Tax in Australia is very high on cigarettes, and that still goes no way toward the medical costs incurred as a result of smoking related illness/disease, so needs to be doubled/trebled.

The same goes for obesity. I see no reason why people who don't have an obesity problem should be paying, via taxes, for those who choose to overeat/eat the wrong foods. Of course, there can be medical reasons for obesity, but largely the problem is too much, and the wrong food.

Tax on junk food may contribute to lower consumption, but spending the tax on education campaigns would likely do more, as have the anti smoking ads in Australia.

My personal opinion, if a little harsh, is that people who contribute to their own ill health should be denied medical treatment at state expense.

Tax in Australia is very high on cigarettes, and that still goes no way toward the medical costs incurred as a result of smoking related illness/disease, so needs to be doubled/trebled.

The same goes for obesity. I see no reason why people who don't have an obesity problem should be paying, via taxes, for those who choose to overeat/eat the wrong foods. Of course, there can be medical reasons for obesity, but largely the problem is too much, and the wrong food.

My personal opinion, if a little harsh, is that people who contribute to their own ill health should be denied medical treatment at state expense.

...

My personal opinion, if a little harsh, is that people who contribute to their own ill health should be denied medical treatment at state expense.

It's not a little harsh. It's cruel and inhumane. But typical far right winger ideology.

...

I think a tax will not make a difference. People have to take charge of their own nutrition habits, exercise and stop over-eating!

Tax might not help. However, it is well known that "education" doesn't help much either. Basically however it is done the FOOD ENVIRONMENT needs to be changed and that is going to require some form of REGULATION and that comes from government by necessity. Food firms will never regulate themselves. Never ever. It could be new laws to regulate what crap big food companies can put in their products and how much of it, how they market them, etc. Obviously this level of regulation won't go down to street stalls. Talking about big commercial operations here.

...

My personal opinion, if a little harsh, is that people who contribute to their own ill health should be denied medical treatment at state expense.

It's not a little harsh. It's cruel and inhumane. But typical far right winger ideology.

That's because I'm far right wing!!!

The government never gave me a cent, I paid 50%+ in tax for over 30 years, and am a self funded retiree with private health insurance. I paid a public health insurance levy of 1.5% on a large income and never used the public health system, and still don't.

A small point Jingthing, you are not permitted to alter another's posts, including part deletions.

That's because I'm far right wing!!!

...

Duh. I figured that out and I think that ideology is morally bankrupt, but, whatever ...

Back to Thailand. Thailand is not as right wing as you. Thailand has a sort of limited benefit public health care system for all their people. So it is definitely in the interest of Thailand purely from a financial perspective to help reduce the rate of obesity in Thailand as the diseases related to obesity are very costly.

...

A small point Jingthing, you are not permitted to alter another's posts, including part deletions.

You are incorrect. Snippets as I have done are fully allowed (and even encouraged to reduce post length) so please do not bother me with your faulty amateur moderation again. If you don't understand or accept this, perhaps PM a mod. Thank you.

That's because I'm far right wing!!!

...

Duh. I figured that out and I think that ideology is morally bankrupt, but, whatever ...

Back to Thailand. Thailand is not as right wing as you. Thailand has a sort of limited benefit public health care system for all their people. So it is definitely in the interest of Thailand purely from a financial perspective to help reduce the rate of obesity in Thailand as the diseases related to obesity and very costly.

And I think that having fat freeloaders sucking the guts out of the welfare system because they lack self control is further penalizing those who carry the country via heavy taxes, with many gaining little/no benefit, but whatever.

In my view, Australia has a way too generous welfare system, and once again (surprise, surprise!!) the bell curve is evident with 10% of the population soaking up 90% of the resources, and 10% of the population (not the same 10%, incidentally) paying 90% of the tax.

It is in any country's interest to reduce obesity for purely financial reasons, but there are many other benefits that flow from a healthy population.

To those bringing up OZ stats. Can't remember the exact figure, but excise on Ciggies only covers about a third of the cost of treating smoking related illness. Suspect obesity will be causing the same issues.

Roast dinner lovers of the world (and other pendants on this thread) can rest easy. A tax like this would be aimed at key inputs which are the culprits. Corn starch, certain oils and what not. The libertarians are going nuts in their foxholes at the 'T' word though.

And I think that having fat freeloaders sucking the guts out of the welfare system because they lack self control is further penalizing those who carry the country via heavy taxes, with many gaining little/no benefit, but whatever.

...

Most obesity experts don't buy into your simple minded morality "self control" model of obesity.

I know I don't. Societies can HELP fat people and PREVENT obesity in others by doing what it is possible to change the FOOD ENVIRONMENT in their societies with regulation.

.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-obesity/2013/12/27/cd7f5b3a-69c4-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html

If you’re obese, you lack self-control.

According to a 2006 study, “research on restrained eating has proven that in most circumstances dieting is not a feasible strategy.” In other words: People won’t lose weight by trying to eat less because they can’t easily control themselves. Unfortunately, this puritanical view of personal resolve plays down how our surroundings and mental state determine what we eat.

Research shows that if we are overwhelmed with too much information or preoccupied, we have a tendency to surrender to poor dietary choices. In one study, for example, people asked to choose a snack after memorizing a seven-digit number were 50 percent more likely to choose chocolate cake over fruit salad than those who had to memorize a two-digit number. When adults in another study were asked to sample a variety of foods after watching a television show with junk-food commercials, they ate more and spent a longer time eating than a similar group watching the same show without the junk-food ads. In the same study, children ate more goldfish crackers when watching junk-food commercials than those who saw other ads.

Our world has become so rich in temptation that we can be led to consume too much in ways we can’t understand. Even the most vigilant may not be up to the task of controlling their impulses.

And I think that having fat freeloaders sucking the guts out of the welfare system because they lack self control is further penalizing those who carry the country via heavy taxes, with many gaining little/no benefit, but whatever.

...

Most obesity experts don't buy into your simple minded morality "self control" model of obesity.

I know I don't. Societies can HELP fat people and PREVENT obesity in others by doing what it is possible to change the FOOD ENVIRONMENT in their societies with regulation.

.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-obesity/2013/12/27/cd7f5b3a-69c4-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html

If you’re obese, you lack self-control.

According to a 2006 study, “research on restrained eating has proven that in most circumstances dieting is not a feasible strategy.” In other words: People won’t lose weight by trying to eat less because they can’t easily control themselves. Unfortunately, this puritanical view of personal resolve plays down how our surroundings and mental state determine what we eat.

Research shows that if we are overwhelmed with too much information or preoccupied, we have a tendency to surrender to poor dietary choices. In one study, for example, people asked to choose a snack after memorizing a seven-digit number were 50 percent more likely to choose chocolate cake over fruit salad than those who had to memorize a two-digit number. When adults in another study were asked to sample a variety of foods after watching a television show with junk-food commercials, they ate more and spent a longer time eating than a similar group watching the same show without the junk-food ads. In the same study, children ate more goldfish crackers when watching junk-food commercials than those who saw other ads.

Our world has become so rich in temptation that we can be led to consume too much in ways we can’t understand. Even the most vigilant may not be up to the task of controlling their impulses.

I'm sure there will be studies saying quite the opposite if I bothered to look, but I'll stick with my simple minded morality for the time being.

Incidentally does this argument apply to smoking? Self control plays no part in quitting?

Does it apply to driving? Self control plays no part in reducing the road toll?

For medical care, the moral and ethical thing is for people to be able to access medical care REGARDLESS of any level of morality issues as to how they got sick. If that's socialist, just call me Karl ...

As I do believe in access to medical care for all, regardless of moral judgments, that is obviously something government must be involved in to make happen. Thus it follows that it is sensible for governments to ALSO be involved in potential methods to REDUCE the health problems they have committed to take care of (regulations, taxation, or both). What specific policies work best is debatable and will change over time. Yes Thailand's government may not be up to doing this well, but that's another matter.

Why tax food just ban the arches and all western fast food companies.

...

My personal opinion, if a little harsh, is that people who contribute to their own ill health should be denied medical treatment at state expense.

It's not a little harsh. It's cruel and inhumane. But typical far right winger ideology.

Any treatment should be based around trying/insisting that the person also change their lifestyle to reduce chances of further injury.

If you want to take up extreme sport I'm not sure there is much of a case for the state putting you back together over and over again.

If you smoke its fair enough that the state try also to get you to stop before they give u a heart transplant. Likewise liver treaments for alcoholics.

If you have to call out mountain rescue 20 times I'm sure eventually they'd make you pay.

...

My personal opinion, if a little harsh, is that people who contribute to their own ill health should be denied medical treatment at state expense.

It's not a little harsh. It's cruel and inhumane. But typical far right winger ideology.

Any treatment should be based around trying/insisting that the person also change their lifestyle to reduce chances of further injury.

If you want to take up extreme sport I'm not sure there is much of a case for the state putting you back together over and over again.

If you smoke its fair enough that the state try also to get you to stop before they give u a heart transplant. Likewise liver treaments for alcoholics.

If you have to call out mountain rescue 20 times I'm sure eventually they'd make you pay.

I understand this concept. I was watching a documentary about bariatric surgery in England for morbidly obese patients. The national health requires the patients to lose at least SOME weight first to both improve their odds in the surgery and also I think to show a commitment to the treatment (as it's not the panacea many think, it's hard work even after the surgery). So they're saying we'll only spend money on your case if there's hope and won't if there's no hope. Makes sense to me. But it depends on the disease I think.

For medical care, the moral and ethical thing is for people to be able to access medical care REGARDLESS of any level of morality issues as to how they got sick. If that's socialist, just call me Karl ...

I don't think that it has anything to do with ideology. I am fairly conservative and I agree with you. The jokers that want to stop smokers, drinkers and fat people from recieving government health care will want to ban ugly people next.

For medical care, the moral and ethical thing is for people to be able to access medical care REGARDLESS of any level of morality issues as to how they got sick. If that's socialist, just call me Karl ...

I don't think that it has anything to do with ideology. I am fairly conservative and I agree with you. The jokers that want to stop smokers, drinkers and fat people from recieving government health care will want to ban ugly people next.

Well, some far right people (and "libertarians" who are a hybrid far right movement) feel the way the other poster does. You won't find moderate people and left expressing that!

round up the chubby ones and send them to work off the excess fat in labour camps

round up the chubby ones and send them to work off the excess fat in labour camps

At last.....................common sense!!

I've never seen a fat Thai. They all look rather malnourished to me.

You need to go to Thailand - or get out more.

Why tax food just ban the arches and all western fast food companies.

You obviously don't buy from street vendors.

Taxing junk food to further feed gov. corruption, stupid idea.

Taxing junk food to further feed gov. corruption, stupid idea.

I was trying to separate the corruption problem with obesity policy but yes in real life you can't.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Incredible, a simple question brought and will bring so many posts. Don't tax it , whatever "it" is.

Is there no place where meddlers and control freaks will not go? Stop it already with the social engineering through government taxation and regulation. Tax upon tax upon tax to make everyone fit into someone's manipulative view of what the world ought to look like. I don't like to see obese people either but it isn't any of my business what they eat or what they look like. Besides, I accept them for who they are, the kind of person they are, and not what they look like.

How surprising, another hideously regressive tax that does nothing but punish the poor, while the rich will ultimately benefit from the taxes collected and continue to eat what they please. Too funny.

Lefty loves to blame obesity on poverty, but the truth is that generally, people get fatter as they get more affluent and sedentary.

Let's let Thailand develop into a first world country before ya'll turn it into a nanny-state clone.

If you/they are to be taken seriously - ban it... Otherwise it's another public sector circle jerk.

Incredible, a simple question brought and will bring so many posts. Don't tax it , whatever "it" is.

Correct.

reduce the WINE tax because wine is good for you.

Oh No it ain't.

Anything (drink) that contains alcohol will terminate your life prematurely