Tax the preventatively unhealthy?
Affirmative Position
Side Score: 9
|
 |
Negative Position
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Keep in mind many of these costs aren't on the unhealthy person alone. About half of the $300 billion from smoking is actually from the effects of second-hand smoke. And employers lose around $4 billion yearly from job absenteeism due to obese workers. Side: Affirmative Position
|
Tax the preventatively unhealthy? Guess the left will have to reverse those new pro marijuana laws. https://luxury.rehabs.com/ Side: Negative Position
1
point
1
point
If we do that, can we tax the oil and coal companies that are polluting our air and water making MILLIONS sick? The Chemical companies that were just given permission to use harmful fertilizers?, The corporations who just received permission to pollute as they wish?? Maybe tax Trump for deregulating health protective (and accident protective), regulations that cause sickness and injury?? Let's not be one way about this! Oh, and what about the pre and post natal health care that often PREVENTED sick babies and helped mothers to be healthy … Planned Parenthood! (Enter FromWithin with his "After they are born, let'em be malnourished, don't worry about the brain damage from lack of medicines that could have prevented "the unhealthy"! SHUT DOWN the only place some mothers could go to get the help to have a healthy baby! Damned PP, anyway!)! Yep, TAX'EM (whether we caused it or NOT!) :-p duh.... Side: Negative Position
1
point
To your point on oil and coal, yes absolutely. Both are completely outdated sources of energy, and there should be substantially more investment and advancement in clean, renewable energy. You're straying from the point to attack what I'm guessing are your assumptions on my stance on other topics? And the part about PP looks more like a rant that I don't even understand the point of. Neither of which do I see as relevant, so stay on topic if you wish to remain in my debates. Side: Affirmative Position
I consider what I said to be "on topic" and relevant. If you don't see it that way, so be it. I am giving an opinion on this topic and I am making NO assumptions. I go topic to topic. This topic was about taxing the preventable unhealthy. What PP does (did), is prevent the unhealthy, for the most part. I don't think taxing those, many of which can't even AFFORD to get healthy, can't afford healthy food or living quarters, would pass Constitutional muster. That would be punishing, in too many cases like the ones I mentioned, to be something America would do! It would be somewhat like the reason our settlers left Europe/England, the church AND politicians taxed those who could not afford it, their health condition was not even considered. They left to get away from that. We're going to start it here, again? I think not. I think that is relevant. Side: Affirmative Position
|
