Sunday, March 26, 2006

Ruth Collins-Nakai has ashtray mouth

There is evidence that eating tofu and soya products is harmful to your health. This means eating tofu slowly kills you. This means tofu is bad for you. Unsuspecting consumers have been drinking soya milk and eating tofu burgers under the impression they are engaging in healthy eating practices. Soya products lack warning labels, are readily available at your local grocery store, pharmacy or 7-11 - on the shelf - and the price is set low enough to allow and entice children receiving even the most modest allowance to purchase the substance posing as nourishment.

The residue from your choices pollutes my water supply. From the Brandon Sun:
Under a plan pitched by the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Canadians would shell out a fat tax for unhealthy foods like chips, cookies, pop and other fat-laden snacks.

“We want to make healthy choices more easily available, so healthy choices, whenever possible, should be cheaper and more readily available,” Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai told reporters after throwing the idea out to the Canadian Club of Ottawa on Wednesday.

The idea of making people pay for the food that slowly kills them isn’t new. Britain and Australia has considered passing a fat tax. The Ontario government also raised the issue a year ago, but retreated from it pretty quickly when anti-poverty groups claimed it would put a high burden on people with low incomes.
But surely the poor fat person, albeit a victim of capitalist oppression, is as much of a burden on the public health system as his wealthy counterparts? There is only one queue.
Collins-Nakai argues the idea is no different than the taxes governments charge on cigarettes. In Manitoba, for instance, the amount the government collects on a pack of smokes has steadily increased because the government argues it needs the money to pay for long-time puffers suffering from a whole host of smoking-related ailments.

[..] previous decision-makers had the courage to make a pack of cigarettes — which were once almost as inexpensive as a cup of coffee — cost as much as a decent meal out. They were also brave enough to do the same thing with alcohol, which also exacts a toll on our health system each year.

In order to pay for the coming epidemic of fat-related illnesses, it would be a good idea for some government to suck up the courage and price the foods that kill us further out of reach.
Be Brave Proletariats! The Courage enforced by your elected State will emerge triumphant! The anonymous we, represented by the Brave government of shifting responsibilities, will co-ordinate your collective preferences after calculating the costs and benefits effecting the pool of public preferences by hitting the equal button.

control + alt + delete / alt + apple + esc


Anonymous said...

I have heard this argument about the cost of smoking and drinking to health care and I completely disagree. Would the government rather treat my smoke/alcohol-related disease that I will die quickly from at a young age, or I can live to 100 get myself 2 or 3 hip / joint replacements, be treated for Alzheimer’s and finally die a slow death in government funded nursing home. You tell me which is more taxing on the health care system.

Lisa said...

The garbage that spews from the mouths of these goons can only loosely be termed an argument. It is disgusting that people like Collins-Nakai get paid to tell others what to do.

Sure, there are costs and benefits associated with any behaviour an individual chooses, and often present choices have adverse consequences down the road. That's my problem, and the collective herd, as represented by health fascists, can butt the fuck out. Besides, maybe I prefer 50 years of smoke filled fun, rather than 80 years without the pleasure of cigarettes. It all depends on what it's worth to me individually.

As the cost of public health care continues to soar, we'll hear a lot more of this type of nonsense. Trouble is of course, this nonsense can be enfored by "law." And already there have been instances and talk of denying old people and fat people certain type of procedures, while at the same time the government does everything within its power to prevent private clinics from opening up.

Taxing vices will not remove the desire. The government understands this and no doubt they hope to make as much money from pop and chips as they do from cigarettes and booze.

Anonymous said...

Collins-Nakai makes a lot of sense. It is not about telling people how to live their lives, but rather fairly appropriating the costs that are implicit in an individual's choices of how they live their lives instead of forcing other members of society to subsidize them on an actuarial basis. After all, I am personally getting ready for another ultramarathon. Why should my money be used via the tax system for open heart on couch potato? Every $100,000 we spend there could be left in tax payers wallets or invested in a number of other ways such as post-doc fellowships in new medical research, the environment, or improved industrial competitiveness.