Socialize the Socialism
Submitted By Todd on September 19th at 9:22am
our basic freedoms.
Medicaid will cost the Commonwealth (of Massachusetts) $8.6 billion this year, and the costs are increasing much faster than either economic or overall budget growth.That reads to me like, "Medicaid was a mistake."
Between 2001 and 2006, costs grew at an average of 8 percent annually. The result was that 35 cents of every new tax dollar went to pay for Medicaid. Clearly, the status quo is unsustainable.The President says we can pay for universal health care by getting rid of the waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. His argument boils down to this: "Now that we've proven ourselves incapable of running half of the health care system in a fiscally responsible way, we're ready to take over the rest!"
If you have any doubts that the new, bigger, all encompassing health care future envisioned by the radicals in Washington is also going to crush us, just look at the proposals already on the table in order to pay for it.
The debate over a tax on sugary soft drinks — billed as a way to fight obesity and provide billions for health care reform — is starting to fizz over.When the money runs out, the socialists don't do the logical thing - reduce services to lower costs. They respond by expanding services - also, ostensibly, to lower costs.
The group, which includes the New York City health commissioner, Thomas Farley, and Joseph W. Thompson, Arkansas surgeon general, estimates that a tax of a penny an ounce on sugary beverages would raise $14.9 billion in its first year, which could be spent on health care initiatives. The tax would apply to soft drinks, energy drinks, sports beverages and many juices and iced teas — but not sugar-free diet drinks.The nature of this lunacy, which the liberal mindset sees as a no-brainer, is really quite glaring. First, consider the exclusion of diet beverages. The government decides, under this proposal, that beverages sweetened with chemicals represent the consumption to be incentivised. Is this because foods with zero natural ingredients and no nutritional value are worshipped by the Whole Foods crowd pushing this philosophy, or is it because of the power of the Aspartame lobby?
John Sicher, the publisher of Beverage Digest, a trade publication, said that a two-liter bottle of soda sells for about $1.35. At 67.6 ounces, if the full tax was passed on to consumers, that would add 50 percent to the price. A 12-can case, which sells today for about $3.20, could rise by $1.44, a 45 percent increase.And, while the detriment of sugar consumption is not in dispute, it is just a piece of a sugary puzzle of bad diet - not in any way comparable to the exclusive health risks offered by cigarettes, the war against which offered the warm up for this sort of nanny state model.
The scientific paper found that a beverage tax might not only raise revenue but have significant health effects, lowering consumption of soda and other sweet drinks enough to lead to a small weight loss and reduced health risks among many Americans.The average American child gets most of his calories, I'd wager, from fattening foods like orange juice, Pop Tarts and sugary cereals for breakfast, Fritos and pretzels for snack, sugar infused, high fat cold cuts with bread for lunch, ice cream for dessert, more snacks in the afternoon, and pizza or chinese food for dinner. All of these are contributors to obesity, and all of these represent a sugar and health crisis, and none would be corrected by putting a sugar tax on soda.
The study cited research on price elasticity for soft drinks that has shown that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption declines 8 to 10 percent.Once the steamroller of government control over food choices starts down the road, fueled by the conflict of interest between freedom of choice and the unsustainable burden of taxpayer funded social programs, all foods that are not vegetables or a government approved protein, will logically have to be penalized. This will be clear to all once the consumption of sugary beverages has been eliminated but the obesity rate has continued to climb.
Of course, the motivation for such invasions into our liberties is not really improving health. It's improving the financing of big government.
“I think we should be satisfied that soda taxes would be having a modest effect on consumption but would generate billions of dollars that could be used to mount public health campaigns,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that favors such a tax.The current social programs are destroying our financial future. The cure? A bigger and better social program.