On point 1, no debate. Wine in moderation has its positives. In overabundance, it has negative effects. I'm lucky if I have 2 glasses of red wine a week. If I get a 4th tax on it, no problem with me.Originally Posted by Phil D.
On 2, Phil the problem with that is that YOU think it should not extend beyond income and specific taxes. In other words, its your opinion vs someone else's.
3. I thought so, which is why I am not concerned overly with add'l tax on it.Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
And Mike, make a case why they shouldn't. I Thank G-d I have a healthy family and we are trying to keep it that way yet our insurance rates are rising.Originally Posted by Midnight Mike
Why? To subsidize the costs for the other smokers, alcoholics, and generally unwell people who could give a rats ass about their health.
Over the past few years I've lost weight, changed my eating habits to being much healthier, done a lot of reading on eating healthy and am trying to do my best to keep us healthy.
But our rates are rising to pay for those others that ABUSE themselves. How many patients a day do I see and I tell to stop smoking because YES it can also be related to visial ailments. And we get laughed at, what does the doc know, right? Yet a boatload of these ailments are preventable.
Here's a news flash: Most chronic illness is preventable. Most good eyecare is preventative maintenance.
But G-d forbid patients actually take ownership of the situation. Instead, the majority of the mentality is to deal with it when it comes and that a pill will do the trick. Whats that lead to? More drugs, newer drugs at higher cost and more doctor visits.
So coming back full circle, if a tax on soda (high sugars), cigarettes, beer, or wine(all three, of which, if abused, are linked to chronic illness that is preventable) would actually go to health costs and may actually change some peoples behaviors, then so be it.
Bookmarks