The American Right to Super Size

 

      The government should not implement the Fat Tax. It is argued that the Fat Tax will directly influence society by decreasing the national obesity outbreak, but it will not. Many factors are at play in the obesity epidemic, but the government chooses to fix the problem by taxing the American people instead of fighting the battle face to face.

      The Fat Tax is defined as “a tax or surcharge that is placed upon fattening food, beverages or individuals.” The purpose, according to the government, is to “discourage unhealthy diets and offset the economic costs of obesity”(Wikipedia). A vague, blanket statement covered with the idealization to protect and to help the American people. An unhealthy diet is not defined, but assumed that involves anything that has a surplus of sugar or calories. No consideration given to the individuals, but only to the whole. A “healthy diet” to one, may be impossible to another. A person with Cystic Fibrosis requires a high caloric intake to survive due to their inability to maintain weight. As do many other diseases, a specific diet must be followed to maintain a “healthy life.” So, in essence, the government is discriminating against those who require more calories.

      Instead of government focusing their attention why the people choose “fattening foods,” the solution is to discourage by taxing it. So, why do people choose “fat” over “healthy”? Other than the obvious “it tastes better” notion, the majority of the reason is cost. It is cheaper to eat fat. It is a sad statement, but true. The costs of fruits and vegetables are much higher than that of chips and cookies. Let us compare by making a healthy burger at home to a fast food burger option. At your local Sprouts Farm Market, who's slogan is “Healthy Living for Less,” 8 ounces of ground chicken breast cost $1.50 (a pound is $2.99). The bread to put that on cost approximately $0.66 (assuming you eat 4 oz of the 18 oz Sprouts all grain bread costing $2.99). Do not forget the lettuce ($0.88 each for green leaf) and tomato ($1.29 a pound for a Roma tomato)! So when made (assuming you use 20 cents worth lettuce and and 60 cents worth of tomato) the cost is approximately $3. And at your local Wendy's or McDonald's there are several options for $1! This shows how healthy eating costs three times more than eating unhealthy. The government's solution to this: increase the fat prices to equal the cost of eating healthy! But, how about this, decrease the cost of healthy foods. Economically wise, let us take a lesson from Henry Ford, decrease the cost to increase the demand.

      While government focuses on raising the prices on unhealthy foods, let us as society focus on a glaring obvious cause. The cut in exercise and gyms in schools. In 2012, The New York Times brought to light the leading causes of childhood obesity, the lack of exercise. There is a connection of sedentary lifestyle with weight gain. With all the fancy game systems out there, it is now more common to take a “virtual walk” in your living room than outside. Both Wii and Xbox created games using an avatar to represent you exercising in a virtual world in attempt to get people off the couch and in motion. So, gaming manufactures have stepped up, but has the school system? According to the NY Times, no. Some schools do not met the twenty minute exercise requirement, where other schools no longer have gyms or gym teachers! What is government's stance? Well, with all the budget cuts required by schools caused by the lack of government aid, it is only natural to cut the unnecessary programs (like gym). Educators, students, and parents are fighting this battle, hoping that the government will provide compensation to those schools who encourage physical activity, but the reality is grim due to the federal budget.

      What are the school requirements for exercise in Texas? According to the Texas Education Agency, “Texas mandates at least 135 minutes of moderate or vigorous structured physical activity per week in elementary school (grades K-5, or K-6, depending on the district), but it does not required daily recess. Full day kindergarten students, and to the extent practicable, PK students in half day programs, are to participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity for 30 minutes each day. The state also mandates at least 30 minutes per day of structured moderate-to-vigorous structured physical activity in junior high (grades 6-8 or 7-8, depending on the district). With the exception of kindergarten, physical activity may or may not be included in the physical education curriculum. However, starting in 2010, school districts are required to ensure that at least 50% of the physical education class includes actual physical activity. High School Graduation Requirements: The state requires students to earn 1.0 physical education credit for graduation.” Are these requirements working in Texas? According to The Dallas Morning News, it is! Even though Texas schools are facing the same budget cuts as the rest of the nation, the article states “ a 2009 report by Cooper Institute of Dallas found that Texas' physically fit students scored better on state tests, had higher attendance rates and got into less trouble.” Currently only five states are requiring physical education. Imagine the impact on obesity if all states required physical exercise in schools.

      There are many causes for the national obesity outbreak. A few I have already discussed, but there are many more. Some being convenience- it is quicker and simpler to grab a bag of chips versus making a salad. Another being the addiction of sugar, caffeine, and sodium. Many studies on caffeine addiction have been reported. Instead of government increasing the cost, researching and regulating the addictive additives and preservatives placed in food products could provide a healthier outcome.

      The government believes fattening foods is causing national obesity, but in reality obesity is caused by individuals' choices. A person chooses what they eat and drink. They choose the amount of calories they eat. They choose whether they want a sedentary lifestyle versus an active one. They have the options. Whether it is taxed or not, they will choose to continue with that lifestyle or not. If large soda is banned, two small sodas can be purchased in its place. Super-sized no longer an option- no problem, just purchase an extra side of fries or double the order. It is their Constitutional right to pursue of happiness. If food is their happiness, it is their right.

      The Fat Tax should not be implemented. Though it is meant to encourage a healthy lifestyle and to decrease obesity, taxing sugary and high caloric products is not the answer. Decreasing the cost of healthy foods, like fruits, vegetables, and fresh meat products, as well as making them more convenient and available is a start. In addition, re-instituting physical education in schools has been proven to have an impact. Along with regulation on addictive food additives and preservatives, a healthy lifestyle will begin to emerge and obesity will decline.

Sites:

Baker, Al. “Despite Obesity Concerns, Gym Classes are Cut.” NY Times. July 10, 2012. Web. 27 March 2013.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/education/even-as-schools-battle-obesity-physical-education-is-sidelined.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&

Meyers, Jessica. “PE Struggles to Keep Up in Texas Classrooms.” Dallasnews.com. February 19, 2012. Web. 27 March 2013. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20120219-pe-struggles-to-keep-up-in-texas-classrooms.ece

Sprouts Farmer Market: Weekly Circular Advertisement (3/27/13-4/3/13). Web. 27 March 2013. http://specials.sprouts.com/Shop/WeeklyAd.aspx

Texas Education Agency. “Amount of Physical Education Require: Texas,” National Association for Sport and Physical Education and the American Heart Association. Web. 27 March 2013

http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/publications/upload/Texas-profile.pdfT

Wikipedia. “Fat Tax,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Web. 27 March 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax

Obamacare: Cost Vs. Care

      Obamacare was created to provide those without health insurance quality care at a reasonable cost and to revise the healthcare economical system. The question is: will it succeed? According to Scott Gottlieb from Real ClearMarkets, the developers of Obamacare made crucial mistakes causing the consumer to pay expensive costs for mediocre care.

      Scott Gottlieb is a practicing physician who once served on the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He compares Obamacare with late 1990s health insurance schemes, but states Obamacare will be much more expensive. Apparently, the insurers are going to charge the client higher prices for “product,” and instead of reimbursing the client with the profit the insurer will receive, the kickbacks will go to the government. “Health plans are better off aiming high, and owing money back, then getting underwater.” The government only gains and does not take part in the debt. What does this mean for the consumer? They will pay higher costs, even though the “product” cost less than charged. Another point made was physicians have the right to accept or decline Obamacare. It appears that Obamacare will pay less than the standard insurance, thus more likely for physicians to decline clients with Obamacare. This occurred with Medicaid and had a huge effect on patients' health and costs. Scott goes on to discuss how it will effect those with previous illnesses, how business's insurances will coincide with Obamacare, and how the cost of Obamacare prices are higher than initially expected, thus breaking the budget.

      As a professional in the health care system, I have my own conclusions on Obamacare. When reading this blog, I must admit I got loss in the language. For those without a business or economic degree, it is overwhelming to read. Scott Gottlieb is writing essentially to those future Obamacare clients and physicians, even though his style of writing does not reflect his audience. Why did I select the article even though the wording was obscure? Because of its significance and educational value, providing information in comparative form. After reading this article, more concerns were acknowledged about Obamacare. It is alarming that people have only a few options to select insurers, hence allowing the insurers to have premium costs. Our society survives on options and comparative rates, so why are we limited to our insurers? Physicians opting to decline Obamacare clients will drastically effect the health care system. It creates a large wait list for a the physicians who do accept Obamacare or may cause clients to go to the emergency room instead, either way delaying client care. Obamacare was to help the people who could not afford health insurance, but with these limited choices, inflated costs, and delay in care, it appears that the system is already failing. Obamacare was to revolutionize the health care system, but it appears it may be one of its greatest downfalls.

Site:

Gottlieb, Scott.“Obamacare Insurance Plan Will Be Bare Bones-- And Expensive.” Real Clear Markets.Web.5 March 2013.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/03/05/obamacare_insurance_plans_will_be_bare_bones_--_and_expensive_100176.html