chips are horrible for your health, we need to tax that more. Don't get me started on candy.

Why don't we just get to the root cause. We should have a flat $20 tax on every pound of sugar. That will make you think twice about enjoying some of those Christmas cookies.

5

Dobagoh t1_itpx6ac wrote

Lol, there already is a tax on sugar. You can thank the corn lobby for that. I guess implementing taxes is ok when it’s backed by corporations am I right? But god forbid the people want a tax imposed on themselves.

−1

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_itqosao wrote

>I guess implementing taxes is ok when it’s backed by corporations am I right?

You guessed wrong.

>But god forbid the people want a tax imposed on themselves.

I have great news. When you fill out your taxes next year, there is a spot where you can voluntary pay more taxes. You are allowed to impose as much tax on yourself as you want.

2

EasyTune1196 t1_itoxu33 wrote

Type 1 diabetes isn’t from sugar. There’s also many many other chronic illnesses that are not caused by this so it wouldn’t make a difference

3

theopinionexpress t1_itqu5p6 wrote

Dunno why you’re being downvoted so heavily. This is the truth. Those of us that lead a healthy lifestyle pay disproportionally higher amounts into health insurance than we use, compared to some other people with preventable health ailments that are caused by lifestyle choices. It’s the same argument conservatives have against welfare. I go to the doctor less than someone who smokes, eats fast food, doesn’t exercise, doesn’t manage their health, yet I pay the same or maybe more for my insurance premium. If the entire nation was healthier, we’d have more money for other things. But it’s not a direct to your pocket equation, it takes time and more than a few intermediaries and variables for that benefit to be realized. It’s too nuanced to be explained or understood in a soundbyte so it will not gain main stream approval. People just hear higher taxes. I don’t drink that shit so it wouldn’t affect me, just like the higher cigarette prices or the ban on candy flavored vape cartridges didn’t effect me.

1