Denmark imposes world`s first "Fat Tax"

[David43515]

"Other countries have imposed tariffs on food and drink considered unhealthy, but Denmark is taking the "fat tax" appellation literally. In the name of reducing cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes, the law that went into effect on Saturday specifically targets saturated fats — the fats found most commonly in animal products like butter, cream, and meat. But few outside the government seem to think it's a good idea — or even a healthy one. "

http://news.yahoo.com/beating-butter-denmark-imposes-worlds-first-fat-tax-075500822.html

Apparently ANY food with saturated fat (ie: animal fats) greater than 2.3% just got a tax of about $3.00 US per kilo.
We`ve always joked that the govt would try something like this one day, but this is just harsh. It comes to a 35% tax on some foods like butter. This would put alot of US resturants out of business just because they`d be forced to raise their prices to the point they couldn`t be ompetetive any longer.

What do you guys think?

 

[Big Don]

In the days before it went into effect there was a run on all the good stuff.
What do I think? I think I am a grown *** man, and nobody has the right to tell me what I can or cannot eat.
Denmark now defines the term "Nanny state"

 

[Carol]

Bloody ridiculous. If they want to regulate something they should demand that restaurants have nutrition info avail. at point of purchase. That way consumers could make wiser choices about food.

What a shame that tax revenue is far more important than an educated public.

 

[David43515]

That`s just what I thought. We always used to joke about this kind of thing as the ridiculous extreme that no one would ever "really" go to, but it illistrated a point.....and now a few years later they`ve gone and done it. I`m not sure what their method of repealing a law iis over there, but I`m guessing this won`t last long. At least I hope not. (But now that I`m thinking of Denmark I`m really jonesing for a nice thick slice of creamy Havarti cheese, and a smile from a Danish model I dated a few times in high school. Ahhhh Kirsten, where are you now?)

 

[Makalakumu]

And nobody wants to ask the question why the crappy food is so cheap. These socialists just don't understand that the tax revenues get turned around and handed in the form of subsidies to the multinationals who are making the crappy food. In way, it's a clever way of raising profit margins and shifting the blame to an easily demonized group of people.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Um, it's DENMARK. Why are we caring again?

 

[David43515]

Um, it's DENMARK. Why are we caring again?

Just idle conversation. It`s like when you fire up the grill on a summer evening and wonder what the neighbors are having. Or in this case you make fun of a horrible outfit that no sane person would be caught dead in.....and then you see your neighbor wearing it to work the next day.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Just wait until they start with a tax on people who can't prove they own a gym membership or a bike

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Um, it's DENMARK. Why are we caring again?

Because clever socialist health care ideas come to US and other western politicians from these sorts of places. If it plays there, sooner or later we'll see it here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just wait until they start with a tax on people who can't prove they own a gym membership or a bike

I have been saying that for some time now.

When health insurance is both mandatory and taxpayer-funded, the question of cost becomes a public issue, open to debate.

That means that such questions are on the table. Even the GOP with their screams about 'Death Panels' have a point. It won't be 'Death Panels' as such, but since the most money spent on health care in a person's life comes in the last few months of life, it will be both reasonable and legal to discuss whether or not grandmother gets a new pacemaker. People can get hot under the collar all they like; these discussions will take place.

And that will trickle down to all things which impact the cost of health insurance. Including those foods which are 'bad for you'.

If you think that it is possible to have a national health care system and NOT have the government telling you what you can and cannot eat, you are mistaken. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen.

It will begin with advisories. Then bans on certain things; say transfats and things like that. Tariffs and taxes on things which the government would prefer you not eat. Then outright bans on some foods. Followed by mandatory health and wellness re-education camps, followed by mandatory weight limits and exercise camps for persistent fatties.

And all along the way, the socialists will insist that these things will not happen, that people who fear them are crazy, but at each step, they will defend that step as absolutely, positively the last thing that will happen. They will backtrack and then try to explain why each one is 'good for you' until one day you find that it is illegal to be fat.

And that is because when you change the purpose of government from defending your rights to caring for you, the government's mandate is to ensure you do not do things which are bad for you; by force of law if necessary. And when you change the health insurance industry such that all taxpayers must share the burden of health care costs, it becomes each citizen's business to want to minimize costs by minimizing care and by minimizing the need for care; again by force if necessary.

This is just a flag planted in the ground. Some of us will live to see this Brave New World. Good luck, suckers.

 

[oftheherd1]

Because clever socialist health care ideas come to US and other western politicians from these sorts of places. If it plays there, sooner or later we'll see it here.

Unfortunately true. Some places have already banned the use of saturated fats, or required a reduction in their use. Denmark has just upped the ante in the fight.

 

[Monroe]

Didn't the US start the questions on health insurance forms with "smoking/nonsmoking" and the such? It's never effected my access to healthcare, but it has been an annoyance filling out mortgage applications and life insurance. These lifestyle questions started with private enterprise, not UHC systems.

 

[billc]

In private health care systems you always have the option to pay for the treatement yourself, even if you smoke, or to opt out of the insurance coverage. In a government run system, especially the one being set up here in the states, you will not have the opt out option. You are stuck.

 

[billc]

Here is one of the great stories of bad healthcare from Britain and the consequences of smoking...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ilders-broken-ankle-unless-quits-smoking.html

A man with a broken ankle is facing a lifetime of pain because a Health
Service hospital has refused to treat him unless he gives up smoking.

John Nuttall, 57, needs surgery to set the ankle which he broke in three
places two years ago because it did not mend naturally with a plaster cast.

Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate
because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there
is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

 

[Monroe]

In private health care systems you always have the option to pay for the treatement yourself, even if you smoke, or to opt out of the insurance coverage. In a government run system, especially the one being set up here in the states, you will not have the opt out option. You are stuck.

And if you can't afford the treatment or go into debt to get the treatment, you get ****ed.

 

[billc]

But...you have that option. If the government refuses treatment, and you aren't allowed to pay for it yourself, you are even more ******.

 

[Monroe]

Here is one of the great stories of bad healthcare from Britain and the consequences of smoking...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ilders-broken-ankle-unless-quits-smoking.html

I'm guessing he's got a pretty extreme habit to get that response. I know plenty of smokers in Britain and they love to complain. If they'd been refused treatment, I would have been stuck listening to it for hours on the phone.

Health Insurance providers in the US refuse treatment at times.

 

[Monroe]

But...you have that option. If the government refuses treatment, and you aren't allowed to pay for it yourself, you are even more ******.

He is allowed to pay for himself. I am allowed to pay for myself. There are private options within Britain and Canada.

 

[billc]

Lucky you, I am not sure that will be an option here.

 

[billc]

Here are 5 things you may lose under Obama care, from CNN...not exactly a partisan, right wing news outlet...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and
highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay
for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive,
HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have.
It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under
Obamacare: