Ethics Of Public Health, And Healthcare

Today, research asserts soda is one of the leading causes of poor health outcomes in the United States. People define soda as carbonated beverages, or soft drinks, or fizzy drinks. A significant relationship exists between the consumption of carbonated drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental caries in the United States (Gollust et al., 52). Tax on soda is considered as a government’s intervention to regulate the consumption of these kinds of drinks. In fact, soda should be taxed in the United States because it discourages the consumption of soda, makes people healthier, and raises government funds.

The purpose of this study was to investigate ethical issues associated with the prevention of obesity in America through eliminating Sugar-Sweetneed Beverages (SSB) in America. There were a total of 3 prevention stragies that were taken into consideration with this study: (1) "restricting the sale of SSBs in K-12 public schools", (2) implementing a significant tax" of $0.01 per an ounce or a 20% sale tax increase, (3) "prohibiting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Associated Program (SNAP; formerly food stamp programs) benefits for the purchase of SSBs." (Nancy Kass, Kenneth Hecht, Amy Paul, and Kenny Bimbach, 2014).

Wetter and Hodge, Jr. argue how childhood obesity is a vital issue that needs to be addressed as it puts children at risk for long-term health problems. The authors’ solution to lowering the rate of obesity is by taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. They relay information from the World Health Organization and make comparisons between other products that are heavily taxed in order to help support their argument. Wetter and Hodge, Jr. state that the World Health Organization declared that raising taxes on tobacco products was very effective in reducing the demand for tobacco use. They also discuss the legal components regarding sugar-sweetened beverages taxes. One of their ideas includes the sweeter the sugar-sweetened beverage is, the higher it

This policy memo will address why the policy maker should impose a sugar beverage excise tax on the American Beverage Association's member corporations. More than 35% of American adults are obese and as a consequence, are at increased risks for health issues such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes ("Overweight & Obesity"). The U.S. taxpayer is supplementing much of the cost to treat obesity related health issues through public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid ("Economic Costs"). A positive externality will occur in the form of decreased health care expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid. The U.S. Government should impose an excise tax on soda and other beverages that contain sugar.

We’ve come to a conclusion soda and sugary drinks are a pernicious disease. “Welcome to the Coke Side of Life” “Red Bull Gives You Wings” “Six Million a Day” those are just three of the thousands of slogans these billion dollar companies use to lore you into your casket a little earlier than expected. It is true that “Fully 42% of the annual $142 billion in health-care costs attributable to obesity are paid with public funds through Medicare and Medicaid, and obesity is but one disease affected by poor diet”. A person who consumes one can of soda a day is 26% likely to have type 2 diabetes and 20% likely of a heart attack, the overall good to be gained is by adding taxes on sugary drinks less people who buy them then the obesity rate will

The fat tax in America, an attempt to improve the obesity epidemic using the legislature. The fat tax will not cure obesity in America. One idea is it will be used as an incentive to help improve the eating habits of Americans. The revenue collected can be used to enhance education as well as implement programs to teach healthy life style tips such as exersice and even implamenting gyms in placeces like community centers, another suggestion is to reduce cost of healthy foods using some of the tax money. As a result of the healthier habits of the population Medicare and Medicade may be less stressed resulting in less expenses, this could lead to less government debt as well as a healthier population. The percentage of obece adultes dobled in the last therthy years and obisty in children tripeled the cost of obesty anuly is 100 bilion dolers According to Hellen Evans the author of Healthier food in shopping centers could change bad habits; when asked if the government should impose a fat tax she said yes, but she also stated “that the a fat tax on its own is too simplistic and we should focus on understanding and chancing people’s behavior.” (Evans, 2012). Meaning you can not just put a tax on food and expect people not to eat it the poulatoin has to want to be helthy but giving them a insentive to do so by making the helthy option more acsesable will help form helthy habits.

The fat tax is a proposed tax on certain unhealthy foods that lead to the development of certain medical conditions such as obesity. As obesity is a growing concern of many Americans, arguments can be made about how effective a fat tax may be if implemented. The opposing group argues that the implementation of a fat tax would discourage the consumption of unhealthy foods, reduce costs of medical treatment, and obtain government funding. Although our opposition has some strong points, there are still unanswered questions that need to be addressed.

Every time you walk into a grocery store you see hundreds of different types of unhealthy foods like chips, cookies, cakes waiting for you to buy and eat. But most people forget that those types of foods are not good for you. Since there is such a huge variety of delicious food items on sale at the store we do not look at the bad consequences that we have to face after eating them. Because of the unhealthy eating habits of citizens in the United States, there has been a drastic increase in obesity. That is why I think that it is very necessary to enforce a fat tax on fatty foods to ensure that all the citizens of the United States are eating healthy foods on a daily basis.

Many critics might say that taxes on sugary refreshments are regressive and would hurt poor people, yet obesity and diabetes are regressive diseases. Tobacco taxes counteracted cancer and heart disease among those who are poor. Moreover, the income from soda taxes could be utilized to help those most in need by reducing the expenses of fruits and vegetables..

Strokes, coronary heart disease, and type 2 diabetes are the leading causes of human death around the world (Micha, 1). These diseases are mainly caused by people having inadequate and unhealthy diets (Micha, 1). Local governments, such as the ones in cities like San Francisco or Albany have proposed a soda tax, which would increase the price of drinks at a rate of an extra penny per ounce. Even though this is called a ‘soda tax’, it impacts any sugar-sweetened drink, including energy drinks, sweetened teas, and sport drinks (Haspel, 1). Governments have said that they would use the profits from these taxes to help treat diabetes and stop obesity, but it’s not required of them to do so (Knight, 1). Starting a soda tax is not a durable way to

However, the report of World Health Organization (WHO, 2015) indicates that the taxation of unhealthy food and drinks could have positive consequences of people to establish a healthy body not only for children obesity, but also for disease reduction and healthier

According to Gostin and Wiley (n.d), “The role of public health is to assure the conditions needed to promote and protect people’s health. These conditions include various economic, social, and environmental factors that are necessary for good health” (para, 2). The law in the United States of America proved that there is a positive suitable balance between public health interests by public officials and individual autonomy. The Soda Ban is an excellent example of this kind of balance. The balance between officials of public health and liberty should be flexible in which it opens the door for all parties to be engaged without limitation or favoritism.

The current problem with overweight became more and more serious with sad effects on the nation 's health, especially for the young generation, that’s why the probability of implementing fat tax constantly increased in spite of the strong power of the opposition, such as McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, Subway, Starbucks, and others. More than one-third of Americans have problems with overweight and obesity, the Fat Tax can be a way to pay more attention of society on the problem with obesity, promote a healthy eating lifestyle, improve public health and refill government budget, but it was important to make implementing slowly and thoughtfully for getting best results instead of collapsing and higher prices on products.

Although Fat taxes could discourage consumers from eating foods that aren't good for them, they should not be implemented. Making citizens pay unnecessary taxes is most definitely not the answer. Reality is that obesity can be caused by many different factors other than the consumption of unhealthy foods. Factors such as genetics, mental health, lack of exercise and poor portion control, play a far more important part in maintaining a healthy weight. Therefore, losing weight is an individual process that can’t be tackled with such a simplistic approach.

Unhealthy foods are identified by linked to being significant causes of obesity. For example, the number of children with obesity has doubled while children receive 12% of their calories from fast food (Szabo 1), so fast food would be included in the spectrum of unhealthy food. Also in this category, are junk foods, such as chips and candy, sugary beverages, such as soda and added-sugar fruit juices, as they have also been associated to obesity and do not provide proportional nutritional benefits. Foods would not be the only thing affected by the tax. Related services would also be affected, such as fast food restaurant drive-throughs. Skepticism may arise to a tax affecting such a large industry in the US, but an UFT is not as