http://kob.com/article/stories/S320743.shtml?cat=500

Sierra Club proposes ‘couch potato’ tax

The Sierra Club is proposing a tax on video games and televisions with the proceeds going to programs that encourage families to get kids off of the couch and into the mountains.

Call it “No Child Left Inside.”

Mike Casaus of the Sierra Club says families hiking a mountain trail together are becoming scarce as childhood diabetes and obesity is soaring, which is why the organization is proposing the one-percent tax.

“What we would do with this excise tax on tvs and video games and this type of equipment is to tax part of the problem to fund the solution,” he says.

The Sierra Club believes the bill would bring in about $4 million that could be used for programs like an outdoor classroom to tech children about the outdoors.

Lawmakers killed the same idea last year.


Related
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1757

My BMI tax initiate would actually tax fat people.

Not everybody. Sounds like a typical liberal who wants to punish everybody, not just those who are fat.

Typical.

Perhaps they should also propose a tax on recorded music and books as they have killed the old traditions of families singing together and story telling.

I want to tax people who don't walk up the mountain correctly.

Sierra club is not elected by anyone so they can stuff their tax idea in their collective hat.

Well most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6OJLytnfNk">except one</a>...

This is a funny tax proposal. I doubt it sees the light of day. So, would I get tax rebates for all the times I have walked up a mountain or hill. How about all the times I have boarded down a mountain? What about sporting equipment? Would those get a tax rebate as well considering it promotes wellness? Quite frankly some of my rock climbing gear can get quite expensive. I would think not. What about health care expenses incurred by such activities? I would have to bear the brunt of that as well, both physically and financially as well.

Afterall, people get injured all the time doing athletics, would I like to break an ankle on a hike, get some stitches, or whatever I maybe doing at the time that is athletic, because I slipped, then, sit at home recovering from my injuries playing video games, that I would be taxed for. A law like this does not make sense to me, because even if someone were to live an active lifestyle and sit home a night and pop in a video game, they would still be taxed for it.

No no, you can be injured doing sports so that will be taxed. In fact everything that someone somewhere doesn't think is right will be taxed. It already is with sales tax and what not but we want more taxes to curb people from these activities. All activities actually.

That is a very young John Cleese.

The reason why your rock climbing gear is so expensive is that half of the price you pay for it goes to lawyers and insurance companies(to protect them from lawyers, and to pay their lawyers).

The lawyer tax.

Yes, I think that was already a point. There are already taxes on these items, both video games as well as sporting equipment, via with usually a flat sales tax or higher cost for riskier sports/hobbies, ie, a pinion, a harness if that goes well, chances are you will to, on a long drop and an abrupt stop, to the bottom. I just do not see creating an additional cost on a popular mainstream thing, video games, already enjoying other taxes as well. I could make a case as to include music, books, and other things commonly not as active for this proposal.

Either way I feel, that it is just not neccessary, with the importing/exporting taxes and tariffs, consumer sales taxes, and whatever else, and those already generate tax revunue already.

I want to tax people who don't walk up the mountain correctly.

Sierra club is not elected by anyone so they can stuff their tax idea in their collective hat.

The people who annoy me when hiking are the slow ones who don't get out of faster hikers ways.

Its why I tend to like the part of the more famous hikes that are 3+ miles from the trailhead, or the ones that are less well known. It weeds out the people who can't or havn't hike much.

Why should the government be allowed to tax behavior? If I eat butter dipped french fries (which I did once and they were really good) or if I sit on the couch and watch 24 hours of 24 or if I have 256 days invested in my druid its none of the government's business. I warned people that it was a bad idea to punish behavior like smoking. Their Doritos could be next.

Because government is picking up most of the tab, that's why, Robart.

We have Universal Healthcare in the US.

Someone has to pay for it. Is it right and moral in your mind, that a fat person costs the system 2 or 3 million dollars in Healthcare costs BECAUSE they are fat. And I don't mean 'in their lifetime', I mean per occurance.

When you, ostensibly as a skinny or healthy person, will cost the same system a small fraction.

And what the government does not pick up, you the consumer pay, either through insurance, higher consumer goods and services, and further increased healthcare costs.

How far down that rabbit hole do we go with this logic? We have public education. Do we tax things that make people stupid? If it were a proportionate tax can you imagine the tax on MTV or reality TV? Who decides? What if politicians decided that reading C.S. Lewis made you stupid and levied a crushing tax on all his work?

How about a tax on violent video games? We pay a large chunck of money for law enforcement.

There is no problem that a government solution can't make worse.

It is not logic.

It is the way that it is.

I paid 2000 last year to Medicare. Government health insurance.

I am sure that many of you have paid that if not more. Robart, don't you think we should have a say over how that money is spent?

Or to request those who use it more than others, like me, to pay more for their healthcare. Has nothing to do with rabbit holes, we are way past that.

Fat people cost the Healthcare system enormously.

This is not logic or hypothetical. It is what is.

hmm, I was not aware Medicare taxes apportioned out of my paychecks were for universal healthcare. I just assumed it was for healthcare for disabled, temporary partial disability, elderly retired citizens, mentally unfit, orphaned children(at least partially), for when citizens, well need it for such. I understood that part of the social program, but, I was completely unaware that people are using this as actual primary health insurance, beyond what is mentioned above. Fyrr could you clarify this for me?

I do know, though, however, is the goverment is seeking to tie more directly to healthcare, your base wages, and remove that burden from corporations providing healthcare insurance, as often their profits/losses are often tied to such coverages at least partially. Of course, making it mandatory health care as well. Pretty bum deal for productive workers that rarely get injured or miss work to illness, but, still pay for healthcare anyways. But, good for businesses, which will of course find some other means of whining about we are not making profits, we are bleeding money, etc, and needing more govermental subsides. I hear pension plans are very popular for the next choice.

It is not logic.

True, it is insurance


Or to request those who use it more than others, like me, to pay more for their healthcare. Has nothing to do with rabbit holes, we are way past that.

Fat people cost the Healthcare system enormously.

This is not logic or hypothetical. It is what is.

The idea behind insurance is that if a large number of people pay for something that is very expensive but only needed by a small percentage each year then everybody can afford that something without going bankrupt by shareing the annual cost equally.

Healthcare is one of those things. You can not pay insurance and gamble that you will not be hospitalised. Or you can pay a share of the total cost and know that if you should ever need it you will recieve more out of the system than you ever (could) have paid into it.

Without insurance individual people would have 2000 dollar more to spend each year, but some others would be hundreds of thousand in debt. With insurance the last should not be necessary, but most people pay each year for something they do not use.

This is an entirely different discussion though, from expecting people to not create unnecessary costs for the system. That discussion hits the pesky potential conflict between individual freedom of action and social obligations. Governments can not simply step in and force people to act in a certain way 'for their own good', at least not without risking to turn into a tyranny.



Eri

Fyrr could you clarify this for me

We have Universal Healthcare in the United States of America.

Ronald Reagan signed it into law in 1986.

EMTALA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMTALA

Many of our patients don't even have Medicare, don't need it. You don't even have to be a US citizen, and many of my patients are not.

EVERYone who comes to a hospital, which has an ER, gets treated. It is the law. The ER is used by most of its customers for primary care. Colds, flu, splinters, allergies, sprained ankles.

When I was a kid, the ER was for car accidents, strokes, heart attacks, you know, real emergencies. It is not now. You must be treated by the hospital, with or without insurance, with or without Medicare, with or without Citizenship. It is FEDERAL LAW, Universal Healthcare.

Thank you Fyrr, I was aware they had to treat in the Emergency room, but, I assumed they would just bill the insurance companies, or patients for such afterwards, I know I had to. Well, my parents in my teen years, I have yet to get in severe enough cases, since over the age of 18 from issues or such where it is my financial responsibility, or I have no health insurance in some form, Ie work related injuries. I am still curious about some things though. These patients, I would assume are going from the E.R. to things like intensive care units or other treatments right, and then are not compensating after stabilization right, but, from further treatment, and that is where the shortfall is coming from?

True, it is insurance

The idea behind insurance is that if a large number of people pay for something that is very expensive...

True, it is insurance.

But the insurance model only works when the protected, actively try not to collect on it.

If I have fire insurance for my bar. But set my bar on fire to collect. I will be tried for fraud, and not only not receive a dime, but could go to jail.

If I have collision insurance, and ram my car into another car intentionally to receive the services of my or the other driver's insurance company. That is not only fraud, don't receive benefit, but I will be charged with all sorts of other crimes.

If I have life insurance, and kill myself. My beneficiaries will not receive a dime.

These are all acceptable, RATIONAL, notions.

Yet, it breaks down, when a person knowingly, actively, does the same thing with their lifestyle. Overeating, not being compliant with known healthful behaviors is no different that setting your bar on fire, hoping to collect on the insurance. It is an active breach of good faith, if not the letter of the contract.

Behavior, under every other form of insurance, IS regulated by the insurers, by way of the policy. Healthcare is the only insurance which allows the known detrimental behaviors to be exempt, from claims payout.

Insurance, and the entire insurance model, only works when the covered do not actively and knowingly increase their losses. Insurance was designed to cover accidents. Overeating and being fat is NO, NR, NEIN, いいえ, NON, Αριθ, NÃO accident.

Thank you Fyrr, I was aware they had to treat in the Emergency room, but, I assumed they would just bill the insurance companies, or patients for such afterwards, I know I had to. Well, my parents in my teen years, I have yet to get in severe enough cases, since over the age of 18 from issues or such where it is my financial responsibility, or I have no health insurance in some form, Ie work related injuries. I am still curious about some things though.

Most of my ICU patients have never paid into the system, nor ever will.

If a person has a life threatening condition, and come into ER, where do you think they go. They can't say in ER. They can't go home. They can't go to another hospital.

THEY COME TO ME. And I take care of them. edit: case history stuff deleted here

And when you come into my ICU, I don't care if you are a doctor, the owner of the largest employer in town, or a welfare mom, born of a welfare mom, or a drunk Mexican who needs detoxing. I will treat you with the same respect, and same care, to your needs, regardless of who you are. I don't care if you are my father, or friend, or an illegal alien. I will treat everyone with the same level of care. We get all of those in our ICU, and all very recently, if you don't mind me saying.

And it will cost the system, the insurance companies, the Medicare system, the MediCal system, consumers all the same. It will cost you the same.

And ER treatment is expensive only because it is a cost center. ICU care and treatment is expensive because of cost basis. The care is intensive. The equipment is very expensive. And getting more expensive.

Where do you think they go after ER?

These patients, I would assume are going from the E.R. to things like intensive care units or other treatments right, and then are not compensating after stabilization right, but, from further treatment, and that is where the shortfall is coming from?
Absolutely! Well, most of the time they are stabilized in ICU. Then transferred out to Med Surg. Then they can go home, go to a home, or to the streets, or the fields, or back to Mexico even.

One of my best friends frequently uses the local ERs as her primary care. Actually, three recently, who use them regularly for colds and strained ankles.

I can give you a case study of her recent cold, and how much it cost the system. My cold cost me 8 bucks for my Mucinex, and 3 bucks for my generic sudaphed. Her cold cost the system, at least 3K, in cost basis dollars. And she walked out of the pharmacy in the end with an anti-tussive in a pill form.

She has no knowledge or upbringing that her expectation that the ER is not there to treat her cold and cough, that her expectation is wrong. She has no knowledge how expensive it is, or that it should not treat her, that she should go down to WalMart and buy a bottle of Robitussin(what she got, but in a pill), herself. You are going, you taxpayers, are going to be paying 3 thousand dollars to get a cough medicine into my best friend, for her cough. The same cough I had(she gave it to me), and I paid my 11 bucks myself.

And what gets me, in this political election climate, with all the talk of Universal Healthcare, is that we already have Universal Healthcare. And I don't know, I honestly don't know why you all don't already know it.

Who buys Clinton's or Obama's rhetoric about them providing you with Universal Healthcare, when we already have it, signed into law, by Ronald Reagan in 1986? Who buys this stuff?

Maybe it is just hard for me to remember what I did not know before I knew it. And hard for me to remember what it is like not knowing the stuff I know. I am just incredulous, that you all don't already know this stuff. Maybe the system, the healthcare or education system, is designed that way, and I just missed out on that part during my training, that I was SUPPOSE to keep this stuff secret from you laypeople.

Without insurance individual people would have 2000 dollar more to spend each year,

5000 dollars. Per year.

That is the going amount, on average, to insure a person.

The last full insurance policy, that I quoted for myself, was 5000 dollars per year.

If I don't buy insurance for 10 years, that is 50 thousand dollars I can use for other things.

I spent 2000 last year on insurance for OTHER people, Medicare. And I paid not one cent for insurance for myself. Is that moral and ethical to you. That I am forced by law to pay 2000 for the insurance of others, but don't get any myself, and pay my own medical bills and pay my own pharmaceuticals myself.

Now, in all honestly, much of the paycheck I receive ultimately comes from Medicare dollars, because of my chosen profession. But I still do the work, the labor, the time to earn my paycheck; this must be said in disclosure as well; but I would have had to pay that Medicare tax if were still putting in alarm systems or building websites.

I need to pay 2000 for other people, by law. To cover myself is 5000. That is 7000 per year, in total to cover myself and others with insurance. 7000 dollars, not 2000 dollars.

Well, will give allittle background information. I rarely if ever go see physicians unless blood is gushing all over, then, I go to the E.r. to get stitched up, give out my health care insurance information, etc. I do my little copay, and then if there are charges my health insurance doesn't cover, I pick that up. Or I suspect something maybe broken or some ligaments are torn, then, since I am not dieing at the moment, I schedule time with ortho, or whatever. Same thing with prescriptions, I do my copay and good to go.

However, the majority of my life, I was a military dependent and later a National Guardsman. I rarely, if, ever see the inside of a hospital that was not a military hospital. Aside from family members that have been hospitalized. Military hospitals do not have the cost associated with civilian hospitals. You do not have the cardiologists making in excess of $250k a year. Or nurses, Xray techs, etc, breaking 75k a year. No one or two night hospital stays for 1k dollars, the hospital was already paid for, you paid your board(aka food) for $7 a day, that was it.

So, alot of my healthcare was done directly at cost, and picked up by the goverment as part of their healthcare programs for service members and their families. So, things like antibiotics, while I did not pay a dime were straight at what the military had purchased them at, or made them at. Physicals were basically free, rubber glove it, turn head and cough, etc.

The way I do healthcare, for myself, is fairly cheap and cost effienct. I basically already know where to go for what service I need. Colds and things like that I treat at home, and alot of those I do not use any special medications or over the counter pharmaceuticals. I might be miserable for a few days, but, I don't go running to a hospital over a case of the sniffles. I do have an interesting story about my first civilian physical a couple years back. I haven't ever had to use my civilian insurance minus the physical above, that makes me not even want to bother with getting physicals, I can feel my own testicles for bumps.

So, I basically pay insurance(even my auto insurance) to well, do what it is supposed to do. Pool money up with others, anything happens, they are covered, insurance company profits from people not using insurance for being in good health, or being responsible for minor illnesses and injuries. I really have no clue about healthcare as, I never really use it other than what it was intended for.

Well scheiße.

Take a look at New Mexico's "Leave no child inside" act.

http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/08%20Regular/bills/house/HB0583.html

This one is great. Government is telling us how to live in a very specific way and its egged on by non elected entities.

In addition, it invokes "its for the children."