In an opinion piece in the LA Times this morning, Tina Dupuy, a comedian by trade, proposed that rather than tax smokers to pay for health care, we should tax snack foods. The article was written for a laugh, but maybe this idea has real merit.
To put the onus for thje cost of healthcare on the very industry that does the most to create patients (and statistics) for the healthcare system to deal with makes all kinds of sense.
In her OPED piece, Ms. Dupuy pointed out some pretty interesting statistics:
According to oft-cited research published in the journal Obesity, the annual cost to the state of medical care attributable to obesity is estimated to be almost $7.7 billion. If every man, woman and child in California put $200 into a fund on a yearly basis, that wouldn't be enough to cover that tab. And that's just what the state spends.
So with these facts in mind, Democratic leaders in the Legislature, in the latest bid to get uninsured Californians covered, this week proposed to tax (drum roll) . . . tobacco!
The California Department of Health reported that as of May 2007, only 13.3% of adults smoked. So the financial burden for the 6.7 million uninsured rests on the shoulders of an estimated 4.7 million nicotine enthusiasts.
What's worse, the proposed $2-a-pack tax -- besides being punitive -- is an attempt at prevention. In other words, the more effective the tax is as a disincentive to smoking, the less money it would generate. Opponents of the idea have been quick to point this out.
I have a better proposal: a snack tax. (Snip)
Tax junk. If you look on the package for the nutritional facts and there are none to speak of -- that's not food, that's caloric entertainment. And paying another dime for that is reasonable. Junk-food makers won't feel the pinch. Junk-food eaters might not even notice. Ditto for those who abstain (health-food nuts and terrorists mostly).
How much more snack food is sold than cigarettes? Well, of course that information is a closely held secret of the snack food industry, but you can conduct your own research. Just go into any supermarket that sells tobacco and count the baskets full of snack foods verses how many tobacco products you see. Obviously, a tax on snack food would raise revenues in orders of magnitude over what could come in from any tobacco tax. It would spread the revenue burden out, most affecting the same population that is more likely to need those healthcare services, and the industry that feeds off them.